Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly, Wednesday 16 September 2026
This sitting was devoted almost entirely to a special committee-of-the-whole-style examination of the 2026 Churchill Falls/Gull Island Definitive Cooperation and Implementation Agreement (DCIA) between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Hydro-Québec and Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation, opening with a Standing Order 8(7) debate and testimony from Oversight Committee chair Dan/David Levert, followed by successive panels of NL Hydro board members (M. Ladha, Dr. C. Loomis, J. Haynes) and the negotiating team (B. Perry, J. Williams, V. Newhook). Members from all sides questioned witnesses on the committee's mandate and independence, board governance and unanimous approval of the DCIA, pricing models, risk, power allocations, transmission capacity, the removal of the fairness clause, jobs and benefits for Labrador, and comparisons with the 2024 MOU. Before the debate, the Leader of the Official Opposition raised a point of order and point of privilege over remarks by the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, which were withdrawn with the Speaker reserving a ruling. Following the panels, Question Period saw the Opposition and Third Party press Premier Wakeham and ministers on oversight independence, the abandoned referendum, market-based pricing, equalization, Innu reconciliation, affordability, data centres and trades training, before the House adjourned until Thursday at 10 a.m.
Other business
Point of order and point of privilege re: comments by Member for Placentia West - Bellevue
J. Hogan
The Leader of the Official Opposition raised a point of order and privilege alleging the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue called him a 'sell-out' during Question Period and said 'if the shoe fits, wear it' during the Speaker's Parade while in his Deputy Speaker robes, questioning his impartiality. J. Dwyer withdrew the remark; M. King confirmed hearing it, and the Speaker reserved a ruling on the privilege matter.
Extraordinary debate on the Definitive Cooperation and Implementation Agreement — testimony of Oversight Committee Chair Dan Levert
D. Levert
Dan Levert, Chair of the Churchill River Development Negotiations Oversight Committee, appeared to answer questions under Standing Order 8(7) rules, describing his engineering and legal background, his committee colleagues (Julia Mullaley and Mike Jardine), and the committee's mandate to monitor negotiations for compliance with the negotiation strategy without directing the team. He confirmed the committee met the negotiating team 12 times between June 5 and August 14, reported to the Clerk of the Executive Council, reviewed the DCIA before execution, was bound by non-disclosure agreements, and filed a final report confirming the DCIA complied with the strategy.
Questions from Member for Gander on committee legitimacy and IRC recommendations
B. Ford
The Member for Gander questioned the committee's independence given Premier-appointed members, its confidentiality and lack of public reporting requirements, and whether the DCIA met all Independent Review Committee (IRC) recommendations. Levert stated the committee's mandate was to assess whether negotiations were reasonable and compliant with the strategy, not to look behind the strategy, could not assign a percentage of IRC recommendations met, and confirmed members were compensated and bound by NDAs.
Questions from Minister of Justice on the negotiation process, strategy and IRC recommendations
H. Conway Ottenheimer
The Minister of Justice questioned Levert on the committee's understanding of the process, the openness of the negotiating team (praising Perry, Kennedy, Williams), the written and comprehensive negotiation strategy, resources, and compliance with specific IRC recommendations covering power allocation, Indigenous engagement, and Gull Island ownership models. Levert confirmed no minister directed the committee's conclusions, two amendments were made to the strategy, and a final report confirming DCIA compliance was filed.
Questions from Leader of the Official Opposition on strategy, IRC compliance and committee expertise
J. Hogan
The Leader of the Official Opposition sought clarity on the relationship between the negotiation strategy, the IRC recommendations, and the DCIA, with Levert clarifying the strategy did not reference the IRC and that the committee measured negotiations only against the strategy. Levert advised against making the strategy public given ongoing negotiations with Hydro-Québec, declined to reveal a commercially sensitive second amendment, and confirmed the committee did not retain independent financial or energy-pricing experts but relied on the negotiating team and Dr. Geoff Hollett.
