Please be advised that this is a PARTIALLY EDITED portion of the House of Assembly sitting for Wednesday, September 16, 2026. The edited Hansard will be posted when it becomes available.

The entire audio/visual record of the House proceedings is available online within one hour of the House rising for the day. This can be accessed at: https://www.assembly.nl.ca/HouseBusiness/Webcast/archive.aspx

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

Admit visitors.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I rise on a point of order and a point of privilege, Standing Order 49. This is my earliest opportunity to do this, given that the incidents happened during Question Period, and you adjourned the House immediately after Question Period and an incident happened during the Speaker’s Parade.

Yesterday, during the course of Question Period, as I was asking questions, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue shouted out from across the way calling me a sell-out. I believe that’s unparliamentary language, especially troubling given the fact that we’re doing our job as Opposition asking questions about this very important deal and I would know nothing different than the Member opposite did, not too long in January 2025. Incredibly disappointing, incredibly disturbing and in fact it’s incredibly insulting to me, personally, as I try to do this for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

After you adjourned the House, Speaker, I asked him something about the fact that he said it and as he was leaving in the Speaker’s parade, he said, if the shoe fits, wear it. I think that’s unparliamentary language as well but the Deputy Speaker does have a dual role. So the point of order while he was sitting as a Member, as a politician, that’s one thing and then leaving in the Speaker’s parade in his robes, his secondary role as Deputy Speaker is to be impartial. I think a comment like that, if the shoe fits, wear it is not impartial. I do not, now, feel that my privilege in this House of Assembly to be treated with impartiality exists anymore. I think it has been breached.

So I ask you to take that under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I will say. You were very close to him. I’d be surprised if you didn’t hear that and there are many Members, if not all Members, on this side of the House that heard that comment as well.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: If I said something unparliamentary, Speaker, I’ll withdraw it.

SPEAKER: I will say the Speaker never actually heard the comment during Question Period, that part, so did the Member wish to –?

J. DWYER: I withdraw.

SPEAKER: Okay, the Member has withdrawn. That would be to the point of order.

I guess on the point of privilege, I will have to consider what has been said and provide a ruling at a later time.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

M. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak to the point of privilege to say that for the Member of Windsor Lake, I did hear the comment in the House as well. Just to back up that many Members on this side of the House heard the comment and think that it’s very unparliamentary.

SPEAKER: Are there any other speakers to the point of privilege?

Okay. Well that said, as I said the point of order has been addressed by the hon. Member. On the point of privilege, I will have to consider what has been said and I will provide a ruling on it later.

Carrying on, I guess, with our agenda this morning I want to welcome Mr. Dan Levert to our Chamber. Mr. Levert was the chair of the Oversight Committee.

EXTRAORDINARY DEBATE PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 8(7) - Definitive Cooperation and Implementation Agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Hydro-Québec and Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited

SPEAKER: We will follow the same rules that we’ve been following throughout this whole process, 15-minute increments when recognized. The person asking the question has up to one minute to ask the question and Mr. Levert has as much time as he feels he needs to answer the question.

For the benefit, I guess, of Mr. Levert, because everyone else is familiar with these rules, that questions and answers are to be directed to the Speaker’s chair.

With that said, we will begin and I’m not sure who I’m recognizing here.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Good morning, Mr. Levert, welcome and thank you for being in attendance at the hon. House of Assembly here this morning.

First of all, I would like you to actually describe the name of the Oversight Committee for the House please.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, it is the Churchill River Development Negotiation’s Oversight Committee.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I would like you, Mr. Levert, to tell the House of Assembly something about your background and why you agreed to Chair this committee.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

I am pleased and honoured and indeed it is a privilege to appear before this House on a matter of such importance to this province.

I am the representative and spokesperson as well as Chair of the Churchill River Development Negotiation’s Oversight Committee.

I’m an engineer and a lawyer. I spent a good part of my career as in-house counsel for the Kiewit Corporation. Kiewit has 35,000 employees and does an annual volume of roughly $18 billion a year.

I began my career with Kiewit in 1979, on the La Grande-3 James Bay hydro projects in Northern Quebec.

I moved from there to the Nipawin dam hydro project in Saskatchewan in the mid-’80s. I also worked on another hydro project, the Churchill River Diversion project, in Northern Manitoba in the 1970s as a surveyor.

I’ve been involved with projects in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2001. We developed the Voisey’s Bay mine. We built the Long Harbour nickel processing plant. We fabricated the White Rose topsides. We built the Hebron Gravity Base Structure in Bull Arm.

Since my retirement, I have consulted to the contractor building Site C in British Columbia and the concrete gravity structure in Argentia.

My direct involvement with Kiewit’s projects in Canada as a lawyer included contract negotiations and drafting, contract administration, including dispute resolution. The contract models that I worked under, that the company worked under, for the projects across the country included design-bid-build, design-build, engineer-procure-construct, design-build-operate-transfer and public-private partnerships. We were the third P3 in Canada when we built the Sea to Sky Highway in British Columbia for the Olympics. Most of these projects we built with other parties, contractors, engineering firms, using general partnerships and joint ventures.

Let me say a few words about my two colleagues on the Oversight Committee.

Julia Mullaley is a CPA and a CA. She brings extensive experience in governance, financial stewardship, public policy, accountability and oversight. As Auditor General, she reported directly to this House and led independent audits and reviews across government, its agencies and Crown corporations.

She held senior financial and fiscal policy roles within government and also participated directly in negotiations associated with major resource developments in the province. That combination of financial expertise, executive leadership, knowledge of government decision-making and independent oversight experience was a significant asset to our committee.

Julia, I found, is particularly adept at identifying nuances and probing the implications of information being presented. She demonstrated this consistently in our meetings with the negotiating team, through focused questions and careful consideration of the rationale for negotiating positions and the issues and trade-offs that arose.

Mike Jardine is a professional engineer with 38 years experience in the electrical utility industry. He spent 29 of those years with Newfoundland Power. Mike understands all aspects of the power business. Of note, for the past 9 years, Mike – who recently retired from Fortis – he was chief operating officer of a large transmission project in northern Ontario, where he worked in partnership with numerous First Nation communities.

Mike’s technical knowledge and experience, calm demeanour and confidence, together with his direct approach, facilitated our communications with the negotiating team.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you. If you could also explain why you agreed to chair this committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert. Or Levert, sorry.

D. LEVERT: Levert. It’s French for green. La couleur.

SPEAKER: Okay. There we go.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, I was approached and agreed to sit on the committee because of the keen interest that I have in this project, and the success of this province. Since my retirement from Kiewit in 2015, my wife and I split our time between Canmore, Alberta and St. John's, Newfoundland. We have a great circle of friends here; we enjoy the province very much. We’ve been to Labrador, we’ve been all over Newfoundland, we’ve hiked the East Coast Trail, and I just have a very keen interest in this province and want to see the best for its people.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Could you, Mr. Levert, tell us when was the committee set up and who appointed it?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I was asked to sit on the Oversight Committee on May 13 of this year and I met my colleagues, Speaker, on June 3. I was approached first by Jerome Kennedy and then learned very quickly that we would be reporting to the clerk of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Could you please tell us who appointed the committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: My understanding is that the appointment was from the Cabinet or from the clerk of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Did the committee have terms of reference? And what did they say particular role or your job was?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker, we did have a mandate. The role was to monitor the negotiations of the negotiating team with Hydro-Québec by receiving regular briefings from the negotiating team. It was very clear that we were not there to in any way direct or instruct the negotiating team but to review and assess whether the conduct of the negotiations was reasonable and in compliance with the negotiation strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

You indicated with respect to the role of the committee. I just want you to expand on that a little bit more. Was your role to advise, to approve or to report? And if it was to report, if it included reporting, who did you report to?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

The role of the committee was certainly not to in any way direct the negotiating team. We were there to monitor and we did so through a series of weekly meetings, beginning on June 5 and ending on August 14.

During those briefings, the committee was there to present where they were at with the negotiations, what the positions were. We questioned the committee and became fully briefed on the negotiations after each session. Following the meetings with the negotiating team, we then reported directly to the clerk of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Mr. Levert, did you agree with your mandate with government before the talks started?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, yes, we did.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I’m just going to move on now to another area involving the negotiating team. How often did the committee meet – I know you said weekly – with the negotiating team? How did they brief you at those meetings?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

The negotiating team actually met with us on 12 separate occasions. I chaired the meetings and led the discussion. We were briefed verbally. We also received written documents from the negotiating team on proposals, counter proposals from Hydro-Québec. Any information that we asked for, we were given. During every meeting, those people from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who were assisting the negotiating team were present to answer questions – technical questions, primarily, and legal.

So having had the benefit of receiving all of the information from the negotiating team, we were then in a position to report to the Clerk of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Levert.

With respect to the meetings that you had, who directed those meetings? Was this at the team’s discretion or your discretion? How did these meetings come about in terms of arranging them?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, during the negotiations that took place between June 5 and August 14, the negotiating team let us know when they would be available to meet with us. This normally took place after each session with Hydro-Québec and others.

As I said, I chaired the meetings, led the discussion. Mr. Perry would invariably report to us where things were at with the negotiations with Hydro-Québec and we then entered into discussions. We asked many, many questions and we received responses that were satisfactory.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So I guess it is safe to say that there was a set weekly schedule that was in place; is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker, the initial set of meetings regularly took place on Thursdays but then it began to alter somewhat as a result of the sessions that the negotiating team was spending with Hydro-Québec either in Montreal – I believe there was one session here and they have virtual sessions.

The timing would fluctuate so that it coincided with immediately following each session we would then meet with the negotiating team.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has now expired.

The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to ask Mr. Levert, who requested your appearance in the House of Assembly today?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I am sorry, Speaker. I didn’t get the question.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Gander, repeat the question.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Who requested your appearance in the House of Assembly today?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, I received the request from yourself.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to ask, are you aware that the previous oversight panel appointed after the last MOU included a statutory officer and then he selected the other two panellists by submitting a list of names to be screened for conflicts and then having final say over the other two members, all in accordance with the Terms of Reference?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I was not aware of the format or the procedure that was followed previously.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to ask, do you feel that your committee would have more legitimacy to the public if the members were not all appointed directly by the Premier?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: You are asking me to express an opinion as to whether not the appointment altered the credibility of our committee, I would say that, no, it has not in any way impacted our approach or our credibility.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Levert, for your opinion.

Are you and the other members compensated for your time on the Oversight Committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker, we are.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, I’d like to thank the gentleman for explaining the Oversight Committee’s role, of course, it being “to review and assess whether the conduct of the negotiations is reasonable and in compliance with the negotiation strategy.”

Do you feel that was done and was there a report prepared?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker, we certainly are of the view that that was done and, as I said, after each session with the negotiating team, we prepared a report that was submitted to the Clerk of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, I’d like to ask Mr. Levert, do you feel reasonable, as a directive, is a high enough standard to hold such important negotiations?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: If you’re asking for my opinion as to whether or not the mandate was reasonable; is the reasonable standard high enough? My answer is yes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, the Premier has said the recommendations of the Independent Review Committee formed the framework for working towards getting a deal. I’d like to ask, was the IRC the framework of the negotiation strategy that you were overseeing?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, as I understand it, we were not involved in the development of the negotiation strategy. As I understand it, the negotiating team worked with the government to develop that strategy which was ultimately approved by the government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, I am wondering, in the strategy that you were provided with and that oversight, of course, being a part of the committee’s role, were there references to the Independent Review Committee in the strategy that you were provided with?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: There were no direct references to, say, the “IRC” but certainly the recommendations from the Independent Review Committee, and indeed the entire report of the committee, is reflected, to a certain extent, in the negotiation strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker,

Do you feel the new agreement has met the framework as outlined in the IRC report?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, we are of the view that the DCIA does comply with the negotiation strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to dig a bit deeper there. Mr. Levert said the DCIA complies with the negotiation strategy. We know that the negotiation strategy was framed up because of the recommendations in the IRC.

To confirm, has the new agreement met all of the recommendations of the IRC?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: The negotiation strategy did acknowledge that in any negotiation there is a give-and-take. It recognized that all of the asks of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would likely not be satisfied.

So to the extent of the negotiation strategy, recognize that, it was then up to the negotiating team, as directed by the government, to comply to the extent that it could to meet the strategy. But, again, the DCIA in its form today is consistent with that strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

Knowing that the IRC formed the basis of the negotiations and your role was to assess whether the conduct of the negotiations was in compliance with the negotiation strategy, can you assign a percentage of what you feel was met in terms of the IRC recommendations?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, I cannot give you a percentage, no.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

According to your terms of reference you have no requirement to update the public, correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I’m sorry, I didn’t get the question.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander to repeat the question.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

According to your terms of reference, you have no requirement to update the public, correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

I’d like to ask: your terms of reference outlined the confidentiality of your work as opposed to openness to the public. How do you feel this provides the public any confidence in the work of your Oversight Committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, that is up to the clerk of the Executive Council and the government to decide. Our mandate was to report to the clerk of the Executive Council and that’s what we did.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

I’d like to ask Mr. Levert has he had any meetings with the Premier to update the Premier on the work of the committee or representatives of the Premier’s office?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, the only time that we met with the Premier was following the negotiations. It was after the negotiations were completed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

I’d like to ask what the nature of that meeting was.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier thanked us.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, do you have any concerns that the basis for the mandate is the IRC report, yet the public and no one knows who made submissions, what submissions were adopted and what ones were rejected?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I do not have any concerns. No, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Mr. Levert, in your role as chair and in your oversight, did you ask who the stakeholders were who submitted to the IRC, who were consulted with by the IRC that formed the framework for the negotiations that you were overseeing.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, no we did not.

,

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

Given your background, as you outlined to us in your earlier remarks, do you feel the public should know the background information that went into the IRC report, keeping in mind that it was done as a public inquiry, yet nothing was made public?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I do not have an opinion and it was not within our mandate to opine on that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, in the House of Assembly, the Premier admitted he did not know who the experts relied upon in the report were, who those stakeholders were, who his Independent Review Committee consulted with and who informed the IRC.

Do you know who they are?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, I do not.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

Does it concern you that the Premier does not know who the experts and stakeholders are that the IRC consulted with which formed the recommendations for the committee that you were overseeing?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, I again do not have an opinion on that. I know that the IRC completed its report and made its recommendations, and that the strategy certainly took into account the recommendations of the IRC and that formed part of our mandate.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Gander – and I understand the process is kind of awkward, but you have to address it to the Speaker, not a direct conversation back and forth.

