Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, Tuesday 7 January 2025
The entire sitting was devoted to day two of an extraordinary debate (pursuant to Standing Order 8(7)) on the Memorandum of Understanding between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Hydro-Québec regarding the Churchill River developments. Members and ministers questioned a panel of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro executives on mining power needs, Gull Island exclusivity, projected revenues to the Treasury, risk mitigation, water management, labour and benefits agreements, and the Labrador-Quebec boundary. Opposition members pressed for an independent review before any vote, while government members and the panel defended the MOU as the first stage of a multi-year process leading to definitive agreements. The House recessed at noon and resumed at 1 p.m., continuing the debate.
Orders of the Day
MOU Debate — Mining and power needs in Labrador West
A. Parsons
The Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology led questioning of the Hydro panel on Labrador West mining potential (IOC, Tacora, Kami, Julienne Lake), noting massive projected iron ore demand and the need for new generation and transmission to unlock these projects. Hydro executives explained IOC uses about 260 MW and Tacora about 55 MW, described a load restriction in Labrador, and outlined the additional 605-MW recapture block and a planned billion-dollar third transmission line to Lab West funded by mining proponents.
MOU Debate — Opposition concerns on control, jobs and independent review
L. Parrott
The Member for Terra Nova argued the MOU is misleading, that Quebec controls the jobs, the river and the future for the next 51 years, and that there is no clause requiring Hydro-Québec to build Gull Island. He demanded an independent review, questioned timelines and job claims, and pressed the CEO on Gull Island exclusivity, dispute resolution and whether the deal is good if Quebec chooses not to build. CEO Williams responded that exclusivity ends if Quebec does not proceed, that power access and Lab West jobs still flow, and that 80 per cent of the $227 billion value is tied to the CF Power Purchase Agreement.
MOU Debate — Support for the MOU and questions on Gull Island lead, turbines, off-ramps and water management
S. Stoodley
The Minister of Immigration, Population Growth and Skills spoke strongly in support of the MOU as a generational opportunity, emphasizing it is only the first stage before definitive agreements return to the House. She questioned the panel on why Hydro-Québec should lead Gull Island (their greater experience), why Churchill Falls turbines had not been upgraded (financial prudence and CF(L)Co board veto), off-ramps and expiring power blocks in Schedule E, and the water management framework.
MOU Debate — Whether the MOU requires Hydro-Québec to build Gull Island
H. Conway Ottenheimer
The Member for Harbour Main, a lawyer, pressed the CEO to identify any clause requiring Hydro-Québec to build Gull Island; the CEO confirmed there is no such clause, only best-efforts commitments. The Member concluded the MOU gives Hydro-Québec too much control over jobs, the river and the province's destiny, and demanded a month or two for an independent review, warning against the rush and a possible snap election.
MOU Debate — Independent oversight commitment
J. Hogan
The Government House Leader argued the Premier has committed to further independent oversight as the MOU moves to definitive agreements, that independent experts (to appear later in the week) had already advised, and clarified that these experts were retained by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Member for Harbour Main challenged that being hired by Hydro undermines their independence.
MOU Debate — Defence of independent consultants
P. Trimper
The Member for Lake Melville, drawing on his career as an independent consultant, argued that retained experts' reputations are on the line and that being hired by a client does not compromise their objectivity, defending the credibility of the experts advising Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.
MOU Debate — Labrador-Quebec boundary in Hydro-Québec filings
T. Wakeham
The Leader of the Official Opposition tabled a Hydro-Québec 18-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission showing the Labrador-Quebec border marked as 'not final,' calling it disrespectful and urging that boundary recognition be included in the MOU. The Premier responded that the Privy Council decision makes the boundary final and non-negotiable and that he had told the Premier of Quebec so.
MOU Debate — Breakdown of $225/227 billion revenue to Treasury
T. Wakeham
The Leader of the Official Opposition pressed the CEO on the source of the more than $225 billion in projected revenue to the Treasury, noting the MOU itself contains no such figure. CEO Williams committed to publishing and tabling a breakdown of the $227 billion (including that it is after Hydro-Québec dividends), explained Schedule G payments from Hydro-Québec to CF(L)Co total $195 billion gross, and that the MOU is between the utilities, not the province directly.