Questions from Minister of Energy and Mines on Levert's professional background and negotiation experience
L. Parrott
The Minister of Energy and Mines questioned Levert about being bound by legal and engineering professional rules, whether his affiliations were compromised, and how his industry experience suited the oversight role. Levert explained the committee structure paralleled Kiewit Corporation's negotiation oversight model, described his extensive experience including hydro projects and dealing with Hydro-Québec as a tough, sophisticated owner, and confirmed his experience in negotiations.
Oversight Committee's access to information and independence
D. Levert
In response to questions from Minister L. Parrott, Levert stated that no information was denied to the Oversight Committee, that the clerk of Executive Council was supportive and non-interfering, that the committee was never impeded by government or the negotiating team, and that he would not have remained on the committee if its independence had been compromised.
Committee's mandate and benchmarks for negotiations
D. Levert
Levert clarified he chaired the Oversight Committee (not the IRC), said the committee was not asked to measure negotiations against the earlier MOU, and confirmed that negotiations involve give-and-take where you don't obtain everything demanded.
Qualifications of Oversight Committee members
D. Levert
Levert described his colleagues Julia Mullaley (accountant/Auditor General background) and Mike Jardine (engineer with power-industry experience) as well-qualified, and said his own engineering and legal experience added value.
Decision not to retain independent expert advisors
J. Hogan
Opposition Leader Hogan pressed Levert on why the committee chose not to retain its own experts (e.g., in North American hydroelectricity pricing) to test advice from Power Advisory and J.P. Morgan; Levert said the committee discussed it at the outset and decided to rely on the reputation and reliability of the negotiating team's retained experts, assessing their information against the members' own expertise.
Market-based pricing, Churchill Falls upgrades and 50-year deal
J. Hogan
Hogan questioned Levert on the dropping of market-based/block-formula pricing, the inclusion of the $4.8-billion Churchill Falls expansion, and the 50-year Gull Island PPA relative to IRC recommendations; Levert said pricing changes resulted from negotiation give-and-take, that expansion technical issues led parties to defer it, and deferred detailed questions to the negotiating team.
Committee's working methods, risk assessment and confidentiality
H. Conway Ottenheimer
Minister Conway Ottenheimer asked about risks, decision-making and confidentiality; Levert said the biggest risk was lack of information (which never materialized), that decisions were reached by consensus with reports to the clerk, that meetings and minutes were kept privileged and confidential via the government email system, and that keeping the negotiation strategy confidential was necessary to avoid revealing the game plan to the other side.
Oversight model, assessing reasonableness and public confidence
H. Conway Ottenheimer
Levert described the oversight structure as providing real oversight and credibility, said the committee assessed whether the negotiating team's conduct was reasonable and consistent with the strategy, that members would have spoken up and reported to the clerk if anything was untoward, and expressed confidence the public should have in the committee's work.
Committee meetings, disagreements and relationship with the minister
S. Stoodley
In response to Member Stoodley, Levert reiterated the committee met 12 times between June 5 and August 14, was fully briefed, had no material disagreements with the negotiating team, reached decisions by consensus, and disclosed he knew Minister Parrott from the Hebron Project Employers' Association board but had no personal relationship with him.
Conclusion of Levert session and recess
The Speaker
The Speaker thanked Mr. Levert for appearing and answering questions, and the House recessed until 1 p.m.
Introduction of NL Hydro guests and tabling of Gull Island fact sheet
Speaker (Lane)
The Speaker welcomed NL Hydro guests Dr. Chris Loomis (Governance Committee chair), Jim Haynes (Churchill River Advisory Committee member) and Michael Ladha, KC (chief legal officer/corporate secretary), reviewed the questioning rules, and permitted Minister Parrott to table a Gull Island development fact sheet with spreadsheets.
NL Hydro guests' backgrounds and reasons for joining the board
Multiple
Loomis (retired MUN academic, 10 years on the board), Haynes (engineer with ~42 years at Hydro including Churchill Falls) and Ladha (chief legal officer/corporate secretary, ~11 years) described their backgrounds, why they agreed to serve, and Ladha's role as the link between the board and management.