The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Of course. Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I’d like to ask again, given the gentleman’s background: Do you feel that that process is good governance, to rely on a report without knowing where the underlying data came from?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to express an opinion on that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

So I’d like to ask Mr. Levert, when it comes to acceptance of the Premier’s negotiation strategy that you were tasked to oversee, you accept that the IRC report was informed by individuals, yet the Premier did not inform you and is not aware of who those stakeholders are?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, the Oversight Committee’s mandate was not to look behind –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

D. LEVERT: – the strategy –

SPEAKER: I only want to hear Mr. Levert.

Mr. Levert, I apologize. Can you continue?

D. LEVERT: Speaker, the Oversight Committee’s mandate was not to look behind the strategy. It was to look at whether or not the conduct of the negotiations was reasonable and within the negotiation strategy, in accordance with that strategy. We were not given the mandate to opine on the background behind the strategy. That was set by government, which we accepted.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

B. FORD: Thank you, Speaker.

Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Levert if any part of his role was to determine if Newfoundland and Labrador got the best deal possible by any metric other than the Premier’s stated strategy?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, our mandate was clear. Monitor the negotiations and determine whether or not they were being conducted reasonably and in accordance with the negotiation strategy. Period.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander

B. FORD: Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Levert, did he review the DCIA before it was signed.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, the Oversight Committee had an opportunity to review the DCIA before it was executed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander

B. FORD: Speaker, thank you.

I would like to ask Mr. Levert in his role as Chair of the Oversight Committee; does he expect that he will be asked to review final agreements before they are signed?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, our role ended once the DCIA was executed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander

B. FORD: Thank you.

Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Levert, are the committee members bound by non-disclosure agreements with the government?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, yes, we are.

B. FORD: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Mr. Levert, do you feel that you and the Oversight Committee had a full understanding of the negotiation process?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, yes, we did. We were very aware of the entire process, every step of the way.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Overall, how would you describe the oversight team’s openness with the Committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

I think everyone has had an opportunity to see the negotiating team, and it was obvious to me, right from the very beginning, that Mr. Perry was very open, very candid, very credible and was going to be a real asset to the negotiating team. Mr. Kennedy is extremely direct and to the point and also very credible. Jennifer Williams has the corporate knowledge, she has the most extensive knowledge of anyone, probably, on the planet on this matter so she was also a real asset to the team.

In terms of their approach with us, in every session it was clear that they were giving us all of the information. As Mr. Perry indicated, I believe on Monday we asked tough questions and we got very clear answers. Anything that they couldn’t respond to immediately, they followed up with – they or their staff. I also have to mention their support group from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, very knowledgeable and very helpful.

SPEAKER: Minister, again, I would just ask to try to phrase the questions and direct them to the Chair. Saying Mr. Speaker first in itself does not do that. Try not to have a conversation back and forth, but through the Chair.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Okay. Thank you.

Did any minister or official ever tell you what the Committee should conclude?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, no.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: If government needed to address a change, what process was in place? What process did it have to follow?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, it became clear in a couple of instances where the negotiations were straying a little bit to the borders or outside the borders of the negotiation strategy and, in those cases, it was clear to the negotiating team. Fortunately, the negotiating team was very aware of the limits of their authority and knew when to circle back to the government for further instructions.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of – oh, sorry.

Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Sorry, I don’t think I completely answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: Okay. Go ahead.

D. LEVERT: At no time was the Oversight Committee directed or were any suggestions made as to any conclusions. We were never influenced by anyone in any way.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Some might say that a committee named by government cannot be independent. Mr. Levert, what is your answer to that concern?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, the people on the committee that are chosen by the government or anybody are presumed to have integrity and act in a principled and ethical manner. I would assume that the government, in looking at the backgrounds of the individuals on the committee would have assessed that and determined for themselves, that they could rely on these people being independent and upholding the highest principles.

SPEAKER: I just want to, once again, just remind the minister, I understand the rules are somewhat awkward, I never made them, but if you’re asking a question, instead of saying Mr. Levert, why did you do something, would be Mr. Speaker, could Mr. Levert tell us why he did something. That’s what the rules say so I would ask you to try to stick to that process.

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, was there a written negotiation strategy before the talks started?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was the road map that was followed by the negotiating team upon which we assessed the conduct of negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Was the strategy comprehensive?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker, in our view the negotiation strategy was clear and comprehensive and recognized the dynamics that take place during negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Did the committee have the resources needed to do your work?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, yes, right from the very start, the clerk made it clear that we could have whatever we needed. We certainly had everything that we thought was necessary for our mandate.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Did the committee agree with a specific mandate and goals with government?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: We were given a mandate. We were satisfied with it and proceeded accordingly, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

How did the committee report to government on progress?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we submitted written reports to the clerk of the Executive Council after each briefing with the negotiating team, to apprise her of the status of negotiations and to express our view that they were being conducted in accordance with the negotiation strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Was this done regularly?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, it was done regularly throughout the period from June 5 to August 14.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’m going to just move to the IRC recommendations, specifically Recommendation 1. It asked government to decide how much power to keep for growth and how much to sell. Was that decided before the talks?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, the negotiating team had data from the government on its assessment of the power needs for Labrador, I believe at the beginning or very early on in the negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Recommendation 3 called for respectful work with Indigenous communities. Did the committee hear how the team engaged Innu Nation?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, that was a subject of discussion at every single meeting. The negotiating team kept us fully informed as to the communications between the government, their committee and others, with the representatives and legal representatives of the Indigenous people involved.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Recommendation 4 asked for a close look at other ownership models for Gull Island. Did the committee see that work?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker. During the negotiations work had been done previously by Stikeman Elliott, a law firm from Montreal, on the appropriate vehicle for development of the Gull Island, as to whether or not a joint venture was the appropriate vehicle. That question was put to Gowlings, another major law firm in the country with expertise in this area. The conclusion from Gowlings was the same as had been received by Stikeman Elliott. Yes, we were certainly advised of that element.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Were you satisfied the other models were fairly tested before the joint venture model was kept?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, yes, we were.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Just moving to the negotiation strategy, I’d like to ask: What were the main goals in that strategy?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I think Mr. Perry mentioned during his questioning that the Premier’s three priorities were a helpful guide in interpreting the strategy: more power, more value, more transmission. So those themes certainly are reflected in the strategy, as well as relations with Indigenous communities is stressed, and so I think – as I say, those three benchmarks were certainly followed, kept in mind. I must say that Mr. Kennedy made certain, during the negotiations – it was clear to us from our briefings – that the strategy was adhered to, each element and that’s how they progressed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So we know what the benchmarks were, you’ve identified that, and the goals. So how did the Committee track the team against each goal?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, we actually kept a table of where each issue was at in the negotiations. As they progressed, each column in the table was completed to look at how things had advanced or not, and again we reported that progress to the clerk of the Executive Council.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you. And was the strategy changed during the talks at any time?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, there were two amendments; one dealing with the governance, with respect to Gull Island, and the other – as I say, there were two amendments. Those were the only amendments.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you. Why was it changed each time? If you could just tell us that, and who approved each change, please?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, the changes were made by government and issued to the negotiating team. We were of course copied on that. The changes were made as, I think, negotiations progressed. They saw there was a need to address an issue that perhaps had not been previously covered, or had not been covered previously in the negotiation strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Did the committee ever formally sign off or report that the final deal complied with the strategy?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, we did file a final report with the clerk of the Executive Council to that effect. Yes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Some say 10 weeks from your appointment to the DCIA was too fast. Did the committee have enough time?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, in terms of our being able to assess the conduct of the negotiations and determine whether or not they were reasonable and complied with the negotiation strategy, yes. We had sufficient time.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So will your committee keep overseeing through to the final binding agreements?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, as I indicated a little earlier, to date, our mandate ended essentially following the execution of the DCIA.

SPEAKER: Okay. The minister’s time has expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I say welcome to Mr. Levert. Thanks for being here, and there’s a lot of clarity in your answers, so it’s much appreciated.

I’m just going to follow up, Mr. Speaker, with some of the answers that were already given. Particularly, I’ll go back to the strategy was adopted or referred to the Oversight Committee. I think Mr. Levert was very clear in that that was a written directive and strategy, and he was comfortable with that strategy, and if he can confirm that the Oversight Committee worked with that strategy, essentially, in its role to make sure the strategy matched up with what we see now in the DCIA. Is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, that is correct.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I’d ask Mr. Levert to comment on whether the strategy referred to the Independent Review commission, in particular, the recommendations and the mandate in the Independent Review commission.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

No, it did not.

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

J. HOGAN: So, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, then I think you would agree with this that the DCIA complies with the strategy.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, it does.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was not the role of the Oversight Committee to determine if it complied with the IRC mandate. Is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

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

J. HOGAN: I wonder if you have any comment, because the only public document that the public would have would be the mandate. So all we can balance the DCIA against is what’s public, which is the IRC.

We’ll go through some questions about whether all the recommendations or how many recommendations have been met, but does the Oversight Committee have any comment about the fact that public can only measure the success of the DCIA versus the only benchmark that the public has, which the Premier has publicly said is the framework for the deal, which is the IRC recommendations?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Sorry, Speaker, I’m not sure I understand the question.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition, can you repeat or rephrase?

J. HOGAN: Do you have any concern that the public only has the ability to measure the DCIA versus the IRC?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

In fact, if you’re suggesting that the negotiation strategy be made public, I would advise against that. I can guarantee that Hydro-Québec is watching these proceedings. There’s probably a briefing given to the CEO every evening. To divulge that information now prior to the execution of the definitive agreements would be against my advice.

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

J. HOGAN: For the record, I’m not hypocritical. I totally agree that the strategy should not be negotiated or revealed in public. I would say that certain Members on the opposite side when they sat over here did actually ask for negotiations to take place in public. But I don’t flip-flop.

Speaker, Mr. Levert did say that the DCIA complies – and this is the quote from Mr. Levert – to the extent it could with the IRC. Speaker, I ask Mr. Levert if he can comment on who determined that it was complying to the extent that it could.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, if you’re asking me whether or not the negotiation strategy complied with the IRC report, we were not involved in the drafting of the negotiation strategy. My understanding is – and certainly learned this from the negotiating team on Monday, I believe – that the IRC report certainly formed the framework for the negotiation strategy, but our mandate was not to look behind the strategy or determine whether or not it was consistent with the IRC report. We learned that from the negotiating team.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The words that you used: That the DCIA complied to the extent that it could. Those are the words of Mr. Levert. So can you comment on – did the Oversight Committee, at all, look at the IRC to determine that it was complying with the DCIA to the extent that it could. Those are the words of Mr. Levert.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, if that was the way my words were interpreted, then I either misspoke or the interpretation is incorrect. We did not, as I said, look at the negotiation strategy and compare it to the IRC report to any extent. Negotiation strategy, as far as the Oversight Committee was concerned, stood on its own and we were to measure the negotiations that were being conducted against that strategy, not the IRC report.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

That provides clarity and those words, if I misunderstood them, and your earlier evidence was very clear that it was the role of the committee to follow the strategy as opposed to the IRC.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if that what (inaudible).

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

Mr. Levert, earlier, also said that there were two amendments to the strategy. One related to Gull Island governance and didn’t say what the second one was. So I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he could advise the House what the second amendment was related to.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, I’m sorry but that is commercially sensitive.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

I’ll respect that.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Mr. Levert could, to the extent that he can, advise the House when those amendments were made.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, they were made, I would say, late June during the negotiations.

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

J. HOGAN: Just to confirm, were they both at the same time, Mr. Speaker?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: They were close together.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to provide some clarity, I think you may have said they were added at one point and said amended. So, were they added? Were they new pieces of the negotiation strategy or were they amendments to the existing negotiation strategy?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, they were amendments to the existing strategy.

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

J. HOGAN: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, because we’ll never know what the strategy was nor should we and that’s fine. The public might be left now wondering if those amendments were made to meet where the negotiations were going.

Is that something you would care to comment on?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

No, actually. I can say that the amendments were made to address something that had not been addressed previously.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you for that answer.

I’ll just go through some of the recommendations from the IRC, some that the Minister of Justice actually asked you about, so that should shorten up my questions a little bit.

Recommendation 1 says: GNL – Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – should analyze long-run economic development options, including whether the Churchill River should provide financial or economic value to the province. The IRC wanted the province to analyze other options to determine how much power we should seek for economic development versus how much power we should sell.

Are you aware if this strategic work was completed? Sorry, Mr. Speaker, was Mr. Levert aware?

SPEAKER: I appreciate that.

Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, I am aware that the work took place.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if Mr. Levert could advise if he knows who did this work and whether it can be made public?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, it was a department in the government.

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, can it be made public?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, that is for the government to decide.

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

J. HOGAN: Fair enough.

Speaker, I wonder if Mr. Levert can tell us if the amount of allocated power that is in the DCIA is in line with that strategic work? Would you confirm?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the negotiations were certainly headed in that direction so that they could satisfy the requirements that were indicated in the report by the government would be met. So the initial proposal, the ask for the power was X. At the end of the day, of course, not everything was obtained but I believe that the negotiating team was satisfied and obviously the government was satisfied with the power that was obtained from the negotiations.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recommendation 3, which the Minister of Justice did ask you about and you can comment again if you want further about Newfoundland and Labrador should build respectful relationships with and consult with Indigenous communities in connection with future developments on the Churchill River in Labrador. I think the note I have here was what Mr. Levert said, this was discussed at every single meeting, which is very good to hear.

But I will say that recently the Grand Chief of Innu Nation posted on Facebook that I’ve told them that their deadline of December 31 for the new MOU finalization will not be met by the Innu. They have to transfer our IBA to Hydro-Québec and that won’t happen without us.

It is really good to hear that this was discussed with the Oversight Committee at every meeting but I wonder if Mr. Levert could comment on essentially what broke down or why the Grand Chief certainly has issues with where everything stands today.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

I don’t have anything more to add than what I said previously. We knew that were discussions going on and that was all the information that we had. We did not meet or speak to the Indigenous communities ourselves. That was information that we received from the negotiating team and their advisors.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you for that answer.

Speaker, Recommendation 4 says Newfoundland and Labrador should rigorously evaluate alternative ownership, operating, and right-of-use models for Gull Island. Again, the Minister of justice beat me to it and asked some questions. So just for some clarity, Mr. Levert, it said that work had been done previously on this. In particular, obviously, the ownership model and the joint venture proposal.

Does Mr. Levert know when the work had been done previously by Stikeman?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot recall but I can say that it was before the negotiations began.

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

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if Mr. Levert can comment on whether the IRC had that work.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know.

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

J. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the answer is going to be, but I guess Mr. Levert would be able to comment on who requested that work from Stikeman, would he?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I don’t know.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

Speaker, Recommendation 5 says NL should prepare for future negotiations by preparing a fully articulated negotiation strategy and best-practice governance process. The invited guest has talked thoroughly already this morning about his acceptance of the negotiation strategy and that he was satisfied with it.

