March
26, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 8
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have members' statements from the Member
for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; the Member for the District of
Baie Verte Springdale; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; the
Member for the District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of
Carbonear Harbour Grace; and the Member for the District of Lewisporte.
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House
today to recognize the outstanding public speaking abilities of youth in the
Coast of Bays region who participated in the thirty-ninth Annual Speak Off,
hosted by the St. Alban's and Milltown Lions Clubs.
The first place winner was
Jordan Collier, second place was Bianca Stokes, and third was Julie Young.
These youth continue to show outstanding ability for public speaking, and
they certainly make us all very, very proud.
Through these speak offs, you are certainly developing very important
life skills to think and present your opinions on relevant issues effectively,
and I highly commend you for the great job that you are doing.
I would also like to thank
the Lions Clubs, teachers, parents, and volunteers who assist the youth in any
way for this important event, which provides an excellent opportunity for young
people to develop their oratory talent and skills.
I ask all members of this
hon. House to join me in delivering accolades to these fine young students.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A special event took place
on December 5, 2013. I rise in this
hon. House today to congratulate the Baie Verte and Area Royal Canadian Legion
Branch 54 upon the celebration of its fiftieth anniversary.
From its humble beginnings in 1963, when the legion received the Official
Proclamation from Provincial Command, President Sidney Newbury is proud of the
contributions made by the legion and the impact it has had on people's lives.
Fifty years later, they are
still going strong, caring for veterans, their spouses, educating the youth of
our history, and promoting peace. It
grew from having meetings in their vehicles to having their own building, helped
along the way by Bowaters and Baie Verte Mines.
I applaud the outstanding
efforts of past presidents. They
include: Bert McCabe, Thomas Lundrigan, Ernest Nelson, Anthony McCarthy, William
Eaton, Robert Carey, Willis White, Nigel Brake, H.R. Bowers, Joe Gillis, Eric
Pennell, Roland Spurrell, Eric Lacey, Leo O'Reily, Elizabeth O'Reily, and
present President Sidney Newbury.
I invite all colleagues in
this hon. House to help me to convey congratulations to the Baie Verte and Area
Royal Canadian Legion Branch 54 upon its fiftieth anniversary.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
March is Social Workers
Month, a perfect time to acknowledge the vital work being done by the resilient
social workers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Specifically, I thank
THRIVE, an innovative, charitable youth organization in my district for
providing direct support and services to youth service providers through their
community support and development programs.
Last year social workers
from all over the city attended a THRIVE session on Compassion Fatigue, led by
Heidi Edgar. The room was packed as
dedicated social workers shared strategies and ideas, balancing their code of
ethics with the role of burnout in relation to vicarious trauma.
It was an inspiring morning many said, the best professional
development session they had ever attended.
The moral distress felt by
our professionals when work obligations disagree with personal moral values is
very real. The session concluded
with a fantastic discussion on the role of the organization in burnout and the
importance of workers being able to speak to their managers about establishing
reasonable caseloads.
Our social workers work with
the expertise, dedication, and commitment to social justice, often under
crushing caseloads. On behalf of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador I thank them, Mr. Speaker.
Bravo to our brave social workers.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize
the Labrador Woodward's Selects hockey team from Lake Melville on winning gold
at the Canadian Cup International Hockey Tournament, held in Montreal, Quebec,
March 14-16.
The team went undefeated
through the round robin portion of the tournament, before moving on to the
finals where they played the Oro Thunder from Northern Ontario, beating them 6-1
in the final to capture the championship.
The team, their coaches,
parents, and their sponsors should certainly be proud of such a great
accomplishment. Being able to bring
back a provincial, regional, or national championship is one thing, Mr. Speaker,
but being able to bring back an international championship is all the more
special.
The team consisted of Chris
O'Dell, Nick Robinson, Brad Robinson, Bradley Ellsworth, Ben Roberts, Matt
Patey, Garrett Chaulk, Nick Taylor, Andrew Tee, Leo Ford, Adam Anderson, Cody
Normore, Rylan Bent, Dominic Mullaly, Tyler Hynes, Michael White; and the
coaching staff Arnold Kelly, Grant Patey, Myron Roberts, Dave White; their
sponsor, Mel Woodward and Director of Operations, Liz Battcock.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all
members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Labrador Woodward's
Selects on winning the Canadian Cup International Hockey Tournament.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour
Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to
congratulate five young people of Carbonear Harbour Grace District who
participated in the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games in Clarenville.
Kristen Shute, Kelsey Shute,
and Samantha Pike were members of the Avalon Female Hockey Team who won the
bronze medal at the Winter Games.
Matthew Hoyles and Ryan
Williams were members of the Avalon Male Hockey Team, and they finished the
games with a silver medal.
Mr. Speaker, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games have proven to be an excellent
opportunity for young people in our Province to excel in their sport and to make
life-long friends from around the Province.
This year was no different and I want to congratulate the Town of
Clarenville for hosting the greatest asset the young people of our Province.
Mr. Speaker, Kristen,
Kelsey, Samantha, Matthew, and Ryan represent a large number of youth in my
district who are active in sports, arts, academics and are using their expertise
to make their communities better places to live.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon.
members to join me in congratulating Kristen, Kelsey, Samantha, Matthew, and
Ryan on their achievements and wish them every success in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of
Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize
the great work done by a family farm in the Town of Comfort Cove Newstead.
Triple E Farms began ninety years ago when Raymond Eveleigh set up the
enterprise. Today, Raymond's son
Junior and grandson Dwight run this 115 acre farm that employs thirty people at
peak season and eight people for ten months of the year.
In total, they produce 2.5 million pounds of product for the Newfoundland
and Labrador marketplace.
Recently, Triple E Farms was
awarded certification from the CanadaGAP food safety program.
This is the first family farm in Newfoundland and Labrador to receive
this certification. The process of
being certified involves a third party auditor who inspects every aspect of
farming from the time the seed goes into the ground to when the final packaged
product is placed on store shelves.
Mr. Speaker, Triple E Farms received an overall grade of 96 per cent.
This is a tremendous accomplishment and once again demonstrates the
quality work that we can do right here in our Province.
I ask all hon. members to
join with me in congratulating Junior Eveleigh, Dwight Eveleigh, and all the
employees of Triple E Farms.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before we move to Ministerial Statements, I want
to acknowledge a special guest in our gallery today, Ms Cassandra Singleton from
Clarenville, who is this year's ambassador for the Purple Day for Epilepsy.
Welcome to our gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have a Ministerial Statement from the
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House
today to recognize Purple Day for Epilepsy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to
raise awareness of this neurological disorder in an effort to reduce stigma and
improve the quality of life for those living with epilepsy.
During a recent proclamation
signing recognizing Purple Day in Newfoundland and Labrador, I had the pleasure
to meet with a remarkable young lady who shared her story of inspiration and
hope and how being affected by epilepsy has changed her life.
Mr. Speaker, Cassandra
Singleton, a nineteen-year-old from Clarenville, was diagnosed with epilepsy
five years ago and did not fully understand the complexity of this disorder when
she experienced her first seizure as a teenager.
What Cassie did discover, however, is that while having epilepsy poses
some challenges, it does not define who she is as a person.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, this
young lady has faced her challenges head on.
She graduated from high school and is currently a student at Memorial
University. Cassie is a true
ambassador for individuals affected by epilepsy and is demonstrating through her
own personal success, that people living with epilepsy are not alone and can
lead fulfilling lives.
Mr. Speaker, epilepsy is one
of the most common neurological conditions with approximately one in twenty-six
people expected to develop epilepsy at some point in their lifetime.
More than 10,000 people are affected by this disorder in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
People are encouraged to
visit the Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador Web site at
www.epilepsynl.com to learn more about
Purple Day, the different types of seizures, and to become familiar with the
correct methods of first aid.
Mr. Speaker, today, during
Purple Day, I encourage residents to wear the colour purple and to participate
in Purple Day activities in their communities as a show of support for people
like Cassandra living with epilepsy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo
La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of her statement.
Certainly we would like to welcome Ms Singleton to the House.
It is an honour to have her here with us today.
We are very happy to stand
here today and talk about epilepsy.
Myself, the Leader of the Opposition, all of the caucus, and many members on all
sides of this House are happy to wear purple today to show our support and help
raise awareness about epilepsy. It
is important to raise awareness because of how it affects those living with
epilepsy, and their family and friends.
We have about 10,000 people
in our Province today with epilepsy.
That is a huge portion. It is the
fourth most common neurological disorder and there is no known cure yet, but
right now the cost can often be managed through medication and through surgery.
I am urging everyone today
to get behind Purple Day and to help people understand epilepsy better and the
people who live it. Hopefully one
day, through research, we will better understand it and a cure will be found.
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.
I thank the minister for the
advance copy of her statement. I,
too, am very happy and pleased to be standing here today wearing purple in
solidarity with those living with epilepsy and their families.
With 10,000 people in the Province affected, it is obvious many of us
have been touched by epilepsy in some manner, either within our families or
sometimes even in organizations we are part of.
I remember children with epilepsy in school when I went to school.
It is important, therefore,
that we make the effort to become trained in the correct methods of first aid.
I congratulate Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador on the work they do in
that regard. I also congratulate
them on the scholarship program they have, scholarships for young people who
have epilepsy themselves or whose parents have it.
It is great work that they do.
Today, I do encourage people
not only to wear purple in support, but to also take the time to become more
aware of the issues surrounding the condition and to learn the appropriate first
aid for seizures that Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador has put on cards for
all of us.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
discuss the significant accomplishments of the Combined Forces Special
Enforcement Unit Newfoundland and Labrador, which was formed last year to
strengthen the fight against child exploitation, illegal drugs, and organized
crime across our Province.
This provincial, joint law
enforcement effort between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary partners with other law enforcement agencies, and
consists of crime analysts, investigators, computer forensic specialists, and
other specialized members. By
working together to tackle serious crimes involving complex networks of
criminals that often recognize no boundaries or borders, the Combined Forces
Special Enforcement Unit is making our communities safer and protecting our
children and our families.
Since its formation, the
unit has made significant progress in fighting crime.
To date, illegal drugs with an estimated street value of more than $2
million have been seized along with more than $500,000 in cash.
Three firearms and other illegal weapons have also been removed from our
streets and our communities. In
terms of child exploitation, investigators with the Combined Forces Special
Enforcement Unit have laid forty-one charges related to Internet offences
against children.
Under the guidance of RCMP
Superintendent William Malone, the officer in charge, as well as RNC Staff
Sergeant Joe Gullage, the second-in-command, the unit also has many ongoing
cases currently under investigation.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial
government is committed to protecting residents and to safeguarding them from
the criminal element in this Province.
Since 2004, approximately $920 million has been invested in policing
services and more than 140 additional police officers have been deployed
throughout our Province. By
continuing to support policing services, we strive to ensure that the Province
is as safe as possible for our residents and our communities.
The nature of organized
crime is evolving and this government is responding by meeting the requirement
for specialized and focused policing in the areas of organized crime, drugs, and
child exploitation. We will continue
to support the hard-working officers and investigators of the Combined Forces
Special Enforcement Unit as they face these critical issues head-on and
endeavour to provide a safe place for all of us to live in.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister of an advance
copy of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, on March 24
The Telegram reported that police in
Newfoundland say two males have been arrested after a six-month investigation
into cocaine trafficking, money laundering, and firearms possession.
The RCMP says they used search warrants
in two residences and seized cocaine and $335,000 in cash, and a loaded 9mm
handgun from a vehicle. That loaded
handgun was a Kel-Tec P-11 designed for concealed carry, with maximum 9mm
hitting power.
Mr. Speaker, where are they
today? Well, yesterday one of them
was let out on $7,000 bail. Seven
thousand dollars bail got one of these accused, organized criminals out on the
street. Mr. Speaker, I call on the
Minister of Justice to instruct his prosecuting attorneys to insist that there
be no agreement on bail on organized crime, and a complete confiscation of the
proceeds of crime.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement, Mr. Speaker.
