|
Oral
Questions
May 26, 2008
Home
| In the House | Question
Period
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, earlier
today the Minister of Natural Resources held a press
conference on the Lower Churchill. During that press
conference she indicated that the provincial government
is considering suing both the federal government and the
Quebec government for redress on the Upper Churchill.
I ask the Premier today: When
did government first decide that it would consider this
action?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the
Opposition is correct. Earlier today I held a press
conference with Ed Martin, the President and CEO of
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and of our energy
corporation and during the course of the news conference
I was asked a question with regard to the Innu Nation
and the fact that they are looking for redress from the
Upper Churchill. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what I said, in
a nutshell, was that if the Innu want redress for the
Upper Churchill then we, as a government, have to
consider who received the bulk of the benefit from the
Upper Churchill, which is clearly the Province of Quebec
and the federal government. We are trying to understand,
as a government, if there is an action to seek redress
for the Innu Nation through the parties who have
benefited the most and received the lion’s share from
this project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week in the House of
Assembly, I questioned both the minister and the Premier
on this very issue regarding the Lower Churchill.
I ask the Premier again
today: When did you start to
consider these actions on suing both the federal and
provincial government, how long has it been ongoing, and
why there was no disclosure last week?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Last week when the issue
was raised about the Innu seeking redress for the Upper
Churchill, it was an issue that we decided to look at
because, obviously, as pointed out by my colleague, in
determining whether or not redress is appropriate, one
must look at the profits.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it
will come as a surprise to no one that in 2006, up to
2006, the Quebec Government had a profit of $19 billion
from the Upper Churchill while the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador has received $1 billion. It
was on this basis, Mr. Speaker, that we determined to
look at this issue to determine if there is viability to
the claim of the Innu and then to look specifically at
the federal government and Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the minister where the figures came from that he just
disclosed in the House, and if he could provide us the
documentation of it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I would obviously have no problem providing the Leader
of the Opposition with a copy of the energy plan, which
is very comprehensive and which contains the figures
outlined just then by myself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Just
a couple of details, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicates
that the Department of Justice was doing this review.
I ask the minister: How
many lawyers, I guess, within the Department of Justice
are working on this court challenge and if government
has hired or retained external lawyers as well to do
this work, or will be doing so in the future?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I can inform the Leader of the Opposition that
currently, right now, the only person looking at this is
the deputy minister, who is one of the - if not the top
civil litigator in our department. We are looking at -
and again, I must emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that one has
to distinguish between the issue of the Innu seeking
redress and the Province seeking redress for the Upper
Churchill. There has never been redress made for the
Upper Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, if there was
a thorn that sticks in the Newfoundland and Labrador
psyche, than I would suggest to you that the Upper
Churchill is that thorn. It is the biggest inequity that
has taken place, and if there is anyway of ever
redressing the harm that has been done to this Province,
Mr. Speaker, then as a government we owe it to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador to do that and we
will do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the minister will know of course, in any legal
process that is followed, before you bring a case to
court it involves giving notice to the parties involved.
I ask
if the provincial government, through his department or
any other department, have given notice to the federal
government or the Quebec government that there could be
a lawsuit pending?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Leader of
the Opposition, that before one gets to the point of
giving notice in a legal claim, you have to determine if
a legal action exists. At this point, the Innu Nation
has raised an issue which we have undertaken to
determine if there is a viability or validity to that
issue. The Innu Nation is seeking redress for the Upper
Churchill from the provincial government.
As stated by my
colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, the
redress being sought should be proportionate to the
profits, and the profits, Mr. Speaker, as outlined
earlier, are $19 billion for Quebec, $1 billion for the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that inequity
speaks for itself.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It is typical in any
questions that you ask in this House, you get two
different responses from ministers.
This morning the Minister
of Natural Resources said in a press conference that
government was looking at, as one of their options,
suing the federal government and the Quebec government.
The Minister of Justice is now telling me that he is not
sure if a legal claim even exists here. So first of all,
I say to government, clarify
your response please, in terms of what your course of
action is here.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The Leader of the
Opposition will say there are two answers given for
every question. Well there are usually two questions or
three questions in every question put forward, so I will
try to deal with what I take it to be the question.
We have not determined -
the Province has not determined that there is an action
for redress, that the Innu Nation has an action for
redress against anyone. They came to the Province
seeking redress. However, again, I must distinguish
between a claim by the Innu for redress and a claim for
the Province for redress. If there is to be an action in
this case, Mr. Speaker, it would have to be by the Innu
Nation of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Again,
Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s response this morning
this had nothing to do with the Innu Nation. The Innu
Nation is seeking redress from the provincial government
who was the chief negotiators on that contract.