Just a question about the recommendation for an independent governing body of industry experts appropriately resourced and compensated. I wonder if Mr. Levert could confirm whether this was done to his reasonable standard.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, it was.

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, could Mr. Levert provide the list of the governing body and who was on it?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: As I indicated in my introduction, it was myself, Julia Mullaley and Mike Jardine.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Oversight Committee didn’t have access to any other experts to provide advice, such as experts on hydroelectricity, on financing, on legal issues? Is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: We chose not to avail, ourselves, of those consultants. We felt that, with our experience and expertise, we were capable of interpreting this information ourselves. We also relied on the information that was provided by the negotiating team and their advisors.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can Mr. Levert advise, of the three individuals that were on the Oversight Committee, who had expertise in energy pricing in markets throughout North America?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

No, we did not have that expertise. As I said, we relied on the information that was obtained through the negotiating team.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

So, to confirm, there was no independent expert advice given to the Oversight Committee during the course of their work? Is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: It’s correct insofar as financial advisors or power advisors. We did not have anyone independent.

We did have the assistance of Dr. Geoff Hollett, who is sitting behind me and who was involved with the independent oversight panel in 2025 and then assisted the IRC with its report and drafting the report this spring.

SPEAKER: The Member’s time has expired.

Moving on the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Levert, you are a lawyer and an engineer, can you tell me if your are bound by any governing rules as a result of being affiliated to those two professions?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Oh yes, both.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Do you feel at any time that your affiliation with this board would have compromised those professional affiliations?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, thank you.

No.

SPEAKER: To the hon. minister, again, the question to the Chair. So not: Do you. You would say: Mr. Speaker, can Mr. Levert tell us – or something like that.

L. PARROTT: Yes, right on.

SPEAKER: Those are the rules.

The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, can Mr. Levert tell us if his affiliations and his professional experience has set him up to take on a role such as this?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, if I may, the format that was followed here was not dissimilar through the approach that is taken by the Kiewit Corporation. In every significant negotiation in a company, the approach is consistent. You have the manager in the company where the work is going to be taking place, partnered with a lawyer in the firm, in-house counsel, and that team gets its instructions from executive management and the negotiations process on that basis.

When it inevitably happens that you reach an impasse in a negotiation, then the team goes back to the executive for further instructions.

I also supervised a team of lawyers in the country who did the same thing with their managers.

The presence of a lawyer on a negotiating team in the company is there for two reasons: one, to provide legal services, the helping with drafting contracts, et cetera, but, more importantly, it’s an oversight role where, if things start to go awry, if the manager starts to divert too far from the instructions received from executive management or they are acting outside company policy, then it would be my role, my responsibilities, to contact the general counsel of the company. The general counsel would then walk down the hallway to the CEO’s office and not long afterward we would receive new instructions.

So the role of Oversight Committee here in this case, I found was a parallel to that and it was a good structure to follow.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can Mr. Levert tell me how his experience in industry has been – he indicated earlier how vast his experience is. Can he indicate how this has helped him prepare to take on this role as chair of the oversight panel?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

The role is well-suited to my background, as I just said, as an oversight – as a lawyer who had oversight over negotiations for the country we came across many, many situations where the instructions had to be carefully understood and whenever they had to be diverted from, a chain had to be followed back to senior people in the company to proceed. Otherwise jobs were on the line, people’s livelihood was at stake.

In this case, we had a clear mandate in a negotiation strategy. In terms of assessing whether or not the negotiating team was conducting negotiations in accordance with that strategy and whether or not they were reasonable.

We received the information, had the progress of the negotiations and then reported back to the clerk of the Executive Council, who then would have had access to the Cabinet to take action where necessary.

We were very much the canary in the cage. We would be able to respond quickly and through the reporting structure ensure that steps were taken to control the negotiating team if they went off track.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levert also stated that he had experience with the projects carried out by Hydro-Québec. Can he indicate how this experience with previous work with Hydro-Québec prepared him for this role?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Kiewit does a great deal of hydro work. During my tenure with the company, since 1979, we’ve built many other projects in James Bay, La Romaine et cetera in Quebec. I can say that of all of the owners that I have had contact with in the country, right across the country, Hydro-Québec is probably one of the toughest. They are a huge, huge organization revered by all Quebecers and generally get to call the shots whenever you’re building a project.

I tip my hat to the negotiating team, to have been able to deal with Hydro-Québec. It certainly wouldn’t have been an easy task, but yes, I can say that Hydro-Québec is a very sophisticated and tough owner.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that given Mr. Levert’s vast history and experience in industry, that he is not only an engineer and a lawyer, and I believe an accomplished author, I think that he would probably would have had a history in negotiations. Would it be fair to say that he’s had some time in negotiations?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, Speaker, I’ve certainly – I have experience in negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levert’s experience in negotiations, based on his previous experience as a negotiator, would he indicate that the information provided to him for his oversight role from government and negotiating committee met his requirements, and was he ever told no, he couldn’t have access to anything?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, in terms of information, nothing was denied us by the negotiating team or their advisors. The clerk of the Executive Council was very supportive, did not interfere in any way, and made sure that we had the resources that we needed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his role from oversight, and taking into account the previous roles that he’s had as an engineer and a lawyer – the Member across the way indicated that the only way to measure, I guess, really, success or the negotiation process, was against the report from the IRC. But I would argue that not only would the report from the IRC come into account, but would Mr. Levert think that it could also be measured against the previous MOU?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, we were not asked to measure these negotiations against what was obtained in the MOU. That was not part of our mandate.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, did Mr. Levert ever have reason to question the integrity of the info that was provided to the committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Speaker, we never had any reason to doubt any information that was given to us. We were comfortable with what we received and did not need to look behind it.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to go back to the first line of questioning from the Opposition earlier today. There was a line of questioning associated with the IRC directed at you. I would like to understand if Mr. Levert was a member of the IRC or if he was a member of the Oversight Committee? For clarity.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: I was a chair of the Oversight Committee for these negotiations, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Levert has indicated his background, he has talked about the members on his team, and I would think that every one of them have had some kind of a history in not only oversight but in negotiations. There were some questions asked around the amendments that were made, what was presented to you at the beginning, but from your experience in oversight and negotiations, would you say it is a fair statement that during a negotiation process that all things change. That you go in looking for more than you ever walk out with, therefore, the recommendations that were made by the IRC and other things that the negotiation panel would have had as a benchmark, obviously, would have been a full part of the negotiations.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, in any negotiation there is a give and take, you walk in with a list of demands. I think we heard from Mr. Perry, he presented that list to Hydro-Québec initially and certainly at the end of the day you don’t get all that you asked for.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Levert has indicated that he has worked right across the country and certainly North America, by the sounds of it, from a contractual standpoint and what you have experienced here as the chair of oversight, would you weigh in on if you thought that you were impeded in any way by government or by the negotiating committee.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, we were not impeded by anyone in performing our role as the Oversight Committee.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Levert indicated that they met 12 times, that they would regularly meet on Thursdays, they had their own internal meetings, and he went through a bunch of different things that he said were carried out during those meetings and the conversations they had.

Mr. Levert, at any time did you feel that you needed to have more meetings or were you ever refused a meeting and at any time had you ever requested information that wasn’t provided?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

No, we were never denied any information. In terms of requesting more meetings, we never felt a need to request a meeting. In fact, as chair of the Oversight Committee, I had access to the chair of the negotiating team. We did converse several times on the phone to bring me up to date as soon as possible as to what was happening with the negotiations. So we were fully informed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Levert in his opening remarks, talked about Mr. Jardine, Ms. Mullaley and himself, their vast background. I would indicate myself, having seen their résumés and listening to Mr. Levert talk, that all three are professionals, I would argue, in their own right. So we have accountants and engineers and lawyers all on one team. He indicated that they didn’t feel the reason to go out for outside information.

Mr. Levert, is it your opinion that this Oversight Committee would have been staffed by, what I would argue, are three of the most capable people that were available?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly say that my two colleagues have excellent qualifications and well-suited to the role. Because of my experience, perhaps I added value.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Levert indicated that he has received all the information he required from government, all the information he required from the negotiating team and any question he had was asked. I’d just like for him, in finishing up this little session, to give us a brief overview of how he felt this role played out, if he thought it was integral and key to these negotiations and if it met the mandate that he was given to start.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

In terms of an overall assessment of the structure and how we inserted into the process, as I said I think we were in a comparable situation with the lawyer in the Kiewit organization being involved in the negotiations playing an oversight role, as well as providing legal services.

In this case, you had a very good negotiating team. Barry and his colleagues were extremely open. There was never any suspicion that anything was being hidden from the Oversight Committee and we knew as well that they would bring that to any communications they had with the Cabinet. We felt that that was so important that we know what’s going on. We had to know what was going on, and we were kept extremely well-informed.

There’s technicalities present here, obviously, with the numbers, et cetera. So to the extent that we needed explanations, we received them from their advisors. We were completely aware of what was going on. To structure a situation like this with separate reporting structures: they reported to the Cabinet; we reported to the clerk. They could not influence in any way what we were sending to the clerk. They never made a suggestion as to what we should say. We were always very independent.

The clerk, for her part, did not ask us to structure our reports in any particular way. We maintained our independence throughout. Otherwise, I don’t think either myself or my colleagues would have continued on the committee. If that had been present in any way, I would not be sitting here today.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The minister’s time has expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s go back to where I finished off my last set of questions. I asked Mr. Levert about, for lack of a better word, the Oversight Committee retaining external and independent experts independent of the experts that were giving advice to either the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and/or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I think the words he said that they chose not to retain anyone to advise directly and independently the Oversight Committee.

So I wonder if Mr. Levert could comment on was there a discussion about retaining their own independent experts and how they came to the conclusion to choose not to.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

We did discuss it initially, when we first met. We decided that we would rely on the reputation of the consultants that had been retained by the negotiating team or who were advising the negotiating team and assess that information against our own expertise and experience.

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

J. HOGAN: Mr. Levert previously said there was no one on the Oversight Committee with expertise in hydroelectricity pricing in external markets in North America. So if you were comparing, for example, the advice of Power Advisory to your own level of expertise, I think that would give the public some questions there. Would not it have been better for Mr. Levert to retain someone with the same expertise as Power Advisory with which to gauge their opinion against?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

We decided not to do that.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

You obviously thought it wasn’t better to do that, then, if you decided not to. On what basis did the three of you decide that that information wouldn’t have been helpful to the Oversight Committee? Keeping in mind, of course, you said you were given the opportunity and you were never said no to when anything was asked on behalf of the committee from government.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

As I said, we discussed it. We were of the view that the experts that had been retained – Power Advisory, J.P. Morgan – would provide reliable, accurate information. Their reputation, we know, is very important to them. In the context that we were dealing, we felt that it was not necessary to have a check on those numbers.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you very much.

We’ve heard from those experts yesterday and I think they are top-notch individuals and top-notch experience and top-notch in terms of their credibility. But we also heard – and in fact, Mr. Perry uses this a lot when he speaks. He says, in my opinion.

So if someone has one opinion, obviously someone can have another. With your legal background, of course, lawyers get paid to give opinions and they don’t always match up, which is a lot of times why we end up in court. Didn’t the Oversight Committee, when they had those discussions, recognize that the opinions of J.P. Morgan and/or Power Advisory and/or anyone else, there could be alternative opinions out there which would have been different than the views that were being given directly to the government?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

As I said, in our view it was not necessary to have another set of advisors looking at all the information and giving their opinions. We felt that we would be well-advised, well-informed by the information being provided by the experts to the negotiating team. And in the context of the negotiations, I believe that was the right thing to do.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I wonder if Mr. Levert could answer that one might see, without having at least asked someone for an alternative opinion, which may have been the same as the advice they were given, the role of the Oversight Committee was then simply to adopt the expert options that already existed, which there was one version and one opinion.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

We didn’t simply adopt them. We questioned the information that was given, we fully understood it, we understood how it worked, based on our experience and expertise. That was all we needed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: I appreciate that questions were asked, but just to confirm, they weren’t asked by anyone with expertise. Again, I use this example because I think it’s the most importation one, they weren’t asked by anyone with expertise in pricing hydroelectricity markets throughout North America, is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: They were asked by an accountant, an engineer and an engineer lawyer.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I’ll turn to some issues now about export market pricing and exposure.

The Independent Review commission suggested full market value for Churchill power could be realize if NL – sorry, I’m actually going to move on to a different issue, Speaker. I apologize to the guest.

Market-based pricing – I’m sure the invited guest, Mr. Levert, is familiar that the IRC criticized the complicated block formula for Churchill Falls including its reliance on export markets and domestic markets in Quebec as well as replacement costs.

I wonder if he could tell us about the discussions that were had by the Oversight Committee about the fact that this was dropped for the reason that it was too complicated.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

In terms of it being dropped, I don’t recall the discussion of it being too complicated. As I recall, this was a result of the negotiations, the give and take of the negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

You would only know what you were told. We were certainly told in the House of Assembly that it was dropped because it was too complicated. You’re saying it was dropped in the course of negotiations.

So it is fair to say then that Newfoundland and Labrador dropped that – as you would normally in negotiations, if you drop something, you would pick something up on the other end of those negotiations, is that fair to say?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, that is in fact, I believe, what took place.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So in exchange for Newfoundland and Labrador dropping market-based pricing, can you advise Newfoundlanders and Labradorians what we gaining in exchange for dropping market-based pricing?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

I think that’s a question that would be better put to the negotiating team this evening.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor Lake.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Review Committee also recommended separating the Churchill Falls upgrades from the negotiations. The $4.8-billion expansion remains part of the deal, so I wonder if Mr. Levert could provide any insight about why that recommendation wasn’t followed?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

I believe it was halfway through the negotiations when it was realized that there were a lot of technical issues arising from the Churchill Falls Expansion, and so I think it was on that basis that the parties decided that they would deal with that later.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The IRC was very critical, as was the Opposition of the day, about a 50-year deal, and recommended not to do a 50-year deal. I wonder if Mr. Levert could comment about the fact that we do have a 50-year PPA specifically with Gull Island, despite what was recommended by the IRC.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

In terms of the details of the agreement and how various aspects were arrived at or agreed upon, I would defer that to the negotiating team.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak to Mr. Levert. I will say that it sounded like it was being implied from the minister that we were questioning him and the members of the Oversight Committee and their credibility. But just for the record, we do not. We’re just questioning the process, what information you had, what information you had requested and the mandate, and how it all falls into place with regard to the strategy and the Independent Review Committee.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I would like to see if Mr. Levert could tell us how – well, first of all, when you took on this role, what was the biggest risk to get it right? What did you see at the biggest risk to get this right? What were some of your concerns about that?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

I don’t know if I’m getting the full understanding of the question, but in terms of a risk for our role in providing proper oversight, the biggest risk would’ve been lack of information from the negotiating team, that we were not kept fully informed of what was being discussed with Hydro-Québec and didn’t have a full picture of what was going on. So that, to me, would have been the biggest risk and that never realized.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Can Mr. Levert expand on that? We are trying to understand how the committee approached its work here. So when you had to, for example, make a decision, was that decision made on consensus or by vote?

