The Official Opposition is calling on the Conservative Government to confirm that the upcoming debate on the latest Churchill Falls agreement provides Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with at least the same level of scrutiny, access and transparency that was provided during the historical special sitting of the House of Assembly in January 2025.
“At an absolute minimum, every key participant who appeared before the House during the January 2025 debate must be made available again,” says Opposition Leader John Hogan. “Anything less would diminish the debate and deny MHAs the opportunity to properly scrutinize an agreement that will affect our province for generations to come.”
The January 2025 debate gave Members of the House of Assembly the opportunity to hear directly from and question subject matter experts and others with the knowledge necessary to understand the agreement and its implications. This included the Premier and all Ministers, the negotiating team, NL Hydro executives, and independent experts. As an example, NL Hydro CEO Jennifer Williams led negotiations for both agreements and participated in the January 2025 debate. In order for next month’s debate to have legitimacy, it is imperative that she be present.
There can be no justification for lowering that standard now.
Given Premier Wakeham’s decision to add another layer to the process through his so-called “independent” review committee, the members of that review panel should also appear before the House of Assembly and be available to finally answer questions about their work, conclusions, recommendations and sources.
The debate must also be at least as long as the January 2025 debate, being four full days, with sufficient time for Members on all sides of the House of Assembly to ask detailed questions and receive meaningful answers.
Significant additional funding was provided to Opposition caucuses in December 2024, ahead of the special sitting of the House, to ensure they had the necessary resources to prepare for the important debate. The Official Opposition has requested that the standard is at least met for the upcoming debate in September 2026.
“Premier Wakeham spent months insisting this agreement required greater scrutiny,” says Hogan. “Now that he is bringing his own version forward, he has an obligation to meet the standard that was already established. Given the additional review he demanded, there is a strong argument that the level of scrutiny here should be even greater.”
“If this government is confident in the agreement it has reached, it should have no hesitation in putting the same people before the House, adding its independent review panel and oversight committee, and giving MHAs at least the same amount of time to examine it,” says Hogan. “Anything less raises serious questions about the Conservative government’s willingness to be transparent.”
-30-