June

2, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 31

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North, the hon.

the Member for the District of Ferryland, the hon. the Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate the Grade 12 graduating class of Bayview Regional Collegiate in St.

Lunaire-Griquet. This past Friday, I had the honour to attend the graduating

ceremony at Bayview Regional Collegiate and was very pleased to watch thirteen

students receive their graduation certificate. These graduates are our future

and I would commend them for staying the course and achieving this wonderful

goal.

The theme for the graduation was: The Key to Happiness is Having Dreams. The

Key to Success is Making Your Dreams Come True. My wish for these graduates is

that they will be happy and successful in whatever path they choose in the

future.

Mr. Speaker, two of the graduates were from foreign countries, one from

as a Second Language program which provides international students the wonderful

am sure that both students have enjoyed their unique experience and I commend

Bayview Regional Collegiate in providing this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in

congratulating the Grade 12 graduating class of Bayview Regional Collegiate and

to wish them well as they begin another journey in their lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to congratulate the class of 2010

of Baltimore School in Ferryland. On Thursday, May 6, I had the pleasure of

attending the graduating ceremony along with the graduates, parents and special

guests.

The evening started with a mass service followed by the graduates and guests

coming together in Baltimore gymnasium for a dinner reception and grand march.

The graduating class of Baltimore represented thirty-nine young men and women

embarking on a new stage of their lives and exploring all the opportunities that

now await them.

Guest speaker for the evening, Jill Curran, former graduate and entrepreneur

- owner of Light House Picnics in Ferryland, relayed her experiences on the

realm of opportunities available in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Baltimore School provides the young people from Kindergarten to Level III,

from Brigus South to Cappahayden, with a well established program of academics

and athletics allowing each student to reach their full potential. The Class of

2010 will continue to contribute to the school's tradition and no doubt will

embrace all opportunities which lie ahead.

It was indeed a pleasure for me, as the MHA, to share with these young

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a special night as they celebrate their

successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities

that await them in their future.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Baltimore graduating

class of 2010 for their achievements to date and wish them well in all future

endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Town of Paradise on holding

its annual Municipal Awards Ceremony in April of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Paradise Municipal Awards recognize residents from the Town

of Paradise in various categories. I would like to applaud the town on its

commitment to honouring its residents at this ceremony, and also congratulate

the nominees and winners. They have been acknowledged for their outstanding

commitment to the community.

In particular, I would like to congratulate: Male Athlete of the Year, Daniel

Crewe; Female Athlete of the Year, Sarah Davis; Coach of the Year, George

Dupont; Volunteer of the Year, Elizabeth Butler; Volunteer Group of the Year,

Paradise Thirty Plus Club; Youth of the Year, Kandace Power; Citizen of the

Year, Pat Burton.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the

nominees and winners, as well as the Town of Paradise on a successful 2009

Municipal Awards Banquet.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, I had the privilege of participating in the Junior Achievement

of Newfoundland and Labrador's twentieth Business Hall of Fame induction

ceremony. It was a ceremony that captured the optimism and vibrancy that exists

today in the Province's business community.

This year's Hall of Fame inductees: Mr. Fred Cahill, Mr. Gordon Manstan, and

Great Big Sea were acknowledged for their business excellence and their

contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador. They also joined an impressive list

of the who's who from the Province's business community - a list of more than

sixty prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians such as the

Lieutenant-Governor, John Crosbie, the late Craig Dobbin, Susan Patten, Paul

Johnson, Angela Cantwell-Peters, and our Premier, the hon. Danny Williams.

Hall of Fames, Mr. Speaker, are reserved for a select few and, once again, I

congratulate the inductees on their honour.

While the evening recognized their successes, it also cast the spotlight on

the Province's budding entrepreneurs and future leaders. With an increasing

number of opportunities emerging in the provincial economy, it is essential to

create awareness of business principles and instil the entrepreneurial spirit at

a young age. Engaging youth also allows them to provide a fresh perspective and

new ideas in our traditional and knowledge-based industries. It also holds the

long-term potential of developing leadership qualities that will better position

our youth to lead the Province as it marches forward and competes globally.

As a government, we are pleased to work with organizations such as Junior

Achievement that share our view of the value of engaging with youth.