I am just trying to see the workings of the committee and how you approached your role.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Yes, the committee met generally before each session with the negotiating team and afterwards. As I said, we then prepared a report that we submitted to the clerk of the Executive Council and we would discuss what it was that we would be including in that report, and we were always able to reach a consensus.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I think it is important that we see and we get at the heart of how oversight actually matters here. I’d like to see what Mr. Levert has to say about whether the committee ever raised a concern that changed what the team did next. Was that something that happened at all?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

As I said initially, the negotiating team is very sophisticated and knew when they were reaching the limits of their authority and when to circle back for further instructions. There was never a situation where we would have to say to them I think you need to go back and speak to the government.

We never were faced with that situation. It was obvious to them, obvious to us, that this is an issue that you need to discuss with the Cabinet before you are able to continue with Hydro-Québec.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

So can Mr. Levert tell us how exactly did you keep the committee’s discussions confidential? We all understand the importance of having confidentiality with respect to the role you played.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Of course, all of the meetings were confidential. Minutes were kept of the meetings. They were used for preparation of our reports to the clerk. The reports, the minutes were all privileged, confidential. We worked through the government email system and maintained confidentiality in that way.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Also, Mr. Levert, can you just comment on this for us, because we know we’ve heard from the Opposition Members in questioning this morning, suggestions, inferences that the negotiation strategy be made public. You indicated, of course, that that would be against your advice.

Can you just elaborate on why that is so important, despite the questions from the Leader of the Opposition inferring that you answer those questions in terms of public having that information?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

The negotiation strategy is comparable to the instructions that a team would receive within our company before a negotiation takes place. It’s the game plan. You wouldn’t want to give the other side your game plan.

It would certainly simply not be advisable from a negotiation perspective to tell the other side what it is that you’re aiming to get.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Mr. Levert, can you also tell us with respect to the fact that you did not seek other legal expertise or other expertise on these matters. You’ve talked about and we see now this morning in terms of your expertise, that you bring to the Oversight Committee. We know that the experts J.P. Morgan, Power Advisory were there. They were providing information to the negotiating team.

You did not feel it was necessary to have another set of advisors you stated. That you were well-advised, well-informed and very comfortable with that.

Can you maybe explain to us about the other two committee members and their expertise that they brought also to this committee as well, please.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, as I read the bios for each of Julia Mullaley and Mike Jardine, an accountant, an engineer. An engineer in the power industry, 28 years with Newfoundland Power. Mullaley, Auditor General, an accounting background. My experience, my engineering and legal abilities and again we were confident that the information that was being provided to the negotiating team by these professional, highly regarded organizations could be relied on for our purposes for these negotiations, for this oversight role.

So we didn’t feel it was necessary to bring on another set of advisors independent from what was being given to the negotiating team.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

With respect to the framework, I know you mentioned earlier that the structure – you know, there was a clear mandate, you were comfortable with structure of the oversight model that was in place. Can you just expand upon that too, as well?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, as I said, I think the structure worked very well. We were not just a checkmark on a list, it was clear. We were there to provide real oversight. None of us are shy; we would have spoken up if we thought that anything was untoward or if they were straying too far without getting further instructions. We would have immediately reported that to the clerk: you need to get involved here, this is not going as intended, et cetera. That never happened, fortunately.

But having the Oversight Committee I think gives the process credibility, to the extent that there was credibility on the part of the negotiating committee – or on the part of the Oversight Committee.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

Can Mr. Levert also comment on the fact that when we heard from the negotiating team in this House of Assembly about the role that you played and that members of your team brought very tough questions with full credibility and challenged the negotiating team on different things. So can you just expand on that please, because you indicated that neither of the members were shy, so is that something you feel was an important part of your role?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, very much so. Mr. Perry was always very open with his explanations as to where things were. Jennifer Williams dealt more with the technical aspects of the file. When we would be briefed, there would obviously be very pointed questions as what’s next. Now that you have their position, what is you plan going forward? How is that going to fit within your mandate and the strategy? Explain that to us. Where are you going with this? Where is Hydro-Québec coming from? Where do you think you are going to end up? Is it going to be necessary for you to go to the government and say we hit a wall, we can’t continue, so we need further instructions?

So that, I think, was an ideal process and we were not, in any way, prevented or – and also, we had no fear of consequence for our role here. We were completely independent and if we challenged them, if the clerk wasn’t happy with us, we had no fear of consequence.

We were free to perform our role and that was to monitor and then assess whether it was reasonable and whether it complied with the strategy.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Just getting to the concept of reasonableness. As lawyers, we have all heard about that principle of reasonableness. So you have just mentioned that you, as a committee, assessed reasonableness. How did you actually do that? That’s kind of an eerie faerie concept that often eludes lawyers.

Can you just perhaps explain how you did assess that reasonable, what was that standard?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

That is not difficult. If someone comes to you with a suggestion that is – forget about the negotiation strategy for a moment, what you are saying just doesn’t make sense. It is not in keeping with the process here.

It is a fairly easy concept in my view. Negotiators can sometimes be unreasonable and we were there to point it out the king has no clothes. You are not acting reasonably here. Never mind not being consistent with the negotiation strategy.

Again, that was something that the three of us were fairly capable of doing. You didn’t need a law degree for that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

In conclusion, I’d like ask Mr. Levert if he could tell us whether the public can feel confident in the work that your oversight committee has done?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: You really rely on the individuals. You set up a structure, and you can set up all the structures that you like, but it all comes down the individuals that are within that organization on the committee. You have to assess whether or not those people are going to be ethical and have integrity and abide by the mandate you gave them.

Those are the criteria. I believe that we fulfilled that role. I think that the public and this House should be confident that there was real oversight. You have a negotiating team that was given authority to negotiate a tough contract with a tough owner and the oversight was there to make sure that the negotiation strategy was followed, and that at any time if they were outside that strategy, they received instruction from the Cabinet.

SPEAKER: The minister’s time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much, Speaker, and thank you to Mr. Levert for being here today.

I believe I heard earlier in response to a question from the Minister of Justice that Mr. Levert said the independent committee said the biggest risk was the lack of information from the negotiating team. I’m just wondering if the Speaker could confirm that please, if I heard that correctly?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

We would not have been able to play that role properly if we were not fully briefed. That was the biggest risk.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much for clarifying that.

Wondering if the committee chair could tell us how they navigated that risk and whether they did, I guess, get as much information as they needed.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

As I said, we met with the negotiating team on 12 separate occasions between June 5 and August 14. Each of the meetings lasted between two and three hours. Generally I chaired the meetings. Mr. Perry and his team would report on where negotiations were at with Hydro-Québec. We would ask questions, there would be discussions in terms of what had been happening, and then how they intended to proceed going forward. The answer to all of our questions, to the extent that anything was technical or they needed to get back to us, they always did. So we felt that we were fully briefed.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

I’m wondering if the chair could tell us if there were any material issues where the Oversight Committee disagreed with the negotiating team.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

No, there were no issues that arose where there was a disagreement. As I said, the negotiating team was a very sophisticated group. They were certainly aware of the limits of their authority and knew when to seek further instructions from the government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

My apologies if this has already been covered. Can you elaborate or expand on the fact of whether or not you sought independent advice and the decisions that the committee took, whether to seek or to not seek independent advice on any of the issues, please?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

As I indicated, we discussed it at the beginning of our mandate and decided that we would not retain our own expert advisors that the information that we would receive from the negotiating team that would come from their expert advisors would be relied on.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

So I understand the chair is a lawyer and an engineer. Unfortunately, I’m neither of those. But I understand that engineers look at risks, the consequences, likelihoods of things happening. I’m wondering if the chair can tell us if they considered the consequences of the risks and the magnitude versus the likelihood that they were not making the right decisions?

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

That’s a big question. The Oversight Committee certainly was aware of the gravity and importance of this matter. There is nothing comparable right now anywhere in North America to what is being proposed here, so we certainly took that to heart and took our role very seriously.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

I am wondering if the chair can tell us about the decision-making within the group – I believe this might have been answered but I didn’t hear the fulsome of the response – was there consensus in terms of the three individuals and their recommendations to government?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

Yes, as I indicated, following each session – let me just to back – before every session with the negotiating team, we met and discussed what we thought might be raised, any questions that we had left over from the previous briefings or anything that had come up, as a result of a phone call from the chair of the negotiating team to me. So we would have that discussion first, we would have our two- to three-hour briefing with the negotiating team and subsequently after the meeting, we would always meet, discuss what we had learned and, from that, we would prepare a report. I would draft an initial draft of the report to the clerk of the Executive Council, we would circulate that, we would get a consensus on what it was that we should be reporting to the clerk, an agreement on what it was that we had learned in the briefing and anything that we would recommend to the board, to the clerk.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

S. STOODLEY: Thank you very much.

This is my final question. I do want to thank you for your public service, obviously, it’s a huge responsibility.

My final question, I ask the chair, how long he has known the Government House Leader and if he has a personal relationship with the Government House Leader.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

You’re speaking about Mr. Parrott? Mr. Parrott and I first met on the Hebron project. We sat on the board of the Hebron Project Employers’ Association, which was the body that was established for that $10 billion project to oversee labour relations for that project. I have no personal relationship with Mr. Parrott, and I haven’t seen him – I saw him once last year, but haven’t seen him since probably 2015. That’s when I retired from the company and resigned from – stepped down from the board of the Hebron Project Employers’ Association.

SPEAKER: That was your final question? Okay.

Given that we have two minutes, does anyone have a final question?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

Can Mr. Levert comment on how he would assess the full scope of the work that was carried out by the negotiating committee?

SPEAKER: Mr. Levert.

D. LEVERT: Thank you, Speaker.

It is not in our mandate to assess the work that was done by the negotiating team, but we can say that the conduct of the negotiations was reasonable and was consistent with the negotiation strategy.

SPEAKER: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Levert.

Mr. Levert, on behalf certainly of the House of Assembly, and I’m sure all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are tuning in, I want to thank you for coming here this morning and for providing answers to many questions. We really appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: With that said, given the hour of the day, we will now recess until 1 p.m.

The House is in recess.

Recess

The House resumed at 1 p.m.

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

We will continue on with our proceedings. This particular block, if you will, we’ll be starting now and continuing until 5 p.m., at which point we will recess and then reconvene again at 6 p.m.

This afternoon I would like to welcome our special guests, Dr. Chris Loomis, chair of the Governance Committee of the NL Hydro Board of Directors, Mr. Jim Haynes, Churchill River Advisory Committee member with the NL Hydro Board of Directors and Michael Ladha, KC, vice-president and chief legal officer and corporate secretary with NL Hydro.

Welcome to our Chamber, gentleman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Once again, just to go over the rules very quickly, for the benefit of our guests, if they haven’t been following all ready.

Members will get 15-minute increments to ask questions to our panellists. For the benefit of the guests, I have no idea which of you are going to answer the questions, so just raise your hand when the question is asked, whoever is going to answer it and I will identify you. Once I identify you, then our Broadcast Centre knows to turn on your microphone and so on and then you can answer the question.

Members have one minute to ask the question but panellists have as long as they require to answer the question.

With that said, we will now start.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

First of all, welcome to the Newfoundland and Labrador Board.

I would first of all like to ask, if I could ask, each of the board members to tell us a little bit about themselves and how long they have been on the board and why they agreed to join, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Okay, we’ll start I guess with Mr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the question.

My name is Chris Loomis. I’m a retired academic. I retired from Memorial University 2015, early 2016. I hold a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology and I came to Newfoundland in 1988, to join what was then the new School of Pharmacy in Canada and to help build that. I had previously held appointments at Queen’s University in the department of pharmacology and a joint appointment in anaesthesia.

While at Memorial, I served as dean of the school for a number of years, served for 10 years as vice-president Research and also served a year as president and vice-chancellor of Memorial pro tempore.

I have been on this board for 10 years. My appointment to the board, actually, happened quite surprisingly following the departure of Ed Martin as CEO of Nalcor Energy and the abrupt resignation of the Nalcor board at the time. I was asked to serve as a member of the supposed to be an interim board. I still remember getting the call from Minister Coady who was the minister of Natural Resources at the time, asking me if I would do so.

It was interim only because they were waiting for passage of the act that put in place the Independent Appointments Commission. I thought, well, I think I can probably be of help for the time I’m on the board and thought it might be interim and here I am 10 years later.

So that’s by way of background, my introduction.

SPEAKER: Thank you and it’s Dr. Loomis, I apologize. Eyes are not as sharp as they used to be, even with the glasses.

Mr. Haynes?

J. HAYNES: Thank you, Speaker.

My name is Jim Haynes. I graduated from MUN in 1977 with a Bachelor of Engineering degree and I, after a very brief vacation, I started work with Newfoundland Hydro in various departments involving construction of Holyrood number 3 – transmission planning, primarily, operations.

In 1989 I went to Churchill Falls for three to five but I stayed for 10 and enjoyed every minute of it. It was a privilege to work there. In 1999 I came back, very quickly returning for two months while we were on strike but that’s the way it is. I came back to Hydro and worked for the VP at the time, Mr. Collett who was a great mentor, always.

Eventually took over the vice-president of Regulated Operations and retired in 2013. I did work for a 1½ to 2 years as a consultant. I did work for Hydro, in fact, for a couple of projects they were putting to the Public Utilities Board. In 2016 I returned at the request, if you will, of Stan Marshall, then CEO, and I stayed for a little over five years, retiring again in 2021.

So my 41, almost 42 years of employment with Hydro was memorable and I was privileged to work there, actually.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While not a member of the board, I will give you a little bit of an idea of my background and why I’m here as the corporate secretary. I’m the chief legal officer for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I’ve worked at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for almost 11 years now. Prior to that, I had a corporate and commercial practice in downtown St. John’s for seven years.

I’m responsible for all of the legal operations of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, including its interaction with its board of directors and the board of directors of the 13 subsidiaries. That’s why I’m here today. I am the flow of information and the connection from the board of directors to the executive of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I also have a keen interest in a lot of background in governance, generally. I sit on the boards of directors of four organizations: a bank, a large national financial institution, a large national charity and also the executive committee of the Institute of Corporate Directors here locally in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Sir.

Before we go any further, could we just stop the clock for one moment, please?

I know the Government House Leader had something he wanted to table, and I neglected to let him do that. In case it is something that would be relevant for everyone to know ahead of asking questions and so on, I think it’s important to table it. I have no idea what it is.