So, I say to the
minister: Which is it, is the
redress on the Upper Churchill and the lawsuits to the
federal government and the Quebec government being
pursued in the interest of the Innu Nation or in the
interest of the provincial government?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding,
from discussions with my colleague, that today there was
a discussion of the Innu Nation seeking redress. They
came to the Premier –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. KENNEDY: -
seeking redress for the Innu Nation.
We are dealing with that;
however, I can say, in relation to the hon. member’s
question, one of the issues that brought me into
politics was the terrible inequity that exists in the
Upper Churchill. If there is ever any way that we can
rectify the problems, we will certainly do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. KENNEDY: Because
the members opposite, in the number of years they were
in government –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MR. KENNEDY: -
I do not see any actions by the Liberal government,
under Premier Wells to Premier Grimes, having taken any
steps to rectify that intolerable situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Maybe
the minister can tell me when the Innu Nation approached
you to look at a possible lawsuit against the federal
government, or the Quebec government, in terms of them
getting redress on this project. Because my
understanding is that the Innu is looking from redress
from your government.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Perhaps
I am not making myself clear, perhaps my colleague did
not make herself clear, but it is quite simple. The Innu
Nation said that they would like to have redress from
the provincial government before they will continue
negotiations on the Lower Churchill. They were talking
about the Upper Churchill. In order for the Province to
determine whether or not there is any validity to that
claim, we have to look at the issue of Innu redress.
Again, I come back to the
basics, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be redress, one must
look at those who have reaped most of the profits. In
this case it is clearly the Province of Quebec and
certainly the federal government, because these figures
do not take into account that there would have been less
equalization paid to Quebec by the federal government.
So both the federal government and Quebec should be the
primary targets of any action if one exists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to ask
the minister how much profit Quebec Hydro would have
earned on the Lower Churchill project in 2007, knowing
that 12 per cent of the capacity they sell in power
comes from the Lower Churchill Project, knowing their
total profit for the whole year was $2.9 billion - the
Upper Churchill. Maybe he can
tell me what the actual number was in terms of dollar
value on profit on the Upper Churchill last year for
Hydro-Quebec.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have those
numbers with me immediately but I can certainly provide
them to the Leader of the Opposition - and happy to do
so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, we already know in our history in this Province
there have been two court challenges on the Upper
Churchill. If the minister claims it came to politics
all over this issue, he will know all the history about
it as well. Both of those claims were dismissed: once
under the recall provisions, and the other under the
cancellation of water rights.
I ask the Premier today,
Mr. Speaker: What part of the
contract will be used by your government in any
potential court challenge this time that was not used in
previous challenges that were dismissed in the courts?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
First, I have not said
there is any court challenge pending in relation to the
Upper Churchill. What I have said is that we are dealing
with here today, as did my hon. colleague, with the
issue of redress for the Innu for the Upper Churchill.
Since the Liberal Leader
seems to be steeped in history here today, one would
look back to around 1967-1969 and look at whether or not
the federal government and Quebec consulted the Innu or
any other Aboriginal rights. Because it is my
understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I could be wrong on
this, that Aboriginal rights are not extinguished but
there are no time limitations, and so the Innu are
certainly within their rights to seek redress on the
Upper Churchill. What we are trying to determine, Mr.
Speaker: Is there a legal action which would call into
play any responsibility on the part of the provincial
government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr.
Speaker, the minister might want to read Hansard and see
what his Premier had to say last week, because it was a
very different response, I say to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, there have
been some professors at Memorial University who have
recently suggested - and I think only in the last two
weeks - that government would launch a court challenge
on the Upper Churchill contract, based on the renewal
clause.
I ask the minister: Is
this one of the options that the Department of Justice
is now considering for this particular challenge?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: I
have reviewed that article, Mr. Speaker, and it makes
for very interesting reading, but unfortunately we do
not look to university professors in political science
or elsewhere to determine if we have legal actions.
What we are looking at,
Mr. Speaker, are any and all options that are available
to us, and I say to you again that here today we are
looking at a request by the Innu Nation for redress in
relation to the Upper Churchill.
Again, I can only repeat
myself so often, Mr. Speaker, but the issue of Innu
redress is separate and apart from any provincial claim
for redress in relation to the Upper Churchill. The
Lower Churchill and the Upper Churchill in relation to
Innu are not particularly related, other than they are
seeking redress.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly would not
expect the Minister of Justice to take advice from
anyone, including professors at Memorial University.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker,
should this go before the courts, it would take a number
of years, I am sure, to reach a decision, and it could
also impact negotiations with Ottawa and Quebec, and the
timelines for any developments on the Lower Churchill.