Over the past year, with our support, Junior Achievement conducted

multi-generational labour market research with the primary focus on the

Generation Y those under the age of thirty. This research focuses on youth

recruitment, engagement issues, and techniques for employers. It also better

enables Junior Achievement to work effectively with other organizations and

businesses to understand, recruit, and manage multi-generational workforces.

The provincial government is also supporting the four top achievers in the

2009-2010 Junior Achievement Company Program A Student Venture, to participate

in the Next Generation Leaders Forum at Queen's University in August. Over 200

delegates will converge to build new skills and their own leadership capacities,

new global relationships, and fresh new perspectives.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to continuing to advance the initiatives of

Junior Achievement. Their continued development ensures the long-term success of

our Province's business community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. I would like to acknowledge the inductees into this year's Hall of

Fame. Certainly, their business excellence and contribution to the Province is

something to be acknowledged.

The Junior Achievement program in and of itself is a very good program. As an

entrepreneur, I have had the privilege myself of being involved in the program

at the high school level on several occasions. To expose youth to business

enterprise and to help instill that entrepreneurial spirit at a very early age

is a great thing.

While we want to acknowledge the support of government as being a good thing,

we also want to recognize, of course, those who volunteer their time in the

programs. Whether it is business people who take time to visit the schools and

so on or it is organizations that sponsor the programs. Of course, those who

help organize the Business Hall of Fame selection committee and help bring that

function together; we would like to acknowledge them as well. We realize that

Glen Barnes has been the chair of that particular committee for the past six

years, I believe it is, and has helped to raise over $600,000.

Again, we congratulate all who have been involved and trust that it will be a

good program for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is good once

again today to see the recognition for those who were inducted into the Junior

Achievement of Newfoundland and Labrador's Business Hall of Fame this year.

I am happy to once again recognize Great Big Sea for their induction because

the members do come from my district. I am happy to recognize them again along

with the minister today and the others who were inducted this year.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame honours individuals, as

the minister has pointed out, who have significantly contributed to the growth

and development of enterprise in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The programs for the youth, such as the Junior Achievement Company Program

are wonderful and provide the youth of our Province with valuable experiences

and point to the fact that they are already contributing to the development of

enterprise in the Province. Men and women who are part of the Junior Achievement

initiative are valuable role models for youth, and that is something, Mr.

Speaker, that we need more of in the Province.

We need more programs where mentoring is going on between those who have

already made it in the business world with young people who are coming in. I

encourage the department to look at and support mentoring programs. As well, we

need to look at the needs of our graduates who are coming out of post-secondary

education with heavy debts, and the opportunities for them in the Province to

try to keep them here. We need well paying jobs.

I look forward to see what is going to come, not from this department but

from the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment as the federal

labour market development programs have now been downloaded to the Province. I

continue to look to see how our provincial department is going to develop

targets to encourage training in areas where we need young skilled labour and

entrepreneurs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like

to recognize a former Member of the House of Assembly who represented, I think,

part of the district now known as Bonavista North and part of the district known

as The Isles of Notre Dame, at that time it might have been called Fogo, Mr. Sam

Winsor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to government's briefing notes obtained by our office,

it says that the air ambulance program is overseen by the department and

operated by Eastern Health. The same briefing note reveals that a meeting was

held in Labrador City on August 21, 2009 between the head of the Medical

Transportation Program and Labrador-Grenfell officials.

I ask the minister today to confirm that, on that day, the decision was made

to move the air ambulance from St. Anthony to Goose Bay seven months before Wes

Drodge's report was ever received by your government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually was not aware of that briefing note until recently when I saw it

myself. I knew that there had been discussions after the incident of July 15 in

Lab West and again after the incident in Happy Valley -Goose Bay around

September 18. Those incidents, Mr. Speaker, along with my meetings in Lab West

and the petition presented by the Leader of the Opposition led to us having the

review conducted.