The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: I won’t speak to it, it’s very self-explanatory. It’s a fact sheet on the Gull Island development with spreadsheets and stuff attached to it. I’m sure no one will have any issues with that being tabled.

SPEAKER: Okay, we can start the clock again.

Thank you for that.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I would like to thank the directors and the VP, legal and corporate secretary, for that information. I also would like to ask – we’ll start with the directors first – if they could just elaborate on why they agreed to join the board, and we can then ask Mr. Ladha how he supports the board.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated in my introductory remarks, my appointment came rather surprisingly, initially through a phone call. The reason that I agreed to serve was, at the time, I had just retired from Memorial, so I had some time to spare. I had been serving on a number of national boards that held time-limited appointments. My time was coming up to expiration on those boards, so I knew I was going to have time to attend to this, should I do so.

I had throughout my academic career, on occasion, been appointed to boards of organizations that were undergoing some duress or some problems. I felt that I guess I could – in those capacities, I could help stabilize things and be of benefit. So I had a little bit of background in that regard, and I felt that I could make – at the least, on an interim basis at the time – an appropriate contribution.

I felt it was also, in a sense, an obligation that I had on my part, as a not a Newfoundlander by birth, but a Newfoundlander for some almost 40 years, now. It was a way that I could make a contribution.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Dr. Loomis.

Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: I started with the board in February of 2023. Prior to that for a year and a bit – I don’t recall exactly – I was on a subsidiary board of one of the Lower Churchill companies that were there – LIL 2021 general partner after one of the federal loan guarantees. Why I joined the board? I was asked if I would come aboard, basically. I do have knowledge of Churchill Falls from an operating point of view. I was there 10 years, initially as a manager or director of operations, eventually the general manager. Enjoyed it, dove into it from the point of view of understanding how it works and how the river works, and how water works and so on.

When I was asked to come back, I was retired. I loved the work – I wouldn’t have stayed at Hydro for 36 or 37 years before retiring the first time if I didn’t love the work. It was an opportunity to get engaged and to stay a part of the Hydro family of companies, which I truly do embrace and think they provide an awesome service to the province. I’m happy to serve the province. I’ve lived here most of my life, except for about 6 months in Montreal, and I would live here any day of my life, I would rather be here.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Haynes.

Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the question for me was to describe my role as it relates to the board, which I can do. So for those who aren’t aware, a corporate secretary’s role is to essentially be the primary link between the board of directors and the executive of a company and the CEO. I provide that link between the board of directors and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Jennifer Williams as CEO, so I’m responsible for ensuring the board of directors gets all the information that they deem necessary to make their decisions in performing their oversight role as it relates to the company: arranging meetings; answering questions; and in addition to that, providing advice on various matters to the board of directors from time to time.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Ladha.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

If Mr. Ladha could also just elaborate a little bit about the board’s makeup just to give us an understanding of how many members are there, what their backgrounds are and their experience. If we haven’t already covered, could you elaborate?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, by legislation, can have up to 14 members. Currently there are 13 directors on the board, including Ms. Williams as CEO. Those directors have a wide variety of expertise, as would be normal in best practice for any board of directors of a sophisticated company.

So right now we have directors that have extensive expertise in many areas critical not only to this file that we’re talking about today but the operations of Hydro in general. That spans things such as electric utility operation, electrical engineering, project management, large scale development and corporate governance, finance, law, human resources. So we have all board of directors’ members that have experience and backgrounds in all of those different subject matters right now on the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Ladha.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’d also like if Mr. Ladha could tell us about the DCIA. Did the board review that agreement, the DCIA, as a whole? How was that done or was it through a subcommittee? Could he please describe how that review process played out?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is both a subcommittee of the board of directors, which we call the Churchill River assets committee, and the board of directors as a whole given the importance of this file to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the province. We’re both very involved in not only reviewing the final agreement, the DCIA itself, but also overseeing the negotiations from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s standpoint that led to the DCIA, and that included many meetings reviewing progress of the negotiations, hearing from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s expert advisors, meeting with those advisors independent from management to be able to ask them questions, meeting with the negotiating committee.

So all of that took place over a several month period and there were many interactions between the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the subcommittee with management, its experts and the negotiating team that led to that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

If Mr. Ladha could just explain about the process. So there was a subcommittee struck. Perhaps you could just elaborate a little bit about that?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The subcommittee was struck, which is normal in corporate governance. Newfoundland and Labrador have a number of standing committees from things like audit, human resources, safety. But on occasion when boards of directors have things in front of them that are of certain significance, it is normal for a board of directors to strike a subcommittee to focus specifically on that subject matter and review it in more detail than the board would as a whole in performing its oversight function.

That was done here. We had the Churchill River assets committee that normally – not every time – met in advance of the board. They’d get presented with the same information, but the subcommittees role was to essentially do a deeper dive. Look into the issues and the negotiations in more detail than the board of directors would. The board of directors then is entitled, based on that committee structure, to rely on the advice and the recommendations of that subcommittee as it relates to things that they might recommend that the board approve.

Now, because of the importance of this file, the board itself was involved in looking at the file in detail as well. There were occasions where the subcommittee didn’t meet, just due to time constraints, and the board met as a whole, which was appropriate given the significance of this file to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the province generally.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

This question can be directed to the board of directors, if we could be told if any directors declared a conflict of interest or did they have to step back from any part of the DCIA review?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to that is no. No one declared a conflict of interest, and no one was asked to remove themselves from all discussions and votes on this matter.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I’ll move on to the review and the review process and the approval process of the DCIA.

I would direct this question to all of the panellists. Can each of them describe their involvement in the review and approval of the DCIA.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes, do you want to start?

J. HAYNES: Sure.

The documents and the work that was done before with respect to, even the Muskrat Falls review, the Independent Review Committee, and the negotiations that had taken place up to the MOU, all informed the negotiation strategy that basically they came up with. Obviously, we had input, but the government were informed by that, it was reviewed, and lots of questions asked. I can’t specifically remember the questions but there was lots of active dialogue on the DCIA to ensure that we were covering all the basis of what the mandate would be.

It was approved and there was subsequently a couple of amendments that would normally happen in the course of things like that there. I would add that there was a full and open discussion and no holds barred, I’ll say, for any discussion or dialogue between the parties on that.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As one member of the board I can say that we were actively involved in all aspects of its review from the outset, that is approving the negotiating mandate, all the way through to the final recommendation that Hydro enter into this agreement.

We were all participants in meetings with the negotiating team. We were all present as part of interviews with the independent experts, some of whom you spoke to yesterday. Importantly those meetings were done in-camera, without management. So we were able to ask very direct and precise questions to them.

We also met regularly with our own management, with Jennifer and her team throughout the course of the review. I would add that over a 10-week period we met at least seven times, full board. There were some email interactions in between. We were meeting almost weekly from about the third or fifth of June through to August 10.

They were intense examinations by every member of the board including myself on all elements of this and on that basis that we unanimously recommended that this DCIA be approved.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I’ll just provide a few more details as to how the process occurred. As the directors have stated, this started in early June and the board met seven times prior to August 17, when the DCIA was signed.

The first thing that they did was they approved a negotiating strategy, sometimes referred to as the mandate that was provided and written by government but the board also had to approve it and debate it and it did so without any changes, subject only to two amendments that followed during the process which I think you heard a little bit about this morning from Mr. Levert.

As Mr. Loomis said, the board had full opportunity to question Hydro, which it did both in writing, in providing written questions and verbally in each of those seven meetings. It had the opportunity to meet with the negotiating team. It had the opportunity to meet with Hydro’s experts and as Mr. Loomis said that was done in-camera, which means no members of management including Ms. Williams were present at those in-camera meetings, which is important for the board to be able to ask the advisors questions without the influence of management in the room.

One thing that hasn’t been said is that our independent audit function also performed a review of what would be appropriate for governance of a file like this in hydro generally and provided her findings to the board of directors on that, which the board was satisfied with as well.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Ladha.

The minister’s time has now expired.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker, and welcome and thank you gentlemen for being here today for this very important discussion.

I’ll get right into it.

What did the NL Hydro board consider to be the mandate for these negotiations?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Well, the mandate was established as part of the negotiating strategy, and the mandate came from government and approved by the board. We’ve adhered to that, or at least our guidance oversight of the process was directed by that document.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: I think that Mr. Ladha wanted to add something.

SPEAKER: Oh, Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Is that okay if I add?

SPEAKER: Yeah, you can, just make sure you raise your hand.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Speaker.

Dr. Loomis is correct that in terms of this file there was a mandate provided by government which the board also approved, but generally, the board’s mandate is to make decisions that it considers to be in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a corporate entity as well. That is their overriding mandate as it relates to their duties generally, but then there was the specific mandate for this file that was provided by government and also debated and approved by the board of directors.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

Did the Hydro board agree that the IRC report should form the mandate for the negotiations?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: The mandate that we received for our review and approval was informed by the recommendations of the IRC and, as I understand, was used as a framework for the negotiating strategy and the negotiating mandate. That is the nature of the interaction with the IRC as far as we were concerned.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Did the NL Hydro board agree with all of the recommendations of the IRC?

C. LOOMIS: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: For the purposes of your microphone as well. Dr. Loomis, yes.

C. LOOMIS: I will get this correct before we’re done.

The answer is yes.

SPEAKER: The answer is yes. Okay.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Does the NL Hydro board think that the new agreement fully satisfies all of the recommendations of the IRC report?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Speaker.

As Dr. Loomis said, the mandate of the board of directors was the mandate that was provided by government approved, not necessarily strictly the IRC report, although that report did inform the mandate for this file. What has not yet been said is that the board of directors was provided – they requested it, actually, of management – a detailed comparison of the DCIA to the IRC report, which cannot be tabled because it contains a significant amount of commercially sensitive information about the negotiations. But the board of directors did receive that very detailed comparison of the DCIA to the IRC report before making the decision to approve the DCIA.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Ladha.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Would you agree there are still negotiations left to be done before final binding agreements?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Absolutely. I mean, the next step in this if this is approved will be to move to definitive agreements, and that’s where the real nitty-gritty and the detail will have to be worked out. This is simply the first step or the next step, I guess, in this process.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: We heard this morning that the Oversight Committee has concluded its work. Why do you think there should be oversight for the first part of negotiations but not for the rest?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: I think that’s a question for government in terms of oversight. The Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board of directors has a mandate in terms of oversight of the corporation generally. In terms of additional oversight that’s layered on top of that, I don’t think that’s a question that is for us to answer.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: One year ago this week, the now Premier announced he would hold a referendum. Once elected, this commitment was repeated in his mandate letter to his Cabinet. Of course, we now know the Premier has backtracked on this promise. He has now cancelled his own referendum. Did NL Hydro have any concerns about the referendum?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Similar answer, Mr. Speaker. That is a political question, I believe, and Hydro as a Crown corporation is an apolitical organization. It does not take opinions on matters of public policy like that. So I think that is a question that is best directed to the government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Are you aware of any conversations between NL Hydro and the government about a referendum and what is their position on the referendum?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: No, I’m not aware of any conversations in that regard.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Do you have any concerns that the basis for the mandate is the IRC report, yet the public and no one knows who made submissions, what submissions were adopted and what ones were rejected?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the boards mandate is not strictly the IRC report, nor would the board be aware necessarily of who the experts were that the IRC interviewed. That’s not the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s role.

Again, the board’s role was to follow the negotiation strategy that it approved and was also approved by the government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: In the House of Assembly, the Premier admitted he did not know who the experts relied upon in the report were, or how they were qualified.

Do you know who these experts are?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: We have no information in that regard.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Sir.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Shouldn’t the public know the background information that went into the IRC report, keeping in mind it was done as a public inquiry, yet nothing is really public?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, that’s not necessarily a question for the board of directors. The board of directors is charged with making decisions that it considers to be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but the very fact that it passed the resolution approving the DCIA is confirmation that it did in fact believe that that was the case when it made that decision and approved the document.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Ladha.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Is that good governance to rely on a report without knowing where the underlying data came from?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Again, in terms of the governance of the IRC process, the board of directors nor the corporate sector of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were involved in that or can speak to that. My role and the board’s role is to ensure good governance is conducted at the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board level, which we believe is the case and has been done in approving the DCIA.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Dr. Loomis, you are a Doctor of Pharmacology, would a report every be published in your field without citations and references? Would a research paper ever be published in a medical journal, for example, without them?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: In the academic world that would not be the case.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Speaker.

The Premier said this on May 4: I thought it was important that an independent review committee themselves be the ones to present the report to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, that will happen on May 19. But that did not happen. They were never made available to the public.

Does this concern you, especially because the Premier had made the commitment but then broke that commitment?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I think that’s a question best directed to the Premier in terms what he said and what he’s done.

Again, the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had a mandate specific to this file and a mandate more generally to make decisions that are in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the people of this province and it believes that the board had fulfilled that function in approving the DCIA.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government insisted on the old MOU being reviewed. You may recall that from the 2025 debate. Has the new deal been independently reviewed as is?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new deal has been approved and reviewed by Hydro’s experts, all of which was informed by the IRC report, as we have heard many times, that formed the basis and a roadmap for negotiations this time around.

I guess that is it, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On VOCM Open Line the Energy Minister said, it would be stance that this has not only been reviewed but I don’t see that it would be necessary for another review. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that this new agreement has been review by an independent, external body and, if so, by who?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree that an independent review has been performed, which was taken very seriously and informed, as we have said, the negotiating strategy and formed the basis of the negotiations this time around. I do not think it is necessary or would it be customary to do an independent review every single time an organization such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro reaches an agreement with a third party, especially when that agreement has been already informed by such a review to begin with.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Board of Directors voted in support of the 2024 MOU, correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: That is correct.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the Board of Directors was satisfied with the MOU and agreeable to proceeding to final agreements on that basis.

SPEAKER: That is question, I guess.

Mr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Yes, that is correct.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: How many times did the board meet about his deal between June when negotiations started and August when the deal was announced?

SPEAKER: Mr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: We met in person seven times over a 10-week period.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you.

Jerome Kennedy was retained in January 2026. What was his role between January 2026 and June 2026?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board would not have been aware of the specifics of Mr. Kennedy’s role when he was retained in January, other than as being generally an advisor to the government on this file.

Subsequent to that, the board would have been aware that Mr. Kennedy was appointed to the negotiating team and then met with the board on several occasions with the other members of the negotiating team while the board was considering the negotiations and the approval of the DCIA.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you.

Can you tell this House what did he do and how much was he paid for his work?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Neither the board nor Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has any information as to the number of hours that Mr. Kennedy spent on this file nor what he was paid for that. However, we can say based on our experience that the negotiating team, including Mr. Kennedy, spent a very significant amount of time on this file, as the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its staff has as well.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Do you know how much money NL Hydro spends every year to mitigate rates as a result of Muskrat Falls?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am aware of that as the board of directors has been apprised of that as well, and it’s approximately $500 million a year.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Thank you.