Congratulations to the
Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of the RCMP and the RNC for their hard
and, I suspect, often dangerous work.
Regarding their drug work,
the police know, as important as their work is, they are only treating the
symptoms. Government could help ease
the burden on this unit by treating the root causes of drug addiction, but all
we see from this government is cutbacks and privatization of the care of some of
our most vulnerable people. As the
police will agree, prevention and treatment is absolutely crucial in this area.
With regard to the unit's
work with Internet luring of children and child exploitation, there are really
no words, except to say thank you for your dedication and compassion.
This is tough, tough work.
With regard to the unit's work, I would like to say once again, bravo for all
the very difficult work they do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Newfoundland Power's report
on DarkNL identifies that the availability of backup power generation as a
long-term issue. As we know, once
Muskrat Falls comes online, there will be very limited backup power available on
the Avalon Peninsula; however, Newfoundland Power has said that the Eastern part
of our Province, as we all know, has the largest and the fastest-growing power
demand needs.
I ask the Premier: What is
your plan for backup power on the Avalon if the lines on the isthmus go down?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr. Speaker, hydroelectric systems are very large and very complex.
One of the concerns that have been expressed right across the country is
the lack of capital investment that has gone into them.
One of the things we have done as a government since 2007 is ensure that
the profits being earned by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remain in that
company so they can in turn make capital investments.
I know the government
opposite, when they were in power, extracted those funds, extracted those
profits as dividends, and therefore did not allow enough capital investment, and
that exacerbates any problems that we are having today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
I thank the Premier for his comments but he
obviously was not in Question Period yesterday when we clearly outlined in the
reports that came up, the DarkNL process already talked about maintenance last
year. As a matter of fact, the
Minister of Natural Resources quite clearly said he was not even aware that was
happening.
Newfoundland Power's report
says that more backup power supply on the Avalon would have reduced the system
and customer distress that we experienced in January.
Meanwhile, government's own consultant, MHI, said that outages up to one
month are possible if the Muskrat Falls line goes down.
I ask the Premier: Why are
you rolling the dice and not proceeding without a clear backup power plan for
the eastern part of our Province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr. Speaker, we have come up with a major plan for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is through Muskrat Falls.
That will provide power to the people of this Province at a lower cost
than any other alternative and also provide an opportunity for surplus power;
surplus to our needs will be able to be sold down in other markets and provide
wealth and opportunity for the people of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we
are not experts in hydroelectricity operation.
We hire the experts to do that.
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has a team in place.
Ed Martin and his team, is a team I have confidence in.
They have a board of directors and they have consultants with
SNC-Lavalin. They have a big project
team. They are doing major projects,
and I have confidence in them and in the report they are now going to do to look
at the needs of this Province as we come connected to the Canadian system.
I look forward to what they
do, and I look forward to the report coming out of the PUB who are looking at
the blackouts and also looking at post Muskrat Falls.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, the Premier did not
answer the question. He clearly
missed the point on the Manitoba Hydro and clearly missing the point of what
Newfoundland Power was saying yesterday.
We are talking about a very sensitive area of this Province where
transmission as a matter of fact, the backup power that you are talking about
from Muskrat Falls, the imported power that you are talking about cannot get to
Eastern Newfoundland without another transmission line in place.
That is what I am talking about, I say, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Chair of
the Legal Aid Commission says that government's reversal on legal aid cuts will
do little to solve chronic problems in the system, including long wait times.
As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.
I ask the Premier: After
more than a decade in government, why have you failed to adequately address the
chronic problems in our justice system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we came
into office back in 2003, I became the Minister of Justice.
I discovered that at that time, under the previous government, the amount
of investment per capita in legal aid in Newfoundland and Labrador was the
lowest in Canada.
In nine years, we increased
spending; we doubled the spending in legal aid in this Province.
Now after nine years, the spending per capita on legal aid is the highest
in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr. Speaker, we doubled it.
The Chair of the Legal Aid Commission did release a report in response to the
Roil report. He talked about the
federal government's decrease in money for legal aid, he talked about the
provinces have to step up, and he talked about ours did.
He talked about the Newfoundland and Labrador legal aid system.
He said we are now considered to have one of the best legal aid plans in
Canada, which means the world. Mr.
Speaker, I think our record in legal aid speaks for itself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly, the Chair of the
Legal Aid Commission was saying the news report that came out there is one
thing about spending money, you can spend all the money you want but if you do
not get outcomes, it does not matter.
Mr. Speaker, according to
the Chair of the legal aid, government's pre-Budget announcement on the justice
system will do nothing to fix the big service gaps in Labrador.
He says that something big has to happen there and it needs to happen
soon.
I ask the Premier: What are
you going to do to fix the problem in Labrador?
Remember, justice delayed is justice denied.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A number of years ago, a
young woman from Saskatchewan was retained to come in and take a look at the
legal aid system in Labrador and we followed her recommendations.
We accepted her recommendations.
We brought in additional funding for more facilities and more resources
in Labrador, including interpretation, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we will
continue to do it. We cannot do it
all at once. The Leader of the
Opposition said we need the big bang.
Fortunately, we have a priority.
We have to determine our priorities.
We cannot do it all at once.
It is something we did when
we came into office with the policing system.
The policing system was not the most stellar.
We could not do it all at once, but we did it surely, steadily, and now
we have one of the best police forces in the country in our RNC.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, despite the snow accumulation and
the bone-chilling cold we have experienced this winter, many young students are
expected to endure a dangerous and difficult walk to school.
Meanwhile, government is sitting on a $75,000 school busing report which
says that few parents agree with the current 1.6 kilometre policy.
I ask the Minister of
Education: When will you act in the best interest of children and make the
changes to school busing that parents want to see?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member comes
from when he keeps talking about we are sitting on a report.
The report is on our Web site.
The first thing that was recommended in the report is before you can make
further decisions you need to know what is happening out there.
The first recommendation was to purchase routing software so you can make
some decisions about the busing system.
I do not if the member
realizes it or not, but I believe it was on March 12 or March 13 we announced we
had purchased that routing software.
We have installed some pilot projects around an outside apparatus that provide
protection for students, Mr. Speaker, so we are moving on the report.
I do not know where the member comes from saying that we are sitting on a
report. We are moving on it, it is
out there, we have purchased, and we are moving ahead.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
That is all cold comfort for those kids, Mr.
Speaker. The minister's $75,000
school busing report recommended that he look at reducing the 1.6 kilometre
eligibility policy for primary and elementary students.
He asked the parents for their input; now he is ignoring their feedback.
I ask the minister: Will he
heed the advice of his high-priced consultants and change the busing eligibility
policy for the safety of our students?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, let me very clear with the member.
There is no price that is too high for the safety of our students in this
Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
There is no price.
We put no price on what we can do to provide for our students.
I have said in this House once we review and we get the data coming in
from this routing software, then we will make some decisions, and we may in fact
be able to address the issue the member is talking about.
We are about providing the best-quality service for our students, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very glad to hear the
minister say that.
Mr. Speaker, many students,
parents, and teachers in the Mount Pearl school system will see their school
communities unnecessarily destroyed when there are other, less-disruptive
solutions. One of the core issues is
government forcing the school board to jam students into every inch of space,
regardless of the numerous negative impacts, before any consideration will be
given to capital improvement or school expansion requests.
I ask the minister: Is he
prepared to provide the English School Board with a reasonable level of
financial flexibility to develop more suitable options?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, his method of posing questions has
certainly changed since he crossed the green carpet; I have to say that.
Mr. Speaker, a process has
been put in place. The school board
has gone out and consulted with the parents.
We are not putting limitations on the school board.
Is he asking me to get
involved in the middle of this?
Because, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why we have the board.
Government is hands off. We
are letting the school board and the parents make the decisions, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that my method of
asking questions has not changed. My
ability to ask questions certainly has.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, we all realize that the school board
has a process to follow in addressing the overcrowding issues at St. Peter's
Elementary
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
I will start again, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we all realize
that the school board has a process to follow in addressing the overcrowding
issues at St. Peter's Elementary and Mount Pearl Senior High.
However, the absence of any financial commitment from government is
having a significant impact on the board's ability to develop suitable options
for the reorganization of the Mount Pearl Paradise school system.
I therefore ask the
minister, once again: Will he commit in this hon. House today to provide a
reasonable level of financial resources to the English School Board to assist
them in dealing with this very serious issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of
Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I certainly did not
think I did anything while he was over on this side to inhibit his questions.
Mr. Speaker, just look at
our record in this particular area.
Two new schools in Paradise, a school in CBS underway, another one in the
planning for Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, and Torbay.
Mr. Speaker, I can go on and speak until you tell me to sit down and get
up, and I will sit down again, the list of school projects we are undertaking in
this Province.
We want to provide a quality
education to the students of Mount Pearl.
We will let the process unfold, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are on
the lack of accessible housing.
Debbie, who uses a wheelchair, is living in an apartment that is subsidized by
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, but the stove is not accessible and she is
nervous using it. Debbie has had
injuries because the bathtub is not accessible, the doorways will not
accommodate her wheelchair, also causing injuries.
I ask the minister: What
plans do government have to make more accessible housing available to those who
need it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of this government
is addressing the needs of the most vulnerable people in our Province.
I take that with heart and soul, Mr. Speaker, because in my past life of
thirty-odd years in pharmacy, I served a lot of them.
Accessibility is really
important to the client, really important to this government, Mr. Speaker.
We have invested over the last number of years a lot of money in regard
to making people's lives better in the overall in regard to accessibility and we
will continue to support them, both in Advanced Education and Skills and
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. OSBORNE:
She is waiting three years for an accessible
unit. I still wonder what the
minister's plans are.
Debbie, who lives on the
third floor of a building, had to call the fire department to be helped down the
stairs during the DarkNL crisis because the elevator was not operating.
During slippery conditions she is confined to her apartment because her
building is on a hill.
I ask the minister: Debbie
has been waiting three years to get a transfer to an acceptable unit; doesn't
the minister think it is time for more accessible housing?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, I will first start by saying if the hon. member could get Debbie to
call me, I will certainly look into her needs because it is really important to
me as the minister responsible and also, she did not call me.
You have her call me directly, is what I say to the hon. member.
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the minister to direct his comments to the
Chair, please.
MR. O'BRIEN:
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, in regard to those
people, those most vulnerable people with disabilities in this Province, I have
recently funded COD-NL to look at that program in regard to these kinds of
issues, in regard to outages and whatever it may be, Mr. Speaker, and adverse
events in Newfoundland and Labrador.
They are going to do a piece of work for me.
They are going to report to me and we are going to do something about it,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay
North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the launch of the Open Government Initiative was a bunch of
hoopla resulting in no new information being made publicly available.
The minister said government will now engage the public over the next few
months to find out what data people would like posted.
Why would the Minister of
Public Engagement think it wise to spend thousands of taxpayers' dollars
announcing information that was already publicly available?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, the Centre for Law and Democracy has
stated more than once that to be successful in launching an open government
strategy you have to engage the public in developing your Open Government Action
Plan. That is what we announced last
week. It is unfortunate the member
opposite continues not to understand the fact that we are beginning a process.
We have launched the pillars of our plan, and we will now, over the next
number of months, seek public input so that we design the best possible Open
Government Action Plan to move this government forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay
North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Engagement confirmed in the House
yesterday what we have known for some time.
Instead of developing a plan through public engagement this government
would rather dictate to the people what it needs and listen later, case in point
is its Open Government Initiative.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Minister of Public Engagement: Why government feels it is responsible and
reasonable to tell people first and listen later, only to spend more in the
process to fix their problems?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr. Speaker
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr. Speaker, I think it is incredible the hon. member does not get it.
We are bringing in an Open Government Initiative in order for us to
provide more information to the people of the Province and then engage in public
engagement so they can get back to us
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
so that our decisions can be better, and our policies, our services,
and our programs will be better.
Instead of ramming it down people's throats the way the hon. member would like
to do it, the first thing we are doing is establishing a system of public
engagement.