Board composition
M. Ladha
Ladha explained the NL Hydro board can have up to 14 members (currently 13, including CEO Jennifer Williams) with expertise spanning utility operations, engineering, project management, large-scale development, governance, finance, law and human resources.
Board's review and approval of the DCIA
Multiple
Ladha, Loomis and Haynes described how the board and its Churchill River assets subcommittee reviewed the DCIA and oversaw negotiations over a roughly 10-week period, meeting at least seven times, questioning management and experts in-camera, approving the negotiating strategy with two amendments, receiving an internal audit review of governance, and unanimously recommending approval; no directors declared a conflict of interest.
Mandate, IRC report and remaining negotiations
P. Parsons
Member Parsons questioned the guests on the negotiating mandate; Loomis and Ladha explained the mandate came from government and was approved by the board, was informed by (but not strictly the) IRC report, that the board received a detailed DCIA-to-IRC comparison (which cannot be tabled due to commercial sensitivity), and confirmed further negotiations toward definitive agreements remain.
Oversight of remaining negotiations and the referendum
P. Parsons
Parsons asked why oversight applied only to the first phase and about the cancelled referendum; Ladha declined to answer, characterizing oversight and the referendum as political/public-policy questions for government, and Loomis said he was not aware of any conversations between NL Hydro and government about a referendum.
IRC report experts, citations and public transparency
P. Parsons
P. Parsons pressed the panel on whether they knew who the IRC report's experts were and why the underlying data and citations were not made public; Dr. Loomis said they had no information and agreed that in the academic world reports would not be published without citations, while Mr. Ladha said the IRC process was outside the board's mandate and directed questions about the Premier's commitments to the Premier.
Independent review of the new deal
P. Parsons
P. Parsons questioned whether the new DCIA had been independently reviewed as the old MOU was; Mr. Ladha said the deal was reviewed by Hydro's experts and informed by the IRC report, and that a further independent review was not necessary or customary.
Board approval of 2024 MOU and meeting frequency
P. Parsons
Dr. Loomis confirmed the board supported the 2024 MOU and was satisfied to proceed to final agreements, and that the board met in person seven times over a 10-week period on the current deal.
Jerome Kennedy's role and compensation
P. Parsons
P. Parsons asked about Jerome Kennedy's role after being retained in January 2026; Mr. Ladha said the board knew him only as a government advisor then a member of the negotiating team, and that neither the board nor Hydro had information on his hours or pay.
Muskrat Falls rate mitigation and negotiating team confidence
P. Parsons
Mr. Ladha confirmed Hydro spends approximately $500 million a year to mitigate rates from Muskrat Falls, and stated the board could question unreliable information from the negotiating team but did not do so in this case; Dr. Loomis concurred.
Gull Island cost structure and negotiation mandate timing
P. Parsons
Mr. Ladha said the board was given detail on the DCIA including Gull Island cost structure though it did not specifically request it, and confirmed the negotiation mandate developed by government and approved by the board came after the IRC report was released.
Apolitical nature of the board and in camera meetings
H. Conway Ottenheimer
In response to the Minister of Justice, Dr. Loomis explained the board must refrain from answering political questions to preserve its apolitical position, and described holding in camera meetings with expert advisors (Power Advisory, J.P. Morgan, Stikeman Elliott, McInnes Cooper) to ask direct questions without management influence; Mr. Haynes confirmed no concerns were raised by the experts.
Governance roles, decision-making and review process
H. Conway Ottenheimer
Mr. Ladha and Dr. Loomis explained the distinct roles of the negotiating team, oversight committee and Hydro board, confirmed the board's ultimate decision was to recommend entering the DCIA, and stated the board considered risks, legal advice and long-term consequences and was given adequate time, resources and access to information; Mr. Haynes said no requested information was denied.
Legal advice and risk analysis of the DCIA
H. Conway Ottenheimer
Mr. Ladha said the board received legal advice internally and from McInnes Cooper and Stikeman Elliott; the panel described completing risk assessments but declined to detail specific risks and mitigations given upcoming negotiations, and confirmed they were briefed on the federal components which became a critical element to concluding the deal.
