The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start the proceedings today, the Speaker is very pleased to welcome to our gallery some special guests. We have the Nunatsiavut Government's President, Sarah Leo; we have the First Minister, Darryl Shiwak; we have the Finance and Human Resources Minister, Dan Pottle; and the Speaker of the Nunatsiavut Assembly, Patricia Ford.

Welcome to our Assembly, and welcome to the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I remind members that as they observe our proceedings today, we should be a model Assembly for them to emanate when they go back to Labrador. The bar has been raised for today.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the District of St. John's South; the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile; the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of Bellevue; the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune; and the Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale.

The Member for the District of St. John's South.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, rising on a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, two days ago I presented a petition and that petition was signed off on in June. Back in June, the former Government House Leader had a practice of calling Orders of the Day, and petitions could not be presented when Orders of the Day were called.

Yesterday after I left, because I attended the FFAW convention in Gander, the issue came up as to whether the petition was accurate or not. In fact, the petition relied exclusively on government information that was current and accurate, as provided by the government in June when the petition was signed and when the petition was vetted.

I understand that subsequently the funds that were awarded or approved were not drawn down and, consequently, the funds that were actually used in Trinity – Bay de Verde were less than the amount that was awarded initially. I would like to clarify that point.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Member for St. John's South – the member's statement.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to acknowledge Mr. Alex Street who has been bestowed the honour of receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for his active involvement in and dedication to his community.

Mr. Street has served with the Engineering Division of the Canadian Peacekeepers in Germany and is an active member of the Veterans' Association. He was also active in his community of Black Head for several years advocating for public safety and community improvements, including helping to save and restore the one-bedroom building that served as the schoolhouse and chapel for generations.

I ask all members of the House to join me in offering Alex Street congratulations on the receipt of this award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr. Bill Waechter and the staff of Canadian Tire in Port aux Basques on recently winning a national contest by obtaining the largest national percentage of donations to the Jump Start Program. I would also like to commend all donors to the Jump Start Program for their tremendous support.

Canadian Tire Jump Start is a national charitable program launched by the family of Canadian Tire companies in 2005. The program helps financially disadvantaged children participate in organized sport and recreation by helping cover registration, equipment, and transportation costs.

As a result of this achievement, the Town of Channel-Port aux Basques won a day with Chicago Blackhawks Captain, Jonathan Toews on August 28. The day was filled with many festivities and ended with Jonathan presenting the town with a $10,000 check to match funds contributed from the Jump Start Program.

I was privileged to be included in the celebration and I can truly say it was a very exciting day for the staff of Canadian Tire, local residents, and those who travelled from across the entire Province, as well as the Member for Humber West.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing the hard work of the staff of the Port aux Basques Canadian Tire and their generous customers in obtaining this national recognition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Flatrock for winning the 2012 Tidy Towns award for their category. The town also won the Torngat award for sharing services with other towns.

Mr. Speaker, the Town of Flatrock takes great pride in their community. This was a joint effort between the town council and its residents. Tidy Towns is not an easy award to win. The town had to meet many criteria; however, I knew it was only a matter of time that this town would be a winner. It is a beautiful community that I am proud to call home.

The Torngat award that the town received was for innovation and regional co-operation. The Town of Flatrock works well with its neighbouring towns, sharing such services as firefighting and animal control with the Town of Torbay. It shares recreation and many other initiatives with the Town of Pouch Cove and Bauline.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in congratulating Mayor Kevin Butt and his council and the residents of Flatrock for winning this award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize Mr. Robert Snook. This year, on October 3, Robert was presented with a 2012 Seniors of Distinction Award. He was one of eight recipients in the Province.

Mayor Snook has served as a volunteer on many committees, some of which are: the Eastern Regional Health and Community Services Board; church lay reader; parish council member; three terms on the Sunnyside Town Council, and Mayor since 2009; founder of the Come by Chance Oil Refinery Liaison Committee; Member of the Selection Committee for Memorial University's School of Medicine; and Member of the Truce Sound Committee.

Achievements during his time on council include: Sunnyside being named as top fundraiser for towns with a population of less than 500 in the Mayors March for Heart and Stroke; helping negotiate a grant in lieu of taxes with ExxonMobil for the Hebron construction project at Bull Arm; advocating in securing provincial funding for the construction of an overpass on the TCH for safer access; help organize the 400 anniversary events held in August, 2012, commemorating John Guy's meeting with the Beothuk.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Robert Snook for receiving a 2012 Seniors of Distinction Award.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to congratulate recipients of the Provincial Historic Commemorations Program from my District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune. It is an honour to recognize Mr. John Nick Jeddore, an elder of Miawpukek Mi'Kmaq Mawi'omi, the Conne River Band Council, as a Tradition Bearer under the Provincial Historic Commemorations Program.

Mr. Jeddore has an incredible knowledge of the traditional skills of his people; especially aspects that may be rare or in danger of being lost. He has worked tirelessly to teach and keep traditions of the Mi'Kmaq culture alive and relevant.

Resettlement was also commemorated as an event of provincial significance which influenced the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and continues to evoke a strong emotional response decades after the program has ended.

Thanks to Mr. Doug Wells and the Elliot Premises Management Committee for highlighting this significant event that has found such great expression in the cultural output of the Province's artistic community and residents.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing resettlement and Mr. John Nick Jeddore for their contribution toward making this Province truly unique.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Valmont Academy Boys soccer team had a great kick on the weekend of October 20.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate coach and teacher sponsor, Stephen Earle, and the Vikings Boys soccer team for capturing the schools sports provincial championship that was hosted by St. Joseph's Academy, Lamaline.

Members of the victorious team include: Kyle Burt, Daniel Thomas, Philip Norman, Cody Caines, Jonny Janes, Drake Noble, Skyler Budgell, Brandon Burt, Matthew Burt, and Brenden Keats.

Valmont Academy went undefeated in the six team tournament, outscoring their opponents 26-2. They soundly defeated host school, St. Joseph's Academy in the championship game by a score of 5-0.

All players contributed, commented Coach Stephen Earle. Furthermore, Philip Norman was awarded the most sports minded medal.

With great pride, I invite all hon. members to join me in offering congratulations to Valmont Academy for yet another outstanding achievement in their athletic program and wish them well in their quest for excellence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, since the implementation of the Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy in 2007 there has been a number of success stories. Most recently, I was pleased to participate in the official opening of the Central Newfoundland Waste Management Facility, and in the Western Region the waste management plan is well in progress, including the closure of several dump sites.

In August, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's Curb It recycling program won the 2012 Gold Communication Excellence Award given by the Solid Waste Association of North America. This association's excellence award program recognizes outstanding solid waste programs and facilities that advance the practice of environmentally- and economically-sound solid waste management. They look for a commitment to using effective technologies and processes in system design and operations, advancing worker and community health and safety, and implementing successful public education and outreach programs.

Mr. Speaker, this award was well-deserved. Since the implementation of the program, the city has achieved a participation rate of more than 70 per cent in its first year alone, far exceeding their target of 40 per cent. The program has diverted more than 8 million pounds of recyclables from the landfill in its first year.

The Curb It program certainly meets the goals of the Provincial Solid Waste Management Strategy. In addition to reducing the amount of materials in provincial landfill sites by 50 per cent, the strategy encourages residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to participate in waste diversion programs such as recycling and composting. The strategy also aims to reduce the total number of waste disposal sites by 80 per cent, eliminate open burning of waste at disposal sites, and phase out incinerators and unlined landfills.

Mr. Speaker, full implementation of the strategy is on target for 2020. A total of $145.3 million has been invested in the strategy in the Province, $82.8 million of the provincial government, and $62.5 million from Gas Tax funding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members to join me in congratulating the City of St. John's on this prestigious award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the Ministerial Statement. I, too, and people on this side also would like to congratulate St. John's on winning this award, Mr. Speaker.

The better part about it, I am just so glad that the government is following this Solid Waste Management plan that the Liberal government put in, in 2003. I just congratulate the government for following on a good plan.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our environment is very important to all of us in this House of Assembly and everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Anything that we can do to improve the environment is better for all of us as citizens. This recycling program, Mr. Speaker, may be able to be a great model for all communities across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and St. John's may be a leader in this.

I say to the minister, I read in your statement that Western Newfoundland may be well on its way. I say to the minister, there is a lot of work to be done yet. I ask the minister to send officials out.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget Labrador in solid waste management. We must develop a policy for Labrador also, so that all the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will become more friendly towards our environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I would also like to thank the City of St. John's on this prestigious award.

It says a lot about investing in environmentally sound projects that have a positive way on people's way of thinking their healthy way of life. The Curb-It program is but one example. The practices of environmental stewardship can be rewarding and they also have an impact with the proper investment of funds as the City of St. John's has shown.

The practice of environmental stewardship is also becoming a major employer worldwide, and hence the government's investment into waste management and Province-wide recycling must continue. As well, the investment it will take to mitigate extra costs to the environment should also include measures to put a stop to illegal dumping. I would remind the government that we simply cannot afford not to address this. It was a government promise to the municipalities that they would also get the help to address it.

Saving our environment comes with a cost any time that we do invest. If we do not, then there is also that added cost. Again, my congratulations to the city for this award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Nunatsiavut Government made several submissions to the Joint Review Panel regarding the environmental assessment of Lake Melville. The Joint Review Panel in the report agreed that Nunatsiavut had recommended an environmental assessment of Lake Melville.

I ask the Premier: Why are you ignoring the recommendations of the Joint Review Panel and neglecting the health concerns of the Labrador Inuit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There has been extensive consultation with the Nunatsiavut Government. Mr. Speaker, I can say that in my various portfolios I have always had a good relationship with the Nunatsiavut Government. The Premier has met with their new President and has had discussions. They had the opportunity to present to the Joint Review Panel, Mr. Speaker, and there were a number of recommendations in relation to the environmental assessments.

The major one, I think, that I have heard discussion of is the assessment of downstream effects, which the federal government accepts and which did not require action by the Province. Nalcor is monitoring and will continue to monitor the effects of methyl mercury and, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and I can assure the Members of the Nunatsiavut Government that our government is committed as best we can to the protection of the environment and to the protection of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, it is interesting to hear the minister talk about meaningful consultations, because it really speaks to and goes right to this next question, Mr. Speaker.

The Nunatsiavut Government has sent several requests to both Nalcor and government to engage in meaningful consultations on the Muskrat Falls development. To date, there has been no response from Nalcor or government yet the minister has stated that all the Aboriginal groups have been consulted.

I ask the Premier: What will it take for you to acknowledge the rights of the Nunatsiavut Government instead of ignoring their health concerns associated with the Muskrat Falls project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There certainly have been extensive consultations. It is my understanding that between May and September of 2010, Nalcor had over eighty records of engagement with Nunatsiavut representatives, Mr. Speaker. The Joint Review Panel consulted with the Nunatsiavut Government. The Nunatsiavut Government participated in the public hearings, Mr. Speaker. The former President Lyall wrote our Premier on a number of occasions and the Premier responded to the President. The new President of the Nunatsiavut Government met with the Premier and they had a discussion.

Mr. Speaker, while there may be disagreement on certain issues, that does not mean we have not consulted and that does not mean that the consultations are not meaningful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the study being carried about by the Nunatsiavut Government shows that Lake Melville is already contaminated by elevated levels of mercury because of the Upper Churchill. Labrador-Grenfell Health has also confirmed that mercury levels are elevated in people who eat fish caught in Lake Melville.

Now that the minister is very open to these consultations I will ask: Will you now admit that the possible impact of the mercury levels from Muskrat Falls is far greater than Nalcor initially indicated? Will you now commit to working with the Nunatsiavut Government on furthering their research?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As we have indicated publicly, a major reason for doing Muskrat Falls are the environmental benefits of this project: the use of clean, green renewable energy. The Upper Churchill, for example, I think took in over 5,000 square kilometres of flooding. The environmental footprint of Muskrat Falls, I think altogether, is about 110 kilometres or 120 kilometres.

There is no question that there are effects of methylmercury. They are unfortunately one of the problems with flooding; however, I understand that consumption advisories are a key mitigation measure for increases in methylmercury concentration.

Nalcor has committed to a human health risk assessment, as well as monitoring fish and seal health in Goose Bay, Lake Melville, and throughout the Lower Churchill system. Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about all of these issues and we will continue to work on them, as will Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Minister of Environment and Conservation admitted that there will be significant environmental impacts in Lake Melville as a result of Muskrat Falls. He further stated, Mr. Speaker, that Canada's health guidelines on mercury consumption will have to be applied.

I ask the minister: Now that you have admitted that there will be negative effects, will you now consult with Nunatsiavut Government as required by the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question as found by the Joint Review Panel that there are adverse effects of methylmercury. That unfortunately comes with the flooding. It cannot be eliminated, but it can be monitored and Nalcor is committed to the monitoring.

Mr. Speaker, one point I do need to make clear is that the dam and the transmission link are outside the Labrador Inuit claims settlement area. They are in the zone in which they have certain rights, but they are not within the land claims area as indicated by the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, transport of mercury from the Churchill River has been shown to extend along Lake Melville into the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area. Nunatsiavut Government research also suggests that increased mercury levels will result from flooding in the Muskrat Falls Project.