We are going to ask the
people of the Province how they want us to engage with them, how they want us to
communicate with them, what is the best way for them to get back to us, and what
information do they want us to provide?
That is what we are going to do.
When we finish this process we will come up with a framework and an
action plan, and that will be systemic right through government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
I was a bit humoured myself with them all out
with those clickers. Yes, we want
more open government.
Mr. Speaker, the Department
of Advanced Education and Skills are undergoing significant restructuring over
the next year, but the minister says the staff complement will remain at its
current size.
I ask the minister, let's
talk about people: Will anyone lose their job as a result of this
reorganization?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
No.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Minister of
Advanced Education and Skills what was the fate of Employment Assistance
Services Agencies serving women in non-traditional employment and persons with
disabilities. His answer was vague.
I ask the minister: Are
contracts with these EAS Agencies being renewed for 2014-2015?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and
Skills.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN:
Mr. Speaker, I have been working with yes,
absolutely. How is that?
Get up and ask your question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Two and a half years, and we finally get a straight answer, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, after a
three-year fight with the Department of CYFS that ended at Supreme Court, CBC
finally got access to a secret consultant's report on a family in the CYFS
caseload.
I ask the minister: Why were
you keeping this report so secret?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2008, there was a report
that was sanctioned, invited, ordered, and directed by the Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services at the time to review a case file.
We review case files on a regular basis.
It is a really good way to learn how we have done casework in the past
and how we should do it in the future.
It helps us reflect on what we have done in the past and it helps us
determine new ways to advance and improve the services we provide to children
and families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is our goal, Mr.
Speaker, is to provide the best services possible to the children, youth, and
families in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are quite prepared to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I ask the minister: Why did you make CBC go to Supreme Court?
Why did you try to keep it secret for so many years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member opposite
is referring and stating here in this House, the report was not secret.
The report that was carried out was well known.
I can tell you there is information in that report that must remain
confidential.
I will tell this hon. House
and I will tell the members opposite, that I will, as the Minister of Child,
Youth and Family Services, do everything in my power to protect the privacy of
children, youth, and families in this Province that are involved with Child,
Youth and Family Services. If that
means we have to go to Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to protect
their interests, we will do that.
That is what the Supreme Court upheld, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would note that the government ignored the initial Access
to Information report and that they actually dismissed recommendations by the
Privacy Commissioner that most of the report should be made public.
That is why they had to go to court.
According to CBC, CYFS set
the parameters of the review so narrowly that the family involved was not even
interviewed.
I ask the minister: Why did
you not want the consultant to hear the family's side of the story?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious the member
opposite is not aware of the circumstances, what unfolded here, and what took
place. There was a review conducted
that involved how we interact with other agencies, government agencies, and
other government departments. This
was a very complex case that was handled very well by social workers, front-line
workers, and Child, Youth and Family Services qualified, hard-working social
workers in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.
What we have done since the
development of the new department because it was this government, Mr. Speaker,
who knew the best way for us to provide the best services to children, youth,
and families in Newfoundland and Labrador was to create a new department, the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, a mainline department for the
government. Mr. Speaker, that is
what we did so we could provide those services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Government has ignored the
recommendations of the Minimum Wage Advisory Committee which included annual
increases based on the cost of living, and instead legislated a paltry
twenty-five cent increase for next October and October, 2015.
I ask the Premier: Why has
his government not followed the committee's recommendations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the member opposite would
know, we commission reports on a regular basis, following a pattern of
governments before us, and we receive all kinds of recommendations.
We are never obligated to accept recommendations, and we never set up
reports when we commission them to say we are going to accept the
recommendations and be bound to what is offered to us.
We simply take them as recommendations and we consider them.
That is what we have done in this particular case.
I think if you check the
history since we have come to government, we have done more to help minimum wage
and low-income earners in this Province, more than any other province in Canada,
Mr. Speaker. In the particular raise
that I introduced not long ago in this Province, we provided some lead-up time,
because many of our seasonal industries need time to prepare for the
implementation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
What the minister said does
not really give any enthusiasm to somebody who gets appointed to a body to give
advice to them is all I can say.
Government has reversed its
position on a number of issues, such as Bill 29, Justice funding, and Muskrat
Falls oversight.
I ask the Premier: Will he
reverse government's decision to maintain the minimum wage at a poverty level
income?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Mr. Speaker, sometimes I do not understand the Leader of the Third
Party. She criticizes us for making
cuts, now she is criticizing us for putting the things back.
You cannot have it both ways.
It has to be one or the other, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
I am not criticizing, Mr. Speaker, saying if they
are putting things back, then put back all the things that they did, because
they really cut too much.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Premier spoke of government being in a position to help distribute wealth.
One-quarter of minimum wage earners are the sole earners for their
household.
I ask the Premier: Would not
raising the minimum wage be the best way you could better distribute wealth,
giving people a chance at a living wage?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions being
raised. I think the record of this
government on supporting low-income earners and people who are financially
challenged in this Province speaks for itself.
The member would certainly be well aware, given her history with this
issue, that the wage a person earns is only one piece of how you distribute
wealth in this Province and you look after people.
I refer to my colleague, the
Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, who provides countless funding
support to entice people back to school so they can avail of the thousands of
job opportunities occurring every other day in this Province, Mr. Speaker.
I refer to my colleague, the
Minister of Health and Community Services, we brought in more enhancements to
drug plans and emergency transportation plans to support these people who are
financially challenged. All of that
goes together with the minimum wage to provide support (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
In November 2012, IOC
workers expressed concern the silica dust levels in the Labrador City mine were
eight times the acceptable level. We
now know that dust levels are worse than ever.
I ask the Minister of
Services Newfoundland and Labrador: Will he ensure that IOC is complying with
minimum silica dust levels, as established in the provincial Silica Code of
Practice?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, our OSH inspectors do rigorous work
in Labrador. They are up there on a
regular basis. They make sure that
IOC and other mining companies are in compliance with regulation and
legislation.
We are aware of the
situation, the work is getting done, and we are getting results.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, this government
privatized Adult Basic Education and certain Eastern Health food services, and
they are still at it this creeping privatization.
Monday, the minister rolled
out his new delivery model for staffed residential placements for children and
youth, neglecting to mention many well-paid public sector jobs will be lost.
I ask the minister: Exactly
how many well-paying public sector jobs in our communities has he cut with this
move?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It has been almost a year
since the NDP asked a question about Child, Youth and Family Services in this
House that I had an opportunity to get up and answer.
It is my first time as the minister getting up and answering.
It is quite obvious why, Mr. Speaker.
Because the hon. member opposite has no idea what she is talking about,
and that is as clear as I can put it.
Staffed residential
placements are currently carried out by service providers that provide the
service to the department and to the government.
We have gone through a competitive process to ensure that we are getting
the best services we can in Newfoundland and Labrador, best services for
children, best services for youth in those staffed residential placements.
We have new contractors that will provide those services into the future
and they are still private contractors outside, the same as they were before.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, there are forty-four public sector
jobs, for sure, that will be cut by this.
Mr. Speaker, youth with
complex needs require the highest level of care, obviously stability and
continuity of care are of paramount importance.
Many of the experienced staff that government are cutting has been
working for years with these children; they are like family.
I ask the minister: Why does
he think moving the care of these children to private providers with short-term
contracts, lower paying jobs, and higher staff turnover is better for the
children?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, now she has confirmed it.
She actually has no idea what she is talking about.
Staffed residential services
in Newfoundland and Labrador for many, many years has been provided by outside,
private entities: private not-for-profit organizations and private for-profit
businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is not going to change.
They are not public sector employees who provide those services.
I have no idea and cannot
understand where the member opposite is getting her information.
She either clearly does not understand what she is talking about, or is
intentionally trying to mislead the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, time
for a quick question without preamble.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, when is the minister going to tell
these children exactly where they are going to live?
Many are devastated and afraid now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of
Child, Youth and Family Services, for a quick response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite I would
be pleased to provide her with a briefing on what Level IV foster care is about.
It is part of our four-level foster care system in Newfoundland and
Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is a great
project. When we announced that
Monday, it was a good day for the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period has expired.
The hon. the Member for
Burgeo La Poile, the Opposition House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, upon questioning by the Leader of
the Official Opposition, the Premier clearly referred to and quoted a document
in answering a question. So, I would
ask that the Premier table the document.
PREMIER MARSHALL:
Yes, I will. I would be very
happy (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select
Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and
Works.
MR. MCGRATH:
On March 23, the Member for St. John's South
asked that I table the expenses associated with the lease of the
Norcon Galatea, and I would like to
table those today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of
Treasury Board.
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to section
26(5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act I am tabling seven
Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2014-2015 to
2016-2017 fiscal years.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will very quickly table a
number of documents related to questions posed yesterday related to the Humber
Valley regional planning process and the Northeast Avalon regional planning
process.
A member opposite asked for
a list of current committee members for the Humber Valley regional planning
authority process. I am pleased to
table that.
Related to the Northeast
Avalon Regional Plan, I am pleased to table the original Request for Proposals
that went out that led to the initial consultant work being done.
I am also tabling a list of committee members from the original
committee. I am also tabling a list
of committee members for the committee that I put together in recent months.
I am also tabling the Terms
of Reference that has been agreed upon for the process moving forward, a summary
of costs to date, and also the report that was never finalized or accepted that
was prepared by the consultant in recent years for the Northeast Avalon Regional
Plan.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for
which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, 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 in the 2011 Blue
Book, the Progressive Conservative Party committed to fully replacing the
provincial student loans program with a full system of up-front, needs-based
grants; and
WHEREAS the average student
debt in Newfoundland and Labrador remains at approximately $25,000, the highest
average student debt in the country; and
WHEREAS student debt
prohibits many graduates from contributing to the economy through purchasing
homes, automobiles, et cetera; and
WHEREAS student debt is
disproportionately borne by students from low-income backgrounds and students
from rural areas; and
WHEREAS student debt is a
primary cause of out-migration, as many students must move out of the Province
in order to pay off their education related debt;
We, the undersigned,
petition the House of Assembly to urge government to follow through on its 2011
general election commitment to replace the provincial student loan program with
a system of up-front, needs-based grants.
As in duty bound, your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy
to stand and support this petition which has been sent to us, a petition asking
this government to keep its promises.
In the Speech from the Throne three weeks ago, this government, through
the Lieutenant Governor, said that they will continue to support and care about
post-secondary students in this Province.
Well, one of the ways to
really show that they mean that, Mr. Speaker, would be if tomorrow in the Budget
we see a provincial student loan program being announced.
If they are going to show support for the students in this Province, then
they have to do it by keeping their promises.
They have said that they
would have a full system of up-front, needs-based grants and they have done
nothing about it. The student loans
continue. We have not had
forgiveness of debt. Even though we
have a moratorium on the tuition fee in terms of raising it, at the same time
students continue to accumulate debt.
On behalf of the students of
this Province, some of whom signed this petition, Mr. Speaker, I am asking this
government to show them concretely that they do care about them, that they do
not want the students of this Province going around carrying thousands of
dollars of debt. Especially at a
time when in this Province it is very hard for young people in their twenties
and even in their thirties to be able to find adequate housing and jobs.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, 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 there is a waste
recovery facility being proposed by Eastern Waste Management in the Peak
Pond-Reids Pond area; and
WHEREAS such a site will
drastically impact the pond and general area in a negative way from an
environmental perspective; and
WHEREAS there are many
species of wildlife that will be negatively impacted by such a site, such as
moose, rabbits, loons, ducks, Canada geese; and
WHEREAS such a site will
result in litter and strong odours from the general area; and
WHEREAS there are a
significant number of cabins and permanent homes in the Peak Pond-Reids Pond
area which will be negatively impacted by this site; and
WHEREAS the Eastern Waste
Management has many sites available to them for such a facility, including
former dump sites in the area;
WHEREUPON the undersigned,
your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to intercede in the matter and advise
Eastern Waste Management to withdraw this proposal and find a more suitable
location for this waste recovery facility.