Comparison of 2024 MOU and 2026 DCIA — power, price and fairness clause
L. Dempster
L. Dempster questioned whether the DCIA is a better deal for Quebec, noting Quebec receives more power and the removal of the fairness clause; Mr. Ladha confirmed both Quebec and Hydro receive more power (Hydro's allocation rising from 1,990 to 2,750 MW) and argued the absence of the word 'fairness' does not make the deal unfair, while Dr. Loomis pointed to built-in price escalators.
Labrador transmission line, diesel dependency and market-based pricing
L. Dempster
L. Dempster raised the need for a transmission line to the South Coast of Labrador, replacement of diesel, uniform rates and the shift from market-based pricing to fixed pricing for Churchill Falls power; the panel discussed Hydro's Labrador South reliability plans before the PUB, and Mr. Haynes defended fixed pricing noting proxy markets provide balance, while Dr. Loomis framed the deal as the best achievable outcome.
Churchill Falls pricing, plant maintenance and consequences of not proceeding
L. Parrott
The Minister of Energy and Mines questioned Mr. Haynes, drawing on his experience at Churchill Falls, about plant maintenance costs, the age and lifespan of turbines and generators, and the 1969 contract's lack of a cost pass-through mechanism; the panel warned that maintenance costs would otherwise fall on CF(L)Co and that failing to seize this deal would likely mean the opportunity is not repeated given Quebec's action plan 2035.
Board engagement, unanimous support and recommended conclusion
L. Parrott
Dr. Loomis confirmed full engagement of all board members over the 10-week process, that all requested information was received, and that the board's conclusion was to recommend Hydro enter the DCIA and seek definitive agreements with Hydro-Québec; the panel stressed the importance of proceeding given aligned interests and federal funding.
2024 MOU vote, pricing models and tabled document recess
J. Hogan
The Leader of the Official Opposition confirmed the board voted on the 2024 MOU including the 2 per cent escalator and Gull Island financing, requested the Churchill Falls upgrade pricing model be tabled (Mr. Ladha agreed to make it available), and raised a government-tabled document entitled 'Churchill Falls Agreement Gull Island Development,' prompting a 10-minute recess so panellists could review it.
Board oversight of public communications and political branding on Hydro document
M. Ladha
Ladha confirmed the board saw all information underlying a summary document but that issuing communications is a management decision; the board does not approve documents, TV/radio ads or social media. Loomis and Ladha stated the board was not concerned about the "a better deal for all of us" slogan appearing alongside the Hydro logo, noting Hydro is a Crown corporation providing accurate information to its shareholder, the people/government.
Hydro-Québec pricing and effect on Labrador ratepayers
M. Ladha
In response to Hogan, Ladha clarified Hydro-Québec's payments for Gull Island and Churchill Falls are set out in the DCIA, and explained that the rising CF(L)Co price (starting 1.8 cents, escalating) will factor into rate discussions for Labrador Interconnected customers, subject to PUB approval.
IRC report role in negotiating strategy and market-based pricing
M. Ladha
Ladha confirmed the board was not directly engaged with the IRC but that the IRC report was an input into the negotiating strategy approved by government and the board. Haynes offered limited comment on the give-and-take of negotiations regarding market-based pricing.
Next steps, approvals and implementation of definitive agreements
Multiple
Conway Ottenheimer questioned the panel on next steps; Ladha, Loomis and Haynes explained the board will continue similar oversight, that definitive agreements require approval from the Hydro board, CF(L)Co board and government, and that a Major Projects subcommittee would oversee construction. Haynes noted more matters are already settled in the DCIA, reducing risk.
Labrador West transmission line, Kami, and Labrador power supply
M. Ladha
Dempster asked about the Labrador West transmission line; Haynes and Ladha said a 735-kV line (capable of 2,000 MW) is proposed, commissioning around 2032 at an estimated $2.6 billion, funded by federal money, Hydro and industrial customers. Ladha noted industrial rates and Labrador rate protection remain government policy decisions, and confirmed power allocations for NORAD/Northern Basing (25 MW rising to 50 MW by 2031).