I ask the minister: Will you acknowledge the direct connection between mercury levels in the Churchill River and the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area now that the Nunatsiavut Government has data proving the impact of these concentrations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there were at least five or six recommendations of the Joint Review Panel which relate to this kind of issue. There are six recommendations – 6.4 up to approximately 6.9. The assessment of downstream effects, Mr. Speaker, is one that the federal government has accepted and there is a plan outlined there as to how that will be dealt with; 6.8, Mr. Speaker, deals with the published analysis of downstream effects over time, which our government accepts in intent. Some of these recommendations in relation to methylmercury and the downstream effects are in the hands of the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor has committed to working with the people, to doing a human health risk assessment, and to continue to monitor the effects of methylmercury. Again, I must repeat, Mr. Speaker, that these lands in which the dam and the transmission are being built are not within the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Settlement Area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the minister as he speaks here that you cannot just ignore everything that is going on in all of Lake Melville when we talk about the benefits in other parts of the Province. The people in Labrador, and in particular the Labrador Inuit, are raising those concerns and we need to listen to them.

Mr. Speaker, presenting accurate information in this House is expected. Both last week and this week the Premier stated that the Public Utilities Board endorsed her Muskrat Falls Project. We all know this is not an accurate statement.

I ask the Premier: The PUB has been clearly critical of the Muskrat Falls Project and did not endorse this project, so why are you presenting inaccurate information to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, words are important. They really are. That is why we recommend that parties opposite read these reports they are referring to.

Mr. Speaker, what the Public Utilities Board said was they concurred with Nalcor and MHI based on Decision Gate 2 numbers that Muskrat Falls was the least-cost alternative for ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no ambivalence about it in the report, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what it says and that is what I said here earlier this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I have read the documents. I have read them all. I would ask the Premier to go to the executive summary, page 4, second paragraph, easy to read, and you will find out exactly what I am raising here.

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise the Premier is releasing inaccurate information. It is what her government has repeatedly done on Muskrat Falls. For example, the Maritime Link from Nova Scotia: this privately-held link from Nova Scotia was once publicly stated to go as far as Bottom Brook on the West Coast. Well, newly released maps show otherwise.

I ask the Premier: Will the Maritime Link, which is owned 100 per cent by Emera, actually go all the way to Granite Canal in Central Newfoundland, which is halfway across this Island?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of any changes in the plans for the Maritime Link or the Labrador-Island Transmission Link in terms of from Decision Gate 2 to Decision Gate 3. The maps have always been clear, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know whether the member opposite is referring to other lines that are being built, but there is no question, the maps from day one have shown which way the link was going to go, Mr. Speaker. For 20 per cent of the energy, Emera pays 20 per cent of the cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I would like for the minister to clarify, where is the link going, because your map showing the Gull Island Development shows that the Bottom Brook still does. The householder takes it into Granite Canal. We have asked Nalcor this question and they are saying yes to Granite Canal.

Will you please confirm: Is the Maritime Link, owned by Emera, going to Granite Canal or is it stopping at Bottom Brook?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, the member opposite met with Nalcor a few weeks ago, the questions were answered by Nalcor. I am not aware of any changes, but let me correct one point that the member opposite said, Mr. Speaker. One of the benefits of this deal with Emera is that thirty-five years from now we will own that link. It is not a matter, Mr. Speaker, of Emera owning the link. Essentially, what they will do, we will give them a certain amount of power and we will own the link, Mr. Speaker. In other words, Nova Scotia is paying for us to own a billion dollar asset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, in a December, 2009 news release, government said that exterior renovations for the Confederation Building would cost $20 million. In November, 2010, they let a contract for $34.3 million. Yesterday, in Question Period, the minister confirmed that costs were over $50 million. That is 150 per cent over your original budget.

I ask the minister: How could your budget process be so wrong, and how can you be 150 per cent over your original budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, and tell the hon. members of the House, what is wrong here is the information that the hon. member is trying to say existed in a December, 2009 release. What the 2009 release said is that the total cost of the project is expected to exceed $20 million. We were quite clear, Mr. Speaker, in saying that the cost was going to be greater than $20 million. For the hon. member opposite to suggest we said it was going to be $20 million is completely wrong, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that there was more work to be done once they opened the envelope; however, the news release at the time stated that the $34.3 million would cover the cost of the window replacements, the roof repair, and the brickwork. The same thing that you said was the cost overrun.

I ask the minister: If all those things were taken into consideration in 2010, why are you still 150 per cent over budget? When is the expected completion date, and what is the final cost of this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member has given me an opportunity to further explain some of the details that he is failing to deliver on.

One of the significant differences – when you go into a renovation project, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the costs can be much greater than someone would expect it to be. It is not like new construction, you are going into what you sometimes are not fully aware of what is inside. What happened, Mr. Speaker, is that early on we thought the small amount for the limestone that encases the windows would have to be replaced, it turned out that almost 100 per cent of limestone needed to be replaced and that escalated our cost.

I can remind the hon. member that there are lots of times in history that we were not sure of what you were going to get into until you got at the job. A good example would be Hull 100, now the Nonia. Look at how much money we had to spend to retrofit that ferry and get that operational for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Minister, the government can predict the $8 billion project on Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, the Immigrant Investor Fund totalled $238 million approximately, as of March 31, 2011. The AG said we already lost $5 million on this fund. Quebec has made $131 million on their fund. Despite a Province-wide need to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – economic development money, not one loan for economic development has ever been made out of this account.

My question to the Premier: Why is this money sitting idle in the bank accounts instead of funding economic developments in this Province and costing our taxpayers $5 million? Someone answer it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Immigrant Investor Fund, the Province entered an agreement with the federal government in 2005. It was renewed after five years again in 2010. That fund is for significant economic development projects. To date, there were some reviewed but due to the vast suite of programs we have for infrastructure, other programs were used for that.

In 2010, the Auditor General did say in lieu of not investing some of that money we should look at other investments to make sure we are covering off the carrying fees for the money we need to pay back. Originally, the fee was 7 per cent; it was dropped to 5 per cent. Today, the fund is fully secure. It can meet all its requirements. There is actually a surplus now, since 2005, of $3 million in the fund. The fund is stable, it is there, and it is available for projects that we identify that would suit that fund, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, we have information that government may use this fund to pay for Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I ask the Premier: Is your government considering using this fund for Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, the fund is there, $256 million; the fees to pay back – the schedule is already required and paid back in the six years; that process is underway. The fund is there. As projects come forward and are recommended by various departments, they will be looked at, and overall infrastructure. Other programs are there as well. It is there to be used, and we will see where it goes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, government's energy plan lists the need to develop energy efficiency and conservation programs as a key goal for future energy opportunities in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In determining the Province's future energy needs, why were substantial energy efficiency and conservation programs not considered?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Conservation demand has been a focus of Nalcor and of our government. There is no question that we want people to improve their conservation efforts, Mr. Speaker, but what the provincial load forecast indicates, what Manitoba Hydro International indicates is that we need power and we need it now.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial load forecast indicates that we will need an extra 200 megawatts in demand on the Island by 2020. Those 200 megawatts of energy are not going to come from conservation demand. Mr. Speaker, conservation demand, while important, is one aspect of a bigger picture and the bigger picture here is that we need Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that provinces such as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have successfully lowered energy demand immensely by creating energy efficiency corporations and promoting programs. In this Province very little has been done, with only a few small government projects.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is government's zeal to develop Muskrat Falls blinding them to the wisdom of energy efficiency?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems a couple of months ago we were blinded to the effect of large-scale wind. I have not heard her ask any questions about that this time around.

Mr. Speaker, $23 million has gone into the Green Fund. We have a Climate Change Office. We are aware of the importance of environmental change and benefits. That is one of the reasons that we have to develop Muskrat Falls: to eliminate the poison spewing out of Holyrood. A number of years ago, the member opposite stood outside the plant and protested against it. Where is she today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government's much-touted Energy Plan has many references to energy efficiency measures and demand management, yet government shows little enthusiasm for this essential aspect of any responsible energy plan. These initiatives are very successful in other provinces. For example, in Manitoba their Power Smart Program has saved 575 megawatts to date, resulting in savings of over $600 million to businesses and homeowners.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't your government follow your own Energy Plan and develop strong electricity efficiency programs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that conservation demand and energy efficiency programs are very important, and they are one aspect of what we are trying to do as a government, but we have a developing Province.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that we have four members of the NDP opposite representing the City of St. John's who are voting against Muskrat Falls, with all the benefits that will come to St. John's. Here we have an Opposition party who simply go – they are the grasshopper effect – from issue to issue to issue, always finding a reason to be negative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government's plan for financing Muskrat Falls is to lock the Province's ratepayers into buying a block of power for fifty years, whether they need it or not. Energy efficiency programs slow or lower demand for electricity. A lower demand for electricity from Muskrat Falls would result in higher rates to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What will be the incentive for consumers to lower energy use, since higher rates would be the result of a decrease in demand?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say: therein you have the essential difference between what is happening on this side of the House and what is happening on the other side of the House. We see a future for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a vision for Newfoundland and Labrador. We have a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to be the manager of decline, if you want Newfoundland and Labrador to be a bedroom community for Alberta, then we should do exactly what the Leader of the NDP says and fix up Holyrood and forget about our future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on www.newfoundlandandlabrador.com boast our extensive 5,000-plus kilometre trail network. The tourism site scripts Cain's Quest, Labrador and L'Anse aux Meadows World UNESCO Site as trail possibilities, but supplies no trail details.

I ask the Minister of Tourism: Why is the interactive map of snowmobiler cool spots showing only seven western and central trail destinations yet fails to recognize Labrador and trails north of Gros Morne, as both areas have the most extended snowmobiling season? Is this an oversight?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what can I say about tourism in this Province, other than we have doubled our marketing budget from $6 million to $13 million? We now are knocking on the door of a $900 million industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We are leading the country in growth in the tourism industry. While the rest of the world is floundering, we are doing what is right in the tourism industry in this Province and we are darn proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is poorly promoting winter tourism in the shoulder season when it comes to the trails on their Web site and the investment in infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, last week we debated legislation surrounding our groomed trails. The Federation of Snowmobilers depend on the sale of trail stickers to ensure proper grooming. Since the 2004 fees, there has been a decline in paying users. Grooming in this Province is unacceptable and people who would buy trail passes are telling me that they will not this season.

I ask the Minister of Tourism: Will he ask Transportation and Works to share responsibility for grooming our off-road trail network to advance an all-important winter recreation and tourism industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland trails and the Labrador trails look after their grooming. They charge a rate; it is a user-pay system. It is something that has been ongoing now for the last number of years, which is working very well.

As for our winter tourism product, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more obvious than what we do for our winter tourism product. If the hon. member would stay tuned – and I hate to give him a sneak peek, but he should watch our tourism ads this coming season where he can have a good example of how we are promoting snowmobiling in this Province. If, last season, he happened to look on-line, he would certainly see a snippet of those upcoming ads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the five-year-old ISSP/Pathways report urged the Department of Education to embrace transparency and make information on special education assessments and wait-lists available to the public. The ISSP/Pathways Commission said that parents have a right to be fully informed about these assessments and wait-lists.

Why is this minister continuing to hide this information from parents, while ignoring the problems faced by students with special education needs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you would swear to God when the member opposite gets up and asks the question that we, over on this side, have no feeling for students. Mr. Speaker, we will let the people of the Province know that the NDP do not have the monopoly on caring for students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I outlined, we have an ISSP process in place; seventy of the seventy-five recommendations that were offered have been implemented. We have spent $7 million in the past five years to implement that plan. We put $15 million in, Mr. Speaker, so that we could put another 25,000 hours into the system to support parents, students, and teachers who are involved in that –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the ISSP/Pathways Commission said that the Department of Education has a responsibility to provide special education services in a transparent manner, yet parents are expected to believe that services are being provided effectively without adequate evidence.

Is the Minister of Education finally willing to admit that his government's inaction on this has actually made the situation worse for students with special needs, instead of better?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I just do not believe what I hear from this member sometimes. The man does not understand education – he does not understand education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is a team approach to addressing individual student's needs – Individual Student Support Planning, ISSP. The millions of dollars that we have invested, the $7 million to have this plan brought in place, the $15 million to support parents, students, teachers, in that process is one that is working. We continue to see if there are ways that we can improve upon the process, but the ISSP is a good plan, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: – is the single largest investment in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: As legislators we have a duty to ensure the right decision is made on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It may very well be the right decision, but utility rates that people are being told they will have to pay are based on projected increases in electricity demand, and therefore more electricity bills spread out to share the cost.

The people of this Province are only getting approximately 40 per cent of the power, yet they are paying 100 per cent of the bill through their utility bills. In briefings with Nalcor, we have been advised that should the increased (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to very quickly pose his question.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this has been confirmed by two different individuals. I ask (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the member that there is a time allocation for questions and for answers. I ask all hon. members to be mindful of those time allocations.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, although I did not quite understand the question, I think it relates to electricity rates. Essentially, what we have seen with the paper that has been put out by the Department of Natural Resources and the rate calculator, Mr. Speaker, is that people can figure out what their rates are going to be with and without Muskrat Falls.

Essentially, rates went up $45 per month between 2001 and 2011 – nothing to do with Muskrat Falls. They will go up, Mr. Speaker, between 2011 and 2016 without Muskrat Falls. What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that without Muskrat Falls, power rate increases will be double what they will be with Muskrat Falls from 2017 to 2030.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Will government guarantee that the electric bill projections being used by Nalcor will be frozen even if we have to use the potential profits from the sale of excess power sales to guarantee those projected rates?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done is provide to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, the most up-to-date and accurate information we have today. It is based on the price of oil, but none of us knows exactly where the price of oil is going. The one thing I can tell you it is not going down to $50 a barrel.

Mr. Speaker, the price of electricity rates will depend on the price of oil without Muskrat Falls. With Holyrood, prices will go up – with Muskrat Falls, down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order in relation to comments made by the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services yesterday, Tuesday, November 27, 2012.