As in duty bound, your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is the
third time now in the same number of days that I have presented this petition to
the House. I have many more
petitions to present. They are
coming in on a daily basis. I
actually received a couple of e-mails from people impacted by this again this
morning asking me about where to send more petitions.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said
in this House on other occasions, there are many suitable locations where this
facility can go. Nobody is disputing
the fact that we need such a site; it is the location that is being disputed
here. I am calling upon the Minister
of Environment and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to intercede here in this
matter with Eastern Waste and have them find a more suitable location than what
is being proposed here now.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
A petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of
the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no
cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an enclave community in
Gros Morne National Park; and
WHEREAS visitors to Gros
Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to communicate by
cellphone when they visit the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service
has become a very important aspect of everyday living for residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is
an essential safety tool for visitors and residents; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is
essential for business development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned,
your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to partner
with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne
National Park and the enclave community of Trout River.
As in duty bound, your
petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition
is signed by quite a number of people from Trout River and also some people from
St. John's. By their names, they may
well be Trout River residents attending university or visiting St. John's.
Mr. Speaker, cellphone
coverage is seen more or less in many areas now as a necessity.
It is not so very long ago when telephones were seen as a new invention,
then seen as a convenience, a newfangled contraption, party lines, and then
people had their own individual telephones.
Ultimately, they had large cellphones that went in cars.
Nowadays, cellphones are pretty much everywhere.
Unfortunately, you cannot
use them everywhere. The cost is
still the same whether you can use the cellphone or not if you are actually
paying for the service. The
expectation by people who live in Trout River, who visit Trout River, and who
travel through Trout River Gulch, is that we should be able to use a cellphone.
It is an absolute surprise and a shock to an awful lot of people who come
to a modern Province, one of the leading national parks in Canada, and one of
the icons of tourist advertising in this Province.
Our Province spends millions
and millions of dollars on advertising, spending that in my submission is well
spent. However, you can spend on the
advertising, but if you cannot deliver the product, if you cannot deliver proper
access and proper utilization of the product, then really you have wasted a lot
of the advertising dollars that have gone to entice people to come here.
Mr. Speaker, the people of
Trout River keep on sending their petitions and I keep on petitioning the House
of Assembly to ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with
the private sector and provide cellphone coverage in the Town of Trout River.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Private Members' Day, I now call upon
the Member for Humber West to introduce the motion that stands on the Order
Paper in his name.
MR. GRANTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by my
colleague from the District of Lake Melville, the following private member's
resolution:
WHEREAS senior officials of
our government have been involved in oversight of the Muskrat Falls Project at
every stage; and
WHEREAS our government has
just announced further mechanisms to provide oversight of the Muskrat Falls
Project; and
WHEREAS the Government of
Canada provides oversight of the project through its role as guarantor of the $5
billion in project financing; and
WHEREAS our government has
subjected this project to a greater level of scrutiny than has been brought to
bear on any other project in our country; and
WHEREAS the board of
directors provides oversight of Nalcor, and Nalcor is also required to account
through its internal audit department, its regular reports to the government,
its regular audited financial statements, and its public annual general
meetings; and
WHEREAS these oversight
mechanisms reflect our government's commitment to ensure the public is provided
with such information on the Muskrat Falls Project as possible, without
jeopardizing commercial interests;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that this hon. House supports the government's actions to provide greater
oversight of the Muskrat Falls Project.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be
able to stand in the House this afternoon today and bring forth this private
member's resolution supporting greater oversight on, I would say, the greatest
and largest and one of the most important infrastructure developments in the
history of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat
Falls Project belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is being developed, first and foremost, for the benefits of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and to meet our Province's growing energy
needs. That is the underlying
principle that we must all remember.
Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian that I speak to today must remember that
underlying principle. That is
something from the very beginning that this government has fostered and
promoted, Mr. Speaker.
As everyone knows, our
government announced just a couple of days ago earlier this week the oversight
process for the construction phase of the project which will focus on cost,
scheduling, and risk management.
What this process does, Mr. Speaker, is it further strengthens our government's
commitment of ongoing oversight efforts.
Government oversight right across this great country of ours on programs
of similar investment, similar scale and similar complexity, typically include
the establishment of an independent accountability and oversight committee, and
that is what we did earlier this week.
I say to my hon. colleagues
in the House, and indeed, to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, there are
many megaprojects across Canada, and indeed around the world, that have had
government oversight in order to review cost, in order to review scheduling and
risk management. We all need to
understand that we are not the first government in Canada, nor the first
government around the world, Mr. Speaker, to do just that.
There are many examples, and
I just ask the members of the House and the public to bear with me just for
minute or two to highlight a number of projects and examples across Canada:
Infrastructure Canada program, which includes $70 billion of government funding
for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure; the Government of
Canada's $36 billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy is another
example; the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit program, which includes $7.2
billion in provincial funding from Ontario; New Brunswick's $2.4 billion
refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station; Infrastructure
Ontario's $1 billion expansion of Highway 407 and its $500 million Pan Am
athletes' village program are all examples.
As you see, Mr. Speaker,
from these examples, it is typical for significant stakeholders, actually
prudent and important for stakeholders such as the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador in Muskrat Falls, and in this case, to be an active stakeholder
participating in the oversight of such an important project.
There exists, I say to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of my district, and all the
Members of the House of Assembly here, established and documented protocol and
processes that are already out there for the collection, analysis and
communication of information. Such
processes, I would say, typically would focus on quality of planning and quality
of execution. In actual fact, there
are whole bodies of research that exist out there, university courses I am
sure when people studied business and engineering at the university level, they
have come across quality of planning and quality of execution principles, Mr.
Speaker. I would say quality of
execution largely depends on the quality of planning.
I want to take a few moments
just to talk about some of these aspects, and I know some of them are academic.
The quality of project planning include a number of aspects and we can
do some research on that; it is all out there for people in the general public
to know. One of the aspects, Mr.
Speaker, is the quality, integrity, and accuracy of the program business case.
That would include, for example, the demand, capacity, pricing, risk, and
cost of the particular program.
Mr. Speaker, another aspect
deals with aligning program benefits with long-term strategic vision.
For example, employment opportunities is a long-term vision, tax base,
infrastructure development and just to use an example: Newfoundland and
Labrador coming out of the Energy Plan of 2007 outlines those kinds of things in
relation to Muskrat Falls and the Energy Plan for the Province.
Another aspect would be the
quality, integrity, and accuracy of the cost and scheduling estimates.
Examples would include: Are the plans realistic?
Are they sufficiently detailed?
Another aspect of the quality of a project planning program would be the
quality of the people, the quality of the process and technology framework, Mr.
Speaker, to effectively plan and execute, for example, a stage gaining approach.
We had Decision Gate 1, Decision Gate 2, and Decision Gate 3.
Another aspect with regard
to dealing with large-scale projects in Canada and around the world, Mr.
Speaker, has to deal with the quality of project execution.
Just as I outlined for project planning, I want to talk about a number of
aspects for project execution.
One aspect deals with
compliance with policies, compliance with procedures, and compliance with
regulatory requirements; for example, the projects dealing with procurement in
the Province, health and safety, environment, local bylaws, and getting permits.
Another aspect would deal with monitoring and controlling of the scope,
the cost, the schedule, and the quality of the particular project, plan versus
actual forecast, contingency management, and course correction if corrections
need to be made.
Another aspect would be
expenditure and cost appliance, with authorization of expenditure being a top
priority. Aspect number four under
quality of project execution, Mr. Speaker, would be dealing with monitoring of
the project financing, and monitoring of the drawdowns of that particular
financing. Aspect number five deals
with adequacy of the assurance program.
That is very, very important.
Independent, scope of assurance activities and tracking of management actions
are very critical in big-scale projects like Muskrat Falls.
Another aspect, number six,
effective risk management, for example, risk identification from the very
beginning, assessment of that risk, prioritization, mitigation, and monitoring
of residual risk, Mr. Speaker.
Another aspect with regard to that particular program would be adequate
transparency and visibility in reporting such as level of details that are
involved in the project, accuracy of information that is involved in the
project, and delivering that effective communication to the stakeholders such as
the project team, Mr. Speaker, the owner of the project, financiers of the
project, government agencies, community groups, taxpayers, and the list goes on
and on.
Mr. Speaker, oversight on
large-scale resource projects such as our Province's Muskrat Falls Project
usually includes independent verification and assurance over specific areas of
the project as the project unfolds.
Depending on the stakeholder needs and the stakeholder would be the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador typically we deal with project management,
compliance, and financial monitoring mechanisms.
Mr. Speaker, let me take
just a few moments to briefly talk about the oversight models that exist out
there. Some of the oversight models:
one, various models exist of governance and oversight in the private sector,
where the project team, the operations teams, internal audit, and board of
directors play different roles. I
want to take a few moments to provide my hon. colleagues in the House, and
indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to look at mandates of
governance and oversight on large-scale projects what is generally accepted,
Mr. Speaker, out there in the world of business and out there in the world of
construction.
Usually, Mr. Speaker, there
is an executive steering committee when we look at these large-scale projects
and even small-scale projects. That
executive steering committee has the responsibility in areas of setting and
approving strategic direction of scope, execution strategies, direction of
scope, contracting strategy, monitoring planned versus actual performance, Mr.
Speaker.
Another aspect would be a
technical steering committee, consisting of engineering and operations personnel
responsible for providing technical input into the project's design and
technical review of design, designing the quality assurance, quality control
program, and approving design changes, Mr. Speaker.
Another aspect would be a
project leadership team, which is typically responsible for a daily oversight,
tactical leadership, dispute resolution, and active risk mitigation.
Another committee on these large-scale projects, or even small-scale
projects, as I said, would be an internal audit group, or an in-house internal
audit group. They would be
responsible for auditing the supply chain, finance, human resources, and
information technology processes.
Also, there would be an
independent third-party assurance group responsible for providing a program
assurance function, which typically includes reviews and audits, including
program or protected controls review, contract performance, program baseline
review, project performance review, contract closeout reviews, and performance
management functional reviews, such as scheduled management, cost management,
resource management, and risk management.
As a shareholder in the
Muskrat Falls Project, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has
exercised, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the people of this House and to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, oversight throughout all of the stages of
the project to date. From initial
planning, to early engineering, to our agreements with Emera, and most
importantly, to sanction and financing.
Many departments in this government have been involved in oversight,
including the Departments of Natural Resources, Justice, Finance, and
Environment and Conservation.
There has been more
information made public about this project than any in the Province's history,
Mr. Speaker, providing the opportunity for a good many people in the Province to
become aware of what this project is all about.
Including members of the public, government and independent experts,
including the Public Utilities Board, reports from MHI, Navigant Consulting,
Wood Mackenzie, Ziff Energy, Dr. Wade Locke, and the Newfoundland and Labrador
Consumer Advocate. So there have
been a number from the beginning of this project, right up to and including the
current date, Mr. Speaker.
As an example, in October,
2013, the Province released the projects Decision Gate 3 numbers, cost estimate
and the findings of a report conducted by MHI, Mr. Speaker.
That report confirmed the engineering.
It confirmed the cost and project planning completed by Nalcor and
affirmed Muskrat Falls as the least-cost option for electricity generation for
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MHI's report, Mr. Speaker,
included the most up-to-date information on load forecast and cost estimates.
Including capital cost of the project, operating cost, financing cost,
fuel and interest up to date, Mr. Speaker, out of that report from MHI.
After project sanctioning in
December 2012, the Departments of Natural Resources and Finance implemented a
number of project oversight functions to ensure responsible development in the
best interest of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For example, we require that
Nalcor provide us with monthly benefit repots on the Muskrat Falls Project and
make these reports publicly available on its Web site.
These reports include a wealth of information on construction and
procurement activities, construction costs, safety and environment activities,
and details on stakeholder and community consultations and engagement
activities, Mr. Speaker.
Another example and I know
my first bit of time is running out is we require Nalcor to provide project
financing information to us on a regular basis.