I was not aware of that briefing note and did not know, Mr. Speaker, until

the last couple of weeks that that briefing note had actually suggested, at that

point, that Happy Valley-Goose Bay was actually the better place to have the air

ambulance situated. So, there was certainly no decision made. All it amounts to

is independent confirmation of Mr. Drodge's report and the confirmation that

this government has made the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Access to Information that we squeezed out yesterday,

Minister, it shows that critical decisions were being made by health officials

and people on government's payroll. It also shows that the decision to move the

air ambulance from St. Anthony to Goose Bay was made back in August. It was

written by Corey Banks, a government payroll employee, and it was disclosed to

Labrador-Grenfell at that time.

I ask the minister: Will you now confirm that the decision to move the air

ambulance out of St. Anthony was made months in advance in the backrooms of

government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I became the Minister of Health and Community Services on October 9. Up until

that point, I was only aware that we were purchasing a new air ambulance. I

became aware, very quickly, of the incidents that had occurred in Lab West on

July 15 and then the incident involving the Best family in September of this

year.

Mr. Speaker, Corey Banks, he is the individual who oversees the provincial

ambulance system. Mr. Banks, I think, indicated my recollection of that

briefing note - that he thought, in his opinion, that the better place for the

placement of the air ambulance would be Happy Valley-Goose Bay as a result of

the population base and the risk factors in Labrador. I know that subsequently

again, I am going by memory, Mr. Speaker I think it was on September 15 that

another meeting took place. I think at that meeting there was a discussion of a

medical flight services team.

So there was no decision made, Mr. Speaker, on moving the air ambulance that

I am aware of. That decision was made after the receipt of the Drodge report

(Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The information that we obtained in this note certainly says differently. The

information obtained also confirms that the decision was made one month before

the previous MHA, Trevor Taylor, resigned his position. It is one thing for a

Cabinet minister to be a casualty in all of this because he did not have the

guts to stand up and take what government's agenda was going to be, I say to the

minister, but it is a different story when you force that upon the people of the

Northern Peninsula under the guise of a false report.

I ask the minister today: How can you use the Drodge report, which is just a

cheap rewrite of the Banks report, to try and verify the decision on air

ambulance that government had already made months earlier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there was no decision

made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: When I became minister, I quickly became aware of these

incidents. On November 27, I travelled to Lab West where I met with the mayors

of the communities there and the Mitchell family. I travelled then to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay where I met with the mayor and council and also met with the

Best family. Then, Mr. Speaker, on December 14 I indicated to CBC that we would

be conducting a review. On December 15 the Leader of the Opposition presented a

petition in this hon. House of 3,000 people in Labrador asking to have the air

ambulance moved to Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has gotten what she wanted. She

should be thankful to government that we have listened to her and I do not know

what her complaint is.

In terms of the Drodge report, Mr. Speaker, the report compiled by the Lab.

Grenfell employees essentially corroborates everything that Mr. Drodge had to

say and the only thing they disagree with is the placement of the ambulance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my issue with this is that the government paid $10,000 to Wes

Drodge to put his name on a report of recommendations that were already written

by someone within the government system, Mr. Speaker. This report by Drodge only

rubber-stamped those recommendations and the minister knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the government would have known about the banks

report back in August because it was indicated, minister, in your own briefing

notes on September 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member has a question I ask that she pose it now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How could you be on the ground in the middle

of a by-election in St. Anthony shaking the hands of these employees telling

them that your government was supporting them when all along two incidents in

your own department indicates that you were ready to cut the service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is in the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know what is in the package of materials that was

provided to the Opposition, but if I remember correctly there was another

briefing note around September 15 that the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North referred to earlier, that in fact talks about a second medical flight

services team for St. Anthony. Now, I do not know if she has that and if her

selective memory or her inability to state the facts has interfered with that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there was a September 15 briefing note that talked about

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members on both sides of the House to kindly listen to the

questions that are asked and the answers that are given. I ask the hon. members

when they ask questions to allow for the answers to be provided back.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to complete his

answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the issue was being examined by that department under a previous

minister. What we did, Mr. Speaker, and I indicated publicly, that we would

commission a report; we would accept the recommendations of that report whatever

those recommendations would be. It still does not take away, Mr. Speaker, from

the basic decision, that this is the right decision; that we have twice as many

people living in Labrador and this is the proper decision for the best interest

of the people

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not buy into the argument. The minister was in the

department. There were briefing notes circulating. There were decisions being

made. There were things written and forwarded to health boards in this Province

back in August saying these air ambulances were going to be moved from St.