After reviewing the official transcript of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the salaries paid to early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador, the minister said: "They are, in fact, the highest paid in Atlantic Canada." Yet, Mr. Speaker, according to the Early Years Study 3, which the minister should familiarize herself with if she has not already, the earnings of early childhood educators in Newfoundland and Labrador are well below the ECEs in other Atlantic Canadian provinces.

We are all aware, Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation on members of the House when making comments in this hon. House to ensure that all information provided is accurate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As I listen to the member make his point of order, I want to remind the member that yesterday there was a point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, which is the subject of your comments now. There was some response to that in yesterday's session. I agreed that I would review Hansard and I would provide a ruling to the House, and until I deliberated and made a ruling to the House.

I had an opportunity yesterday for those who wanted to make comment with respect to that point of order to do so. As I listen to your comments now, they are very much in response to the point of order raised by the hon. member. The Speaker has not ruled yet on that particular piece.

I would ask the member to be mindful of the process for dealing with points of order, especially when the Speaker has already indicated how he plans to deal with the point of order raised yesterday and all of the points raised with respect to the issue in yesterday's discussion. So until I have had a chance to review the transcript, I will provide a ruling, as I said yesterday I would.

I would remind the member, as he continues with his comments: if it is a new point of order, fine, but if it is relative to yesterday's point of order, to remember what the Speaker had said yesterday.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to your ruling and I hope the minister will withdraw her erroneous comments following your ruling.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, during Question Period – and I do this without the benefit of the transcript of Hansard – and during questions by the Member for Bay of Islands, the Minister of Finance could clearly be heard saying: Tell the truth. Such language is unparliamentary and I would ask that the comment be retracted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask you to review Hansard, but I think the member clearly knows when we talk about parliamentary language, that there was no language made by any member on this side of the House directed or accusatory to any member on the other side of the House. We would expect every member in this House to be telling the truth. That should be a given when we come in through the door, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will undertake to review Hansard.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if I could (inaudible).

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

MR. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) the hon. member to tell the truth. He was making a reference to a document in 2009. If that is unparliamentarily, I certainly would withdraw (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I do thank him for bringing this to a closure, but I do remind all hon. members that if you are standing in the House to withdraw a comment, you do so without qualifying in any fashion. Just stand and either apologize to the House or withdraw the comment, whichever is the case and without any qualifying comments.

MR. MARSHALL: I withdraw the comments, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will bring forward a motion to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act. (Bill 49)

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

This being Wednesday and just a couple of seconds left before 3:00 o'clock, there is a private member's motion on the books today in the name of the Member for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am very sorry; I am wishing my time away. I apologize to the House for that. We do have, you are right, ten minutes left.

We have time for Petitions, the next item on the agenda.

MR. SPEAKER: I will acknowledge the hon. the Member for St. Barbe. He has three of those ten minutes.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed the government would develop a new home care model and give the people an option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in this Province.

And in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to showcase, without their names, two individuals in my district who receive home care. One is a gentleman who will be forty on December 1, and I expect to be attending his fortieth birthday party. He is in a situation whereby he is qualified for fifty-six hours of home care; however, his mother who is a qualified home care worker who is sixty-five years of age, if she provides the home care to him then she gets forty hours of home care and he forfeits the other sixteen hours of home care.

Mr. Speaker, it should not matter on the number of hours, who supplies the home care. He should not have to forfeit the sixteen hours because his mother, a qualified home care worker, provides that home care.

In the case of another more elderly resident in my constituency, this lady suffers from Alzheimer's, and she is cared for at home. One of the issues for her is that she is quite afraid of strangers. She is very unruly when a stranger is present; however, the family has been able to have a qualified family member, a home care provider, provide this lady with home care services. She is more at comfort knowing the person but the number of hours is shortened. The limitations placed on her – then if the family member has to move away, as was the case recently, then she is stuck with having to try to re-qualify a stranger all over again when there are qualified home care providers within the family unit who can provide home care services.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the stories that are happening in our Province. The cost to the system is no different than if family members were providing the services, and these were promises that were made repeatedly by this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students who attend smaller community schools are more likely to participate in extracurricular activities; and

WHEREAS Swift Current Academy's extracurricular school activities, such as our basketball team and drama club, provide enriching after school programs for students; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Swift Current Academy will deny students fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy and active school environment; and

WHEREAS small schools research shows that students who attend smaller community schools have a greater sense of belonging, feel safer, and are less likely to drop out and leave before graduation; and

WHEREAS distance education delivered through the Department of Education Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation has proven to be successful for many students who have graduated from Swift Current Academy and gone on to attend college and university programs.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to maintain Swift Current Academy as a K-12 school.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there was a public meeting last night to address the proposed busing of Swift Current Academy Senior High students, an hour each way, over to Clarenville.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: As the Member for Bellevue is well aware, parents, teachers, and students at SCA are proud of the achievements of their small community school. It is fitting to provide the following quote from a parent and teacher who addressed the trustees of the Eastern School District last night. She said: The research evidence is available, and it says quite clearly that safe, caring, active, healthy community schools are best for our students physically, emotionally, and academically. The students at Swift Current Academy do not deserve to be sitting on a bus for hours a day travelling to another community. They deserve to remain in our community school where they will be in an environment that provides that greater sense of community and belonging that has proven a positive impact on student learning. We ask you, our trustees, vote to keep SCA a K-12 community school.

A lot of teachers, students, and parents went on to discuss the successes of using the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation as a mechanism –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – for delivering necessary courses to high school students at Swift Current Academy, and I think they have been quite clear about their interest in keeping their K-12 school. So, I hope the members opposite will think about that and hear the concerns of these petitioners.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS transgendered people face high risk of discrimination, violence, underemployment, and lack of access to housing and other services; and

WHEREAS a recent EGALE Canada survey found that 90 per cent of transgendered youth hear transphobic comments regularly from other students and one-quarter hear such comments from teachers; and

WHEREAS the Public Health Agency of Canada reports that nearly half of trans youth seriously considered suicide and one-fifth attempted it in the previous year; and

WHEREAS all individuals should have equal opportunity to live their lives and meet their needs without being hindered or prevented by discriminatory practices based on gender identity or gender expression; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to amend the Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression in the list of prohibitive grounds of discrimination.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the transgendered people of this Province are dying – some of them are dying – to have their voices heard. We know there are high levels of suicide or attempted suicide among transgendered youth in this Province. It is not a matter of: Oh, wouldn't this be nice? It is not a matter of: Oh, it is a fringe group of people.

We are talking about our youth who are losing their lives to extreme discrimination and to extreme violations of their rights. This is a serious matter. Transgendered folks, again, are our brothers, they are our sisters, they are our mothers, they are our doctors, they are lawyers, and they are people who are also active in our society.

Mr. Speaker, there is no valid reason on the face of this earth not to go ahead and progress with this legislation, to change our Human Rights Act. It is being done all over the country. It is being done all over the world. Nova Scotia is proudly – proudly – announcing the fact they are amending their Human Rights Act. The federal government is doing it. They are in the process right now. There is no reason – no valid reason – anymore not to do the right thing. Quebec is poised and ready.

All human rights lawyers know this is important, it is a done deal, it is a progressive thing to do, and it is the right thing to do. I am dismayed by our Minister of Justice, who has said there are no gaps in our human rights legislation. We know that there are gaps. It is necessary to explicitly state gender identity and gender expression in our Human Rights Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I call upon now the Member for Humber Valley to introduce the motion that stands on the Order Paper in his name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I read into the House a resolution regarding the proposed development of the Lower Churchill River, Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: WHEREAS the Board of Commissioner of Public Utilities has the mandate through the Electrical Power Control Act Board to ensure that the Province shall have the most efficient production, transmission, and distribution of power at the lowest possible cost consistent with reliable service; and

WHEREAS the proposed development of Muskrat Falls will have profound effects on the rates paid by electricity users of the Province for decades to come;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to compel Nalcor to submit the proposed Muskrat Falls development to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for a complete and unrestricted review.

This motion is seconded by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

When you look at what we have introduced there, you might say: Well, why is it that you want to do this? Why is it that you want the Public Utilities Board to get involved? Some would say that there has been a previous involvement in this particular process, really, on two occasions. Back in 2000, there was a submission that the development of the Lower Churchill would actually be exempt from the PUB. I will get into that later.

Then, earlier this year, this project did go to the PUB and there were some hearings that were done at the time. Really, it was very inclusive when you look at the recommendations that came out of there. The Public Utilities Board indeed found that there was more information required and that they were not in a position to actually endorse this project.

What is this process all about, Mr. Speaker? We ask ourselves: What is it we are trying to achieve here? The process really is about the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about their families. Is about business owners. Is about the various associations that use electricity on a day-to-day basis. What we want to do here is make sure that they have the lowest cost possible, not of two options but indeed the lowest cost possible and that service would be reliable for the generations to come.

In a non-regulatory environment, how do we protect consumers? How do we protect people like ratepayers in our Province? Well, typically, in a true business sense, this is done just through competition. This is normally what we see as us, as customers, and as our ratepayers, as customers, what they do is that you will see that the business itself, through the competitive environment, actually almost self-regulates to some degree. This prevents, as you know, price gouging in many, many sectors of the purchases that we make and the services that we use.

So, in a non-regulated environment it is the competitive forces that keep the prices in check. This is typically how just about all our business is conducted. What happens is people will shop around and make sure that they get the best prices.

In the case where you have a monopoly, and electricity usually falls in this area, you need to do something different. There has to be a different process. There needs to be something to protect the consumers. There needs to be something in place to protect the ratepayers. We expect our utilities to reinvest and make sure that utility is in good shape, it is reliable, and in the position that it can produce energy, produce electricity that is safe for our use.

In the case of a monopoly, what we do, typically, is we put in a board that regulates the rate increases for the utility. In doing so, they want to make sure that there is a rate of return that is required for those utilities to reinvest in that utility so that we do have a consistent, safe, and reliable supply of electricity.

From time to time, the utilities will appear before the Public Utilities Board and they will ask certain questions. They will need to know if the rate increase would be approved or not. This is typically what happens in this environment. In the case of the Muskrat Falls development, there has been a different approach. What we are choosing now is to actually bypass the PUB and go on and we will take a different approach and it would be sanctioned by government, essentially. We go through what they call a sanction process, bypassing the PUB.

The PUB is important to the ratepayers because they would determine all the things that were included in the development, in this particular case of Muskrat Falls, and that if indeed all the costs that were associated are something that can directly affect the ratepayer. Can we get higher rates based on the investment that has been made?

In 2000, there was a previous exemption to the PUB on the Lower Churchill development and that was done for a different reason. At that time it was about economic development; it was about the exporting of power. It had very little impact, if any, on really the rates of the ratepayers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. At this time, this was meant to be exported, so it was an economic development project.

The project that we are looking at and reviewing today is a different project. This project will have a direct impact on the ratepayers of the Province. It will impact what businesses pay for their electricity. It will impact what families pay for their electricity.

The difference is that we are tying this project into a fifty-year commitment. It is a long-term deal. What is happening here is that through a power purchase agreement you will have to make the commitment to this power whether you use it or not. There is really no area here where the ratepayers of this Province can get out of this power purchase agreement. So, you are making this commitment for a long, long time.

Now, if we just ask ourselves and we go back in our history and we say, well what has changed in the last fifty years? If we look into the future and we say, well what can change in the next fifty years? Well, there are a lot of things that can change in the next fifty years. There are a lot of things that will change. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things that have changed in just three years since this project was being developed. This project was announced in 2010. When you think about the architecture, the assembling of the documents for this project, it probably started in 2009. It takes quite a while to do this.

In 2010, what was happening in the energy market is really quite different than even the things that we see today. Things south of the border, our colleagues in the US, they looked at energy to be completely different; whereas today, they are talking about being self-sufficient in 2020 or 2021. Things have changed dramatically.

There was a lot of discussion about the export option, how we could break the stranglehold of Quebec and we would be able to introduce ourselves to markets in New England. Well, do you know what? That opportunity exists, but not anywhere near where we could expect a rate of return or even expect to get our construction costs back. This is indeed a very different project, even today, than it was in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter this project today, we look at two areas that are quite different. As a matter of fact, we went into this in 2010 fully expecting that we had a partner in Emera. Well today, as we are just weeks away, if you listen to the government, just weeks away from sanctioning, we do not know today if Emera is indeed a partner or not. As a matter of fact, Emera has until 2014 to decide if they want to opt in to this project. So, we do not know. There are still a lot of unknowns about this project as it exists today.

The loan guarantee that we talked about, and has been talked about for many, many months now, is still not there. Although, when you listen to the government, it seems to be that this loan guarantee is coming but there was a time that it was not a requirement, that they were prepared to do it without the loan guarantee. Well, things have changed now, and I support that. I do not think this ever should go ahead without a loan guarantee.

As a matter of fact, what we are asking or what we are suggesting is it needs to go back to the PUB for a full review. There are many reasons for that. The PUB would be the group that would give a completely independent review of this. When you look at the PUB, it is their role. When you look at the design of the PUB, and people will say there is no confidence in the PUB, well, in fact, it is government who actually appoints the Board of Commissioners at the PUB. If they are not confident and do not have the confidence in their own appointees, well, it is a decision they must make. They can live with the decision or they can make changes.

The other thing, there is another area of this project where they have used the PUB and they seem to be quite willing to include that into the development. Of course, that is the water rights management agreement that I am talking about – or not even an agreement really, it is an arrangement.