MOU Debate — Historical perspective on Gull Island and boundary
E. Joyce
The Member for Humber - Bay of Islands recounted the scuttled 2001-2002 Gull Island deal and argued the province should take a chance on development now rather than wait decades more, confirming with the CEO that if Quebec does not proceed, exclusivity ends and Newfoundland can pursue Gull Island with another proponent. He also recalled the boundary issue being raised in 2000-2001 and credited the panel for committing to clearer revenue figures and posted questions and answers.
Motion to recess
L. Dempster
The Deputy Government House Leader moved that the House recess until 1 p.m., seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
Tabling of document
J. Hogan
Upon resuming at 1 p.m., the Government House Leader tabled a document entitled 'Volumes to HQ and NLH, and associated payments from HQ and NLH to CFLCo (existing generation only).'
MOU Debate — Labrador benefits, coastal transmission and lessons of Muskrat Falls
L. Dempster
The Minister of Labrador Affairs spoke as a proud Labradorian, contrasting the MOU with the troubled Muskrat Falls project, emphasizing lessons learned, oversight, Indigenous engagement, water monitoring and Hydro-Québec absorbing construction and overrun risk. She questioned the CEO about the cost of a transmission line to coastal Labrador (roughly half a billion dollars) and diesel subsidies, and the CEO explained such lines are typically funded by proponents and the MOU provides earlier access to power for such development.
MOU Debate — Labour force, benefits agreements and workforce readiness
J. Brown
The Member for Labrador West questioned the panel on labour strategy, engagement with unions, College of the North Atlantic and the university, and lessons from Muskrat Falls hiring grievances among Labradorians. CEO Williams acknowledged engagement had not yet begun pending definitive agreements, said workforce shortages are one of the biggest risks but manageable, and committed to incorporating lessons learned and benefits monitoring into future agreements.
MOU Debate — Independent advisors, equity payments and risk mitigation
S. Coady
The Minister of Finance thanked the panel and had them confirm the credentials of independent advisors (J.P. Morgan, Power Advisory, Stikeman, plus a parallel Stewart McKelvey process). She questioned the panel on Schedule H equity payments ($4.8 billion nominal, $1.3 billion non-conditional), confirming they cover Newfoundland's equity requirements, and on how risks in Gull Island and the CF Expansion are mitigated through capped equity, guaranteed ownership share, cost-plus PPA flow-through and Hydro-Québec absorbing overruns. She also raised the water management and shareholders agreement modernization as reclaiming control of the river.
MOU Debate — Mandate for Gull Island, exclusivity and PPA pricing
T. Wakeham
The Leader of the Official Opposition questioned whether Gull Island was in the original negotiating mandate (the panel would not disclose the mandate but said the MOU fulfills it), why no open call for proposals was issued despite past interest (e.g., Fortescue in 2021), and pressed on the Power Purchase Agreement pricing. He argued Hydro-Québec is buying power at roughly 5.9 cents/kWh versus a 16-cent replacement cost, questioning why the province did not secure a higher price; the CEO explained the replacement cost applies in 2041 not today and part of the price is tied to Quebec's future replacement costs.
MOU Debate — Boundary name change, negotiation structure, scenario if Gull does not proceed, and differences from 1969 contract
J. Hogan
The Government House Leader recounted the 2001 constitutional recognition of the province's name 'Newfoundland and Labrador' and acknowledged the Labrador members. He questioned the CEO on the global nature of the negotiation (not a one-for-one trade), the strong position if Hydro-Québec does not proceed with Gull Island (retaining $1.3 billion, an untouchable CF PPA, reverting Gull Island rights, and earlier power access), why CF(L)Co is not paying Quebec's 16-cent replacement cost, and the four key differences between the Gull Island mechanism and the 1969 contract (cost-plus model, off-ramps, escalator, guaranteed rate of return). He also, with leave, contrasted Muskrat Falls as a domestic project with the MOU's lack of ratepayer risk.
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.