Senior staff with the Department of Natural Resources and Finance have
met regularly with Nalcor's CEO and their staff.
As well, the provincial Cabinet have had regular meetings and ongoing
reports from the CEO of Nalcor.
Mr. Speaker, in the last
thirty seconds, I just want to say to all of us and to the people of the
Province, to reaffirm again that the Muskrat Falls Project belongs to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
their project. It is their project
for today and for generations and generations to come, Mr. Speaker.
Our government's
announcement on the oversight process for the construction phase of this
project, Mr. Speaker, which will focus on cost, scheduling, and risk management,
further strengthens our government's ongoing oversight of this particular
project for the entire population of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I look forward to my colleagues and members of the Opposition and the
Third Party speaking to this resolution today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Verge):
The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au
Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased to have
the opportunity to stand today and to speak for a few minutes on this resolution
that is happening in my backyard, from my district, that we have been following
closely and that we have lots of concerns about.
It is a little bit too
serious to be humoured over, but I could not help but smiling as I was
listening. Over $5 billion committed
already, I think it is a little bit late to realize that oversight is needed, to
say the least $5 billion in.
Proper management, Mr. Speaker, includes the provision of oversight from the
start, even on the smallest of projects, let alone a multi-billion dollar
initiative of taxpayers' money. We
are halfway through the construction season and it is a little bit of window
dressing.
Mr. Speaker, what is needed
here is accountability. There are
two options we can look at: one is to call in the Auditor General to look at the
books, as pursuant to section 16 of the Auditor General Act; and the other one
is to allow the PUB an ongoing oversight rule, as is happening in Nova Scotia.
Yet, we know government has repeatedly refused both of those options,
instead focusing on an internal bureaucratic review which reports to Cabinet
to Cabinet not to people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I feel it is a little bit like asking the fox to watch the henhouse, and
now we are supposed to find some comfort in that.
The only two groups that
came back with a report, Mr. Speaker, two independent public reviews, both
failed to endorse it. I want to look
at, for a minute, what those two reviews came back with.
First of all, we had the Joint Review Panel.
I will just share a paragraph from the Joint Review Panel.
the Panel concluded that Nalcor had not demonstrated the justification
of the Project as a whole in energy and economic terms, and that there are
outstanding questions related to both Muskrat Falls and Gull Island regarding
their ability to deliver the projected long-term financial benefits to the
Province, even if other sanctioning requirements were met.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker.
I know members opposite have been happy to stand many times and say what
a robust project this is and the bonds have been filling and it is all
wonderful; but, Mr. Speaker, the only thing robust about this was Bill 61.
Legislation guaranteed it to be a robust project.
Because regardless of the project cost, of the overruns, of the
mismanagement, the fact is legislation guarantees that the ratepayers will pay
for 100 per cent of this project.
Mr. Speaker, it is like giving Nalcor a blank cheque, so why wouldn't the bonds
be good on the market?
The information back to the
PUB was the second report and they denied it.
This was what the PUB concluded: The board does not believe that it is
possible to make a least-cost determination on the interconnected option based
on a feasibility level of information generally from November 2010 which was
intended to ground the decision to move to the next phase of the generation
planning process, especially given that so much additional work has already been
done to better define the project and costs and further eliminate uncertainties.
The PUB concluded the
information provided by Nalcor in the review is not detailed, complete or
current enough to allow the board to determine whether the interconnected option
represents the least-cost option for the supply of power to island
interconnected customers over the period of 2011 to 2067 as compared to the
isolated island option. Here we see
the only two independent public reviews of the project and both fail to endorse
it, Mr. Speaker.
I want to talk about the PUB
for a minute, Mr. Speaker.
Government gave the PUB very limited scope and time for their review of the
project, unlike the luxury that Nova Scotia had.
The Public Utilities Board in our Province were denied the right to a
thorough review of the Muskrat Falls Project after this Premier and government
imposed unreasonable conditions on what was nothing more than a pseudo review of
the biggest multi-billion dollar investment in our history.
The Chair of the PUB himself
indicated there was no way a proper view could be completed under such stringent
restriction. In fact, the PUB could
not deliver a proper ruling on the project because they were under such a tight
timeline and they could not gain access to the same resources as Nalcor and
government.
Mr. Speaker, the UARB in
Nova Scotia was given an opportunity that our own PUB was not a luxury denied
the PUB in our own Province by this government.
Mr. Speaker, two years in with $5 billion committed, the government now
decides we need oversight; that, perhaps, given that it is the biggest project
in our Province's history, it might be important to have oversight.
Mr. Speaker, just February,
just last month, the Minister of Natural Resources stated that he did not need
to see a report from the independent engineer on Muskrat Falls.
The independent engineer is part of the federal loan guarantee, and it
was the only independent oversight on the Muskrat Falls Project.
The report was completed in November as part of the federal loan
guarantee, but government did not ask for a copy until February, after many
media requests.
In the wake of this
controversy, government announced they would set up a bureaucratic committee to
perform oversight and report to Cabinet; but, again, it is an internal
bureaucratic review which reports to Cabinet, and not directly to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The board
of directors, Mr. Speaker, needs to include directors who have technical
expertise or experience in at least one of Nalcor's business lines.
We have heard the members
opposite talk about the complexity of this mega industrial project, yet you look
at the board of directors and I am just wondering what the board of directors
can do more than token seats and rubberstamping, gambling with the future of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with something that we are talking about of
this magnitude.
I want to go back to what
the minister said in the paper and it was
The Telegram when he said he did not
need to see a report from an independent watchdog.
The provincial government did not bother to ask just last month to see a
key report from the only body assigned to do ongoing independent oversight of
the Muskrat Falls Project.
Mr. Speaker, he felt they
did not need to see a report from the federal loan guarantee, but he did
acknowledge that the independent engineer is the only body doing any independent
oversight of the Muskrat Falls Project.
Beyond that, we don't have anyone in place and I am quoting the
minister to provide oversight over the construction.
There is no one he went on to add within the Department of Natural
Resources who is studying Nalcor's engineering and design work in detail
.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, we are
supposed to find some comfort to the fact that there is a board of directors set
up that is overseeing this as well.
Well, we are certainly not taking any comfort from that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to look
at clause 3 which talks about the Government of Canada providing oversight of
the project through its role as a guarantor of the $5 billion in project
financing. The Government of Canada
again, we go back to the only independent engineer that was going to provide
oversight, but the minister confirmed that they did not need to see the report
and now we see this big 180 change, and I reference
The Telegram article.
I want to look at clause 4,
Mr. Speaker,
our Government has subjected this project to a greater level of
scrutiny than has been brought to bear on any other project in our history.
Mr. Speaker, I think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have been
following the Muskrat Falls Project would agree that $8 billion the most
expensive undertaking our Province has ever had certainly deserves a lot of
scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, it is seriously
concerning that the only two independent public reviews that were done, both of
them failed to endorse it. Then we
have government not even asking to see reports, and we are talking about such an
astronomical amount of money.
Mr. Speaker, I took a look
down through the board of directors and their bios, everything is posted and
attached, and I did not see where I could take any comfort that there were
people sitting at that table who would be able to challenge people on the
technical expertise. The Board of
Directors of Nalcor needs to include directors who have the technical expertise,
as I said earlier in one of the business lines, because the current board is
unable to do this.
I would like today to
propose two amendments to the motion.
Because, Mr. Speaker, it is really concerning.
I have to say that, repeatedly, we have heard that this government has no
respect for the PUB, their own appointed body.
In fact, it was maybe about a year ago that the minister said he had no
confidence in the PUB to do their work.
In fact, the minister even
discussed dismantling the PUB because of its inability to make a decision on the
Muskrat Falls Project; but it is evident that rather than grant the PUB an
opportunity for a full review of the multi-million dollar cost to the people,
this government was prepared to stifle one of its own bodies.
Now we are on to this new thing; we are all about openness and
transparency, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment that I will be
moving, and it will be seconded by the Member for the Bay of Islands, the
resolution is amended at the last WHEREAS.
It is amended at the last WHEREAS clause by adding the word and at
the end and by adding immediately after that clause the following: WHEREAS the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to have complete openness and
transparency regarding oversight of the Muskrat Falls Project.
Mr. Speaker, we are happy to
see this government come out now, although we have $500 billion committed and we
are half way through the construction phase, we are happy to see that they are
going to provide some oversight. We
are not sure how effective that is going to be, given where we are right now,
but we want to take it one step further and we want to have the complete
openness and transparency that the people of this Province deserve.
The resolution is further
amended by deleting the period at the end of the last clause and substituting a
semicolon and the word and, and by adding immediately after that clause the
following: THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House also urge the
government to engage the Auditor General, pursuant to section 16 of the Auditor
General Act, to undertake a special oversight review of the Muskrat Falls
Project.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The House will take a brief
recess to consider the amendment put forward by the Member for Cartwright
L'Anse au Clair, and make a determination whether it is in order or not.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I have considered the
amendment as put forward by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and have
determined that the amendment is not in order.
The hon. the Member for Lake
Melville.
MR. RUSSELL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an honour and a
privilege to stand up here in the House again today and speak a little bit to
this resolution concerning oversight for Muskrat Falls.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about the overall sanction
of the project and the financial close associated with the project if you will.
On December 10, 2013, we
announced the completion of the federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and
financing in total for the Muskrat Falls Project.
Just let me say this, what a great day for Newfoundland and Labrador, for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians everywhere to be able to sit there and be able
to contemplate our future in terms of how we are going to become an energy super
warehouse if you will, and just to talk about our energy future in general.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague
for Humber West has already said here in our hon. House today, this project is
built first and foremost to meet the long-term needs of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians. The homes and
businesses we have right here in our Province, it is built to service that.
Then we look out at the extension of that in industry, into Labrador
specifically when it comes to my District of Lake Melville.
We are excited about the prospects of more mines, more employment, the
generation of more money into our economy and the success of our people, our
youth if you will, in getting those good, high-paying jobs I might add.
Not only will we be looking
to meet our own growing energy demand, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to have an
asset here in terms of Muskrat Falls for 100 years.
Just think about that, 100 years of water flowing down the river to
benefit not only this generation and the next but the generation after that as
well. When you look at clean, green
energy and you put 100 years as the life of the project on that, it is
absolutely fantastic. Not to mention
the fact that we are only looking forty years out in terms of our financing of
it as well.
Mr. Speaker, the loan
guarantee was a significant achievement for the project and it results in and
we have said it time and time again in this House about a billion dollars in
savings to the ratepayers. That is
where they are going to achieve that savings.
In terms of the hydro bills, they are going to save a billion dollars
over the life of this project.
What you end up seeing, Mr.
Speaker, is that will be now a billion dollars that did not have to go into
people paying those utilities. That
is a billion dollars that can be used as direct income if you will, disposable
income, Mr. Speaker, that people can put back into our communities, back into
the businesses, and back into the amenities that they want and need as families.
The level of external due
diligence undertaken by the Government of Canada gave them all the confidence
and all the satisfaction they required prior to issuing that loan guarantee and
the $5 billion. So simply put, they
were satisfied. They are satisfied
by all the companies that were engaged, all those independent people who
basically said we put our stamp on the fact that this is the best option for our
Province.
This effort by Canada was
supported by experienced external legal advisors, independent financial
advisors, an independent engineer, an independent insurance consultant, and they
are all engaged directly. It is
important to reiterate that, directly by the Government of Canada.
In terms of that independent
engineer, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
federal loan guarantee agreement that happened in November of 2012, MWH Canada
Inc. was engaged as that independent engineer that IE as we will refer to him
from this forward for the Government of Canada in its capacity as the
guarantor to assist Canada's due diligence in the Muskrat Falls Project.
Following the required
technical review, MWH issued an IE report to Canada in November of 2012 to
facilitate satisfaction of the related condition precedent of the federal loan
guarantee agreement. The government
and Nalcor are currently reviewing this report, in consultation with both the
Government of Canada and MWH. They
will release further details at a later date.