There are two kinds of ways we can actually source the PUB. One is we could go in with a reference-based question, which is what they did earlier this year. This kind of question is very restrictive. To me, it was very difficult looking back just at the DG2, or Decision Gate 2 time frame. It was very difficult for the PUB to come up with any other result, and they said that. The comments that were made were to the fact that the information was late coming.

As a matter of fact, Nalcor agreed to that, even in December. Even in December they knew and they did acknowledge that the information was late coming from Nalcor. They acknowledged that. There was quite a bit of information that was required and they agreed it was late coming.

At the DG2 level, at the DG2 time frame, this project was less than 15 per cent defined. That is what the PUB had to look at, at the DG2 level. It was only 15 per cent defined. It was very difficult for the PUB at that time to make anything conclusive about the Muskrat Falls Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: That is primarily the basis of what they said. The information was late coming and they could not conclusively determine through the reference-based question if they could actually support Muskrat Falls or not. So, they did not endorse the project. Regardless of what has been said in this House over the last few weeks, the PUB has not endorsed this project for the reasons they said.

As a matter of fact, the board went on to say, "The Board concludes that the information provided by Nalcor in the review is not detailed, complete or current enough to determine whether the Interconnected Option represents the least-cost option for the supply of power to the Island Interconnected customers over the period of 2011-2067…" That was compared to the isolated option at the time.

Primarily what we had here was a project that was far from ready from going to the Public Utilities Board. It just was not ready. Now is a better time; we have more information right now. It needs to go back for an unrestricted review to the PUB.

Who is asking for this? There are lots of people out there. There has been interest around the Muskrat Falls project for a number of years. If you look at the recent information that has become publicly known right now, we have almost 70 per cent of the population in this Province that really do not like the process, do not like the way that this Muskrat Falls development has been handled. They are suggesting that it should go back to the PUB for an unrestricted review. That is what the people of the Province are saying.

Mr. Speaker, at the DG 2 or the Decision Gate 2 level, this was a flawed process. There was not enough information and it requires further review.

Mr. Speaker, we are asking – even to date, when you look at the amount of information, we have heard comments on many, many occasions about being 50,000 pages of information out there for public view. There is no question; there are a lot of reports, a lot of information that is available to the public, but even now, I know, as we went looking for information about this Muskrat Falls project, about its development, it has been very difficult for us to get the information.

We have asked on many, many occasions about the Terms of Reference for simple things like the Ziff report. We just have not received it. It has been since April 25 that commitment was made. We still do not have it.

I will give you another example, Mr. Speaker, around PIRA. We went looking for the PIRA forecast, and it was commercially sensitive, so we thought, well, let us go looking as an Opposition, see if we can find it. Well, it was available, but it was $27,000. It was impossible for us to buy that.

In our capacity to review this – and as you know, during the special debate the witness component was special for us; it was something that we wanted to be included in this debate, but the PUB is the best place to do this. They would be able to access all those types of information.

Now the basis of the PUB argument really goes back to how this project is paid for, and that, of course, is through a power purchase agreement. This agreement, being a fifty-year commitment – right now, what we have here is a power purchase agreement that will last for fifty years. We have not been able to see this and this is the reason why the PUB really needs to take a look at this project.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at the last fifteen minutes today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

In November, 2010, the Muskrat Falls Project was announced. The Lower Churchill Project, Mr. Speaker, comprised of Gull Island and Muskrat Falls, has been discussed really since the development of the Upper Churchill.

The Lower Churchill Development Corporation was formed around 1976, Mr. Speaker, and every Premier since Frank Moores has made an effort to develop the Lower Churchill. There are a number of papers that were prepared by the Department of Natural Resources and released, which review the history of the Upper Churchill and review the history of the Lower Churchill Project, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to go into that today, but they have all been released publicly.

Mr. Speaker, no project in this Province has received the scrutiny and debate of Muskrat Falls. I am still waiting for the day that they are going to ask me about the Roger Grimes deal so I can talk about all the public scrutiny that went on there. I do not have time to deal with that today.

Mr. Speaker, the result of the Upper Churchill contract – and we are all aware of it – is that everyone wants to tread carefully. We are afraid to make mistakes. We have to, as legislators, as people elected, make decisions. That is what we are elected to do.

In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the Decision Gate 2 numbers were prepared by Nalcor. They were essentially the screening process. They looked at the screening process and they determined, Mr. Speaker, that the two best options on the basis that we need power were Muskrat Falls and the Isolated Island or Holyrood refurbish project.

The Isolated Island, Mr. Speaker, would require approximately $600 million to $800 million worth of repairs to install scrubbers and precipitators. That was just for environmental effect, although not reducing greenhouse gasses. It would also involve the development of small hydro at Island Pond, Round Pond, and Portland Creek and the use of certain amounts of wind, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls is the smaller of the Lower Churchill developments. Other than the report by Vic Young in 1980, the focus has always been on the development of Gull Island. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt: if we could access transmission across Quebec, Gull Island would be developed. However, Mr. Speaker, a stubborn and obstinate Quebec has stood in our way for forty years and that will not continue any further.

In June 2011 this matter was referred to the Public Utilities Board that then hired Manitoba Hydro International through a Request for Proposals process, Mr. Speaker, and determined that they were the company best suited and equipped to review the numbers. Mr. Speaker, that went on for approximately six months.

In December 2011 the Public Utilities Board sought an extension of three months, and that was granted. Then, Mr. Speaker, the PUB report was received in March 2012. The Manitoba Hydro International report had been received earlier and it concluded, based on the Decision Gate 2 numbers, that Muskrat Falls was the least-cost alternative.

The Consumer Advocate, Mr. Speaker, also determined that, in his opinion, with the expert that he hired, Muskrat Falls was the least-cost alternative. The PUB decided, Mr. Speaker, after nine months and more than $2 million – including $200,000 paid to a lawyer who was supposed to be paid on contract – the Public Utilities Board decided that they could not offer any assistance.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we had is a situation where they could not make a recommendation. We then came back in the House of Assembly, and members opposite, as is their job, raised issues. I thought I heard the Leader of the Opposition admit a couple of times that we need the power, but I think he might have changed his mind now, which is his right. I have never really had a clear picture of where the Third Party is going on this. Wherever public opinion seems to be on every given day is where they are.

Mr. Speaker, the issues were raised by the members opposite. We had the issues of wind raised. We had the issues of natural gas raised, Mr. Speaker. We had the issues of recall of power, return of the Upper Churchill. All these issues were raised. The major argument, Mr. Speaker, was that we had not properly examined all alternatives.

So, Mr. Speaker, we got to work and we started to look at the alternatives and determine if there was a viable alternative. Nalcor had excluded all of these other options at Decision Gate 2, but as a government we determined we were going to hire Manitoba Hydro International to review the Decision Gate 3 numbers, Mr. Speaker. We decided, as a government, we would have natural gas reports prepared and, as a government, we would have wind reports prepared.

What was the answer when we started releasing all these reports? Well, they are paid for by the government; therefore, they are biased. Mr. Speaker, the only report that appears to be independent here, if you look at the critics and the Opposition, is one that will say what they want it to say, that Muskrat Falls is not the best alternative.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have done, we have released these reports. We released the full MHI report. One of the things of the MHI report that is very important at page 72, there is the sensitivity analysis, Mr. Speaker, which looks at the cost if certain things happen between Muskrat Falls and Holyrood. The prices range from $2.4 billion cheaper up to $6.5 billion cheaper, even if – and it is not going to happen according to all of the experts, except the NDP – all of the experts project and predict that oil will stay around the $100 range for the next decade.

These include Wood Mackenzie, PIRA out of New York – we filed a report to that effect, Mr. Speaker. It includes other forecasting agencies. It is based on the fact that even though there is an increase in the supply of oil, and even though we have the shale oil which is having significant impacts in the US, Mr. Speaker, that the world is growing the point that we will continue to need oil.

Mr. Speaker, what we will see is that North America or the US may become self-sufficient at some point, but the basic principles of supply and demand will affect the long-term supply of oil. As long as oil is at or near $100 a barrel, then it is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to do the math that Muskrat Falls is a far better alternative.

We did the sensitivity report; it looked at increasing the capex, decreasing the capex. Carbon pricing is another factor, Mr. Speaker. Although it is in the sensitivity analysis, it is an important point because we are moving towards a world – and I really thought that this was something that the NDP would champion, would be the protection of the environment, but it does not appear to be so, Mr. Speaker. We do not need them to champion it, because we do. We understand the importance of protecting the environment, and ensuring that in future decades our children have a sustainable environment.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, the impact of climate change on our world today. Anyone who denies it, Mr. Speaker, is simply not living in reality.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment here next to me is living out in that area. What did we hear the other day? The soot coming out of Holyrood. Now, Mr. Speaker, the NDP were out there marching and we have the pictures. They were out there marching when they thought it was in their benefit –

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberals were there too.

MR. KENNEDY: The Liberals were there too.

Now what do we hear? Well, Mr. Speaker, we need the power, so we have to do something. That is the first question: Do we need the power? Mr. Speaker, I invite people to read the reports we have put out there. Review Manitoba Hydro's forecasting on load. Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Speaker, have their load forecasting, which is something that if you look at it, you will see that we clearly need power. They find that the forecasting of Nalcor is conservative and, therefore, accurate but conservative.

The demand paper, Mr. Speaker, outlines the kinds of power we need. Why do we need power? It is quite simple; we have more people living in more houses. We have less population but we have more houses, Mr. Speaker. We have 18,600 new ratepayers more than we had in 2006. That is somewhat counterintuitive in that the population is decreasing but we have more people paying rates, Mr. Speaker.

We had 28,000 new homes between 2002 and 2011. Newfoundland and Labrador is hopping, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the reasons that we have to continue to supply power, to supply commerce and industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have all these issues. Quite simply, the provincial loan forecast shows that we will need 200 megawatts of power peak demand by 2020. Where are we going to get it? We have to do something.

Our options, Mr. Speaker, continue Holyrood, or build Muskrat Falls. If you look at the Cumulative Present Worth – which we also released to the public, Mr. Speaker, along with the Decision Gate 3 numbers – is that Muskrat Falls is the cheapest alternative by $2.4 billion. The importation of natural gas is anywhere from $2.3 billion to $2.8 billion more expensive. The pipeline, Mr. Speaker, is $3.4 billion more expensive. That is according to Ziff, Wood Mackenzie's numbers would be higher. The pipeline stand-alone facility, Mr. Speaker, $6.6 billion more expensive; wind with thermal, $3.5 billion; and wind with battery, $9 billion.

Mr. Speaker, do we need the power? Yes. Where are we going to get it? If people would look at the argument and focus on those issues, where are we going to get it? I have just gone through the CPW of the various options, Mr. Speaker. We have released all of these reports to the public.

What have I heard? I heard one critic question natural gas. I have not heard the members of the Opposition, either the Liberals or the NDP, point out problems with these reports. They asked for wind, we have given it to them. They asked for natural gas, we have given it to them, Mr. Speaker, other than the self-professed experts. What we have done, we have outlined people – we have hired people to do this, Mr. Speaker. These are not my opinions; these are the opinions of experts.

Where do we get the power? Some people say, well develop Gull Island. We have gone through in our paper why we cannot develop Gull Island, Mr. Speaker. Some people say wait until 2041. What are we going to do, wait in the dark?

Mr. Speaker, what we have done is we have outlined why we cannot wait until 2041. It is in the paper, I am not going to review it, but it is outlined there. There are complicated legal and corporate issues as to the structure of CF(L)Co and what will happen in 2041, Mr. Speaker. Then there are the legal options. Why don't you recall power? We outlined section 92A, Mr. Speaker. We have dealt with the good-faith clause and we have dealt with regulatory actions.

Mr. Speaker, we have looked at everything here that has been asked of us. People would say: Go to the PUB. Well, we have the information available, Mr. Speaker. I am not hearing the critics. They have had these reports now close to a month. I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that if there were problems with the numbers we are putting out there, if there are problems with the reports, that someone would bring them to our attention if we are wrong on 92A.

What do we hear? We hear about water rights management. Well, Mr. Speaker, again, that is pretty easily dealt with here. I think a first year law student – in fact, there is a first year law student dealing with it, and quite professionally at that, Mr. Speaker. The water rights management issue is not there. Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where Muskrat Falls is the option. The time to do it is now, Mr. Speaker, and we have the information necessary.

Before we get to that, the first is: Do we need the power? The second is: When do we need the power? We need it now. What is the least-cost option? It is Muskrat Falls. Have the other options been eliminated or looked at? They have. So, before we get to the stage now, will we go with this? Let's look at the effect on our people. Let's look at the effect on electricity rates, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done is, as best we can, we have outlined charts. I am still waiting for the member of the Opposition to ask me about Soldiers Pond again, but in any event, I will tell him the answer if he wants to know. Mr. Speaker –

MR. BALL: Tell us now.

MR. KENNEDY: I will tell you in a minute, Dwight.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where we have to look at the rates. What is the effect on our people? That is what counts, Mr. Speaker. This is not all theory here. This is not only a visionary approach of government, which is very important, but how does it affect our people today? How does it affect our seniors? How does it affect our single mothers? How does it affect the average family?

What we have shown, Mr. Speaker – and again, if we are wrong, I am waiting for someone to point it out to us – are the charts, and the charts are outlined in the report. We have the rate calculator, which was a little bit of a problem at first, but I think it has been working well since then. Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where it becomes clear that when you look at the rates – and this is one of the things I find very interesting about the Muskrat Falls debate, rates were going up and no one was really noticing because they were not paying attention to it.