J.P. Morgan advice on 2024 MOU escalator clause
M. Ladha
In response to Dinn, Ladha said J.P. Morgan would have advised Hydro executives and staff that the 2 per cent escalator in the 2024 MOU was not their preferred choice, and this was conveyed to the board by management.
Churchill Falls upgrade project and Gull Island pricing model
M. Ladha
Parsons questioned pricing models for the Churchill Falls upgrades ($4.8B capital, mainly a capacity project) and Gull Island (cost-of-service, declining price from ~17 to 9 cents). Ladha said pricing models exist but he did not have specifics, noting Williams could provide them, and confirmed Hydro-Québec is entitled to 84% of Gull Island output with Hydro holding an option on 16%, and that if uneconomic Hydro would decline and Hydro-Québec would purchase the full output.
Power for Labrador developments and coastal/diesel communities
M. Ladha
Dempster asked about the 720 MW allocation for Labrador; Ladha said Hydro hopes all secured power is sold in-province rather than to Hydro-Québec, and that rates for diesel-dependent coastal communities remain a PUB and public-policy matter. Loomis said the board was satisfied with the 2024 MOU at the time but that changed circumstances enabled a better outcome in the DCIA.
Risk matrix, risk mitigation and IRC governance changes
Multiple
Stoodley asked about risk; Haynes described risk mitigation through Hydro-Québec as construction and hydrologic-risk partner, first-out recapture, and the Water Management Agreement, while Ladha noted Hydro's enterprise risk program reported risks to the board. Ladha listed four governance changes implemented per the IRC: appointing Maureen Ryan KC as chair, board meeting the negotiating team, in-camera board meetings with experts, and a governance review by Internal Audit.
Hydro exports and export pricing
M. Ladha
Parsons questioned 2025 export volumes and pricing; Ladha said exports occur via a 265-MW direct booking through Quebec into US markets and via the Maritime Link, that transmission-market portfolio sales (CHPE, NECEC, synthetic) are paid through Hydro-Québec at matching prices, and that exports were a significant contributor to revenue, but he did not have specific figures.
Final authority on the DCIA and board accountability
Multiple
Hutton questioned who had final say; Loomis said the board voted unanimously to recommend the DCIA, and Ladha confirmed government approval is also required and that the Premier ultimately has the final say and could override the board (though this did not happen). The panel confirmed the board approved both the 2024 MOU and the 2026 DCIA, addressed public confusion over differences between the deals, discussed Hydro-Québec's role on the Water Management Committee, and stated the board is accountable to its shareholder, the government of the day.
Accountability of NL Hydro and 15% electricity rebate
C. Loomis
Dr. Loomis affirmed NL Hydro's accountability runs through government; in response to S. Gambin-Walsh, panellists said NL Hydro was not aware of being involved in discussions on the 15 per cent electricity rebate, though electricity prices are a constant concern given Hydro's least-cost mandate.
Transmission of new power to the Island
M. Ladha
Ladha said there is very little ability to transmit power from the new developments to the Island because of capacity constraints on the Labrador-Island Link.
Oversight and House review of definitive agreements
Multiple
NL Hydro said it is not aware of any government oversight process for the definitive agreements and there were no shareholder directives on the DCIA; Dr. Loomis indicated the board would be willing to return to the House to speak to final agreements if requested.
Discriminatory action provision (Exhibit C) and compensation (Annex K)
M. Ladha
Ladha explained the discriminatory-action provision does not prevent government from acting but entitles targeted parties to compensation if an action is found discriminatory, citing the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act; J. Hogan pressed on whether compensation could include the full cost of building Gull Island, which Ladha rejected, saying the remedy only restores a party to a no-worse-off position and depends on the specific action.
Commonality of discriminatory-action clauses
L. Parrott
Minister Parrott elicited from Ladha that such clauses are common in resource development contracts, were not in the 2024 MOU but likely would have been negotiated later, and protect all parties.