Anthony to Goose Bay.

I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker: Why would you go out and hire Wes

Drodge to be the forward guy with these recommendations knowing that they were

already written in your department, knowing they were already being circulated,

and knowing that this was the plan that government had in place all along?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the reasons that we asked for the report is because the Leader of the

Opposition asked for it. Mr. Speaker, what we have, if she again looks at the

briefing notes she will see that there are discussions ongoing. Mr. Banks

expressed an opinion. Mr. Drodge, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, did

not consult with Mr. Banks in writing his report, nor am I aware. At least I did

not provide him with any materials of Mr. Banks.

Mr. Speaker, there were also - I think in mid-September there was

correspondence going between departments asking for a second medical flight

services team for St. Anthony. So, there are various issues being looked at

here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time, I will ask members on both sides of the House to refrain

from shouting back and forth. The next time the Speaker stands I will identify

the people who are causing the disruptions, and the next time the Speaker will

take further action.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is, at least in mid-December

there is a letter from the previous minister, prior to me, asking for a second

medical flight services team to be stationed in St. Anthony. So, I do not know

how, Mr. Speaker, she can say a decision has been made, when in August an

employee of Eastern Health says that the air ambulance should be situated in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and the previous minister, by mid-September, is asking

for a second medical flight services team for

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, there are eight recommendations in the Drodge

report. Seven of those recommendations are the same as those that are in the

Banks report that was presented in Labrador City in August of 2009, several

months before Drodge was engaged. It is obvious Drodge did nothing more than

copy or paste government's own information.

So I ask the minister: Why are you using Drodge to justify your own political

decision to punish the people of my district?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North should ask his leader over there why she did what she did in asking to

have the air ambulance moved to Labrador. She asked to have the air ambulance

moved to Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we moved it to Labrador based on the Drodge

report. The recommendations, Mr. Speaker, are outlined in his report. He also

looks at the numbers; there are twice as many flights out of Labrador as there

are out of St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker. The population is more than twice as much

in Labrador as there is in St. Anthony

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Essentially, I would say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, he

should perhaps talk to his leader and they should get their act together because

sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for in life, you get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, for the record, we never ever asked for the air

ambulance to be moved from St. Anthony to Goose Bay. That was never on the

books, obviously. It was asked to enhance the service of the air ambulance

program in the Province.

Again, I make the point that eight recommendations - that Drodge has seven of

them - were recommended back in August of 2009 by Mr. Banks. The Banks report

shows that two medical flight specialist teams were required with twenty-four

seven availability, that they would be placed in St. John's as well as Goose

Bay. It recommends one centralized dispatch for the Province. It recommends

single comprehensive programming and other recommendations that are identical to

what is in the Drodge report.

I ask the minister: If he was going to accept every other recommendation from

the Banks report, why did he not accept the very last recommendation, which was

a three-year phase in as opposed to the rush job that he is making out of moving

it into Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the heading of the petition was: that we the residents

of Labrador ask to have the air ambulance stationed in Labrador; 3,000 people

signed that. In fact, the Minister of Labrador Affairs had to affect - the

misleading effect, Mr. Speaker, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition,

where she had

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time, I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to refrain

from shouting back and forth across the House.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to complete his

answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we had looked at the Drodge report. It was a

pretty easy decision to make, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have not had to go and

extensively examine other reports. The Lab Grenfell employees this magic

report that was going to be prepared simply confirmed that which Mr. Drodge had

to say.

So, essentially, Mr. Speaker, the one point that takes away totally from

their theory that there had been an earlier decision was that the Minister of

Health, the previous

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If there is another question from the Opposition -

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is that the Drodge report is a

farce. Drodge was not independent but he was told exactly what to write, he was

told how to write it, and he was told when to write it.

Yet, the Premier stated on two separate occasions in this House of Assembly

that the decision was made around his Cabinet table and that he was satisfied

that it was the right decision.

So I ask the Premier or his representative today: Why would you support a

decision that allowed this to happen in a backroom and hire a front guy in order

to justify this flawed and contrived process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the petition that was presented by the

Leader of the Opposition. She presented a petition which asked to have the air

ambulance moved to Labrador. On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, I said to

the Leader of the Opposition: What is it you want us to do? Do you want an air

ambulance in St. Anthony or do you want an air ambulance in Labrador? She

presented a petition. She got what she asked for. I do not know what the problem

is.