Mr. Speaker, in August,
2012, MWH was established as the independent engineer, the IE for the Lower
Churchill Project. In terms of
looking at the generation, the transmission assets, the Labrador Island
transmission link, (inaudible) in place during the construction phase and well
into the operation of the asset as well.
So what we achieved there is consistency.
You have the same body looking at it during the entire construction
phase, making sure the i's are dotted, the t's are crossed, and going right into
the actual operation when we flick that power switch, Mr. Speaker.
Phase one, Mr. Speaker, of
the IE agreement was for the pre-financial close phase of the project.
This enabled MWH to get on-site to visit the actual location of where the
dam is going to be and where the generation assets are going to be placed, to
become familiar with the projects because we have several little projects going
on with the engineer, and to identify required documentation and commence that
initial report.
The phase one scope of work
required MWH to review the project design, the projected performance,
construction plan and schedule, capital budget, commercial operation maintenance
services, project agreements, permits, licenses, the basis of the project,
perform a financial model, and finally, prepare the IE's report to support
financial close and start making it a reality.
The work provided
satisfaction to the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, prior to the issuing of
the loan agreement. To get that $5
billion loan agreement, all of this stuff had to take place prior, and that is
where they are. Basically, we have
the biggest project in our Province's history and we keep hearing from the other
side, time and time again, nobody is looking at this.
It comes down to this one simple fact because the Government of Canada is
not going to guarantee $5 billion to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
unless they have their i's dotted and t's crossed.
It is as simple as that.
Moving on here, I want to
talk about phase two of the IE agreement, and that commenced with financial
close in December 2013. The phase
two scope of work requires that MWH attend project review meetings, monitor the
engineering, the procurement relative to the milestone schedules in the project,
conduct regular site visits, review quality control documents to assess
compliance with milestone schedules as well, review change orders to
construction contracts, prepare periodic and final reports and other
documentation, and verify project completion.
The IE also provides confirmation of monthly funding requests and
construction reports, Mr. Speaker.
So we start to get into the
nuts and bolts of exactly how this is being done and handled as the project is
commencing because we are only getting started in terms of the project.
As the project moves forward, what you see is that for every allotment of
money that it takes to move forward from one phase to the next, Mr. Speaker,
many, many rounds of reporting analysis has to be done until the Government of
Canada is satisfied and, of course, until eventually the banks will be satisfied
that they release the money to engage in the next phase of construction.
In accordance with the
project finance agreements executed in November 2012 and here we go.
In order to draw upon the required funds for the project, Nalcor, through
the related subsidiaries, are required to submit detailed information to the
collateral agent, in this case TD Bank, acting on behalf of Canada and MWHC, the
independent engineer.
This includes a requirement
to submit quarterly and annual financial statements, construction reports,
funding requests, and budget information, Mr. Speaker. The independent engineer,
MWH, will review the submitted information and if it is acceptable, then they
issue a certificate to the collateral agent, being Toronto Dominion Bank,
indicating that the project is being conducted and here we go, Mr. Speaker
in accordance with good utility practice in Canada.
Basically, they are saying
we need more money to keep moving and doing different things in the project.
If everything is up to par, everything is up to snuff, then the bank can
release that money and they move to the next phase and to the next phase.
So, it is being chunked out, if you will, Mr. Speaker.
It is not an open free-for-all, as the members across the way might
suggest.
In terms of MWH, if anybody
out there has a question, whether you are there in TV land or across the way,
about who MWH is and whether or not they are qualified to be that independent
engineer, I will say absolutely, yes, but I will give you a bit of a background
about them anyway.
Mr. Speaker, they are
located in Vancouver, BC. They are
part of MWH Global and they are headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado, down in
the States. They have over 8,000
employees in over 180 offices in thirty-five countries.
They have services within their global corporate umbrella dealing with
program management, management consulting, engineering design, environmental
health and safety management, sustainability and construction management, Mr.
Speaker.
With respect to engineering
and that is the biggest component of the project such as Muskrat Falls, Mr.
Speaker. With respect to engineering
and design specifically, MWH Global is involved in a lot of different sectors
they are very diversified including hydro power, dams, mining, oil and gas,
power delivery, transportation, water resources, water treatment, waste water
treatment, clean energy and sustainability, so more than qualified to be the IE
for this particular program on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would just
like to take a few minutes here, while I have a couple of minutes left, to talk
about the lenders and the Government of Canada.
The collateral agent, the financial institution that holds the collateral
on behalf of the Government Canada, as I have already mentioned, is the Toronto
Dominion Bank, the TD Bank as we refer to them.
TD was selected to act in this capacity, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a
very, very rigorous and competitive selection process, bid process, if you will.
Their role is to oversee the lending security arrangement, the various
project accounts, and the compliance and covenants associated with the bit of
business we are talking about here.
Mr. Speaker, what you see is
that any bank cannot just do this.
This was a very rigorous process as I just indicated.
People were fighting, not only for the business associated with the
Government of Canada, but they are fighting for the business of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador as well.
In seeing that, the selection process brought forth the one that could get the
job done. If you look at that loan
guarantee for us as a Province in terms of the rate we got, it speaks to this
government's willingness to be hard-nosed in our negotiations, to get what we
can for this Province resulting in that $1 billion in savings for us.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance
with the project finance agreements in order to draw upon the required funds for
the project, Nalcor, through the project entity borrowers, is required to submit
detailed information to the collateral agent and to MWH Canada.
Every step of the way the process is monitored.
This includes the requirement like I said before to submit those monthly,
quarterly, annual financial statements, the construction reports, and those
individual funding requests included with the budget information so that the
collateral agent may request that and release the money for the next part of
work that has to be done.
As part of phase two
obligations MWH will review the monthly loan request and supporting
documentation, compare the actual budget and schedule against the contract
budget and schedule, request changes or supplemental information as required and
approve drawdown requests, Mr. Speaker, and prepare monthly independent draw
certifications which include a recommendation regarding the payment due.
If the submitted information
is deemed acceptable, MWH will issue an approval certificate to the collateral
agent and the collateral agent will release the funds to the borrowing entities,
Mr. Speaker. What we see here is
oversight throughout the whole process.
We see variances looked at.
What we see are actual numbers coming across looking towards budgeting numbers,
seeing what is being done with the project, and making recommendations for
change, additional information at any point during the whole process.
I would just like to note,
too, that in addition to internal staff at Natural Resources Canada, Finance and
Justice, the Government of Canada also retained their own outside legal counsel,
Mr. Speaker, and financial advisors, insurance advisors to assist with
facilitating and completing its due diligence in order to conclude conditions
precedent of the loan guarantee. It
is not just us in terms of the oversight here.
People have to understand that when people from across the way say
certain things about what is happening this is much, much bigger than just the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador involved here.
Mr. Speaker, all of the
arrangements to secure the loan guarantee, the long-term debt financing, equity
financing is all successfully completed.
Achieving this milestone gives us certainty with respect to how the
project is going to commence and what the cost of the borrowing is going to be
over the next forty years.
When I gave my preamble to
the guts of my statement here, Mr. Speaker, I talked about the life of the asset
being 100 years, financing being there for forty.
We can imagine now what is going to come back to the Province when the
financing terms are done for this.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker,
with my last little bit of time here I will just say that the project is going
to provide a tremendous economic and employment benefits package, if you will,
to our Province and indeed this side of Canada.
Muskrat Falls is creating those significant job opportunities and
Newfoundland and Labradorians, we are getting that work here today, Mr. Speaker.
We hear time and time again
from the people across the way and I am specifically going to reference the
Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair here.
We hear her get up in the House day after day and she talks about how we
demand those benefits we demand those benefits.
I tell you what, you can demand those benefits for the people of
Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and that is great.
I do the same for the people in Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker, but the
difference is I publicly support this project.
I think it is the right way for our Province.
Why don't you guys over
there get off the fence, get up and tell us now where you stand in relation to
this project and whether or not your party is here in support of Muskrat Falls
energy for this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bay
of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will stand
and have a few words. I was not
going to speak on this, but after being challenged by the member to stand up and
say where you stand on this project is the member serious?
When the member is asking me to vote for a motion put forth by their
private member to oversee it, after $5 billon being committed, and he is asking
me: Where do I stand?
Mr. Speaker, go build a
house and say: Oh, tell me how much it costs.
Tell me if the engineering is good.
Oh, we need someone to oversee your house now that it is built.
Is the member serious, where do I stand?
I thought it was April
Fool's Day when he asked me where I stood on this project, after having $5
billion already committed to this project.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, do not go challenging people, especially when you
look at the facts of this.
I will get back to my
original statement, Mr. Speaker. I
can tell you right now, if you want to know where I stand, I do not support
putting in an oversight committee after $5 billion has already been committed.
I do not support it. Now your
next question, stand up and ask me; you will get an answer pretty quick.
Mr. Speaker, I will just go
back and talk about senior officials who oversee the project.
This is what this is about, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I know the
members opposite do not want to listen, I gave them all courtesy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
I gave them all courtesy, Mr. Speaker.
When the Member for Humber West I did not say a word.
I actually expect the same courtesy from the members opposite.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible)
MR. JOYCE:
No, the Member for Humber East is not, I am just
saying your colleagues.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Humber West.
MR. JOYCE:
Humber West, sorry.
Mr. Speaker, here we are
setting up an oversight committee of bureaucrats, the question has to be at no
time am I saying that the bureaucrats are not qualified; they do not do a good
job. I am not saying that.
My question is where do they report to?
It is to Cabinet, Mr. Speaker.
I will get into this a bit later.
When you have a bunch of
bureaucrats who are going to go do a report, report it to the minister, who is
going to report it to Cabinet. Now,
Mr. Speaker, and I said it before, I am not a genius by any means but the last
report the minister got he never even read.
The minister admitted he did not even read the report.
He never even asked for a copy of the report.
I have to vote for something that is going to the minister that he
publicly stated, I did not even ask for the report.
Now I have to vote and say yes, let's do that.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to
know where I stand, Member for Lake Melville, keep asking.
That is one of the questions that I have on this, Mr. Speaker.
Now we are looking for
greater oversight. Greater
oversight, Mr. Speaker. I will get
in later how this all came about. Do
you want me to tell you how it all came about?
I will just tell you how all this came about, Mr. Speaker, why all of a
sudden we need greater oversight. It
was embarrassment by the government.
It was an omission by the minister who said: this was not my greatest interview.
Mr. Speaker, on February 25,
here is what the minster said, The Independent engineer is providing the
oversight. Beyond that, we don't
have anyone in place to provide oversight over the construction.
That is what the minister said in his own statement, Mr. Speaker.
When the media got hold of
that and people started asking questions: Well, who is overseeing it?
It is the independent engineer who put a report in that the minister did
not even ask to see a copy of the report.
He said: Uh-oh, we have to change this.
This public opinion is pretty bad on this here because we have no one to
oversee it, by the minister's own admission.
This is where all this came
about. This has nothing about
overseeing the project. This has
nothing about protecting the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is about saving face from the interview that the minister the
people in this Province, all the people in this Province are saying, we are
asking you to oversee the project for us, you are the minister.
This is where all this came from.
This has nothing to do because, Mr. Speaker, any responsible
government, any responsible person, before they would go ahead and build
something they would have an oversight somehow.
If it was your own personal
endeavour of building a house, you would have a budget.
You would have to make sure that if you are going to get a plot plan for
your house, that it is done properly.
You would oversee it. You
would not wait until you spent your money and come back and say: Uh-oh, I better
go oversee this now, and set up a committee to oversee it.
That is what this is all about.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, we
were in here in a filibuster. We
went for days, and they were talking about we were wasting time.
We were wasting all kinds of time in this House.
There is no need. This is the
greatest project for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It received the most scrutiny.
Former Premier Dunderdale
stood in this House on many occasions and said we do not need any more.
This is the most scrutinized project in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador. The minute she goes out
the door, they are over there now: we need more oversight.