Yes, we’ve been previously told that it is up to $500 million a year. Was the Hydro board concerned about having someone who incorrectly said Muskrat Falls would pay for itself, negotiate the Churchill Falls and Gull Island contracts?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the board’s mandate is to make decisions that it considers are in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a company. The negotiating team was an input to that, to the extent – I would ask the directors to speak to this as well – but to the extent that it got information that it didn’t consider reliable from any source, the negotiating team staff or otherwise, the board would have the ability to question that and ask for alternate information. That did not happen in this case.

SPEAKER: Mr. Loomis, you wanted to comment?

C. LOOMIS: I was just going to add that I concur with the conclusion that Mr. Ladha stated about this matter.

SPEAKER: Okay.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: When the NL Hydro board was briefed, was NL Hydro told the estimated pricing for Gull Island throughout the course of the contract?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The NL Hydro board was given a great amount of detail regarding the DCIA and the development projects contained in it. Included in that would have been information about the cost structure for Gull Island.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Did they ask for it?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m not clear on what the question is. The board was provided with all the information that management considered necessary for it to review. There were occasions when the board asked information to be provided, which was also done.

No, they did not in my recollection specifically ask for the cost structure related to Gull Island, but that presumably was because they were satisfied with the information on that topic that had been provided by management.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

P. PARSONS: Can the board confirm there were no negotiations that took place between the fall of 2025 and June 2026?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand, which negotiations are we referring to here?

SPEAKER: Can the Member just clarify the question, please.

P. PARSONS: Well, first of all, did the board receive a briefing about the negotiation’s mandate after the IRC Report was made public?

SPEAKER: Is that a clarification of the first question?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: It is okay, I thought it was a different question.

That is the same question you just asked, just rephrased, is it?

P. PARSONS: Yes.

SPEAKER: Okay.

Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The negotiation mandate that was developed by government and subsequently approved by the board came after the IRC Report was released, that’s correct.

SPEAKER: The Member’s time is now expired.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

I just want to hear from the panellists about the fact that they are an apolitical organization. We’ve heard some questions that have been asked from the Member in the Opposition and certain ones were described as political questions. It was further stated that the board makes decisions in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they have to act within the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which was to file a negotiation strategy.

I would like to hear from them why it is so important, for us we need to understand why it’s not appropriate to answer political questions and what it really means that they are an apolitical organization?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, for the question.

I guess I would begin by simply stating that to answer a political question that way would in fact compromise the very apolitical position that we hold as members of this board. We have a duty of care to this organization which serves all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is best for people like me and my colleague, Mr. Haynes to refrain from answering questions that fall outside the mandate that we have as board members. Hence, I have been deferring those questions to Mr. Ladha for the appropriate response.

I hope that answers your question.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I’d also like to go back to the part of the review process. I understand it was stated by the board members that they had met with others with part of this review and there was a time when others were asked not to be in the room, that management not be in the room. I’d just like that to be explained, why that is important and how that played out as well?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you for the question.

By holding those meetings with, for example, the expert advisors in camera, that is without management present in a room, we were able to ask very direct questions without undue influence – and I’m not suggesting there would have been any, but without undue influence by the presence of management in the room. It would also afford the expert panellists to answer our questions without the same concern.

It’s good governance in all situations for a board to hold in camera meetings. I can assure you that, as part of our regular board meetings, we always follow up with an in camera, initially with management present, Ms. Williams in particular, and then we go fully in camera to discuss the deliberations of the board that day and the activities of the organization. It’s just a very sound, good governance practice which we try to uphold wherever we can, not only as a board, but also with experts with whom we are asked to consult.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes, do you want to comment as well?

J. HAYNES: Yes.

If I could add, I mean, in these discussions with the expert witnesses, which included Power Advisory, J.P. Morgan, Stikeman Elliott and McInnes Cooper, one of the things that we had also asked each of them, was there anything else that they wanted to add; was there anything they wanted to tell us. There was nothing of any consequence that they said to us that would cause us any grief or concern about the process.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I would just like to explore the concept of good governance as well. When we look at Hydro board’s governance role, I wonder is it safe to say the negotiating team negotiates the oversight committee, scrutinizes the process and reports, and the Hydro board exercises corporate governance decision-making authority? There are different layers of scrutiny there. Perhaps, for the benefit of understanding those concepts, we could get an explanation about how that works?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, generally what was described I would say is accurate. For that reason, it was important that the Oversight Committee’s role and the role of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro board, in terms of fulfilling its corporate governance duties to the organization, that they didn’t overlap or intersect to ensure that there was no confusion there.

So the Oversight Committee performed a fully separate role apart from the board of directors’ role, that is true. The board of directors is there, again, to perform an oversight function to make sure that the decisions they are making they believe to be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. But that is a higher-level function as compared to management or the negotiating team, which entities are charged with negotiating the detail and making sure that the management functions of the organization, the agreements are properly worded, those sorts of things, which is not the role of the board.

It’s important to recognize that the role of the board is much more high level in terms of fulfilling the strategy of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro generally, the strategy as it relates to this file and, again, perform its oversight function and making decisions that it believes are in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you for that.

I wonder when I think about the Hydro board and the important responsibility here. Did your role also include the responsibility, I guess, to decide whether a major corporate transaction should proceed, such as this one? Is that what we’re saying here?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Yes, that is correct. Our decision, our ultimate decision in this case was to recommend that Hydro enter into the DCIA and that’s why we’re here discussing it today.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So in making that decision, I would like to ask, in terms of what you considered, what information you would have – I assume you would have to have considered risks and legal advice, long-term consequences. Is that basically what was involved in the process of approval?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Yes, the simple answer is yes. We considered many, many factors and received information from a variety of sources, the negotiating team, expert advisors, we had both written and oral answers to questions that we had posed to a variety of sources. I mean, as a board, risk management is one of the responsibilities we have as a corporate board. We did have to consider risks, both of the current DCIA and what would happen if we didn’t proceed with the DCI.

So all of the factors that were relevant to this case and all the sources of information that we could avail of were utilized by the board to the best of our knowledge and the best of our ability.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

With respect to the process, as well, I’ll ask the directors were they given enough time and access to expertise to review and assess the DCIA and if so, could you explain that please?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I can say, unequivocally, that we were given every opportunity, both time and resources, to consider this. Given the complexity, the scale and the importance of this deal, that was certainly something that the board was concerned about going into our overall deliberations in this case. I can't think of a situation and I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Haynes, in a second for his opinion, but I can’t think of a single case where we were left shorthanded or short-timed in order to do the review and the assessment that we needed to do. It was in a compressed time frame. This all happened over a matter of 10 weeks or so, but we met frequently enough and often enough and with sufficient advance notice, including written materials I think, to be able to do the job we were tasked to do.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: If I could add, in these meetings and discussions, it wasn’t only with the, at times, with the negotiation committee or the management committee, I’ll call them. There were other folks in the room from Hydro, specifically, who were involved in the, I’m going to say down in the weeds, and we had opportunity to ask any questions for clarification or even in the – engineers tend to go in the weeds sometimes and sometimes I ask too many questions but we were not cut off. We were given every opportunity to ask whatever questions we wished. There was no unnecessary rushing but time was of the essence, obviously. But I think we executed that with reasonableness and fairness and, certainly, with sincerity and honesty.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: So with respect to accessing the questions and would that also apply with respect to your ability to access all the information and documents that you need and the analysis that would be needed to do your work?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: I can't think of anything that we asked for or that we were denied. I don’t think we were denied anything during this process whatsoever.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I’d simply concur with that statement as another member of the board. We received everything that we asked for, everything that we think we needed and we were given the time to question and analyze that accordingly.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Could Mr. Ladha please advise what legal advice did the board receive on the DCIA and from whom?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board would have received legal advice from several different sources, as it was considering the DCIA. First of all, it would have received legal advice internally from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s legal function, including myself as corporate secretary on the DCIA.

In addition to that, the Board of Directors met on two occasions with Hydro’s expert legal advisors who were from McInnes Cooper here locally and from Stikeman Elliott nationally, both who have been involved in essentially working as one firm to support Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro throughout these negotiations.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: We did talk earlier about risk, and I would just like to explore that further to all the panellists.

Have you completed a risk analysis of the DCIA and/or identified any concerns with it?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: We reviewed the risk, the pros and cons, and there are negotiations to happen yet. Obviously, there is still the final agreements to do. As somebody said yesterday, I believe, Mr. Perry, that Hydro-Québec are shrewd negotiators and, obviously, that is a thing that I know that Hydro who were going to negotiate the DAs and the board who will see them in the end will be keen to do.

There are puts and takes and there are trade-offs in every file. I think what has been concluded is a balance of all that makes a good deal. I am sure that people would want lots of things that will not be deliverable or there will be no deal. And I think what has been presented to the House is a fair proposal for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland and Labrador government to concur with on balance.

There will always be differences of opinion as to what’s most important, but I think we have landed in a comfortable place that it will serve the province and my children and grandchildren into the future.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I would simply add that risks and risk assessments were key components of our questions to the experts and to the negotiating team as this proceed through its iteration. Overall, it was more of a global kind of risk assessment for the province and its future, but those were always fundamental elements of our analysis with all of those to whom we spoke.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just add that, as Mr. Loomis and Mr. Haynes have said, enterprise risk management is a critical function of the board of directors such that there is routine risk reporting that goes to Hydro and one of it’s subcommittees as well, that is not different for this file, so that was done as well, risks were presented, mitigations were presented.

But to get into the specifics in some of those risks and mitigations, given that there are negotiations to come and then a long commercial relationship with Hydro-Québec, would not be advisable to get into those specifics in my view.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I’ll ask the directors this question about whether you were briefed on the federal components of the overall deal and how do you think they contribute to the deal?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is, yes, we were apprised of the role – initially – emerging role of the federal government in this. As it became more concrete and as more evidence of their interest and participation in this came about, that was brought to our attention.

I think to answer the later question, and I think this was made relatively clear yesterday in the House, it became a critical element to reaching a successful conclusion for all the reasons that were elaborated on yesterday, which I would agree with.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Loomis.

The minister’s time is now expired.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you.

Good afternoon to our panellists.

My first question might be a handful of just yes or no.

We’ve been hearing a lot of talk the last few days about this better deal, better deal for Quebec.

Can the panellists confirm that Quebec will pay less for electricity in the ’26 MOU than they would in the ’24 MOU?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board of directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would not be privy to the calculations that Hydro-Québec is using, I think that’s what the Member is referring to in terms of its stated cost of electricity in the 2026 DCIA as compared to the 2024 MOU.

The board of directors would be concerned with what that cost is to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the ratepayers of this province. Again, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, itself, would not necessarily have the information necessary to recreate the numbers that Hydro-Québec is using publicly, and that’s not necessarily the board’s role. The board’s role is, again, to make sure that the deal that it is approving is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, totally agnostic to what Hydro-Québec may say that it is getting itself.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you.

Earlier I heard the panel mention they were comfortable with this deal and the best deal for NL Hydro. Well, for context, we’re talking about a global energy warehouse in Labrador which is not a place on a map for me. It’s home. It’s home, and my job here is to advocate for the people that I represent.

I ask the panel can they confirm that in this better deal for Québec, that Québec will receive more power in the ’26 DCIA?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it is correct that Québec will receive more power than the 2024 MOU, but as will Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The megawatts that are available to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to serve predominantly Labrador is 2,750 in the DCIA as compared to 1,990 in the MOU.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

Maybe as compared to 3,550 or something for Québec, I think.

Can the panel confirm, Speaker, that in this new better deal for Québec, they will receive more money?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Speaker.

I don’t think that’s a question for the board to answer. Again, the board’s mandate is to make decisions and be aware of what is coming into Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The board would not specifically be aware of what income then Hydro-Québec would get from either selling that power in-province or to its own customers. The board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would not have that information.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

We do know that with the federal contribution or $10 billion, $6.5 billion of that went to Québec and $3.5 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Speaker, one of the things that really, really jumped at me and clearly many other people, given how inundated I have been with emails and messages over the last number of days, is the fact that the requirement for fairness was dropped from the MOU to the DCIA. This removed the legal requirement for our price to be fair in circumstances. We think about the ’69 deal. History might have looked a little different.

I’m just asking, is the panel concerned about the fact that the fairness disappeared from the DCIA?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I think it’s fair to say that the board was satisfied that in this agreement, should it be approved, there were guaranteed factors that would allow for a rate of increase over time. I think 14 or so per cent up until 2041 and 2.5, 2.6 per cent beyond. So there were factors built into this relationship that were certainly missing from the 1969 agreement and that would assure the province would receive a fair return on the electricity that it was generating.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would add to that that I don’t believe the lack of the word fairness in the DCIA indicates that the DCIA is not fair from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s perspective.

As has been said numerous times, the DCIA contains much more material terms than were included in the 2024 MOU. We’ve gone further down the field, if you will, in terms of negotiating the material terms. Everything that has gone into that, including the advice that we have gotten from Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan that you heard yesterday, has made us comfortable and, indeed, the board comfortable in approving it, that it is in fact fair, as evidenced by the price we’re getting as compared to those other markets, as compared to the price of replacement in Quebec, everything that you’ve heard about yesterday.

So I don’t necessarily agree that the removal of the word fair is an indication that the DCIA is in and of itself unfair, which I would disagree with.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I sat through the January ’25 debate and at that time, the CEO, who has now signed this, at that time fairness was not just really important to her but, I quote, “really, really important and I’ll draw everyone’s attention to this … ‘fairness.’ Fairness contained in this document is something that we wish we would have had before; it might have changed … history.” Those were the words of the CEO of NL Hydro. It doesn’t seem important now today.

My next quick question, Speaker: I understand there is a potential project being discussed to replace the electrode grounding line from Muskrat Falls to the coast with a wood pole structure. Is the panel or the board of Hydro aware of this?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All projects that are significantly advanced and require capital investment or present a risk to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are presented to the board of directors at the appropriate time. That specific project has not yet been presented to the board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I don’t have the information in front of me as to the capital expenditure. As you can appreciate for a board of directors, not every project would go to a board of directors, there are materiality thresholds. I don’t know the specifics of the project that the Member is speaking on in terms of its capex to be able to say whether it is one that would be brought to the board level or not.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Great. Thank you, Speaker. And I thank the member for that question.

What I’m getting at is this project that is going to provide more energy than the three largest cities in Canada, which is exporting power down through the US, Boston, Massachusetts. In our backyard we never got 1 kilowatt from Muskrat Falls. We got a lot of destruction, we’re still reeling from that, and I’m just trying to find out if there is any discussion happening around a transmission line to the South Coast from this more than $200-billion project.