Mr. Speaker, rates went up more between 2000 and 2011 than at any other time. They went up 32 per cent, or $45 per month. Between 2011 and 2016, they will go up again, Mr. Speaker, 16 per cent or $30 a month. Between 2016 and 2030, Mr. Speaker, without Muskrat Falls power rates increases will double. To put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, they are going up anyway, so do we want to be relying on oil? Do we want to be reliant and send $6 billion to companies in other countries, or do we take that $6 billion, do we develop a hydro power resource, a revenue-generating resource, Mr. Speaker, which will benefit our children and grandchildren?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Last week the Leader of the NDP asked me: well, have you checked the revenues? No. Of course we have, Mr. Speaker, and what we have found is that when you go to bond rating agencies you have to have every i dotted and t crossed.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls, there will be $120 million approximately, or $130 million, available for dividends in 2020, 2021. It will continue to rise, but rates will stay down, because one of the givens in life – we hear, Mr. Speaker, about we have to pay taxes and other things; well, you have to pay electricity bills. You are going to be paying electricity bills in any event. So when we look at it all, Muskrat Falls benefits our children. It benefits us. Do we need to go back to the PUB for this? What for?

We have all of the relevant information. As members of this House of Assembly, we were elected to make decisions. We can make decisions, Mr. Speaker. We will make the decision. It is time to move on. It is time to do this and it is time to do it now.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader referred to charts and graphs. I must admit that I have not seen so many charts and graphs used in any presentation since Ross Perot ran for the USA presidency. Ross Perot had more graphs probably then this government, but I am sure that we will have more graphs before this is over.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader by profession is an advocate. He is a lawyer like myself, like some others in the House, and that means he promotes and advocates for a position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: I am sorry: former Government House Leader. I guess either he was demoted or Muskrat was just enough to keep him busy all the time and he could not be House Leader any more. However, he is an advocate, so that means he is persuasive; he pushes for a position. It does not necessarily mean that he knows the position that well. He relies on other experts, as do all of us in the House.

One minute the Minister of Natural Resources can be smooth and silk and can charm the birds from the trees practically, and the next moment he can be ferocious as a lion. That is his job, and he is well skilled at it. He does a great job in that respect, but he is still advancing a position.

Before we go further, let us go back to the Public Utilities Board. Why do we have Public Utilities Board in the first place? Mr. Speaker, we have a Public Utilities Board in order to control the prices of public utilities. The Public Utilities Board is the one mainstay we have in democratic societies when we need monopolies to provide certain services and, in particular, large utilities like our hydroelectric companies. We have a Public Utilities Board and nobody is better positioned, Mr. Speaker, to determine what is an appropriate price for electricity than a Public Utilities Board.

Why not make a reference to the Public Utilities Board? That is exactly what the government did. The government said to the Public Utilities Board: With certain parameters, provide us with the least-cost option. Clearly, that is what the Public Utilities Board is supposed to do in any event. That is its mandate. So in order to do this, the Public Utilities Board would need to look at what the options are, not be put in a straightjacket as government would have them, and say: Here are your two choices; which one is least?

Well, in the first instance, one would not be least. You would need three options for one to be least. One could be low and one could be lower. One could be high and one could be higher. You could not have least unless you had more than two options.

What are the options? The options are: continue to burn oil, which we will do in any event, because we will need to keep Holyrood as a backup. The Holyrood oil-generated plant is going to stay in place in any event, so it is a mistake to say that Holyrood will be gone. Holyrood will be there for backup and for emergencies.

We will have wind power. We have wind power right now. Wind power is being developed all over the world. One of the most recent and telling costs that I saw for wind power came from San Antonio, Texas a few weeks ago, when there was a dispute because a Korean company had received a contract to generate wind power at eleven cents per kilowatt hour. Eleven cents is no more than what we are paying right now and it is certainly significantly less than what is proposed for Muskrat Falls.

Then there are other hydroelectric developments. We do have the possibility for small hydroelectric developments in the Province right now. If we were to follow a reasonable business model, we would develop our supply as the need arose.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to say we will not need the power. I certainly hope we will need the power. When this Province entered Confederation in 1949, we had a few more than 300,000 people. Within twenty-three years, we had a 500,000. Today we still have 500,000 people. Had we followed on the same trajectory from 1949 to 1972 until today, we would have 1.4 million or 1.5 million. We would have fourteen or fifteen seats in the House of Commons and we would have much more power in this nation than we have. I am not willing to say we will not need the power, because I hope we will need the power, I hope we will grow the population, and I hope that generates the need for electricity.

There are other ways besides Muskrat Falls to generate electricity. Besides other hydroelectric developments, there is also conservation. We have not pursued conservation. Why would we pursue conservation if we are going to have a surplus of power? The Leader of the Third Party asked that very question today and did not get a satisfactory answer in my mind. For sure we should pursue conservation in any event.

Then we know that something will happen in 2041. In 2041, there will be a change in the Upper Churchill arrangement. We find members debating back and forth whether we will get a reversionary of the power, whether we will get to use that or not. Why would we not seek an opinion today? Why would we not want to find out today what we will be dealing with in 2041? The Minister of Natural Resources is a lawyer. He knows that you would not wait that long to find out. The Minister of Finance is a lawyer, a lawyer for thirty-five or forty years. He knows you would not wait that long.

Mr. Speaker, what you would do is you would want to determine what your options will be in 2041 and well before 2041. Then you might want to bridge between now and 2041 and then compare that cost to bringing on Muskrat Falls today.

The Public Utilities Board did its job. The government is angry because they say that the Public Utilities Board did not do its job. In fact, if the Public Utilities Board did not have enough information to render a reliable decision, then they did the appropriate thing. They neither condemned nor approved the project, and simply said: based on the mandate you have given us, we do not have enough information. The Public Utilities Board really did what it was supposed to do. It could not answer the question, and said: well, we cannot give you an answer that you want. Clearly government wanted the answer: this was the least-cost option. The Public Utilities Board was not prepared to do that.

What would happen if we went back to the Public Utilities Board and they arrived at a different decision? What would happen if we went back to the problem and they said: we think, based on everything, the expert evidence we have been given – and it does not help to criticize who might be the chair of the Public Utilities Board any more than it would help to criticize an individual member of the House by saying this person's credentials or credibility is at stake, when in fact all of us will rely on the evidence of experts.

If the Public Utilities Board relies on the evidence of experts, then this House will rely on the evidence of experts, but let the Public Utilities Board do its job; if they select an option other than Muskrat Falls, then government will have the satisfaction of knowing: let us take a detour, let us get this right, let us do a different project, let us work in between now and 2041 and make a decision as to what we ought to do.

On the other hand, if the Public Utilities Board said: yes, we have examined all of the options, and while many of them are speculative, many of them are close and many of them are hard to ascertain; we think that Muskrat Falls is the best deal – then clearly the government would expect the entire House to support Muskrat Falls.

That is not where we are today. Where we are today is that the Public Utilities Board has been literally run out of the arena and not allowed to do their job, and people are left with questions. Many of the questions that people have related to this project are: what will it mean to the long-term costs of our power? For most people, it will mean: what will it mean to my light bill? For other people, it means: what will we do to our provincial debt? Mr. Speaker, it is no good to say to me that this is going to be Nalcor debt and it is not going to be provincial debt. This, in my view, is no different than any other sort of off-balance-sheet bookkeeping that was done by major corporations that contributed to the financial collapse that we experienced in 2008 through until today, which we have not recovered from yet.

So, if we look at who are the people who will be affected by rates, well, the individuals on a fixed income will be affected dramatically. They will have no opportunity to increase their income. If Muskrat Falls is the wrong deal, it will impact them terribly and for a long time.

Other ratepayers are small businesses. Many small businesses in this Province are doing fine. An awful lot of small businesses in this Province are not doing very well and they are just teetering on the edge, because we are still in a global recession; business is not good in a lot of the tourist sector and business is not good in a lot of the seafood processing and exporting business. So, many businesses are just hanging on, and any significant increase in electricity bills in the short term may well put them out of business.

Mr. Speaker, other ratepayers are municipalities. We hear quite a bit from municipalities that they want to have a new fiscal arrangement, and I understand that they would. Immediately before being elected to this House, I served on the town council of my own community and was fortunate – or unfortunate – enough to be half of the finance committee. To find the money for the budget for any size of a municipality is going to be a struggle. It is a struggle. It is a struggle for St. John's and it is a struggle for small communities. So, if Muskrat Falls is the wrong deal because the power is too expensive, these municipalities will suffer. Many of them will have to drive up their sources of income, and their sources of income for municipalities will be property taxes, and then this will have an adverse effect on everybody.

Mr. Speaker, another class of ratepayer is non-profit entities. Service clubs that own property, churches, schools, anybody who runs anything is going to need electricity. If it is the wrong deal, then it will be a bad deal for everybody.

The other issue with the debt, if we increase our debt by billions of dollars how will this affect our credit rating? What will the bond rating agencies say, if they say: No, your credit rating just slipped by one category, two categories. If this increases our cost of borrowing then this increases the cost to the Province to service our existing debt, plus any additional debt; and, Mr. Speaker, plus a very substantial deficit that we are going to incur this year that will be added to the debt, which will cost our Province quite a bit.

Mr. Speaker, if Muskrat Falls is the wrong deal it will be the wrong deal for a very long time. It will impact all of us for a long time to come. Most of us in this House will probably be fine with it if it costs us a few hundred dollars a month more for electricity or even $1,000 a month more for electricity, we will survive, but if the person who is impacted is an eighty-five-year-old senior citizen trying to live at home on electric power, then that person will have to make tough decisions as to what to do. If I cannot afford to heat my home, where do I go? If I do not have extended family here anymore because they have left and gone away, where do I go? It may well be that people are forced out of their own accommodations and forced into long-term living arrangements at a further expense to the taxpayer.

If Muskrat Falls is a bad deal, and nobody can be absolutely certain what it will be, but the Public Utilities Board gives us one good opportunity to look at the inside of this deal to see if it could be a good deal for the Province. If it is a bad deal, Mr. Speaker, it would be like having a massive tapeworm locked onto the Confederation Building and going right back to Labrador and sucking the vitality out of this Province for at least two generations.

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the cost of electricity and done calculations and projections – as I am certain most members on the other side have done – to say if we go up to 14.5 cents, if we go up to fifteen cents, if we go up to sixteen cents, what will that mean to the light bill? How long will it be before Muskrat Falls shows us a true benefit? Muskrat Falls will not show us a true benefit until the cost that we would have paid for oil generated electricity to supplement the hydroelectric power that we already have, until the lines cross over.

Mr. Speaker, that could be thirty or forty years down the road before we see any true benefit from Muskrat Falls. At that time the people who have really paid for the deal, the older people, the people on fixed incomes and the small businesses, they will pay a very high price for a project that in the long term people will benefit from, but what about in the shorter and intermediate term?

In the shorter and intermediate term, the load on the social system of people, the financial system for people and for this Province, in my submission is excessive. It has not been proven that in the next ten or fifteen, or twenty years that this deal is a good deal for the Province. In fact, it looks like it may be a very bad deal for the Province in the shorter or intermediate term.

Only in the very long term will it come into play that it would be a good deal. By then, we may well have the Upper Churchill back. We may well have 65 per cent of 5,000 kilowatts that we may be able to draw down, that we may be able to generate income from, that we may be able to supplement our hydroelectric rates for. We may be shutting off opportunities into the future because we are rushing this deal.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is an honour and privilege for me to be able to take part in this debate here today, which to me essentially, when you get right down to it, is a debate about electricity rates and what the people of the Province are going to have to pay for electricity.

We just heard the hon. Member for St. Barbe saying that the Muskrat Falls deal will be a bad deal. He talked about that senior citizens and the people on fixed incomes might be in trouble because of this deal. What he is forgetting is that whatever deal is done, whichever project is done, whether it is to continue with Holyrood, continue with the thermal option, or whether it is to do Muskrat Falls, or whether it is to do Gull Island, whatever is done, is that the people of the Province are going to pay for it. What the MHI report showed – and it showed very clearly – is that the people of the Province are going to pay less rates if we go the hydroelectric project at Muskrat Falls than if we continue on the path we are already on.

That is why I am supporting a project that is going to allow the people of this Province, people who are seniors and people who are on fixed income, to pay less than they would otherwise if we do not do it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things this government did was remove the 8 per cent HST on heat and electricity. A lot of people were very, very happy with that. We also removed the HST off insurance and we brought in a dental program for adults. I was very pleased to see the government bring in a program to lower the cost of generic drugs in this Province so that people pay less for their drugs. That is a big item driving up drug costs in this Province.

The other thing is to do a project to stop the raise in electricity rates. There is no Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project right now. Yet, as the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out, for the past five years or the past ten years rates have been going up. I heard about it when we did remove the HST off heat and light. A lot of people came up to me and they were very pleased with that, that we removed the tax off energy.

I got a letter from one man. I cannot remember his name now. He was very angry. He said: You are taking away the 8 per cent tax on heat and light, but at the same time Hydro is coming forward with an application for a rate increase of – I cannot remember what it was. It was the same amount. He said: That is going to wipe out the goodness of the fact that you are taking off the tax. That got me, obviously, to thinking: Why were our rates going up?

The Minister of Natural Resources just said that between 2001 and 2011 the rates went up 38 per cent, they were going up about 2.8 per cent annually on average, and they went up $45 per month. I remember I went on a CBC site and they talked about what the electricity rates were in different parts of the country. It showed that the provinces that had the lowest electricity rates were the provinces that had hydroelectricity. I thought: Well, we have had hydroelectricity in this Province.