I guess the former Premier was not correct.
I guess the former Premier,
after standing in her place, defending every person opposite, defending them
all, saying we do not need any more oversight, we have great oversight, now all
of a sudden once she goes through the door, let's change Bill 29.
We do not agree with that any more.
Let's get some oversight now for Muskrat Falls.
We do not have enough oversight for Muskrat Falls.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is
where all this is coming from. We
fought for oversight. We fought for
independent we fought to ensure that the taxpayers were protected.
We asked that the taxpayers be protected from the beginning, not $5
billion committed into the project.
Mr. Speaker, here is
something funny, and the Minister of Natural Resources, I have a lot of respect
for him. I think he is a great guy.
I am sorry, but your interview and I agree with you was not your
best, indeed. I have to say, Mr.
Speaker, the information he got I think he is a great guy.
In this resolution, Mr.
Speaker, it says it is going to have oversight by the board.
Now let's pick, say Terry Styles on the board, who is supposed to be the
chair of the board. What expertise
does Terry Styles have to oversee this project?
I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker.
Here is what the Minister of Natural Resources said in the same
interview. Here is what the minister
said.
The Minister of Natural
Resources said it would be a waste of resources to have anybody in the
Department of Natural Resources do a hire with that kind of detail oversight.
The Minister of Natural Resources is stating in his own department that
they do not have the expertise in the department, but they are going to ask
Terry Styles to oversee Muskrat Falls.
Now, Mr. Speaker, like I said, I am not a genius, but am I missing
something?
From my understanding, there
is a young twenty-two-year-old student on the board.
The Minister of Natural Resources admitted that his own department does
not have the expertise, yet we are going to ask Terry Styles and we are going to
ask a young and other people on the board, not just those.
There are others on the board.
They are already overseeing the project, but the minister said: We do not
have the expertise in the Department of Natural Resources to oversee it.
Do you wonder where I stand
on this, I ask the Member for Lake Melville?
Do you want to know where I am standing on this?
Mr. Speaker, I will just go through it again.
We will just take the $5 billion already spent $5 billion already spent
and now we are going to oversee the project.
I have to ask one thing, Mr.
Speaker. In the whole part of it,
when you get this report and you send it to I will bring my voice down, I am
sorry, because the Member for Lake Melville wanted to know where I stood and I
have explained where I stood. The
way Cabinet works, and I will explain to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador, once the report is done, whichever minister is responsible, it goes to
the minister, then the minister brings it to Cabinet, and I guess Cabinet
discusses it.
Mr. Speaker, here is what
the minister said: We did not need to see a report from an independent watchdog.
The provincial government didn't bother to ask to see a key report from
the only body assigned to do ongoing independent oversight of the Muskrat Falls
project, according to Natural Resources Minister
.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how can
you ask us to go ahead and vote for a motion when a report is going to come up
and when the minister himself says we do not need to see it?
We do not need to see it. I
am not going to read it anyway if you did bring it me.
Yet, we have to go and support this private member's motion.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say
this is the kind of thing that happens when you get a government after a
minister makes a few faux pas in the media about the most major project in this
Province spent. There is no doubt
this project has been scrutinized absolutely no doubt but when the minister
himself, who is supposed to be the guard of this project, stands in the media
and says, I did not even read the report, our department does not have the
expertise to oversee a project of this size, we have major problems.
Mr. Speaker, seriously, when
that happens, we have major problems.
If you want to know why we had filibusters in this House to try to
protect the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, you do not have to go any
further than look at the report, what the minister said, in
The Telegram February 25.
If you want to see how serious this project was and why we said, and we
said it from day one, what we need to do the only two independent bodies that
were even going to look at this was the PUB, and they said themselves we did not
have enough information to make a decision because they were waiting Decision
Gate 3 numbers. What did the
government do? They said: You will
not make a decision, see you later, adios.
That is what happened, Mr. Speaker.
That is one of the independent bodies.
Then we had the joint review
panel. Guess what happened to them,
Mr. Speaker? Once again they came in
with a report, they were rejected they were rejected.
The two independent bodies that are going to protect the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador and its shareholders, who are the taxpayers, were
rejected by this government. They
were rejected by this government.
Now, me as a parliamentarian, I am asked to vote for a motion to agree to put in
an oversight committee after $5 billion has been committed, to give the
impression that all of a sudden this project is being overseen after the
minister stated himself: No, that is the only one; I did not even read his
report.
To me, it would be a sham if
I stood up here and voted for this and give all the people the false impression
that all of a sudden that I, and this party here, the Liberal Party, the
Official Opposition, are going to stand up in this House and say that we agree
with all this oversight now all of a sudden because everything is protected.
It is not protected, Mr. Speaker.
Because right now it is almost like letting the horse out of the barn;
now let's close the gate. Okay,
let's say we close the gate we do not know how the horse got out, but it was
already gone, like your $5 billion was gone gone with no proper oversight.
Mr. Speaker, there are two
things we could have done; we could have asked the PUB, like they did in Nova
Scotia, to come in and oversee the project.
We will not do that. Do you
know why? The PUB is going to
scrutinize the project. The people
in Nova Scotia it went to the PUB and the PUB in Nova Scotia went through the
project, they came back to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and said:
Listen, this is not good enough.
What did the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador because we never had our PUB to defend our interest,
what did we do? To get this project
we went on bended knee. What else do
you want here Nova Scotia to make this project go?
Whatever you need, you are going to get because we are too far committed
in this project already. That is
what the job of the PUB in Nova Scotia did for its people.
I say congratulations PUB in Nova Scotia; shame on the government, Mr.
Speaker, for not including the PUB here in Nova Scotia to protect the taxpayers
of this Province, which they are obligated by law to do.
The second we could do and
I was on the Public Accounts for a number of years.
I hear the Premier saying: Oh, the AG can go in at any time.
That is true. If the AG goes
in now, Mr. Speaker, he reports to Cabinet.
I challenge members opposite to stand up now and say yes, under section
16, the AG can go in and report back to the House of Assembly, not going to the
Cabinet. Report back to the House of
Assembly which reports back to the people of this Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
I challenge them to do it, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
The member for Humber do you want to know where
I stand? I think it is a sham to
bring this in now (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, theatre is alive and well in the
House of Assembly today. You have to
love a challenge. I will lay out for
the member opposite and to all the people of the Province, the Auditor General
has an open invitation any time. Any
time the Auditor General wants to come in and do a report on Nalcor, this
government provided that in the legislation, we guaranteed it for the people of
the Province. The AG has an open
invitation any time. That settles
that point.
Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite would want people of the Province to believe that this major
development is about me, the minister.
Just a revelation here, it is not about me the minister, it is not about
politics, this is about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
This is about a need, Mr. Speaker.
This is about a need that we identified.
This is about a major investment for the people of the Province.
This is about hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in years to
come. This is about meeting a power
need. Would you argue that we do not
need power? Obviously you would not.
This is about the least-cost
option. It was laid out to the
member opposite. It was laid out for
the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.
To all members opposite, where do you stand?
Where do you stand on Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will be
right up front. It is quite obvious
that as you go through a process, the Opposition does not necessarily agree with
your process. Their job is to
criticize and question; I understand that and I accept that.
It keeps us on our toes.
Their job is to discredit us so they can try and become government.
That is how this works, and the people of the Province understand that,
but where do you stand on building Muskrat Falls?
Are you serious?
Are you serious when you stand in this House, Mr. Speaker, and you make a
joke of it? We are not sure which
side the Liberals stand on building Muskrat Falls, not about the issues of
whether how we are doing it but to build it.
I am not sure if the member opposite was in government in 2002, but the
Liberal government almost sunk the Province when they tried to build Muskrat
Falls in 2002.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
When they did a deal to give the resources and
give the benefit of the resources that belongs to the people in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and they did a deal in 2002 to give it to Quebec. The record shows
that it was such a mess. The single
finance committee that they had in place to provide oversight, it was such a
mess that two boards of directors resigned over the fact that this was a wrong
deal for the Province, Mr. Speaker.
That was 2002.
So you have to be careful
when you are throwing rocks because you have been a part of something and you
have always believed that we should build Muskrat Falls.
Now it has changed? Has it
really changed? Is it time for the
people of the Province, time for this House maybe, to know where they sit on
building Muskrat Falls?
Well, Mr. Speaker, let me
tell you a little bit about where they sit.
The members for Labrador stand in this House and strongly advocate that
the benefits of the Muskrat Falls Project should go to Labrador.
Now, I respect that. We are
all championing the cause for our own district and we do a good job of that;
but, how can you do that and not support Muskrat Falls?
It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker.
Now, where do you stand on
Muskrat Falls? Should we build
Muskrat Falls? The critics out
there, Mr. Speaker, and I will get to them, have criticized us for building
Muskrat Falls, but they have a member over there for Mount Pearl South who stood
on his feet and championed the fact that this is the right thing to do for the
people of the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, you have members from Labrador who
obviously support the project. You
have the Member for Mount Pearl South who has supported the project.
Now, just so the people of the Province know, I asked them.
You have to listen to what is being said and ask the questions.
Now, we have a by-election
on the go, Mr. Speaker, and in a by-election there is a candidate for the
Liberals, fully endorsed by the Leader and fully endorsed by the Liberal Party,
and having experience on the board of Nalcor.
Here is what the candidate said.
They said it. She was on Open
Line and said this: Well, I maintain, as I have last year, and I will continue
to maintain, that the project is good for the Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
The Liberal candidate, fully endorsed by the
Liberal Leader and the Liberal Party said: I think we need to make capital
investments in our electrical infrastructure, and that is what Muskrat Falls is
all about.
Mr. Speaker, are you
serious? You do not know if you
support Muskrat Falls? You cannot
have it every way. It is time to be
clean with the people of the Province, and I believe, as they did in 2002, they
want to build this project. Now they
are not sure, but the difference in 2002, if you look at the mess, the
resignations, and the lack of oversight, was that they were building Muskrat
Falls for their government. We are
building Muskrat Falls for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Well, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking Muskrat
Falls, let us lay it out. Now, the
members opposite would have you believe today that it is about me.
No, it is not about me. They
would also have you believe and they would have the people of the Province
believe today that because the PUB did not complete their work there is no
oversight on Muskrat Falls.
The PUB, Mr. Speaker, had $2
million, nine months, and they hired an independent consultant, Manitoba Hydro,
the experts. They hired them.
Manitoba Hydro concluded that Muskrat Falls is the least-cost option and
the best project to build and provide power for the people of the Province into
the future. So the oversight is
there. The PUB did not complete it.
They would lead you to
believe we have to force the AG to go in to review Nalcor.
Not the case, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning.
There is an open invitation for the Auditor General.
I want to lay something out
for the people of the Province because today they are trying to make this all
about no oversight. Let me read the
list of oversight on Muskrat Falls.
I am going to read it not because I am defensive; I am going to read it because
I want to highlight we fully recognize this is an expensive project.
It is an important project.
It is one of the best things that are going to happen to Newfoundland and
Labrador in our generation.
The other thing I want to
lay out, Mr. Speaker, about oversight and why it is important is this is being
built by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We believe in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
I am going to tell you something else, because
you hear it on Open Line: What are they doing what are they doing?
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House, this government
nobody is prepared to mortgage the future of this Province if it is not the
right investment to do. I am not
putting my signature on a paper that costs my children $6 billion and $7 billion
into the future.
I can tell you the work is
done. The oversight is there, Mr.
Speaker, and I am going to lay it out for the people of the Province because I
do not want the Opposition to lead the people of the Province into a path to
believe that because the PUB did not complete their work or because the AG has
not taken and made his choice to go in and review it just listen, Mr. Speaker,
listen to the oversight.
Government departments, Mr.
Speaker, senior civil servants, the same people who manage the expenditures and
revenues of a $7 billion Budget in this Province, the same people who negotiated
billions of dollars of oil revenues for this Province, from Finance, Natural
Resources, Justice, and Environment, have been involved.
