Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, Monday 6 January 2025
The House of Assembly was recalled under Standing Order 8(7) for an extraordinary four-day debate on the Memorandum of Understanding between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Québec for a new long-term energy purchase and development initiative concerning Churchill Falls, Gull Island and related assets. Members first debated and adopted special procedural rules for the debate, then began the substantive debate, which included introductory statements from the Premier, party leaders and independent Members, and extended questioning of invited guests from NL Hydro. A recurring theme throughout was Opposition and independent Members' demand for an independent, arm's-length expert review of the MOU before Thursday's vote.
Orders of the Day
Procedural rules for the extraordinary debate on the Hydro-Québec MOU
J. Hogan
The Government House Leader moved, by leave, thirteen procedural rules governing the four-day debate (Jan 6-9), including sitting hours, speaking-time allocations, a Committee/Estimates-style format, and rules for questioning invited guests from NL Hydro, Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan; leave was granted and the rules were carried.
Debate on the procedural rules
Multiple
B. Petten, E. Joyce, J. Dinn and P. Lane spoke to the rules, broadly raising concerns about the four-day timeline, the absence of an independent oversight/expert review (citing Justice LeBlanc's Muskrat Falls recommendations), the ad campaign that preceded briefings, and the closeness of the invited experts to the negotiations.
Resolution introduced and MOU tabled
J. Hogan
The Government House Leader moved the resolution that the House support NL Hydro proceeding with the MOU toward definitive agreements, and tabled a copy of the December 12, 2024 Memorandum of Understanding.
Premier's opening address on the MOU
A. Furey
The Premier presented the MOU as a historic, generational deal that tears up the 1969 contract, projecting over $225 billion in provincial revenue, majority ownership of Gull Island funded by a $3.5 billion Hydro-Québec payment, expansion of Churchill Falls, and thousands of jobs; he thanked the Innu Nation and independent advisors and pledged continued independent oversight and public town halls.
Leader of the Official Opposition's response
T. Wakeham
The Opposition Leader argued the deal is being rushed, that binding provisions (including an exclusivity clause) were already signed without public consultation or independent expert review, that only 12 hours of questioning are allowed, and questioned whether Quebec obtained a disproportionately favourable, decades-long deal at the province's expense.
Questioning of NL Hydro CEO on negotiation process and mandate
T. Wakeham
The Opposition Leader questioned CEO Jennifer Williams and the Premier on when the negotiating team was formed, who appointed it, the negotiating mandate (which Williams declined to disclose as commercially sensitive), the 2041 expert panel report (not to be released), and repeatedly pressed for a commitment to an independent expert review of the MOU before the Thursday vote, which the Premier declined to provide.
Leader of the Third Party's statement and questions
J. Dinn
The NDP Leader argued the deal has merits but demanded an independent, arm's-length regulated review (e.g. by the PUB) answerable to the House, said such a review could run concurrently with negotiations, criticized the ad campaign and the lack of objectivity, and stressed the deal must make sound business sense while protecting Labrador West.
Questions on project linkage, pricing and 5.9 cents figure
P. Lane
The Member for Mount Pearl-Southlands maintained his call for an independent review and questioned whether the projects are tied together and how the 5.9 cents/kWh figure was derived; Williams and VP Walter Parsons explained the CF PPA changes, the $3.5 billion option payment, and that 5.9 cents is an effective price for existing generation escalating over the term.
Questions on alternatives, export markets, dispute resolution and advertising
E. Joyce
The Member for Humber-Bay of Islands criticized the government for not treating the MOU as a project requiring independent oversight, and questioned whether alternatives to Hydro-Québec were explored, export market analysis, why disputes would be settled in Ontario, and whether NL Hydro placed public ads; he asked whether the Stewart McKelvey parallel review would be released, which Minister A. Parsons said would be checked.
Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology's remarks
A. Parsons
The Minister welcomed the opportunity to debate the MOU in the House, contrasting it with the lack of debate on Muskrat Falls, defended the process as one step toward definitive agreements with continued oversight, questioned who would pay for further independent review, and said he believed the recommendations of the LeBlanc inquiry were being respected.
Further questioning on the expert panel report and Cabinet
T. Wakeham
The Opposition Leader asked whether the expert panel presented its report findings to Cabinet; the CEO declined to comment on Cabinet matters.
This is Tabled's summary of the sitting, written from the official record; Hansard is only ever quoted at the link above. Search Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard for the words themselves, or read this sitting in the archive.