Mr. Speaker, again, I come back to the fact that the previous minister,

around mid-September, had written a letter asking for a second medical flight

services team for St. Anthony. So, whatever Mr. Banks - when he had met with

these individuals, he had outlined what he thought should happen. Well, it

appears that, independently of Mr. Drodge, they all reached the same

conclusions.

There was no decision made in backrooms. I stated publicly that whatever the

decision of the Drodge report, we would agree to that. Mr. Speaker, the Leader

of the Opposition when she presented her petition she knew what she was asking

for and now she is trying to wiggle her way out of it (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting spin and cover up here again this afternoon in

the House of Assembly. The air ambulance program provides an invaluable service

to the people of this Province. Hundreds of people are helped every year.

Clearly, Labrador did, and still needs an air ambulance of its own to address

its needs. We have never argued against that; however, not at the expense of

other people's lives in this Province.

So again, I ask the Premier: In light of your flawed decision making and the

inappropriate political (inaudible) as an extent to how they are covered up,

based on the information that we have received, I would ask would you reverse

the decision immediately to leave the air ambulance where it belongs in St.

Anthony.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of a government listening to

the Leader of the Opposition when she brings forward that petition with the

3,000 names asking to have it moved to Labrador. She does not think it through.

The Member for The Straits &White Bay North does not think it through. They

realize the trouble they have caused and now they are coming back trying to put

it on us.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision that is in the best

interests of the people of this Province. I keep repeating, and the Member for

The Straits & White Bay North has stated in this House that they have a full

service hospital there. Well that is quite correct. They have four

anaesthetists. They have four general surgeons in the hospital serving 13,000

people.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of a medevac system is to deal with emergency

situations. Are they saying that the lives of the people in Labrador are not as

valuable as the lives of the people in St. Anthony? Is that what I am hearing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There goes the spin again. Just spin around and spin around trying to point

it on us and say that we believe the lives of people in Labrador are less

valuable. By no means are we saying that, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated yesterday that the decision was made, the air ambulance

will be moving to Goose Bay within days. The applicants have now appealed this

case.

I ask the minister: Will he let due process take its course and let the plane

remain where it is until a decision has been rendered?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in order for an injunction to be granted

there are three factors that have to be considered by a judge. One, is there a

serious issue to be tried; the second, whether or not there will irreparable

harm; and third, where is the balance of convenience.

The judge said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, or two days ago, there was no serious

issue. In other words, the case is without merit. We will be moving this plane.

The plane will be moved.

What I can say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and to the

Leader of the Opposition, you got what you are looking for, so that is the way

it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works about the

unreliable ferry service to Bell Island. The minister did not talk about any

solutions for tackling the problems and the concerns of the residents of Bell

Island, which occur on a regular basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: In his much touted Vessel Replacement Strategy released back

in 2006, Bell Island was identified as showing economic potential which would

justify it being given priority in terms of ferry replacement. However, during

the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that the two new ferries would

go to Long Island and St. Brendan's, then they would be looking at Fogo and the

Straits, then they would turn their attention to Bell Island.

I ask the minister: What course of action will your department be taking to

provide the residents of Bell Island with a reliable and consistent ferry

service as quickly as possible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, I

would just say the Flanders is back even as we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Minister of Health and the Opposition House Leader to

immediately stop the conversation back and forth or take it to the outside.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to return to my response, even as we speak, Mr. Speaker, the Flanders

is back on its run.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: As well, with regard to ferry replacement, Mr. Speaker,

there is a plan in place. The two ferries that the member just referred to are

the medium sized ferries that are not appropriate for Bell Island. Of course, we

have to look at the bigger picture.

As well, as the member knows, the Beaumont Hamel and the Flanders

were constructed in 1985, I believe, and 1991. These are relatively new ferries,

Mr. Speaker, and certainly have a shelf life that can cater to the run back and

forth to Bell Island for any number of years to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we often hear announcements about how much this

government invests in various areas. However, what we do not often hear is how

much money announced is actually spent. In 2007, the Budget was for $15 million

allocated for vessel replacement. That year, $492,000 was spent for two ferries.