The Churchill Falls Project was done by BRINCO, though that was not for us. That was for a private company that was seeking to make a profit for its shareholders. We did others: Granite Canal, Upper Salmon, and Bay d'Espoir. That was a big one. Bay d'Espoir certainly was a big one. We have all this hydroelectricity. Why were our rates going up?

They are going up without Muskrat Falls. There is no project at Muskrat Falls right now, but the rates are going up. They are predicted to go up higher. They are going up because that 15 per cent to 25 per cent of the electricity being produced in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on average, 30 per cent at peak capacity, is being created by importing oil and burning oil at the thermal generating plant in Holyrood.

Holyrood operates by burning oil. When Holyrood was commissioned, and I understand that was in the early 1970s, a barrel of Bunker C oil was $3. Today, it is about $86 or $87. You can see why the cost of oil is driving up rates.

As oil prices keep getting higher and higher, and the experts that we have looked at tell us that over the medium to long term rates are going up; in the short term, they are very volatile. That means as we continue to burn oil in the future, the price of the oil is going higher and higher, that means electricity rates are going to go higher and higher.

It is madness. From an environmental point of view, the environmentalist, David Suzuki, said to burn fossil fuels to create electricity is madness. I think we all agree with him. I think most people would agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, if the provinces that have the cheapest rates for their people are with hydroelectricity – we have been making hydroelectricity projects in Newfoundland and Labrador for over 100 years. I am told that Petty Harbour, 1904. It is still in operation, it is still producing electricity, and it is going into the grid. I understand it might be two kilowatts per hour or two megawatts, but it is still operating. The one in Deer Lake, the one that I pass twice a week coming here and going back to Corner Brook, built in 1924, 1925. It still producing electricity; I think it is $5 a megawatt hour.

We have these hydroelectricity projects all over. There was a big racket I understand when Bay d'Espoir was being built. I know Wally Read was an engineer from Corner Brook, my hometown. Wally Read became the Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He said that if there is a market for any surplus power, if there is a guarantee from the Government of Canada and the interest rates were low, that the Lower Churchill should be developed.

I support that, if this will give the lowest rates to the people of the Province. The evidence that the Minister of Natural Resources has presented – there has been a ton of evidence, a plethora of reports – all certainly confirm that.

It will give us lower rates. The choice is to have a hydroelectricity project in Labrador that will use water from the snow and from the rain, or we continue to burn oil, a fossil fuel, at Holyrood. They are our two choices. The MHI reports clearly indicated that by going with the hydroelectricity project, the cost would be, when you look at the capital cost, if you compare both projects, that the capital cost of going with Muskrat Falls and the hydro would be $2.4 billion cheaper than if we went with the thermal project of Holyrood, which will get bigger and burn even more and more oil, and use about forty-five of these combustion turbines or combined cycle combustion turbines, which also burn fuel to produce electricity.

Mr. Speaker, getting to the resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition, the PUB is indeed an independent quasi-judicial regulatory body. It was established by the government in 1949. It reports to the Justice Minister, administratively, and submits an annual report to the Justice Minister. It is funded by assessments levied upon the industries that it regulates; therefore, it is not part of the general budget of the government.

The mandate of the PUB, as the Leader of the Opposition quite correctly pointed out, is to be the regulator of electric utilities in the Province, and is responsible for ensuring that electricity rates that are charged to the residents and to industrial consumers are just and reasonable, and that the electrical service provided is safe and reliable.

We have all heard the Minister of Natural Resources from time to time saying: Do we need the power? If we do need the power, he says: What is the least-cost alternative? That is set out in our law. So, if we need more electricity, the people bringing forward the projects have to bring forward the one that is the least-cost alternative – in other words, the one that will cost the ratepayers the least amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources mentioned some reports that had been written about the history of hydroelectric facilities in this Province. He mentioned a paper by Jason Churchill, a historian, which I had the opportunity to read some time ago. One thing that came out of that is that the original hydro projects in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were done by the private sector.

They were done by people who, we now know, became multi-millionaires. People like Izaak Walton Killam from Nova Scotia. If you go to Nova Scotia, you see hospitals and libraries named after him. He owned companies that, in turn, owned Newfoundland Light and Power, and they Maritime light and power. So these people obviously did very, very well in building hydroelectric facilities.

So, if you have a monopoly, if you have one company doing all this work, you have to have a regulator to make sure that the citizens, that the people who will use that hydroelectric power, that they are not being unfairly taken advantage of. The regulator is there to ensure that the rates are fair, also that they review each year each utilities annual capital budget.

Mr. Speaker, we are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This project and Nalcor is owned by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which means it is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Whereas BRINCO that did the Upper Churchill did the project to export power and make profits for its shareholders, Nalcor are doing this project to provide a reliable and safe supply of electricity at just rates to the people of the Province. That is the difference. Muskrat Falls is for us; BRINCO, the Upper Churchill, was for export down to New England – and that is an important distinction.

Mr. Speaker, in June of 2011 the government asked the PUB to examine whether Muskrat Falls, the hydroelectricity project, was the least-cost option to meet the demands compared to the Holyrood thermal oil burning option. At the time, the Consumer Advocate, Tom Johnson, was also appointed to represent consumers. There was a nine-month review and there was $2 million spent, and the conclusion of the PUB was essentially that it could not come to a conclusion.

Despite the fact that Manitoba Hydro International, the experts that were hired by the PUB themselves after a Request for Proposals, and the Consumer Advocate who himself had hired an expert, a company called Knight Piésold, were both able to come to a conclusion using the same information as the PUB had at its disposal, the two experts could come to a conclusion, but, unfortunately, the PUB could not. The conclusion of the experts supported Muskrat Falls as the least-cost option to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The PUB said they could not make a decision because they did not have the Decision Gate 3 numbers; however, this concern was not clearly communicated by the PUB. Early communications between the PUB and Nalcor as early as July 17, 2012 includes no reference to Decision Gate 3 data and the requirement to have this information in order to make a determination.

The assumption would have been to receive all data contained in existing studies, which at that point were Decision Gate 2 numbers. Subsequent concerns about the schedule and about the ability to file a report to government did not reference Decision Gate 3. In letters from the PUB to the Minister of Natural Resources, in letters from Nalcor to the PUB, and from MHI to the PUB the requirement for DG3 information was not referenced. In specific references to DG2, data was always implied and the information provided by the PUB was always clearly identified as DG2 numbers.

The Decision Gate process is being followed by Nalcor, and the information obtained during this process has helped the government with up-to-date critical information to minimize risk and help contribute to the informed decision as to whether or not we should proceed on behalf of the people of Newfoundland on Muskrat Falls. Information was provided, questions were answered, but unfortunately no decision was made.

Without that decision from the PUB, government made the decision to engage internationally respected advisors to conduct independent external assessments of Decision Gate 3 information. Manitoba Hydro International and the other reports that the Minister of Natural Resources has filed have validated the Muskrat Falls Project as the least-cost option for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, hydro projects down through the years have been exempted from oversight when they are done by the government. Bay D'Espoir was done by the Power Commission, a predecessor to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

As the minister said, we are the government of the Province. It is our responsibility to show leadership. It is not for an arbitrator, it is not for others, it is for us to show leadership to provide the least-cost option to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this project will do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased this afternoon to get an opportunity to speak to this motion that was brought forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I think it is an important motion. I think it is very pathetic actually that we have to bring forward such a motion as has been brought forward, but it is extremely important that it has been done. It underlines something that is very, very wrong in this Province today.

I am going to read the resolution, because some people may start watching partway through today and not quite know what the resolution is. I am going to read it again, just the: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to compel Nalcor to submit the proposed Muskrat Falls development to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for a complete and unrestricted review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in other places in this country, that is a normal procedure. In other places in this country when you have a major project dealing with electrical generation going on in a province, it is a natural procedure that the proposal is going to go before the Public Utilities Board, or whatever it is called, in that Province and that you are going to get a complete and unrestricted review done by the Public Utilities Board.

This government can do all the talking in circles it wants to do. The people in this Province know as well as we do on this side of the House and as well as they do on that side, though, they will not admit it, that this government is deliberately restricting open consultation and open discussion on all aspects of the Muskrat Falls Project. Not only that, it is not just that they are restricting discussion on the Muskrat Falls Project, they have restricted a broad discussion of what we need in this Province.

What this government did, Mr. Speaker, is – I do not know exactly when. We know when it got announced. Was it two years ago in 2010, or was it three in 2009, or four in 2008? We do not know exactly when. Was it when the Energy Plan came out? Whenever it was, that side of the House, that government, made a decision that they were going to develop Muskrat Falls. They decided they were going to do it, and that became their starting point, Mr. Speaker.

It was not, Mr. Speaker, that they were looking at the issue of the energy needs on the Island of Newfoundland, which was their starting point, they told us. It was not that they were looking at: What are the energy needs in Labrador? Their starting point was: We want to develop Muskrat Falls. Once you start from the point of your decision, then you frame everything that goes on around that decision. Everything they did and everything they have done has been geared towards: We have to prove why we are going to develop Muskrat Falls. We have to make sure we prove our case. So whatever you do is built around proving your case.

Now, think of what happens if you said: We need more energy. Then the question becomes different. What are all the options out there? What are all the ways in which we could take care of the energy needs here in this Province? Then you open up every door to every possibility and you do an in-depth study, a detailed study, an unrestricted review of everything to come up with your conclusion. That is what has been missing around this, Mr. Speaker. We have not had an open and unrestricted review of all the possibilities of our energy needs in this Province, all the possibilities.

Mr. Speaker, even with Muskrat Falls itself when it comes to, for example, the MHI report that has been done for this government, the MHI report is constricted because it was told what it had to look at. It could only look at what this government had decided. That was the problem, too, when they first prematurely went to the PUB and asked them to look at the project. Everything they have done, Mr. Speaker, has been totally controlled by this government, totally controlled by them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: There is a member standing opposite, out of his space and shouting at me, and I really do think that goes against our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Members are not supposed to be shouting across the floor, standing on the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

What I was starting to say, Mr. Speaker, was talking about the MHI report. One of the things that the MHI report does, it does do what is called sensitivity analysis. It looks at different factors that can affect Muskrat Falls but they look at the factors one by one. So you look at Muskrat Falls in the context of, for example, the labour needs, or you look at Muskrat Falls in the context of the price of oil, or you look at Muskrat Falls in the context of what is going to happen to rates. They look at different impacts. They look at them but they look at each one separately.

What they do not do in the study is do the multiplier effect and say if that happened and that happened and that happened, what would be the effect on Muskrat Falls? What would happen to the economics of Muskrat Falls? It does not do the multiplier effect. That is a basic thing that you would expect would be done when you do what is called a sensitivity analysis, an analysis of what could impact the project. That is the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, would be done if this project were brought before the Public Utilities Board. That is the kind of thing the Public Utilities Board has to look for: What will be the bottom line for the ratepayers?

When this government, Mr. Speaker, made its decision to develop Muskrat Falls – and we do not know why they made the decision. They talk about in one of their papers, going right back to 1972 with the Premier of the day wanting to develop Muskrat Falls. Well, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls in 1972 may have been a good idea. Muskrat Falls was a 1972 answer. It is not the answer in 2012, Mr. Speaker. We have so many other options around energy when it comes to energy development on this planet, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation again.

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

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

I see my time is moving.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about is the fact that this government has controlled this process from beginning to end. First, its decision that Muskrat Falls is going to be developed. Then they make a decision, there are only two options we are going to look at. Everybody has to look at those two options only, and everybody has to decide: What is the best one of those two options? They controlled from beginning to end, Mr. Speaker.

I have to bring up, yesterday in this House we had a minister stand – it was the Minister of Transportation and Works. He said sincerely, and I know he meant it, this building "…has been the centrepiece of democracy in Newfoundland and Labrador for generations…" There was laughter in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I was one of the ones who laughed. The reason, Mr. Speaker, was not because I was laughing at democracy, just as the others who laughed were not laughing at democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We were laughing at the fact, Mr. Speaker, that right now in this House of Assembly we have a government that is not respecting democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We have a government, Mr. Speaker, that last spring brought in –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a government who last spring brought a bill into this House, Bill 29, that was designed to restrict access to information that government has, that government uses. Access to information that I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that if down the road when construction starts on Muskrat Falls – because they are going to make it happen – if we ask for information about that, they are going to be able to say: Oh no, sorry, you cannot get that. It is going to be because of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

So, democracy – a regressive bill that brought us backwards when it came to access to information, that judgement was made upon by people in this country and in other countries as well, that the tests that get done with regard to access to information are showing that we have gone backwards, and they think, Mr. Speaker, that people do not see it. Yes, that is why we laughed yesterday when the word democracy was used about this building.

Let us think of something else, Mr. Speaker, another reason. They themselves have muzzled our own and their own Public Utilities Board. They have made a decision that the Public Utilities Board will not do its work. They deliberately, Mr. Speaker, asked for a response from the Public Utilities Board at the wrong time. They know what they did, and they want us to believe that they believe in democracy. No, Mr. Speaker, they do not believe in democracy.

Mr. Speaker, we started a process that we thought was going to lead to a special debate in this House, where everybody in this House would get a chance –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – to talk to Muskrat Falls, where every member of every caucus, if they wanted to, would get a chance to speak to Muskrat Falls. They manipulated the process around the special debate, Mr. Speaker, so that we do not have a special debate happening. Democracy – yes, no wonder we laughed yesterday when the comment was made.