I understand that from folks in the engineering world that they feel that what is in place right now, what is travelling down on the steel structure and with the changing weather, power goes down for days with ice build up and things. I’m wondering if there had been discussion around a transmission lone to the coast and perhaps two purposes could be served at one time, which we certainly wish had been done with the Labrador-Island Link and that subsea cable when we dealt with some other issues, Speaker.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the Member is referring to the line that has been discussed to Labrador South, which the board of directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would be very familiar with in terms of Hydro’s plans for a reliable supply for Labrador South that Ms. Williams spoke about yesterday as that has been a topic of significant discussion at the Public Utilities Board and with the members of those three communities. The board is aware of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s obligation to provide reliable service for those towns and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s plan as it relates to doing that, which has been before the Public Utilities Board and now the Court of Appeal for quite some time, yes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

The panellist actually spoke of a separate issue. One is the transmission line to go down to the coast to power all of the District of Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair. Anything less – we got nothing from the first iteration in ’69. One group in Labrador got something from the second and the third time around jobs alone are not enough. So that’s the transmission line, however, in my hometown in that region right now, surveys are happening while we remain on mobile units. That is another issue.

I want to go back to market-based pricing and ask the panellists are they comfortable – to use their words, from the ’24 MOU to the DCIA they gave up market-based pricing for Churchill Falls power. Instead, we have a fixed price now in the contract. For people viewing who may not have poured over this as much as we did, that means that if energy prices rise, our price is fixed. The price NL sells power to Quebec for will not rise in accordance with energy markets. Would you agree that this was a better way to go?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: If I could, market based is a risk as well; prices go up, prices go down over time. I know we all think they’re going to keep on going up and we might be right; however, there’s lots of technology reviews on the way and change coming too. We don’t know what the outcome of that will be.

We do have an alternate in the sense that we have these proxies by virtue of the Central Hudson line, the New England line and Ontario. We can allocate a certain number of megawatts to that or we can play with that versus the 150 per cent premium with Hydro-Québec. I suspect that in the future when this proceeds – if it proceeds – that the folks in Hydro will be optimizing where they take power for our provincial use in Labrador, wherever, between Gull Island and Churchill and between these options for these proxy markets.

I don’t think all is lost with respect to market index. We don’t have a – quote, unquote – index per se, but we have proxies that do provide some balance for all that.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I thank the member for the answer. There was considerable discussion, and at that time in ’25, Hydro felt the CEO, that we needed those options because no one really knows where energy is going to go. But now it seems a 50-year deal, which wasn’t acceptable with no off-ramps is, no fairness clause, no market-based pricing, lost control of Gull and Quebec gets cheaper power from Newfoundland, we get about half.

I do want to ask the board, do you as the board question whether the negotiating team got the best deal or they just met the negotiation directions from the Premier?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: In my opinion, the negotiation team had a hard task ahead of it in the sense that you’re dealing with an astute counterparty.

I fully agree with Mr. Perry, that the only logical participant with Lower Churchill developments with Newfoundland Hydro is Hydro-Québec. It gives an opportunity to manage the river, to manage all the assets. Hydro-Québec are taking all the hydraulic risks and are taking cost risks. I think that’s a phenomenal give. Plus, they’re making advances to us to provide our equity. I think on balance that it’s a good deal for the province and one that we should endorse.

I think that’s it.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I would simply add that I think the more appropriate way to phrase this issue or question is, is this the best achievable outcome or agreement that we could come to? Because this is a negotiation on two sides. There was no way that one side is going to go in and get everything it wants.

The question I was looking at or asked myself as we considered this document and this file was, is this the best achievable, under the circumstances. When all is said and done, in my opinion and given all of the factors that weigh into and the contributions that will be made as a consequence of this agreement, the answer for me was yes.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

It’s hard for me to pull away. I have to go back to the line again. I have to go back to our dependency on diesel. I just want to share with the panellists, and they may be aware that right now in Manitoba they’re actually taking an ambitious, bold step and building a 1,200-kilometre infrastructure project and it’s going to connect remote communities in Nunavut to clean hydroelectricity. So we know that it’s going to be possible; a much more rugged terrain and a longer distance than what I’m speaking of.

I do want to ask the Hydro board if there are no plans to replace diesel on the Southern Coast. Has there been any discussion around a uniform rate or an increased lifeline block. Has that been considered?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: I’m not aware of that, but that would be a management issue for Hydro at this point in time. I certainly agree that there have been some ambitious projects in the last few years to do that and it looks great. But we have to have the money too.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Ms. Williams said yesterday –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: In terms of what Hydro is obligated to do by its legislation and providing reliable supply to any community in the province, there are options available which Hydro has been pursuing for quite some time. Should there be something put forward that doesn’t meet that legislative mandate, that’s more a matter of public policy. Whether the government of the day would choose to spend the money, that would not be justified in the eyes of the Public Utilities Board to put in an alternate solution that Hydro, by itself, by virtue of its legislative restrictions, could not propose or build.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Member’s time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Always great to ask questions on the new and better deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, previous speaker referred to cheaper rates for Quebec and I assume she was referring to the .02 cents or .2 cents they’re paying now.

I ask the panel is this cheaper rates for Quebec?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: The rates in the DCIA are certainly not cheaper than what Hydro-Québec are getting from the Churchill Falls contract which was executed in 1969.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Question for Mr. Haynes, specifically, Mr. Speaker.

You spent about 10 years actually in Churchill Falls, can you just give us a brief overview about what it means to keep that plant up and running and what’s involved with it?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a complex plant. Even when it was built, it was one of the largest underground powerhouses in the world with one of the largest manmade reservoirs. It was operating at – the draw lines were at 735. I’ll give you an anecdote, when I would take someone for a tour from Ontario which I would occasionally do if somebody from another utility came in, I would walk across the powerhouse and say this is like nine CANDU-600 reactors and in the nighttime there are two people in the powerhouse.

It’s a phenomenal facility, but it’s a challenge. There are challenges with maintenance. There are challenges with capital replacement because the 1969 contract did not anticipate, blindly I will suggest, they didn’t anticipate much capital replacement of transformers breaking or blowing up as we occasionally do or generators failing which would require major capital dollars to enhance and replace.

We had to live with the money we had and it was a challenge. When we got stuck, we did get another agreement with Hydro-Québec called the Guaranteed Winter Availability Contract and it was a small predecessor which helped us get more revenue to help maintain the plant.

The whole issue of Churchill maintenance is an issue, and I said to someone this morning, I had a previous boss who said, did you ever see a spare part that an engineer wouldn’t like? Yes, I’d like to have it all, you can’t, you have to manage that risk. I think that CF(L)Co has done a wonderful job doing that, but it does take time and effort, and the North brings some challenges too.

We had ice storms in Labrador as well. You know, prior to the Quebec outage, we had our own outages where the plant was offline basically, except for serving Labrador, and spills and so on. I won’t say it’s a 24-7 operation but it takes a concerted effort, as will this plant.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Again for Mr. Haynes, Mr. Speaker, he spent about 40 years in industry and my question is: How long do generators and turbines, like the ones used at Churchill Falls, typically last?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Well, I went there in 1989, the first unit came online in 1971 and the final machine came online, I believe, in 1974. I went there in ’89 and we were getting cracking on some turbines.

To remove a turbine is a major undertaking. It requires a long outage. You have to lift, I’m going to say, 200 or 300 tons out of the pit, take everything apart and take the stator out. The turbines themselves, about 50 years. I think they thought they were going to last 65; they don’t quite make it. Obviously, today, there are different standards, there’s different metallurgy and every effort we made to make sure these things do last a longer time, but they do fail and that will continue to happen.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can you describe how old some of those units are today compared to the typical life that you just described?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Do you mean the Churchill units?

L. PARROTT: Yes.

J. HAYNES: Well, the Churchill units were commissioned in 1970, so that’s roughly 50 years or so that they are. We are going through a replacement program now for some; not all the turbines specifically. There had been 735 kV breakers which are unique and the second highest operating voltage in North America. A lot of those have been replaced over the years, along with transformers. It is a continuous effort. Capital replacement is a standard part of any plant program that you build right now. It’s the same as your house. You have to do maintenance or it will fall down on your ears.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know, in Mr. Haynes’s experience, keeping a hydro plant of that age, does the reliability get cheaper or more expensive over time?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Well, I mean, there’s a higher expense just because of the time and higher wages and higher material and so on, but if you maintain the asset and spend the appropriate amount of money on it for asset management – I don’t mean asset management in the terms of financial assets, but from a physical asset point of view – you can make that last a long time.

I have no misgivings that the Churchill Falls plant will be there in 50 or 100 years. I mean, the infrastructure does require service. The tunnels require services. The dikes and dams require it. As long as that is first and foremost in the minds of the operators and the maintainers and we do engage – or we did engage, I’m sure they still do – experts in the field of dikes and dams and concrete and rocks and so on – rock, when I say rock, because it’s underground – to provide the appropriate advice to maintain that asset.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to Mr. Haynes, under the 1969 contract does the price Hydro-Québec pays go up when the cost of running the plant goes up?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: No, it did not. The contract was I won’t say fixed, in a sense, but it started off at roughly 3 cents and it declined. I forget the years, but there were certain years it would actually step back. In 2016 it went to 0.2 cents and that is it. There was no process to go back and get the off-takers, if you will, being Hydro-Québec and Newfoundland Hydro, to pay more because we had to replace a $3 million transformer or whatever. We had to live within our means.

That was a challenge, that was always a concern and the concern especially when we start talking about this, that we have a mechanism to put those costs to the off-takers, be it Hydro-Québec or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or whomever.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again to Mr. Haynes.

So Mr. Haynes, if this DCIA weren’t to go forward, would it be safe to say that any future upgrades between now and 2041 would be on the backs of the taxpayers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: No, firstly they’d be on the backs of CF(L)Co. and challenging whatever dividends they could do, which would be pretty limited if at all. I think if I recall correctly – and I stand to be corrected, maybe by Michael – but I believe in the agreements that we have the right, the shareholders’ agreement, we have the right to put the money in – we being Hydro slash the government. I think in the old agreement Hydro-Québec would put the money in and actually gained higher ownership, which the shareholders’ agreement took care of.

But I do think that for the next 15 years, we’ve already started a runner replacement program, which needs to continue, particularly for one vendor of the runners, the dominion units, and transformers, some people say transformers last 35 years; we’re getting 50 years out of some of these shells that we have there now. I think it would be a pretty high risk they will be expending a lot of money in the next 15 years. And I would add that the upgrades will replace a lot of that equipment.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d just like to go back to part of the questioning that the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair had earlier. Can you – does anyone on the panel up there now know what year the subsea link began construction across the Labrador-Island straits?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: I can only say I left in 2013 and it hadn’t started so it was sometime after that but I’m not sure when.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe it was 2016 if I’m correct, but I could be corrected, too.

Mr. Speaker, the panellists said that they have received the information they had requested. They had all kinds of meetings with the negotiating committee. They met with the negotiating team, outside independent legal advice, they also had meetings with, not only the experts we hired, but the experts that were utilized in the previous MOU in Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan. They had very fulsome accountability and access to the information they required during this process and they supported this unanimously.

Were there any questions that you had asked or any concerns that you had asked that never got addressed?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Mr. Speaker, not that I’m aware. Certainly, speaking for myself, I was satisfied that everything that we asked, we received. We didn’t always like the answer, but the facts were given to us and we based our decisions on that information.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Mr. Speaker, I believe it’s a 14-member board; currently has 13 members. Are all the members of the board – were they active during this 10-week process?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Absolutely, there was full engagement and full participation from every member of that board.

I can assure everyone in this House and everyone in the province that we take our responsibility very seriously. The scale and the importance and the significance of this is unlike anything I’ve seen since I’ve been on this board and I’m pretty sure that’s probably true for everyone on the board at the moment. That has not been lost on any of us. We’ve done our due diligence and our best efforts to arrive at the most rational conclusion that we can.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can you just explain what that conclusion is?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Ultimately, the conclusion was that we recommend that Hydro enter into the DCIA and, from that, if successful, we would seek definitive agreements with Hydro-Québec to ensure that we can deliver on the benefits that are raised with this opportunity.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Energy and Mines.

L. PARROTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just wondering if any of the members of the board would like to say how they feel about what would happen if this doesn’t go ahead at this time, what it means to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: I agree with what Mr. Perry said yesterday. I started with Hydro as a co-op student in 1976 and, in 1977, as a full-time employee and I worked in planning. Even at that time, we were looking at Lower Churchill and it was with respect primarily to a DC infeed to the Island.

I am going back now over what I have seen, not necessarily deeply involved in. We talk to aluminum smelters. We have talked to iron sands people. We have talked to IOC, and I remember asking a former VP of IOC how many megawatts would they want if they had unlimited and don’t talk about the price. They were in excess of 1,000 megawatts if they could have what they want for nothing, which is not realistic.

We have talked to a lot of people over those years. We have talked to Hydro-Québec. We have had almost deals. I was in Churchill Falls in 1998 when one of the previous deals was announced and it did not happen. We had the MOU, which I was quite happy with, that we were going to proceed and we were going get additional recall power in Labrador, which is critically needed to expand Labrador’s industrial development and, i.e., the GDP of the province.

Now we have gone back and, fortunately, there are a few things that are better in this deal but they were both good. This one has, for different reasons, different time, and I do think that if we drop the ball on this we will not execute a deal.

That is my opinion. I could be wrong. I looked at it this morning before I came in here. Hydro-Québec, sometime in the last year or two, released a thing called action plan 2035 – and I am going to go by memory. They plan a 1,000 megawatts of solar, plus or minus a few – I don’t’ trust my memory. I am not young man anymore.

They have, I think, 1,800 megawatts of energy efficiency, which basically is taking over the hot water boilers in people’s home and doing some of the TakeCharge sort of things that Hydro and Newfoundland and Labrador Power are doing. They had 10,000 megawatts of wind and they had 4,800 megawatts or so of hydro upgrades and development.

They are not going to wait for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we have an opportunity and I think we have to act that. That is my personal opinion.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I would just add to this by saying that, at the moment, we have a concurrence of interest. Quebec is very much in need of planning for and securing its energy future. We do as well, of course, but we also have an interest in overturning the debacle of the ’69 Churchill Falls agreement to the extent we can. You have a federal government that’s not only interested but is committed or is about to commit significant amounts of money to make all this happen.

These things don’t happen by accident. They’re unlikely to be repeated, I think, if we decline this opportunity. Like Mr. Haynes, I’m afraid that if we decline this opportunity, it’s not going to repeat itself anywhere down the road and we will regret it in the long term.

SPEAKER: Okay.

The minister’s time has now expired.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you all for being here today. I appreciate your time and your efforts on the board and at NL Hydro.