Likewise, in Budget 2008, $33.9 million was allocated, and the expense reports

indicated $9,446,000. To summarize, over two years, Mr. Speaker, $49 million was

allocated, with only $10 million being spent.

I ask the minister: How does your government expect aging vessels to be

replaced when the funds are clearly not being spent, just sitting in the bank?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: It is obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member on

the other side does not understand that I am not a I guess you could say that

you would need to be a ferry godfather to just get a magic wand and make a ferry

appear.

When we talk about

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: When we talk about putting ferries in place, Mr. Speaker,

it takes any number of years to design, to construct, to test and that sort of

thing, and we want make sure that the government makes the commitment, because

we are not going to put a few dollars in and then only do half a job. We have to

make sure that there is a commitment for the years to come. Henceforth, the

money that is allocated would be allocated over a number of years.

There is a

schedule in place. The announcement is made as to how much is

allocated for the construction of the ferry; it is budgetary thing. Again, we

are following along with the strategies. The

schedule is on time, and I am very

satisfied.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the MV Nonia went in for repairs this past January, the minister

stated that this was not an emergency refit. However, the public tender

documents stated that in fact it was an emergency refit. There is an obvious

contradiction there, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: If this was not an emergency refit situation, why didn't

you follow the provisions of the Public Tender Act and go through the proper

process?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if he read further, there is a special

consideration for ferries. Ferries, as we know, provide a valuable service to

people on islands to make sure that they can get back and forth in a timely

fashion. As a minister, I have the flexibility to make sure that we get a ferry

in and out on time.

In this particular case, the ferry was on dry dock, there were more repairs

that needed to be done. I considered that an emergency and therefore proceeded

to make sure that the work was done and the ferry was out back in service, so

that the people that it served could get the ferry service as was necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of the Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we all know the fishery in the Province has not

thrived under this government. In fact, government's own numbers show there has

been a 22 per cent decline in our fishery from 2008-2009. A Memorandum of

Understanding was signed nearly a year ago to help reshape the fishery to make

it more viable. Two of the players, the FFAW and ASP, are now publicly calling

upon government to fast track this agreement as they feel there has been little

or no progress to deal with the challenges currently hitting our fishery.

So I ask the minister: Why has there not been more of a push by him and his

department to ensure that the parties are vigilantly at the table and making

progress on this critical agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the hon. member back to a

little chronology of timelines. A letter went to both parties on December 17; we

met with them on December 30; had the reports on January 22; February 12 got the

follow-up reports; met with Minister Shea on February 15; pushed to have the

financial reports, Mr. Speaker, and received them on March 10; had the committee

meet with them on March 18, and, Mr. Speaker, we had a bit of a lull then. It

was called getting the price set so that we could get the fishery started.

Mr. Speaker, the steering committee met about two weeks ago. They are meeting

again this week, and last week. This morning I met with the chair of the

committee, Dr. Tom Clift, and indicated to him that we want to see a submission

of some sort on the anniversary of this MOU, which was signed on July 11, Mr.

Speaker. Up until July 11, and starting as of now, the steering committee will

be meeting pretty regularly; probably on a biweekly basis, Mr. Speaker. I

offered to him this morning that any supports that he needs from our department

we will be there, Mr. Speaker. If he considers that non-progress, I do not know

what he is thinking then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of Mexico experience has shown us that the technology

of capping a deepwater oil well after a blowout is primitive and experimental.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how good an oil company's and other associated industry's

technology might be at this moment at pumping oil, there is no one with any

ability to stop a deepwater spill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why are we continuing drilling in deep

water when the worldwide industry does not have effective, timely means for

capping a blowout at such depths?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government, as well as the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, are very concerned about what happens in our waters and on our land

with regard to environmental risk. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have legislation

through our environmental agencies and departments, both federally and

provincially; it is why we have an independent arm's-length board under the

auspices of both the federal and provincial government who monitors what goes on

in the offshore and why our standards are very, very high.