IRC consultations with the Hydro board
B. Davis
B. Davis questioned who informed the IRC report; Ladha confirmed the IRC interviewed the board chair and the chair of the Churchill River assets committee, while Loomis and Ladha said investigating the IRC's inputs was not the board's mandate and Loomis was not uncomfortable with the process.
Water Management Committee, veto rights and Hydro-Québec seat
Multiple
B. Davis questioned the Water Management Committee's function and Hydro-Québec's new seat; Haynes described past contractual limits on optimizing Churchill Falls, and Ladha explained Special Majority Board Approval thresholds were escalated (mostly to $75 million, CPI-indexed) and that Hydro is comfortable giving Hydro-Québec a seat, while declining to detail negotiation trade-offs or riverbanks for commercial sensitivity. Ladha said Innu Nation involvement in the operational committee was not raised and would not necessarily be appropriate.
Resumption and introduction of negotiating team panel
The Speaker
After the supper recess the House resumed at 6 p.m. and the Speaker welcomed back the negotiating team (Perry and Williams) and introduced commercial advisor Vanessa Newhook, who outlined her credentials (MBA, former ADM for royalties and benefits, 14 years with Chevron).
Labrador power constraints and the new agreement's allocations
Multiple
Minister L. Evans questioned why Labrador lacks power for its own growth; Williams explained NL Hydro has maxed out its capped supply from Churchill Falls until 2041 under the existing contract, and Perry said the new deal brings new allocations starting in year one (25 MW years 1-2, rising to 305 MW+ in 2032) plus rapidly increasing revenue ($350M in 2027 to $2.7B by 2041), giving government flexibility.
Comparison of power provisions: 2024 MOU versus DCIA and premium/discount pricing
Multiple
M. King probed whether Hydro was satisfied with the 2024 MOU power (525 to 1,990 MW, roughly four times) and whether Hydro-Québec could buy province-reserved power at a discount; Perry disputed the characterization, explaining a three-year notice mechanism with a 95 per cent buy-back if a planning mistake occurs, Newhook explained the 150 per cent premium tranche and balancing act to avoid eroding value, and Perry noted the US line options (up to 240 MW New York, 200 MW Boston) can yield better returns in early years.
Benefits of the agreement for Labrador families
L. Evans
Minister Evans, noting Labradorians feel they bear development burdens without benefits, asked what the agreement means for families in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, directing the question to Mr. Perry.
Gull Island development, jobs and benefits for Labradorians
L. Evans
The Minister of Labrador Affairs pressed the negotiating team on the lifespan and economic benefits of Gull Island, whether Labradorians would get a fair shot at jobs, impacts on local businesses and what the deal would mean 10 years out; the panel cited a benefits strategy requiring 85 per cent or 20 million hours in-province, a hiring protocol prioritizing Labrador Innu then Labradorians, permanent operator jobs and a projected annual average of 5,500 jobs at peak.
Power availability for Lake Melville projects and Innu Nation concerns
K. Russell
The Member for Lake Melville questioned whether there is enough power for announced projects (MRI, Paddon Home), whether promises are contingent on the deal, and raised Grand Chief Jodie Ashini's demand for an apology over the 300-year cap and the lack of Labrador-specific hiring data from Muskrat Falls; the panel said only small amounts of power remain and the negotiating team's role was to secure benefits commitments while apology and history questions are for the province.
Power supply, mining and transmission for Labrador West
J. Power
The Member for Labrador West asked about current and future power availability, timelines, priority of provincial versus Quebec supply, and mining prospects; Perry outlined new power blocks (25 MW in 2027 rising to over 600 MW by 2035), that the province is served first, the ability to recall power sold to Quebec with three years' notice, and the potential for multiple mines like Kami, while Newhook cited $19 billion in GDP and 16,000 peak jobs from industrial development.
Recognition of former MHA Shawn Skinner
Speaker
The Speaker welcomed former MHA for St. John's Centre and former Minister of Natural Resources Shawn Skinner to the gallery.