I ask the Premier today: What
are the timelines that are now being considered for any
potential legal action, and what impact will that have
on the overall project, or an overall deal on the Lower
Churchill development itself?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
This is just one of the
many challenges that we face in terms of dealing with
the development of the Lower Churchill. We have overcome
many challenges; we are sure we will overcome this one
as well. Because, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, what
has happened on the Upper Churchill and the development
of the Lower Churchill are not linked. So, while the
negotiations with the Innu Nation are on hold for the
moment, we expect them to progress and our timelines
have not changed. We are looking forward to the
beginning of construction in 2010, and first power in
2015.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the Province
had been hopeful of getting a loan guarantee from the
federal government, but I say to you, Minister,
if you are to launch this particular lawsuit, do you
think that is going to have an impact upon you being
able to secure any kind of deal with the federal
government in the future for any funds to develop any
part of the hydro development industry in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The one thing that we
have reiterated time and time and time again is that
this project will proceed, with or without the federal
government.
Mr. Speaker, this is a
tremendous project – one of the best left in North
America - and we will not be asking for a handout from
anybody. Anybody who has the opportunity to invest in
this project will have a good deal, and it is in the
best interest of the federal government because not only
is this good for Newfoundland and Labrador but this is
good for Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Last
week, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Premier about
negotiations with Quebec, or the potential for
transmission of power through Quebec, he said that they
would keep all their options open.
I ask you today,
Minister: Launching a lawsuit
against the Quebec Government, is that keeping your
options open for the transmission of power through that
part of the country?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said here in the
House last week, because of the commercial arrangements
that Quebec has with the United States, there is a
process called open access transmission tariff, in which
Quebec has to agree to allow other states or provinces
to wield power through Quebec, the same way that it
wields power through states.
We do not have to depend
on goodwill, because goodwill from the federal
government has not gotten this place very far, Mr.
Speaker. So we are dependent on the rules and
regulations that are in place, not from the federal
government, I am sad to say, but because of the
commercial arrangements that Hydro-Quebec has in the
United States.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would
think that a lawsuit against the Province of Quebec is
really ruling them out as an option, I say to you,
Minister, so that brings me to the question of looking
at the Maritime access route which, as you know –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order,
please!
MS JONES: -
will include wielding power through two other provinces
in Canada and four states in the United States, all of
which do not have transmission capacity right now to be
able to handle that power.
I ask you, Minister: What
are your other options?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: I
suggest that the Leader of the Opposition get a lot more
informed before she starts raising those kinds of
questions in the House.
Not only is the subsea
route absolutely possible - and I can point to Europe if
you want examples as to how that works - but we have
Nova Scotia hungry for our power, we have New Brunswick
hungry for our power, and we have the New England states
hungry for our power.
We have no problem in
finding purchasers for renewable green energy that is
going to be available to customers for hundreds of
years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister says they
are hungry for power. Well, I ask you, Minister: Are
they hungry enough to build the transmission lines to
access that power, or is that part of the deal that this
Province will have to look at as well?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr.
Speaker, we do not give our resources away. If there is
one thing that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
know, and something that the Opposition should know by
now, is that we do not give our resources away.
When we develop a
resource in this Province, whether it is the Lower
Churchill or any other project, you can be guaranteed,
Sir, that there is going to be a good return to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, Minister, I don’t
put a lot of credence in many things your government
says. You talk about being open and accountable. Last
week I asked for six particular documents related to the
Lower Churchill Development project and none of them
were tabled in this House. This morning you reiterated
time and time and time again the words you like to use,
about openness and accountability.
I ask you minister: Will
you now table those reports that have been completed on
the Lower Churchill project in the House of Assembly so
we can see the information for ourselves?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: All
I can say is, thank God, Mr. Speaker, that they are over
there and we are over here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Let’s
make all the information that we have on the Lower
Churchill available! Let’s make it available to Hydro
Quebec, our biggest competitor! Let’s make it
available to people who are trying to undermine us!
Let’s make it available to people who are trying to
access our power! And, we will be left here at the end
of the day with no better deal than we got on the Upper
Churchill, thanks to the crowd opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
It was alright back in
2002 when your Premier was standing in this House
demanding information on the Lower Churchill and on the
Voisey’s Bay project. He wanted everything available,
everything out in the marketplace, Mr. Speaker,
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh,
oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last week
Justice Cameron ruled against the government’s
application to limit questioning at the Cameron Inquiry.
Today I ask the Premier: Now
that this decision has been made, will you and the
Minister of Justice commit to no further interference in
this Inquiry?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We sought clarification
from the Commission, we have received that
clarification, and we are okay with the ruling.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Justice Cameron also
requested additional resources and an extension to
February, 2009, to complete her work at the Inquiry.