I have notes from the last little while so bear with me. Just to follow-up on some questions by the minister about the cost of maintenance, and then I think he followed up with, essentially a line of questioning that it would be important to do this deal to make sure there’s enough money for the maintenance. But surely the decision of the board is not based on maintenance and just getting money in for a quick cash injection now. I’d be really disappointed and surprised if that was the case. So I guess I’d ask the board to comment on that.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Certainly that’s not the only reason to do this. It was just an added – the question was about maintenance and the cost of maintenance. I don’t think CF(L)Co will struggle to pay its bills, but that’s a CF(L)Co board issue as opposed to this particular issue. It’s just a side benefit of it all.

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

J. HOGAN: I just want to talk a little bit about, briefly, the 2024 MOU, and I believe you said you were all on the board – I think Dr. Loomis said for almost a decade, and I think Mr. Haynes said 2023. So you would have been there to vote on the 2024 MOU, and I assume that’s accurate.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: The only change on the board since 2024 is there was a new chair appointed to the board this June. Otherwise, all members of the board are the same.

SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: (Inaudible) I think, from my recollection, and there’s been a lot of questions and a lot of information and statements and opinions expressed on the 2 per cent escalator and the Gull Island financing from 2024. I think it goes without saying that that would have been part of the package that you voted on in 2024. The 2 per cent escalator would have been part of that yes vote. Is that correct for both of you?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: That is correct.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Correct.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

(Inaudible). Are we able to get a copy of the Churchill Falls upgrade pricing model similar to the one that was provided for the Gull Island pricing model late last night? Churchill Falls upgrade pricing model.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I believe, does have that pricing model available.

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

J. HOGAN: I would hope they would have it available and I would ask if they can provide it to the Opposition.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: We can certainly make that available should it want to be tabled in this House. Absolutely. Yes.

SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

The Minister of Energy, just briefly after you all sat down this afternoon, tabled a document that says Churchill Falls Agreement Gull Island Development. Speaker, I guess, I’d ask the invited guests if they’ve actually seen this document before?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. Could you repeat the question, please?

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

J. HOGAN: The Minister of Energy tabled, just as you sat down this afternoon, a document entitled Churchill Falls Agreement Gull Island Development. I wonder if the invited guests have seen this document before?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m not aware of that being provided to the board of directors. I’m not entirely sure what specific document you’re asking about but if it’s materials that have been created by government for public communications purposes, not all of that has been provided to the board of directors. I’d need to know specifically what it was.

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

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I totally appreciate that. I know what it’s like to have to ask questions without having documents. It’s quite frustrating. This document on the bottom of page 3 actually has Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on it so perhaps, Speaker, I’m going to suggest we take a recess so the invited guests can review this and then we can ask questions about it.

SPEAKER: Are the other Members agreeable to do that. I was going to request a recess in ½ hour but we could take it now if it’s on the concurrence of everybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: I’m fine with that.

SPEAKER: You’re fine with that.

Okay, we’re going to take a brief recess. We’ll say 10 minutes.

The House is now in recess.

Recess

SPEAKER (Lane): Order, please!

We’re now going to continue where we were. The Leader of the Official Opposition still has 10:35 on the clock.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The invited guests have seen the document. Can they comment on whether they’ve seen it before or is this their first time seeing it?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The document, as far as we can tell, is a summary of the Gull Island development as is contained in the DCIA. So while the board would have not seen this specific document in this format before, all of the information that is in here has been provided to the board, as it has considered and reviewed and approved entering into of the DCIA.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you.

I guess, Mr. Ladha can confirm, I guess, he’s obviously read through it and he’s confirming that the board has seen all this information, previously throughout the last number of months.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Generally, yes. I have not read every word in the last 10 minutes but generally yes, everything that’s contained in here, the board is aware of.

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

J. HOGAN: Generally and I won’t hold him to any specific words or terms or anything like that, that’s fine, I appreciate that.

Maybe someone from the board or Mr. Ladha can confirm the protocol, on the last page it does have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro logo on the bottom right corner. Confirm the protocol of the board approving any document that goes out in conjunction with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which the logo is there as well.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Speaker.

So the board’s oversight role would not extend to what I would consider a management decision in issuing communications or other explanatory materials based on information that they’ve already seen and approved. That would be a management-level decision that wouldn’t rise to the Board of Directors’ level.

SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

Just to confirm the board at no time approves any public communications such as documents like this or TV ads or radio ads or Facebook posts et cetera, et cetera. That would all be approved by management, is that correct?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s correct.

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

J. HOGAN: Earlier you were asked about, I guess, your political role and the answer which everyone appreciates was you have no political role, you’re a nonpolitical entity as the board, I appreciate that. I would ask how does the board feel about the fact that with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro on this document it also has, in the bottom left, “a better deal for all of us” which was a slogan during the Progressive Conservative 2025 General Election campaign, which would be a very political slogan, now in conjunction with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s logo which certainly someone could see that as a crossover, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would be political.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA; Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in terms of communications that are released by the government, which I believe this was, notwithstanding that it contains Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s logo, as it contains information that would have been provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the board does not have a role in that. That’s simply not a decision that the board would be required to make or be apprised of.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

The board has a duty, as you talked about to act in the best interests of the company. Does it give the board any unease knowing that there was a political logo attached to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s logo.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: I guess my response would be, Mr. Speaker, that we are a Crown corporation. Our shareholder is the people of this province who are represented currently by this government, and when we are asked to provide information to them, we do so accordingly, and it’s not our determination as to how that’s deployed, or at least the purposes for which it’s deployed, as long as the information is accurate.

I guess that’s probably the best way that I can answer the question.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to clarify. My colleague from Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair had asked a question about the price that Hydro-Québec is paying as a result of the 2026 agreement which was 5.5 cents – this is from what Hydro-Québec is saying – compared to the 2024 deal which was 6.0 cents. The Minister of Energy and Mines was asking about .2 cents. To be clear the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair was not asking about how much Hydro-Québec is paying from 1969.

In any event, the answer was essentially that the board would not be concerned with what Hydro-Québec is paying. It’s concerned with the deal as it pertains to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but I guess I would ask, wouldn’t what Hydro-Québec is paying being the basis for negotiations in the sense that you want them to pay as much as possible and you would have had a target about how much you think they would afford to pay. That would be your target in terms of negotiations and where you want to get. I think it will be troubling to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to hear that during negotiations Hydro-Québec’s payments were not taken into consideration.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I can clarify. What Hydro-Québec is paying specifically for Gull Island and Churchill Falls is, in fact, set out in the DCIA. It’s very clear the payments that Hydro-Québec are making to CF(L)Co. I don’t believe that’s in dispute. I believe what’s being discussed is then what Hydro-Québec might say it’s net cost is when it does things like factor in its dividends that it’s receiving from both of those developments, the global cost of supply from Labrador, but the cost that Hydro-Québec is paying to CF(L)Co and to Gull Island, Gull Island less so because it depends on the ultimate capital cost, but certainly CF(L)Co is explicit in the DCIA and not up for debate.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you for that clarity.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the legislation and the objects of the corporation. Briefly, 14(1) is the objects of the corporation in accordance with these priorities and (a) would be to “develop and purchase power on an economic and efficient basis.” I would suggest that’s what’s being done here, and (b) would be to “supply power, at rates consistent with sound financial administration, for domestic, commercial” and “industrial … uses in the province.”

I would read that as, (b), making sure that ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador are looked after and, (a), the ability to develop, purchase power on an economic and efficient basis, which, as I said, we’re talking about here is my suggestion.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I think sometimes may want an explanation about how this deal will affect their rates. I wonder if you could explain to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians how you act in the best interests of the company and blend your obligations under (a) and (b) of section 14.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As it relates to ratepayers for Newfoundland and Labrador specifically from Churchill Falls and Gull Island, I don’t know if I’m answering the question, but the Interconnected System in Labrador is currently supplied exclusively from Churchill Falls. The 0.2 cents that Hydro-Québec pays, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro also pays that to CF(L)Co and that is then factored into the rates that the Labrador Interconnected customers pay. Just by virtue of the CF(L)Co price going up, again, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will purchase from CF(L)Co at the same price as Hydro-Québec, so that 0.2 cent power will be no more.

We’ve talked about the escalation that is contained in the CF(L)Co PPA starting at 1.8 cents escalating annually at an average of 14 cents to 2042 and 2.6 per cent thereafter. That will inevitably form part of the rate discussions for customers predominantly in Labrador because there’s not capacity on the Labrador-Island Link to get that supply to the Island. All of that rate design is still subject to oversight and approval of the Public Utilities Board during Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s general rate applications.

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

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I’m just going to go back to some questions earlier asked by the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave about the negotiation strategy which was approved by the board and the Independent Review Committee report, which I understand, correct if I’m wrong, it’s the same thing that the chair of the Oversight Committee said, was that the negotiation strategy would’ve been more guided negotiations, of course, as opposed to the IRC. But the IRC clearly formed part of the framework.

Did the board address the IRC in any meetings directly and review how many of the IRC recommendations were met?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The board of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was not engaged directly with the IRC. It is correct and it’s been stated here that the IRC report was an input into the negotiating strategy, which was approved by government and then approved by the board, which was the document that guided the negotiating team throughout the process with Hydro-Québec.

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

J. HOGAN: We’ve heard a little bit of different information about the market-based pricing, and I think it’s clear in the IRC was the recommendation to drop it. We’ve heard that it was still part of the negotiations and it became clear very early on that it was going to be difficult if not impossible to agree with Hydro-Québec on a formula.

We also heard a different story from the chair of the Oversight Committee, was that it was part of the negotiations but it was given up. Not because it was difficult to achieve, but because it was given up in the normal course of negotiations. So two different stories there – given up in the normal course, given up early because it was complex. Does the board have any insight into which version is accurate?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: (Inaudible) of the details. Every negotiation is a give and take, and everybody has their wishes and desires and bottom lines, so that’s all I can say. Sorry.

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

You’re done? Okay.

J. HOGAN: (Inaudible.)

SPEAKER: Oh. Okay. You could have asked your question. Anyway.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Speaker.

So now, looking ahead, I’d like to ask first of all Mr. Ladha and then the directors: Has the board thought about the next steps for identifying risks while the definitive agreements are signed?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So in my role as corporate secretary, we have not put forward the detailed plan yet to the board of directors in terms of how the definitive agreements will work in terms of providing information to the board so that it can fulfill its oversight role. However, I think it’s fair to say that we would continue in much the same way we have with the DCIA in terms of having meetings with them to update them on the progress of negotiations, the drafting of the agreements, any deviations or new risks or mitigations that might arise, so I don’t foresee it being significantly different, from the board’s perspective, than it has been throughout the negotiation of the DCIA itself.

SPEAKER: Mr. Loomis. Or Dr. Loomis, sorry.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would simply add that we were, as board, very comfortable with the process that we used to get us to this stage, which is recommendation of the DCIA. We will, I think, follow that in the next step, if we get to that, with regular review and discussion, analysis of the definitive agreements as they come forward.

I think where additional steps might be necessary, we will certainly recommend those and ensure that we have that in place, if required. But the details have yet to be determined.

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: If I could add, the DCIA – and pardon my pun, there is a lot more cement poured in the basement already because a lot more things have been settled. So yes, there is a lot of negotiation to do but some of the hard things have been achieved from my perspective, and I can’t list them.

That is the basis, it is a longer document and there are more things settled and I think that is a positive for going forward. I think the risk is less.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you.

I would ask this question of Mr. Ladha. What approvals would the definitive agreements need before they are signed, whether from the board, government or anyone else?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The definitive agreements will require approval by both the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Board of Directors, by, in certain cases, the CF(L)Co Board of Directors and the provincial government.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: I would ask this question of the directors. How often will the board be updated during negotiations and will it have enough time to review the final agreements before approving them?

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: As per my answer a few minutes ago, I think we intend to follow much the same process, including time frames and time tables. We will certainly make it imperative, if necessary, to management that we will need the time and effort to look at this carefully and bring forward an appropriate recommendation.

But I am not anticipating that that will be a problem because we had no problems in this first phase of the process.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask this question of the directors. Has the board thought about how the agreements will be implemented? Has there been any thought gone into that, and what role you see you, as the board, playing here?

‘

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What hasn’t been discussed here today is an additional subcommittee of the board that exists to oversee Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro’s major projects. So that committee was struck mainly for the major projects in the regulated realm that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is pursuing at Holyrood and Bay d’Espoir, but once the definitive agreements are signed, then we have another major set of projects in Labrador that required ongoing governance and ongoing scrutiny by a subcommittee, I would suggest.

So while it hasn’t been specifically determined, I would anticipate that the board would be updated, either through the Major Project’s committee or the Churchill River Assets committee may continue. So much the same process during construction and development of the project in Labrador. Oversight of the board will still be critical during that process.

SPEAKER: Dr. Loomis.

C. LOOMIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could just add. I think the board is certainly aware that should this come to fruition, there are going to be some major adjustments required, both at the management level for Newfoundland Hydro to take responsibility for these major projects, as well as keeping the lights on, as we do every other day, and that will be subject to scrutiny and consideration and recommendations by the board.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER: That completes the questions I have, Speaker.

I would like to thank the panel for their public service.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I just have a couple of questions here in this round. I want to speak about Lab West, the power and the mines and the power needed to modernize existing operations in Western Labrador. If I cross over from the board to another lever where those questions should be, I know they will let me know.

When is the new transmission line expected to be established and how much power will it deliver?

SPEAKER: Mr. Haynes.

J. HAYNES: Studies and final cost analysis is being done now from information that was provided to the board. I’m not exactly sure of the date, but I know that the proposal is to build a 735-kV line and that can deliver whatever Labrador West needs, absolutely.

There are two 230-kV lines there now that are limited. There is no room for any expansion of any consequence whatsoever. In fact, I think they have to go to the Public Utilities Board for 200-kilowatt business loads or something like that; maybe not residential.

It is a challenging project, it is an expensive project, but a 735-kV line can deliver 2,000 megawatts. You have to look at reliability and how it’s done, but it will serve all that Labrador West needs, along with the existing two lines.

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The current anticipated date of commission of that line is 2032, and that coincides with the availability of the first large new block of power from Churchill Falls that becomes available to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because, of course, we don’t have the transmission and infrastructure available to transmit that new block until that date. So those two things were timed together.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L’Anse au Clair.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

My next question is what are the estimated costs and funding sources for this project?

SPEAKER: Mr. Ladha.

M. LADHA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The estimated cost of the Labrador transmission line, I don’t have the – yes, I do. It’s $2.6 billion currently that’s contained in the public information document that is available on the government website. In terms of the sources of funding, we’ve heard over the last couple of days that there’s a significant source of funding from the federal government. The remainder of the source of funding is yet to be determined with precision, but it would be funded through a combination of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its customers, including predominantly the large industrial customers which are the main reason driving the build.