The Sun has FINALLY Shone on Muskrat Falls

Now we are talking. When did this become such a notion for our sitting Tories and retired Chief?

The big revelation! The mines need the power. Alderon needs the power. 

Here we were humming along - chatting with Quebec - talking Lower Churchill - then - as if from nowhere - OMG - we are running out of power. We will need to put bricks in our beds in order to stay warm. 

A new fight with Quebec. Negotiations are off the table - go away - pull out the flag - fly it - use it - "we don't like Quebec" remember - they say - remember the Upper Churchill. It's their entire fault - they are unreasonable so we will go around them. Watch us - lace up the skates - off with the gloves. 

Then we got a deal - we will avoid Quebec - keep the bricks from our bed - and green up Canada and the northeast USA.

Deal announced - Premier gone, Bureaucrat gone, Nalcor executive gone, - where?

Well after an "acceptable" period of absence - to the open arms of Alderon. Who? Alderon - who claim they better get power or their materially damaged.

Slowly but painfully surely we reached today - the day when we are told the mines need the power.

Now it's all okay - the massive debt, empty consumer pockets, and hospitals - roads - potable water - - schools can all take a hit because we are spending on power for the mines.

What's the deal now?

Well if we were told the mines needed it in the first place - which has been known for some time - then we would demand something in return for favourable power rates and access to the raw resources.

Example - if INCO wanted the ore - we want - long-term jobs, post-secondary processing, research dollars, and investments in community infrastructure. That was just to do what these mining companies in Labrador want to do and that's extract and export raw resources.

Have a look at Hansard and count how many times Opposition Tories demanded that these things not only occur but be cast in stone.

Oh let me remember now - smelting, secondary processing, long-term jobs for the ore. Go have a look at yourself - refresh your memory because now the time has come for the Tories to deliver the same.

  

Count how many times a PC MHA said smelter and refining of our precious natural resources - how many times they explained NO MORE GIVEAWAYS. 

Now the ball is directly in their court - they control the playing field and companies want to extract ore from Labrador. 

1. If you want special finance rates for power - become involved in the financing of the project. 

2. Deliver secondary processing of every ounce of ore you extract.

3. Provide research and development funds, and improve upon what INCO started with commitment to secondary education. 

4. For every mine being talked about today by the Minister and Premier - deliver a special debate in the House of Assembly on every deal to develop ore bodies so we can get a look at what they are offering.

The shoes are on your feet now - let's see you walk the talk.

  

The game changer was announced today and now there should be full media attention and exposure to what each of these mining companies will be doing for us.

  

Right now what I see is we - the owners of the power resource - pay for the production, transmission, and distribution of power from Muskrat so that mining companies can get a reduced rate to send our ore to China for processing.

Was the back door approach used? Let us now proceed with the real debate.

Do not let one new MW be constructed until we have a referendum on the project and a full and complete debate in the House of Assembly on every deal to extract ore.

Remember the Tory Position

Remember a few short years ago.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The real torpedo in the bow of this government's scam and sham was when Scott Hand came out and said that they were going to keep the smelters in Sudbury and in Thompson productive and competitive for a long, long time. That was it. That was the fatal blow, because then the jig was up. Then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador finally found out what the real deal was; and the real deal was that our ore, our concentrate, our nickel, our whatever, was going to leave this Province and keep Sudbury and Thompson going for a long period of time. To add, Mr. Speaker, 300 new jobs are going to be created in Sudbury this year. To add to that, Mr. Speaker, the Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba, is breaking champagne and the people are dancing in the streets because they are going to have our jobs. That is simply wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: 

What about us, Mr. Speaker? What about Newfoundland and Labrador? What about the jobs here, Mr. Speaker? That is what we need to concentrate on, not 300 jobs in Sudbury, not 1,000 jobs in Thompson.

Let's go through out-migration, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about what has happened in our communities in the last five years when 40,000 people have left our Province. Let's look at the percentages over the last five years. In Portugal Cove South, 21.4 per cent of the people have left. In St. Shotts, 31 per cent of the people have left. In Aquaforte, 22.7 per cent of the people have left. In Peter's River, St. Vincent's, St. Stephens, 24.3 per cent of the people have left our Province. In Gaskiers, 21.5 per cent.

I am going to continue on, Mr. Speaker. I know it is difficult for hon. members opposite, but we are going to go through some of this list. In Sunnyside, 23.2 per cent of the people have left. In Heart's Desire, 25.3 per cent. In Cupids, 13 per cent. In Ricketts,13 per cent. In Lawn,18.6 per cent. In Lamaline, 21.4 per cent. In Fox Cove, Bay L'Argent, Grand Le Pierre: 14 per cent, 15 per cent and 10 per cent. In Rushoon, 18 per cent of the people have left our Province. In Gaultois, 24.1 per cent in the last five years have left Newfoundland and Labrador. In Milltown, 21.4 per cent. In Morrisville, 22 percent. In Ramea, 30 per cent of the people, one third of the people of Ramea, have had to leave our Province and this government is going to send jobs to Sudbury and Thompson, Manitoba. Shame on all of you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I will continue, Mr. Speaker.