I ask
the Premier today if he will commit to provide for the
time and the resources, as was requested by Justice
Cameron.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
We received the letter,
as previously outlined, from Commissioner Cameron. We
have sent a letter back requesting some information. As
the Premier has previously stated, and as I have stated,
there will be an extension forthcoming. The extension
being sought by the commissioner at this point is to
February 28, 2009. We will be replying in short order,
but the commissioner will be granted an extension.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
My first question is for
the Minister of Natural Resources.
For the third successive
week and for the fifth time I will ask again, Minister: Will
you table the names and the dates of appointments of the
members of the Conflict of Interest Advisory Committee?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The question was put to
me last week, not three weeks ago, and I am happy to
table the document today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
So much for openness,
once you pry it out of them like teeth.
My next question is for
the Minister of Business.
The minister has a fund
of $32 million in his department for business start-up
in the Province, and that fund has not yet provided any
funding to prospective companies.
As reported in The
Telegram this weekend, Credential Consulting Inc.
was looking to this fund to help establish 150 jobs in
Central Newfoundland. The proposal was rejected and the
company relocated to New Brunswick where they received
both funding from the New Brunswick Government and ACOA
to the tune of in excess of $1 million.
I ask the minister: What
was missing in this proposal that prompted our
Department of Business to reject it, that you are aware
of, whereas the other province and ACOA came to the
plate?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of
the matter is that, because of confidentiality issues,
we will not be speaking to this particular company or
what any company would do in terms of what they are
doing with the Department of Business.
It was very clear in The
Telegram article that they would not give any
comments on this particular file, and we certainly will
not be doing anything as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the people of
this Province deserve an answer as to why 150 potential
jobs are not in this Province and have gone to New
Brunswick, next door. I think you can certainly tell us
that, Minister, without breaching any confidentiality.
Is
there some particular reason - in a general, generic
sense - that you can tell us, that they did not pass the
smell test according to yourself and your department?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I say
to the hon. member across the way, this government is
not in the business of going out and revealing
everything that is going on in terms of companies that
want to come to Newfoundland and Labrador. If we start
going out and giving out information that is coming to
our department on behalf of companies that have stated
clearly - stated clearly, I say, Mr. Speaker - that they
will not engage with The Telegram or any other
paper or any other form of media to give any information
on this deal, if they do not want to deal with the media
then we certainly will not be doing that as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I was very
disappointed to hear no discussion this morning of the
role of the environmental assessment review in the
update on the Lower Churchill, presented by the Minister
of Natural Resources.
Based on recommendations
of the two federally-responsible authorities, there will
be a joint panel to review the environmental impact
statement that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will have
to prepare.
Mr. Speaker, I ask either
the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Natural
Resources to give us some idea of how far along it will
be in the process before the joint review panel is
struck.
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of my news
conference this morning was to share with the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador the expenditures that have
been associated with the development of the Lower
Churchill to date.
At the present time the
energy company is involved in studies that will support
the filing of their environmental impact statement, and
that work is ongoing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister is right,
this morning’s announcement had to do with the
expenditures that have been made to date regarding the
Lower Churchill development, and the statement indicated
that the company would not put any money into Phase 3 of
the development without the key deliverable of the
Impacts and Benefits Agreement with the Innu Nation.
There are other major deliverables, one of which is the
role of the review panel.
I ask the minister –
pertinent exactly to what was talked about this morning
– where do the recommendations of a review panel,
which is not even yet appointed, fit into the timeline
and expenditure plans of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
that were presented this morning?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the
environmental assessment process for the Lower Churchill
is moving along. The process for the draft guidelines,
that is near complete and the next phase will be an MOU.
That will go out for public comment in the very near
future, and that will address issues such as the panel,
the number of people on the panel, and so on.
Once that is complete and
comes back to us, we will certainly be able to provide
more information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if the Minister
of Environment and Conservation could tell us: Who is
the MOU between?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
That MOU would be between
our Province and the federal government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: I
have to say, I am really disappointed – and it is not
just with the provincial government that I am
disappointed around this one – with both the federal
and provincial authorities, that they did not follow a
similar process as was followed in Voisey’s Bay, where
the Aboriginal groups were involved in the MOU. I wish
that were the case here.
I will ask the Minister
of Environment and Conservation: Surely, you must have
some position with regard to when this panel will be put
in place? When the environmental impact statement is
finished by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, to whom
will it be presented?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,
hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I had
mentioned, the MOU will go out for public comment in the
next couple of weeks, of which there is a thirty day
process for public input and comment. Following that
process, my staff and myself will review what comes out
of that very public and open process. It will speak to
how many people will be on the panel and the make up of
the panel. Certainly, we will be able to give you more
information once that process is complete. |