Mr. Speaker, the offshore board, the C-NLOPB have laid on an extra layer of

surveillance and accountability in terms of the deepwater exploration well that

is currently being drilled in the offshore. Mr. Speaker, we see what is

happening in the Gulf, we are very concerned. We are paying very, very close

attention to what is happening in our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the C-NLOPB is putting as many safety measures in place as

possible; that is not the question. We had a good briefing from them today and I

realize that. However, Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem if a blowout happens.

We are already reaping billions of dollars in revenue from oil production, Mr.

Speaker. We now have first oil from North Amethyst and the potential of oil will

remain out in the Orphan Basin while we wait until we can safely drill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why are we in such a hurry to drill in

deepwater before knowing what happened in the Gulf of Mexico and before we have

the technology to cap wells if an accident happens?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have enough information coming out of the Gulf of

Mexico at this point in time to be really sure, or to be sure at all or to

understand clearly what caused the accident there.

This project drilling in the Orphan Basin has been in the planning stages for

years, Mr. Speaker. This is not a knee-jerk reaction that took place, that we

had the ability to drill so go drill. There is a significant amount of planning

that goes into this activity.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently undertaking a review of our oil spill

prevention regulations, rules legislation, also a review of our response. If

there are other activities, or regulations, or recommendations coming out of

that report that we need to modify how we are doing this work, Mr. Speaker, we

are certainly going to give that very serious attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Deputy Premier, Mr. Speaker, that we have plenty of information

coming out of the Gulf of Mexico. The thing we know is that if a blowout happens

in deepwater, the industry does not have the technology to stop that blowout.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons, an NDP Opposition motion was

passed unanimously to review federal offshore drilling regulations. Mr. Speaker,

the House of Commons will be conducting a thorough review and revision of all

relevant federal laws, regulations and policies regarding the development of

unconventional sources of oil and gas, including deepwater oil, in the broadest

possible consultation with all interested stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If he will recognize the need to participate

in this review and commit to represent our concerns regarding deepwater

exploration as this review takes place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the Leader of the NDP to recognize who holds

jurisdiction over the offshore and how the work is done. If there are

legislative changes that are going to be required to the Atlantic Accord Act and

with regard to safety and environment, Mr. Speaker, it requires the involvement

of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because this is a joint

responsibility shared with ourselves and with the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Before the Chair continues, the Chair would like to recognize the Mayor of

Wabana, Bell Island, Mayor Gary Gosine to the House of Assembly.

Welcome, Sir, to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and present a petition on behalf of the residents in my own

district, actually, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the air ambulance services. I

will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament Assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the

air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly

diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to residents in

Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by

putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one

that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to call upon the

government to maintain the air ambulance service in St. Anthony area and provide

a third air ambulance service to Labrador to ensure residents of the whole

Province are provided with adequate and essential health services.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate what is happening here, because

government tends to leave the impression in the public that the decision

regarding air ambulance only came as a result of a petition that I presented in

the House of Assembly. Nothing could be further away from what has really

transpired here, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, if you want to go back, back in July and August 2009 there were

several incidents in Labrador that stemmed, or should have stemmed, government

to have a serious look at our air ambulance service in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and how that service could be improved.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, a meeting took place on August 21 in Labrador West

that really designed a new system of air ambulance in this Province. The

briefing notes that were circulated indicated that the service would be moved

from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, that was confirmed in a

further briefing note within the minister's department, which was released on

September 4. In that briefing note it said, Mr. Speaker - it referred to the

meeting of August 21; it referred to other initiatives that government would

have to undertake with regard to this service.

Mr. Speaker, the government campaigned in that district in the fall of 2009,

all the while knowing that they were preparing to cut the air ambulance services

in that very district. Mr. Speaker, how can you walk into a town, shake people's

hands, and tell them that you are there to support them and that they can depend

upon you, all the while when there are notes circulating in your own department,

circulating within the health authorities themselves, indicating that this has

already been designed and devised and this is the new strategy for air

ambulance?

Then, Mr. Speaker, government goes out and pays $10,000 to an individual by

the name of Wes Drodge to what? To rubber-stamp the recommendations already

provided by Corey Banks back in August 2009. That is exactly what this was, Mr.

Speaker. That is exactly what it was. How could a government who is supposed to

be representing the (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for presenting the petition has

expired.