In Cape St. George, 15.4 per cent. In Lourdes, 14.2 per cent. In Port au Port West, Aguathuna, 15.2 per cent. In Jackson's Arm, 10.6 per cent. In Howley, 19.3 per cent. In Hampden, 16.4 per cent. In Norris Arm, 16.3 per cent. In Little Catalina, 16.2 per cent. In Elliston, Catalina and Bonavista, 21.9 per cent, 13 per cent and 11 per cent have left in those communities. In Traytown, 18.3 per cent have left. In Happy Adventure, 14 per cent. In St. Brendan's, 21.8 per cent. In Melrose, 13.7 per cent. In Carmanville, 12.6 per cent. In Fogo, 18.2 per cent. In Change Islands, 21.7 per cent. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue. In Summerford, Twillingate and Campbellton, 11.2 per cent, 11.6 per cent and 12 per cent have left these three communities.

MR. WILLIAMS

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I thank the hon. the Premier for indicating that there, in fact, will be no conventional smelter. That promise has been broken. In fact, he has also confirmed that there may not be a hydromet. So, there is no guarantee of a smelter and there is no guarantee of a hydromet facility. 

 Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please confirm, in the event that the experimental hydromet facility does not prove to be economically, technically or commercially feasible, that this Province will not receive a Conventional smelting facility, which I am certain that he has, and he has already done so, as was promised and guaranteed by both the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Energy, but instead may, not will - may, and may only - receive a nickel matte refinery or some other facility, which is referred to in the documentation as some other facility? It doesn't specify what it is. It is some other facility, as stated in clause 22. Will the Premier, in fact, confirm that particular facility is also not guaranteed?

Desperate Dunderdale Disingenuous?

The Premier chose Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador to extend a challenge to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove her wrong on Muskrat?

First Ms. Dunderdale - the challenge is to you not the voters who pay your salary or the ratepayers who pay for electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. You prove that this and only this proposed development of Muskrat Falls is the best option for us. You prove that the costs are acceptable. You prove that there is an urgent need for power on the Island. You prove the benefits for us of green energy for Nova Scotia. You prove that there is not a better deal to be had. You prove that there are not other and better options. To date - you have not proven these things. To date - you have had reports based on your government's and Nalcor's assumptions.

Now let's take it a little further. You want citizens of the province to prove why the deal is bad. Okay let's say we accept the challenge - will you and your government allot public funds for other research to be completed? Will you and your government provide access to ALL information you are using to make your decisions on? Your government and Nalcor have spent tens of millions of dollars of our money to prove out your theory - now give us the equivalent to prove you wrong.

This is not unheard of and unreasonable - it was offered to ordinary citizens and groups regarding the development of the White Rose field. That is a non-renewable resource that we are not bearing the debt of - Muskrat is renewable and will put us in severe debt - that we will service.

Last week you took it a step further - you gave a speech of fear to the Board of Trade. In that address you made many statements about Quebec and Hydro-Quebec. Prove those statements. Prove that the fear is warranted.

Let's just say this - the following are basic reasons why people oppose this deal:

1. Some citizens simply do not want the river dammed. They do not need to prove anything to hold that ideology.

2. Labradorians have expressed that they will not receive enough benefit from the development - as those who are adjacent to it. They do not need to prove that the benefits do not satisfy them.

3. Your primary reason for this proposed deal has changed more times than we can reasonably keep track of. You pick which one of these paths to disprove.

4. You have not proven that we need this power for the Island. The statements be they referring to 2017 or 2019 as the time when we will not be able to service the Island's power needs are troubling and should cause grave concern regarding the planning competency of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

5. The continued statement about us contributing to "greening up" Canada is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You do some research and tell us what our current contribution of 5000 MW's from the Upper Churchill equates to on a per-capita basis of "greening up".

6. You made contemptuous in your BOT speech that Hydro-Quebec in your words: "Think about that! Does anybody have any confidence that, when mines in this province go to Hydro-Québec looking for energy for development in Labrador, they are going to get the best industrial rates in Atlantic Canada? Not likely. Hydro Quebec’s history is to seek the best deal for itself..." Yes Premier that is the point and we want you to prove that this current proposed deal is the best for us.

7. You are not the Premier of Atlantic Canada (Atlantica) or the Premier of mining companies or publicly traded companies you are the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. Prove that what you are doing is best for us - not them.

8. Prove that you are supplying ALL information to us and that none is being withheld.

9. The people are concerned that they are being bullied into this deal - wherein if you ask questions or are opposed to this proposed undertaking - they will be called partisan, naysayers, armchair critics, or worse. The people are concerned that there may be opposition to the deal inside the walls of Nalcor and government but they cannot speak for fear of repercussion. The same could be true for businesses and organizations who rely on government support either fiscally or from a policy perspective.

10. You have not proven that other options for generation or development of any part of the Lower Churchill are not more beneficial than the deal you have proposed.

Either you are being sincere or disingenuous when you challenge the people who employ you. If you are serious - show us the cash, the human resources, and process to respond to your challenge. If not this is just more smoke to cover a rotten deal.