PDF Version

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.