Language barrier, reopening clause and fairness of the deal
L. Stoyles
The Member for Mount Pearl North raised concerns about the French-language barrier (the panel confirmed a commitment to an English site), the absence of a reopening/fairness clause, and argued the deal should go to a referendum; Perry defended the 51-year Gull Island contract and $49 billion overall value, and Williams endorsed the deal as fair, while Stoyles expressed she could not vote yes feeling it was not the best deal.
Escalation clause, jobs and personal reflections on the deal
C. Tibbs
The Minister of Social Supports and Well-Being questioned Perry on how the flawed 2 per cent escalation model (which could have left ~$30 billion in debt) was corrected via traditional cost-of-service, and asked about jobs; the panel confirmed over 5,000 peak workers at Gull Island, none at minimum wage, NL Hydro as operator, and construction extending to 2042, before Perry, Williams and Newhook offered personal reflections about wanting their children and families to stay in the province.
Panel Q&A: alternatives and value of the agreement
V. Newhook
Newhook explained she approached the deal by assessing alternatives and, on balance of probabilities, found it hard to identify a materially better alternative worth pursuing, given opportunities for the province and Labrador.
Analysis of financial vs. economic value of Churchill River power
V. Newhook
In response to S. O'Leary, Newhook described an analysis by Finance, Energy and Mines and NL Hydro assessing GDP, jobs and taxation value of using power in-province, and the balancing of retaining power the province has paid for, noting NL and Hydro-Québec pay the same price to CF(L)Co.
Gull Island environmental impact statement and climate change
Jennifer Williams
O'Leary questioned why the 2012 Gull Island EIS had not expired given climate change; Williams affirmed climate change is real, noted Labrador is in a drought while the Island has above-normal inflows, and said the province would work with officials to confirm the assessment holds.
Water availability risk under the contract
B. Perry
Perry clarified that the risk of reduced water/generation at Churchill falls to Hydro-Québec, and negotiated Annex D payments do not change if water does not show up.
Economic rent from Churchill Falls power 2041 onward
B. Perry
Asked for an estimate of total economic rent from existing Churchill Falls power from September 2041 to the end of the PPA and NL's share under the DCIA, Perry said the team did not have the information to calculate it and would need defined terms to answer.
Three-year recall notice period flexibility
B. Perry
Perry explained that if a mine stalled, NL Hydro could give notice to return power to the "power bank," and that power purchase agreements with mines would likely include a penalty clause to mitigate the 5 per cent discount cost.
Assumptions in Labrador Trough electricity needs study
V. Newhook
Newhook said the analysis used proprietary information from advanced mining discussions plus scenarios of additional mines, citing Kami as a publicly usable example, and noted there is no typical mine.
Reservoir capacity projections under climate change
Jennifer Williams
Williams said early research suggests climate change might deliver additional energy to the CF reservoir, with potential for larger, flashier inflows the large reservoir can capture, and indicated the province is not at risk of less water.
Value of the new agreement for Labrador and waiting until 2041
L. Evans
Minister Evans asked what waiting until 2041 would mean versus signing now; Newhook said delays risk losing current momentum around global mining development in Labrador West, as transmission lines and power agreements take time to build.
Message to Labradorians and benefits under the agreement
B. Perry
Perry described the immense value to the Innu Nation through repriced cash flows above the low New Dawn rate, and said increased power allotment (525 to 2,750 megawatts) and new developments would benefit Labrador and the province over the next 10-15 years and beyond.
Benefits reporting framework and diversity requirements
V. Newhook
Newhook and Williams described the benefits framework capturing hours, occupations, work location, residency, gender, Innu Nation membership and benefits to NL businesses; Newhook outlined the women's employment and diversity plan requiring inclusion, training and reporting, and noted requirements for subcontracting and procurement to be offered to NL companies.
Leave to extend panel questioning
L. Dempster
Dempster requested leave for members with prepared questions to continue while panellists remained; the House granted unanimous consent and the panellists agreed to stay approximately 20 more minutes.