Mr. Speaker, we actually had something said here in this House today which really shocked me. We had the Minister of Natural Resources stand up and talk about how, basically, we have our eye on you. We saw – and he did use this word – the NDP marching. Where are we, Mr. Speaker? Are we in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four? Big Brother is in the sky watching you? That is what the minister said, and we have to take seriously…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is trying to give the Leader of the Third Party some latitude, but the private member's bill is about the referral to the Public Utilities Board, and I would ask her to make her comments relative to that, please.

MS MICHAEL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the need for us to have the Muskrat Falls Project go before the Public Utilities Board and the need, as the motion says, "for a complete and unrestricted review." What I am putting forward, Mr. Speaker, is that the reason this motion is on the floor is because we have a government who is not allowing complete and unrestricted review of legislation in this House and of a debate in this House on Muskrat Falls in particular.

For example, let us look at Manitoba. Let us look at Manitoba Hydro. Let us look at what happened to Manitoba Hydro with regard to their Wuskwatim hydro project, which started in 2012. What did they do? They had a project they started talking about in, Mr. Speaker, in 2001. In 2012 it finally is a project that is operating and they have energy being generated.

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro would understand why you would have to go before the PUB because certainly they had to go before the PUB, their PUB in Manitoba. They were told in 2008, Mr. Speaker, four years before their project was completed, by their utility board that they needed to balance the needs of Manitoba Hydro and its fiscal responsibility with the reality of a worldwide recession and its impact on consumers and industry. They were told what they had to do, Mr. Speaker, as ratepayers. They were told by the Public Utilities Board.

Well, the Public Utilities Board here in Newfoundland and Labrador will be telling nobody anything because this government will not allow them to do it. This government is controlling this process. It has controlled it and will continue to control it right through to the very end. Well, they better realize, Mr. Speaker, that through that control they are going to have on their heads what happens with this project if it goes ahead. They need to listen to the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, who said they want –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time for speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: One minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Are there further speakers to the motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

I say to the member from Lord's Cove: I will not go over my time. I will stay within the time limits as per the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today as well and participate in what is going to be a number of extremely important facilitative discussions debating the project of Muskrat Falls. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for bringing the motion forward. I think it gives us another great opportunity to stand in the House and have a chance to express how we feel about the project.

Today, of course, in particular we are focusing on the issue of the Public Utilities Board. I guess the motion suggests we refer the project back, but in a broader sense we are going to have an opportunity to talk about the role of the Public Utilities Board.

I want to first of all thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for her contribution to this debate. It is important, very important that we all participate in this process. It is a pleasant surprise, because my recollection was that when this project was initially sent to the PUB, the Leader had sent a letter saying she refused to participate in that process. It is refreshing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: It is refreshing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that.

As I said, though, to be fair, to people who are listening to the debate, it shows a flexibility of all members in this House and our willingness to change as the options in the project change, just as the Leader of the New Democratic Party could flip-flop on her position of the Public Utilities Board. I think that is a good thing, that she has been here today and she participated in the debate. It is good.

There are a number of issues that have been raised here today relative to her speech that I want to speak to, because we are talking about the participation of the Public Utilities Board. The member said very clearly – and this is a paraphrase, not a quote – that it is normal practice in other places that items are referred to the Public Utilities Board.

I am going to submit for the focus of my –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: For the Member for St. John's North, Mr. Speaker: I say you have lots of opportunity to stand on your feet and debate this. If you give me the courtesy of listening to what I would have to say, I will give you the same courtesy back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is normal practice in other places, I submit. I will agree with the Leader for the moment: that is done, but I will also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is normal practice in other places that when something is referred, you get an answer back. Very clearly, when this government referred this matter to the Public Utilities Board, by way of – I will check my notes; by way of my notes, my recollection is we spent nine months, which was a nine-month push-out on the end date of the project. We invested $2 million and we came back with zero progress. That is what we received, Mr. Speaker.

I submit that the line of thinking put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party – if you follow that line of thinking that it is natural to submit this to the PUB, then I would expect that there would be enough courtesy on the PUB to send us back a response that shows what the recommendation is. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear on what has happened in this particular process.

Consultation, Mr. Speaker; we talked about consultation. I have to raise this because it is so funny. The member says there has been no consultation on Muskrat Falls relative to how people feel about this project. By the way, I understand through all the polls that more than 70 per cent of the people in the Province support the project.

Let us talk about consultation: 221 environmental assessment consultations have occurred throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker – 221 consultations; 875 consultations with Aboriginal peoples and Aboriginal groups – 875. Is that what we call no consultation in this Province?

The Public Utilities Board: 180 submissions from Nalcor went to the Public Utilities Board as part of their initial attempt to try and review this project and provide government and members of this House with some indication of how they felt about it – 180 submissions. I say, Mr. Speaker, people of the Province would have to agree with me that you do not call 180 submissions and 875 consultations as no consultation.

There has been more; Nalcor has been across the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – sixty speeches. There have been more than 100 public meetings, Mr. Speaker, on that particular issue alone, on the Burin Peninsula, in my district and the Minister of Education's district as well. Just recently, we have had broad consultations on that.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I just moved some of the documents that we have compiled to show our openness to information. They are in the way of my speaking notes there.

Mr. Speaker, relative to the project itself, I want to go back for a few moments before I get back on the whole issue of the Public Utilities Board. This project has received broad debate in this Province; there is no question about that. I applaud all members who have participated in this debate. It is an important debate and there are many important issues to be discussed. It is why, Mr. Speaker, we are continuously looking for ways as a government to find an opportunity to debate the project in this House. Like I said before, I applaud the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this motion forward, because it gives us two dedicated hours today to talk about the project, talk about the merits of the project, and talk about the Public Utilities Board in particular.

Over the next number of days, Mr. Speaker, we are also going to debate further time that government has control over through Address in Reply to debate this project. Members on this side want to stand on their feet and they want to have an opportunity to speak to it. We are going to provide time to do that, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to lead into another debate that the Premier of the Province has brought forward, next Wednesday, where there will be another day like today where we will all have an opportunity, those who choose to speak. We will have a vote put forward, Mr. Speaker, on that particular motion which will indicate very clearly how members in this House feel about the project. We welcome all opportunities to talk about this project, Mr. Speaker. It is a good project. I think people all across the Province are talking about that.

Mr. Speaker, we started this debate, the Premier talked about this and the minister continuously talks about it, with really two fundamental questions. You talk about, why do the project, and kind of break it down into two questions: Do we need the energy? If, in fact, we do need the energy, is it the lowest-cost option?

There has been significant reasons put forward, Mr. Speaker, reasons that have been justified and have been substantiated by, as I said, many of the reports that I just moved across my desk there a few moments ago. By the way, I submit to you, that is not all of the reports. I could not lift them all. I just brought in ten or fifteen that the minister had in front of him today to demonstrate the volumes of information available to members opposite who choose to read them.

Mr. Speaker, there have been volumes of information produced that talks about the benefits of Muskrat Falls. When I talk to people in my constituency in particular – and I go down there usually every weekend, Mr. Speaker, when the House is sitting, take the opportunity to attend events and speak to my constituents – people all raise the same kinds of questions.

The Leader of the Opposition, I will focus on him because it is his motion today, Mr. Speaker. I heard him raise it before around electricity rates and what it means for the Province. My constituents are no different than others across the Province. They raise the same kinds of questions, about what this project means for the future of the Province, whether the electricity bills are going to go up or going to stabilize.

Today, Mr. Speaker, people are becoming very comfortable in my district with where this project is. People are very happy with the information that is being provided. People are recognizing that the Premier and the minister, and all the supporting cast who produce these reports that we have, Mr. Speaker, also tell us that we do in fact need the energy, first of all, which was the first key question. If we do not, not only will we not be able to respond to the demands that we are going to see in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – and we all see it.

I say to all members in this House, look around. People are building different homes these days. They are using more electric heat than they ever did. Today is the day of the iPads, and now somebody tells me there is a mini iPad, Mr. Speaker. There is more technology in homes today than there was twenty years ago. The fact of the matter is, while some members may laugh at that, that is what consumes electricity, Mr. Speaker. The more gadgets people have in their houses and their homes, the more electricity they burn. The future demand has been demonstrated time and time again.

Plus, Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said repeatedly – sometimes, unfortunately, on deaf ears in this House, but he says it repeatedly – and I listen to him, as do members on this side, that if you do not want to manage the status quo, if you want industry development in Newfoundland, the Island part of Newfoundland, and of course in Labrador in the mining development, we have to provide the means which we can provide power. It is as simple as that. That has been demonstrated by Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, through their studies and it has been supported by the research that has been done. We all recognize that the power is needed, Mr. Speaker.

The lowest cost option; I heard, again, the member opposite reference about detailed studies on other options. I guess I am not sure about what exactly or how far we would have to go on that. As I said, the Manitoba Hydro report happens to be in front of me, but there are oodles of others there. This research has been done.

The question, I guess, that begs answer is: How much research do you do before you convince somebody that it is valid? That is the question, Mr. Speaker. What is puzzling is that we have researchers in this House who have made a career out of doing that, Mr. Speaker, and ought to know that if you are going to challenge research, look at the credibility of who is doing the research and look at the sources that they draw their information upon, Mr. Speaker. That is how you assess whether research is valid or not.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the group that I am speaking to today, for the most part, I believe, recognize the quality of the work that has gone into this project. They recognize that the objectives being put forth by the Premier and by the Minister of Natural Resources are supported by third, not only third parties, Mr. Speaker, but fourth parties and fifth parties.

Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of my time, and I know the Member for St. John's North is going to tell me to sit down right on the button, so I am going to make sure that I stay within my time. I am going to share a story because when I was in my district last weekend one of my constituents shared a bit of a story. They follow politics and they follow the Public Utilities Board. They had a little story and I jotted it down. So I apologize to – as the former Member for Burgeo – La Poile would say, Joe Couch Potato is the name I will give him –

AN HON. MEMBER: Joe Chesterfield.

MR. KING: Joe Chesterfield, I am sorry. I apologize if I do not get the story right.

The story went like this, Mr. Speaker. They wanted to give me an analogy of – this whole issue of referring this project to the Public Utilities Board went like this. They said to me: Minister, I look at it like selling a car. You have a prospective buyer – which for the moment I will call members opposite in the House – you set a price, you have your car out there, and you set your price. The buyer all of a sudden does not agree with what you are selling, does not agree with the price, so you send it for an appraisal. In this case, you send it to the garage called the PUB. The garage sends the car back and says: Well, we cannot really validate whether it is the right price or not. You take the car then, Mr. Speaker, and you send it for a second appraisal. The appraiser comes back and says: Yes, we agree with your price. Then you take it and you send it for a third appraisal, which we have also done, and they come back – all of this here, Mr. Speaker, for the people at home; they come back and validate the price of the car. Now you have the price you set and you have two or three independent parties who have validated the price of the car. The problem is the buyer still does not buy the price of the car.

That is their analogy on the PUB. The PUB rejected an opportunity to provide direction on this project, good or bad, because we would have accepted whatever it was and had to live with it. The PUB rejected their opportunity to deal with this. Government, the minister and the Premier, has taken this and gone to other independent sources that have come back and given some commentary on the project.

Because the one group that initially would not provide a confirmation of the project, because they rejected it, opponents of the project have hung their one objection to this project and their one argument on the fact that that group would not give it a ringing endorsement. They will not recognize or accept all of the other independent reports that have been done, Mr. Speaker, that validate the price of the car or that validate the quality of the work that has gone into this project and validate the need for electricity in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what is most troubling, Mr. Speaker, about the debate around the PUB. From my perspective, we have really gotten away from the fine points of what this project is all about and the importance of this project to Newfoundland and Labrador. We have trivialized it by focusing on the fact that one group, the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland and Labrador, did not have the wherewithal to come back with a solid answer.

Mr. Speaker, to be fair, they could have come back and said: No, we do not support it. They could have at least made a decision. They did not have to come back and say: We do not know what we think. They could have said: We do not support it. At least then the House would have had something to debate here. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate we have gone down that track and gone off in that direction.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Now that my time is up, I certainly would challenge the Member for St. John's North to get up now that he has been heckling all day and have his two cents' worth on this debate as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to rise to speak to this motion put forward by our leader, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, in a commercial business, the rates are competitive and they are lower due to the competitive nature in the marketplace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EDMUNDS: In the cases of monopoly, Mr. Speaker, situations are totally different, and there is a whole new concept of regulation. This case is one of the reasons why we have a Public Utilities Board: to make sure that the people of this Province are protected. That is their job, Mr. Speaker, as a regulatory agency independent: to evaluate the information that comes forward and to make the best possible decision.

It is also the mandate of a Public Utilities Board to get relative information on all components of a proposed project, and this is to ensure, again, that the rights and the concerns of the people in the Province are protected.

Mr. Speaker, we are not buying a car here. We are talking about a $6.2, $7.4, $9 billion project – numbers are variable. To discredit a regulatory agency like the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, leaves the people of this Province at the mercy of a government that wants to push this project through with little or no accountability – certainly a very disturbing thought.

The Public Utilities Board came back after they were given, I call it an artificial mandate, Mr. Speaker, because this was such a good project, and the relative information was given by someone who wants this project to go ahead.

The Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, did not see it that way. The Public Utilities Board came forward with a request for more information. The simple fact that – and they were discredited; this was before the DG3 numbers came out. Over a billion dollars increase in relation to the DG2 numbers – a considerable amount. The PUB was discredited, Mr. Speaker, before this Province brought in Bill 29. The PUB came to the government asking for more information and was discredited because of it.