That is the government oversight that has been there from the beginning,
pre-sanction, sanction, financial guarantees, and now construction.
That is the government piece that we do, the specialists within our
departments.
Listen to the list.
Here is the oversight that has been provided on Muskrat Falls: Public
Utilities Board, Manitoba Hydro, Navigant Consulting, Wood Mackenzie, Ziff
Energy, Dr. Wade Locke, the Consumer Advocate, the federal Department of
Finance, the federal Department of Natural Resources, the Bank of Canada, the
project lender TD Canada Trust who reports to a board of directors, the
independent engineer from Manitoba Hydro, and Nalcor's internal audit team, the
external audit team that audits Nalcor.
They report directly to a board of directors.
There are annual reports
given out. There are public reports
given out. There is a monthly
report, Mr. Speaker, a forty-seven-page monthly report on Muskrat Falls, right
there. It just came out a few days
ago, every month, and showing stuff to the people of the Province what is
happening with Muskrat Falls. Added
to that, there are Web site updates.
That is the list of
oversight that has been provided and then unbelievably, Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite stood up and said: We are not going to support oversight.
We have another four years and over $4 billion to put out the door, and
the member opposite stands up and says: We do not agree that this oversight is
needed; we are not going to support oversight.
We have four years left, Mr.
Speaker, we have $4 billion, we have thousands of jobs ahead of us, and they are
not going to support oversight? The
oversight going forward, as it is changed through different phases of this
project we are going to have the government oversight committee.
We are going to have a special audit report done by an independent
auditor, Deloitte, who has a world-renowned reputation.
We are going to have an independent engineering review done and followed
all the way through to the end of the project.
We are going to have quarterly reports come from Nalcor not annual,
quarterly reports for financial updates.
The oversight is strong, it
is extensive, and it should be, Mr. Speaker.
There is no way we can stand in this House and say there is no oversight
on the project. The list is long.
It is necessary and it is working.
I say to the people of the Province, it is going to continue.
We take this very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, one thing I do
want to point out, and I want to it point out because we talk Nalcor all of the
time. I just want to point something
out for the people of the Province.
I think I have it right here. When
we say Nalcor, we know Ed Martin is the face of Nalcor, but I want the people of
the Province to know the direct oversight on this project has been provided by
the experts of Nalcor. The on-site
oversight implementation, the execution, is being provided by Nalcor.
That full list I just named is the independents, the externals, the
outside companies, and the government people who will provide that oversight in
addition to Nalcor.
Let me tell you, Mr.
Speaker, so the people of the Province know the responsibility to build this
project rests with Nalcor. Who are
they? Let me tell you who they are.
When the Leader of the Opposition says they are negligent, let me tell
you who they are, and when they stand up and show no confidence.
First and foremost, do you know who they are?
They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
They are the people right here in our own Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, they are people who have megaproject
experience in the Province, Canada, North America, and around the world.
They are senior managers who have had ten years megaproject experience
with many over twenty-five years megaproject experience.
They are an integrated team of 300 engineers, specialists, chartered
accountants, consultants, technicians, and support staff.
It is not Ed Martin; it is a team of 300 people.
The senior management team
consists of thirteen senior managers with 260 years of megaproject experience
between them. Add to that, Mr.
Speaker, SNC-Lavalin does some engineering work and provides oversight.
That is reviewed by Nalcor.
There is a technical integrity team of professional engineers inside Nalcor with
over thirty years each of experience in their chosen discipline thirty years
each on the technical integrity team.
Add to that the technical integrity team sends their work when needed to
an expert advisory panel made up of internationally recognized experts
conducting review on key design aspects.
You stand and criticize the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the experts at Nalcor who are responsible
to build this project. They are
wrong when they say that, Mr. Speaker.
They are wrong when they say there is no oversight.
I can tell you they are wrong when they say they do not believe in
Muskrat Falls. They tried to build
it in 2002. They want all the
benefits. I appreciate their
questions
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. DALLEY:
I appreciate their criticisms, but it is time to get off the fence and tell
the people where you stand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot believe what I just
heard the minister say, Mr. Speaker, that Nalcor, government bureaucrats, and
Executive Council are the ones who are doing the oversight.
That is what I call the fox guarding the henhouse.
If this government really
wanted oversight, they would have undone what the Liberal government in 1999
did, and that was taking the Lower Churchill out from under the Public Utilities
Act, Mr. Speaker. They would have
put it back where it belonged.
The Public Utilities Board
is responsible not only for the regulation of electrical utilities in the
Province, but they are also responsible for making sure the service that is
provided is safe and that it is reliable.
They are the one that is a quasi-judicial body that could really give the
oversight this government says they are going to do.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It being Private Members'
Day and it being now 4:45 o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 63 we go to
the mover of the motion to close debate.
The hon. the Member for
Humber West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting afternoon on
both sides of the House, and great debate back and forth as it always is.
It is great to see the Member for Bay of Islands his fiery self again
this afternoon. I always have a
great deal of fun with the Member for Bay of Islands.
Again, great debate on both sides of the House.
It is a privilege, Mr.
Speaker, for me to stand in the House to close this debate for the next few
minutes and just talk a little bit about oversight.
It was talked about here this afternoon.
If you are looking at the Muskrat Falls debate that has been taking place
in the Province over the last number of years, people of the Province who are
tuning in and have been listening to all the Open Line shows that have been on,
the many people across the Province who have been calling the Open Line shows,
what Nalcor has been doing, and what the provincial government has been doing, I
think it would be a little bit disingenuous for anyone, especially in the
Opposition, to say there has not been any oversight in the Muskrat Falls file.
As the minister highlighted
in his speech to this House just a few minutes ago, there have been lots of
oversight that has been delivered to the people of the Province with regard to
this particular project. Again, I
say it is a little bit disingenuous on the part of the Opposition to say there
has not been any oversight at all, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to
again go down through some of the points the minister talked about.
One point, before I get into that, Nalcor itself I know the Premier
mentioned it in the House just a few days ago NAL stands for Newfoundland and
Labrador. It is our company; it is
the people's company. The revenue
Nalcor will generate and the revenues Muskrat Falls will generate for years and
years to come after the construction phase will not go outside of the Province.
Those revenues will not go
to foreign countries. These revenues
will not go to multinationals in other parts of the world.
That revenue, Mr. Speaker, will come back to the people of the Province
because the people of the Province own Nalcor.
It is our company; it is their company.
The revenues will come back and will go back into building schools,
building highways, building hospitals, and supporting programs.
Every day in this House I
hear people from the Opposition and members in the Third Party stand and they
want this program, this program, and a new program.
That is what Muskrat Falls will do for the people of the Province.
It is just as well we say it as it is, Mr. Speaker.
That is what Muskrat Falls will do.
It is built for the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
built for the people of this Province for 2016 and 2017.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it is built for generation and generation and
generation to come.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr.
Speaker, when we look at hydroelectric development all over the world, Canada
has a good record in hydroelectricity, the United States and other countries of
the world. We have dams that have
been built 100 years ago. We have
some dams in the world that have been built over 100 years ago and they are
still in operation, clean, good energy, that are generating dollars for private
companies and generating dollars in Newfoundland when it is developed for the
people of the Province.
I urge the people of the
Province, do not get fooled. Do not
get fooled by people in the Opposition when they stand on their feet and talk to
the people of the Province to make you believe otherwise, Mr. Speaker, because
Muskrat Falls is a good project for every single person in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. GRANTER:
Mr. Speaker, I do have to go down through again
the list of oversight the minister spoke about just a few minutes ago.
Again, it is disingenuous for people to stand on their feet and to say
that from the start of Muskrat Falls we have not had any oversight.
Again, the minister talked
about the provincial government senior civil servants, the good senior civil
servants who work hard for the people of the Province.
Every single day they come to work, Mr. Speaker, they have the best
interests of the people of the Province at hand.
They have the best interests for the outcomes of Muskrat Falls.
The Public Utilities Board
and the $2 million they had and the Public Utilities Board does good work in
the Province. They had an
independent review done, Mr. Speaker, and that independent review declared it
was for the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the
least-cost option for hydroelectricity in the Province.
Manitoba Hydro, Navigant
Consulting, Wood Mackenzie, Ziff Energy, Dr. Wade Locke, the Consumer Advocate,
the federal Departments of Finance, as the minister referenced, the federal
Department of Natural Resources, the Bank of Canada, the project lender TD
Canada Trust who reports to the board of directors, the independent engineer,
MWH engineering, Nalcor's internal audit team, Nalcor's external audit team,
Deloitte, who reports to Nalcor's board of directors, the annual public reports
that are available, monthly project reports, I say to the member opposite, and
regular Web site updates that are accountable and out there in the public, and
have been there for months and months, Mr. Speaker.
We now have the government
internal committee in Justice, Finance, and Natural Resources.
The special audit committee audit report is coming out from Nalcor, Mr.
Speaker. The independent engineer
report, a quarterly report the minister just referenced, will be coming out from
Nalcor. Again, we say the Auditor
General in the Province is free to go in to Nalcor at any time.
The door is open for the Auditor General to go in.
Mr. Speaker, during the next
three-and-a-half to four years, in the last phase or in the phase of
construction, it is important to continue to formalize and strengthen oversight,
to build on the existing oversight we have had from the very beginning.
Someone over on the opposite
side talked about building a house.
I do not inspect the wiring in a house when I am pouring the basement, Mr.
Speaker. I inspect the wiring in a
house when I have the wiring in the house put in, and that is why over the next
three-and-a-half to four years we will have this oversight built into the
project of Muskrat Falls.
There will be a departmental
oversight committee chaired by the Clerk of the Executive Council, senior
officials in Finance, Justice, and Natural Resources, tasked to review and
analyze project information that is already in the public and is provided to the
project lenders and the Government of Canada, the independent engineers report,
and Nalcor board. They will advise
Cabinet on the project status on a regular basis, Mr. Speaker, and provide
updates to the public.
That is key, Mr. Speaker.
There is all kinds of information already out there that is available to
the public in the Province. Log
online and the reports are already there.
That will continue, and more and more information will become available.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to
bring this debate to a close. I want
to thank everyone on both sides of the House, on this side of the House, my
colleagues, and again, my colleagues in the Opposition, and in the short time
the Leader of the Third Party had, I know she only had a minute or so today, but
I really appreciate the time for people to get on the floor of this House and
speak to this very important oversight discussion we have had today.
I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this resolution.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman):
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 carried.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Summon the members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Are the Whips ready?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
All those in favour of the
motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. King, Ms Shea, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Felix
Collins, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Verge, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Hedderson,
Mr. Dalley, Ms Sullivan, Mr. French, Mr. Kent, Ms Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr.
Cross, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Granter, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr.
Forsey, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Russell.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Joyce
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
CLERK:
Ms Dempster
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
CLERK:
Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lane, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Michael,
Mr. Murphy, Ms Rogers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
CLERK:
Mr. Speaker, the ayes twenty-eight, the nays thirteen.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion carried.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
On a point of order, earlier
today I stood and asked the Premier to table the documents he referred to in
Question Period. The Premier stood
at that time and indicated he would table the documents here.
My understanding from the rules is that you must table the documents
prior to the end of the day, in fact, immediately, and my understanding is that
the documents have not been tabled.
So I would ask: Will they be
tabled today, prior to five o'clock?
MR. SPEAKER:
To speak to the point of order, members of the
House would recall one day earlier this week I read a it was not a ruling with
respect to a point of order, but I have provided some guidance to members with
respect to tabling of documents. In
those comments I would have indicated that when a minister commits to tabling
the documents, I leave that to the Government House Leader and the Opposition
party requesting it. It is not an
issue that the Speaker has directed the member to table.
If I had directed the member to table it, that would obligate them to
table it as a direction of the House.
In this particular instance,
as my earlier ruling had clearly indicated, when a minister volunteers to table
something, I leave it to that minister, together with the members requesting, to
ensure that it is tabled.
This being Wednesday,
Private Members' Day, this House now stands adjourned.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Tomorrow being Budget Day,
this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.