15 per cent electricity bill reduction and price per kilowatt hour
B. Perry
Responding to P. Pike, Perry declined to comment directly on the rate reduction but said the deal's low-risk cash flows give the province future flexibility to pay down debt, fund health care or lower power rates, and explained Quebec's lower rates reflect subsidies from its broader hydro assets.
Conversations with the Premier about the referendum
Multiple
All three panellists (Perry, Williams, Newhook) confirmed they had no conversations with the Premier about a referendum and gave no advice to walk back the promise; Perry described being present at a caucus meeting where an emotional Premier informed caucus of his decision.
Job language in Annex L and fly-in fly-out concerns
V. Newhook
Newhook explained the clauses must be read together, are standard for major projects, require work to take place in NL with a hiring protocol applied, and acknowledged some non-Newfoundlanders would work on sites given the volume of jobs.
Gull Island power price escalator
B. Perry
Perry confirmed Quebec's price starts around 17 cents and declines to about nine cents over the project life, avoiding a $30 billion debt balloon, with costs flowed through annually; Williams added that operating and maintenance costs would be allowed to escalate over time, unlike the 1969 contract.
Transparency principle in the DCIA and process timeline
B. Perry
Perry defended the process as not rushed, well-prepared with a negotiating strategy and governance framework, and said the deal is non-binding and heading to definitive agreements by December 31 (extendable to March 31), addressing questions from Pike and later Davis comparing the timeline to his Fortis deals.
Close of panel session and recess
The Speaker
The Speaker thanked the three panellists, noted the House would move to Question Period, and recessed for approximately five minutes to allow guests to depart.
Churchill Falls deal and bringing definitive agreements to the House
Multiple
The Leader of the Official Opposition repeatedly pressed the Premier to commit to bringing the definitive agreements before the House before signing; the Premier confirmed the definitive agreements would be brought back to the House but did not specify before signing. Minister Parrott defended the deal as delivering more power, transmission and value.
Free vote and caucus voting on Thursday
Premier Wakeham
Asked to confirm Thursday's vote is a free vote without repercussions, the Premier said the caucus would decide together how it will vote.
Abandoned referendum promise
Multiple
L. Dempster challenged the Premier over his election promise of a referendum on the deal; the Premier acknowledged he had promised one but said much had changed, citing economic threats and federal investment, and admitted some would be disappointed.
Labrador ministers' support for the deal and regional concerns
Multiple
Dempster questioned whether the Minister of Labrador Affairs supports the deal only because she is a minister and raised the Lake Melville MHA's ignored concerns; Minister Evans defended the deal as better than 2024, touting jobs, the new Paddon Home and long-term care needs.
Equalization legal challenge and federal support
Multiple
J. Dinn asked whether the federal government made deal support contingent on dropping the equalization fairness challenge; the Premier answered "No."
Innu apology and reconciliation
L. Evans
Dinn asked the Premier to apologize to the Innu of Labrador as requested by Grand Chief Ashini; the Minister of Indigenous Relations spoke to the emotional history and stated the government acknowledges the Innu as Aboriginal/Indigenous people.
Cost of living and affordability measures
Multiple
S. O'Leary criticized the Finance Minister's "show me the money" remark and asked what measures beyond the 15 per cent rebate would help residents; Minister Pardy defended his Jerry Maguire reference and criticized the previous government for adding $1 billion of debt annually.
Data centres in Labrador
L. Parrott
O'Leary asked whether government plans to build a data centre in Labrador; the Minister of Energy and Mines said the focus is Gull Island, Churchill Falls upgrades, wind and mining, and that a data centre would be considered only if it meets environmental standards and if there is excess power.
Training and jobs for the Labrador megaprojects
Multiple
E. Joyce asked for a plan and information sessions on training workers for upcoming projects, including in the Corner Brook and Bay of Islands areas; Minister Parrott and the Premier described planned trades training, an Innu training school, and reintroducing high school skilled trades programs.
Welcome of visitors and adjournment
Speaker
The Speaker welcomed former NDP MP Charlie Angus to the public gallery and adjourned the House until Thursday at 10 a.m.
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.