The next step that this government did was to pass Bill 29 so that they did not have to give out information, and we have all seen the effects of Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, the government across may not see what is unfolding here, but the people in this Province now are starting to see the truth and are certainly starting to come forward. As of now, Mr. Speaker, the only independent regulatory agency that was out there was the joint environmental review panel. Their recommendations have come out and been denied, been denied, been denied.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Natural Resources talk about environment. I go out to some comments made by the Member for St. John's West saying that I should support this project because of my people. If the member had been paying attention today, Mr. Speaker, he would have gotten the position of my people loud and clear.

I hear comments directed to me by the Member for Mount Pearl South talking about the benefits coming to Torngat Mountains: a tax base for municipalities, infrastructure, recreation programs, and many jobs along the route. Mr. Speaker, I did not see this anywhere else.

I would like to go back to what the PUB was given. They were given an artificial mandate, Mr. Speaker. The PUB is designed to act as an independent regulator. I am sure we all would accept that because it is their job to bring all the information forward at the defence of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when they asked for information, Nalcor was dragging its feet in getting the information to them. At the same time, this government would not budge on extensions by the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Speaker, they were actually clawing with one hand and failing to give on the other hand.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is a point that I made earlier, all of this happened before the DG 3 numbers came out. They were too variable and we certainly saw that when the DG 3 numbers came out – over $1 billion in the difference. There was no detailed information. It was not current enough. This is what the PUB came back and said, Mr. Speaker, and now, as time evolves, we are starting to see the truth in what the PUB asked for.

There are other agencies that have come forward; other independent agencies that I am sure gave independent reports. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Democracy Watch, and Sierra Club in conjunction with the Keepers of the Grand River – these are agencies that have had issues with the proposed project, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to go back to the comments made by the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker. He may refer to the Third Party in terms of an environmental review or an environmental component to Muskrat Falls, but Nalcor's position and the position of the Province that there would be no environmental impacts downstream, Mr. Speaker, have certainly been identified. Had the PUB been able to do their job, a lot of this information could have been put forward.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Nunatsiavut Government come out today saying that there are concerns. There are major concerns out there that have to be addressed. I am sure the Member for Lab West and the Member for Lake Melville are aware of this, and certainly if they are not they should be. Mr. Speaker, when you propose a project like this that has the potential for clean energy, clean energy is going to be delivered to cottage country, but our Province is going to be paying the price. Lake Melville is going to be paying the price down the road.

The Nunatsiavut Government, in reference to the minister's comments on environment, have concluded there will be negative impacts in Lake Melville, which the Province and Nalcor had previously said would not happen. I was glad to hear the Minister of Environment and Conservation yesterday, Mr. Speaker, admit there will be impacts. When you are talking about 500-plus fishermen in Lake Melville that harvest – and these are not just Aboriginal groups. Mr. Speaker; these are residents from Lake Melville, from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Northwest River, Mud Lake, and Rigolet. I actually worked for three years in Lake Melville. I have driven every inch of Lake Melville's shores on both sides and certainly I can see where the concern would come in.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue is the fact that this project is going to be shipping power out of our Province and out of our country. Certainly when you have a price tag that is obviously going to exceed $9 billion – and that is not including cost overruns, Mr. Speaker; dams in construction around the world have cost overruns that vary from 54 per cent to 108 per cent – it is something to be concerned about.

Mr. Locke had already indicated that once this project exceeds $8 billion, it should be revisited. I think there was some merit in his comments.

With all this information that is just coming forward now that should have been brought to the PUB as a regulatory agency that covers monopolies like Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, it certainly raised the question: what is the actual cost of this project? Who will be impacted? Who will pay the price, Mr. Speaker?

Without this knowledge, Mr. Speaker, we do not know the facts and we do not know all the issues. This government, Mr. Speaker, could be very well trying to sell wind to a hurricane.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege for me to finish out the discussion on the private member's resolution that I brought forward now nearly a couple of hours ago.

We have heard some significant comments from both the Leader of the Third Party and from, of course, government members on this resolution. It seems to me that what we have gotten from government members so far is pretty much the story that we have heard for the last couple of months, and that has been about reports; we even heard a great story about a comparison to a car salesman and the purchase of a car.

However, this is an expensive car. This is a very expensive car that we are talking about. This is an expensive car that many generations will have to drive because many generations, our own grandchildren and in some cases great-grandchildren, would have to pay for it.

People might say that it could be a cheaper car to drive. People might say that, but we all know there is one thing for sure: in the next fifty years the cars will change. We know now, and we have seen it already just in the past few weeks. We have seen cars that are fuelled by different forms of fuel, that if they drove across even our own Province – one person even said to me in a meeting that we were having on this, he said: that was a car that was driven by electricity and therefore, it is more demand for electricity. In actual case, this car in particular did use electricity, but it never needed oil, did not need it at all. As a matter of fact, it never needed an oil change.

What we do know is that technology will change. The way that we use electricity in our houses either through heat pumps or through other forms of energy will change for sure in the next fifty years. We will see many different opportunities and many different pricing opportunities for those electricity opportunities. It will change – that we do know – in fifty years. The biggest issue I have with this project, Mr. Speaker, is that we are making a commitment for many generations, a fifty-year commitment; we are tying them to the price of it.

This project is said to be a good project. We heard today about $120 million a year that will come into a dividend. These are all good, but the fact is we have to pay for it. The thing is, if this is such a good deal, with all the revenue that is generated from this deal, why can't it go to offset the cost of electricity in the Province? If we are indeed going to generate revenue from export or through mining, well, why isn't that included in ratepayers? Why does that not go to offset the individual rates for the people who are actually purchasing this power?

We have many people throughout this Province who live on very low incomes and they find it very difficult on a day-to-day basis to make ends meet. I will tell you a story about a guy who I had in my district –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: A person who I know who I had in my district, he said: my power bill went up $7 in July. This guy was on Income Support and it was very difficult for him. Many people will say that is the reason why we need Muskrat Falls, but there is a lot of uncertainty around this.

We only need to look at the potential around overruns and costs. We have a project there that based on DG3 numbers is $7.4 billion, which includes the Maritime Link. I am sure we will get an increase in costs on this. We are not directly responsible for the Maritime Link, even though we will be responsible for 50 per cent of the overruns on that link. Once we get it past our 5 per cent, we then pick up the next 5 per cent. That is the way the project will work.

We are on the hook in an indirect way here for sure. There is a potential cost to the ratepayers in this Province even though it is the Maritime Link. People are concerned because in this particular project, even the responsibility that we have taken on financially to develop this project, we are left with a contingency and escalation of around 12 per cent.

I would ask anybody in this room: When was the last time you did a project of any significant size, especially over five years, in a very difficult environment? You have to come underwater at the Strait of Belle Isle, you have to come down the Great Northern Peninsula, and you have to build a dam in the interior of Labrador. When is the last time you are going to get a contingency and escalation to be at $733 million on this project, around 12 per cent, I would say, Mr. Speaker? It just does not happen.

I am not saying this lightly because I want the costs to rise. I have talked to a lot of estimators who have worked on big projects, and they say right now you can count on a minimum of 30 per cent on any project. Well, if that happens, Mr. Speaker, who pays? I will tell you who pays, Mr. Speaker. It is 40 per cent of the people in this Province. It is the people who will use 40 per cent of the power, because there are three blocks here: 40 per cent assigned for the ratepayers of our Province; 40 per cent for other options, be it export or mining; and 20 per cent will go to Nova Scotia. It is the 40 per cent that will pay 100 per cent of the price here.

If this project goes up and we have to deal with overruns, guess who pays? It will be the ratepayers here in this Province. It will be people who are involved in small businesses; it will be our low-income people. This is who will pay for the rates. This is where you will see the biggest difference, and, Mr. Speaker, this is where I have the biggest problem with this.

If this project is so generous, it spins off so much money, then why is it we cannot put this money back in to affect rates? Some will say: We are going to build hospitals, or we are going to build roads, or we are going to build a school. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case, because it is the ratepayers who are actually paying for this project and, indeed, it should affect their rates.

People will say we will use the dividends from Nalcor to do those other infrastructure programs. If that is the case, indeed, you can call it what you want, you are actually collecting revenue based on their electricity rates. Some people might even call it a utility tax, who knows, but it is money that is paid for by the ratepayers that will be used to do other things. That is not the way this project is meant to be designed.

If this project is so financially sustainable, it is so viable, then why do we have to worry about that only 40 per cent of the people, only the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador will have to pay 100 per cent of the cost of this project? That is an issue, Mr. Speaker, for us, because we know very well that the overruns on this particular project – at least I am not comfortable with the fact that we are 12 per cent. A five-year megaproject in a very difficult environment is not a lot of money, and we know that.

All we need to do is look at what has happened with this building alone; look at what has happened with Vale at Long Harbour. That is a project that started out to be somewhere around $2.8 billion, it is now at $4 billion. We know that in this environment that we work in, it is very difficult to keep budgets under control. If this budget is not kept in control, what happens? It is the ratepayers of this Province who will pay the price. If the demand is not right, well then it will be the ratepayers of this Province who will then be forced to absorb this price.

Mr. Speaker, these are some concerns that I have. These are concerns that I have in this project and we need to make sure that before we develop this power purchase agreement, before we make a fifty-year commitment on behalf of the ratepayers of this Province, that these things are addressed.

There was a comment made by one of the ministers about a first year law student, I guess it was. He made mention that this law student was looking at the water management agreement. I have a feeling we are talking about the same law student, because this is the same first year law student who said he felt that the way government was handling this project was irresponsible. That the process was flawed, and he did not agree with the process. Even though he was doing a considerable amount of work on the water management agreement, he did say the process was flawed by government.

Now one way to fix the process, of course, is to take this back to the PUB and let them have a look at this. We talk about delays and why the project is delayed. Well, this project is not delayed because of the PUB. This project was not delayed because of the PUB. This project has had many delays, as we know. It has missed every single milestone along the way.

Nalcor, as I said earlier, by their own admission has said that they could not get the information to the PUB on time. It was difficult getting all the information in place. It was very difficult when you did not have a complete project; DG2 was far from complete. We are now in a position where we have more information, we have more things to compare it to, and the right place to put this is back to an unrestricted PUB review.

Mr. Speaker, this project, as I said, will affect generations to come. In 2010, when the project was first announced, it was pretty much around meeting the demand concerns on the Island of Newfoundland. It was also meant to obviously create a partnership with Emera. Twenty per cent would go there. Then we heard a lot about the stranglehold on Quebec, what it would do to get us off the geographical stranglehold on Quebec, and what that would mean.

Well, one thing we do know is that right now Hydro-Quebec produces around 37,000 megawatts of power. We have the ability to take 500 megawatts of power through the Muskrat Falls development. Even though I join everybody in this House and most people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador that we need to do something because, no, we have not been treated fairly by Quebec, there is one thing for sure: There is a big difference between 37,000 megawatts of power and 500 megawatts of power. We are hardly going to be seen as a significant contributor, given the imbalance we see there.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things, too, that this deal is predicated on, and I mention PIRA before. When you read the reports that have been given so far and you read about the methodology of PIRA and how they reached the numbers they did, one of the things we have seen some significant changes in their reports back just a few years ago and where they are now. There is no question that in the PIRA report – and the minister has outlined it – they are suggesting the price of Brent Crude would fall between $90 and $130 a barrel range. That of course is in 2011 dollars. That was between the years 2012 and 2025.

There is one thing for sure, and I think this is kind of a little warning that even PIRA, who forms a basis for a lot of the arguments around this deal, have said quite clearly that things have changed and that the US market has changed significantly. As a matter of fact, the likelihood they make reference to here now is that they say, "We attach a probability of 45% that the average Brent price will fall within the $90 and $130/Bbl range…." Now, that is PIRA and they are willing to say that out to 2025. Now, we have added to go to 2067, so it is very difficult to make those kinds of forecasts to determine exactly where this is going to go.

Do we as a Province hope that oil prices will continue to go up and rise? Of course we do because it means so much to our economy. To base a project of $7.4 billion that we know of today, based on just that assumption by PIRA, is a bit of a stretch. PIRA goes on to say that the slightly greater probability of 30 per cent is on the downside, and the likelihood, the upside, is 25 per cent. That again is a switch, because in the previous reports PIRA have always said that the price of oil is likely to go up and that has changed.

What does this mean? What this means is that we are now living in a more volatile environment when it comes to energy. Years ago that we could count on and we did count on the price of oil increasing, we could count on things like demand increasing. These were things that we were so accustomed to in our life. Things are changing and things will change, Mr. Speaker. To take this project and place it on the backs of the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, for fifty years is not something that I could support.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by suggesting that this is a project that I do recommend that would go back to the PUB for a full and an unrestricted review. One thing of note that I would say as I listened to the many speakers, and I really appreciate the back and forth that we had. I am a little reluctant to call it a debate because as you know it is not the kind of debate that we were hoping for.

I will say that we heard a lot about the principles of Muskrat Falls and why the project should be done. What I did not hear, Mr. Speaker, is why this project should not go back to the PUB for the unrestricted review. This government has nothing to lose by taking this back to the PUB.

What I would do, Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my comments today, is that I would support that we take this back to the PUB. We are talking about a fifty-year commitment here and we are talking about carving out a few months of those fifty years to get this project once again back for an unrestricted review by the PUB. With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Summon the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Joyce, Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers, Mr. Osborne.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. King, Mr. Hutchings, Ms Shea, Mr. Davis, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Verge, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Granter, Mr. Cornect, Ms Johnson, Mr. McGrath, Mr. French, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Kent, Mr. Lane, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Brazil, Ms Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Cross, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Russell.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, the ayes eleven, the nays thirty-four.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.