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to stand in the House of Assembly to

present a petition on behalf of the people of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who

again have supported our District of The Straits & White Bay North in the

remaining of the air ambulance service in St. Anthony. I would like to read the

petition. It says:

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the

air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly

diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to the

residents in Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by

putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one

that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the government to maintain the air ambulance

service in St. Anthony area and provide a third air ambulance service in

Labrador to ensure residents of the whole Province are provided with adequate

and essential health services.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. It is dated May 13.

Mr. Speaker, again, I have presented this petition many times in the House of

Assembly over the past months. There has been so much argument put against this

process - legitimate argument against the process, legitimate argument against

Wes Drodge's report - and, of course, as of yesterday, to get the information

that we got that shows that Mr. Banks presented the exact same recommendations,

pretty much almost a blueprint, one to the other, of what Wes Drodge did some

seven months later is so disgusting, to be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker.

As this process has unfolded, there have been two statements that have been

in my mind often. The first one is the statement of the Premier, who was the

Leader of the Opposition at the time in 2001, when he visited the districts of

The Straits & White Bay North and St. Barbe, and has been quoted many times in

the past weeks in that infamous statement that he made, that: We will not forget

the people of the Northern Peninsula.

He certainly has not forgotten; that is for sure. We wish he had, actually,

to be honest. We wish he kind of went asleep on that and forgot us.

The other statement that keeps reverberating in my mind is the one that the

Minister of Health made just a few moments ago when he said, in pointing his

finger: Be careful what you ask for.

It is very unfortunate that those would be the philosophies or the approach

that government would take to dealing with a very important issue. This is a

very important issue. While there is emotion attached to it in terms of the move

and so on, yet it is so important that we have a good health care system, and

that we have good response times when it comes to our air ambulance program.

What we have taken are a couple of incidents, a couple of very unfortunate

incidents, and we have tried to build a case around that to move the air

ambulance legitimately from St. Anthony to Goose Bay. Well, I want to tell you

that the people of this Province are not buying into that, Mr. Speaker. This

government has been criticized, and it will continue to be criticized. This

minister has been criticized for what has taken place.

Again today, I just stand to make the point clear to the people of this

Province that this move is a wrong move, it is poor information, and again that

it obviously is something that was planned, concocted, and prepared many months

in advance.

It is my pleasure this afternoon to be able to stand as the Member for The

Straits & White Bay North and be able to speak on behalf of the people of my

district, on behalf of the people of the Province, that, again: Reconsider what

is being done. It is the wrong move.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another petition with regard to the air ambulance services, Mr.

Speaker, which says:

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the

air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly

diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to residents in

Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by

putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one

that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and

Labrador to call upon the government to maintain the air services in St. Anthony

area and provide a third air ambulance service to Labrador to ensure residents

of the whole Province are provided with adequate and essential health services.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this particular issue is one that has been

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair hates to interrupt when members are presenting petitions on behalf

of constituents, but I say to hon. members that they cannot stand one after the

other and present the same petition.

The Chair heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; the Chair

listened to the hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

While it was the same petition, the Chair allowed the hon. member to present the

petition, but the Chair is certainly not going to now repeat the same process

with the Leader of the Opposition again.

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if she has another petition, when

petitions are called, fine, but she cannot keep repeating the same petition.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I cannot present another petition on the air ambulance, I certainly have

lots more here to present. This one is on the roads between Red Bay and Goose

Bay, Mr. Speaker, and I will read the petition into the record:

WHEREAS the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a

section of the

Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and

WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel

this route; and

WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving

for Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS the residents of this region deserve a similar standard of road as

the Island portion of the Province;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to lobby government to

provide funding to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret, the condition of the roads in my district, and

it is certainly no secret that there is no plan by the government at this stage

to move toward paving these sections of roads. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the

Minister of Labrador Affairs was actually asked about this on the radio, he said

that they would not make any move to do anything until after the other sections

of road were all paved. We are talking 2015 or 2016 before we actually start

seeing government even looking to put together proposals to solicit funding for

this

section of highway, Mr. Speaker, and that is really unfair and

unreasonable. It would be different story if the government themselves would

commit to do it, but we know that is not the case. They will be looking to the

federal government for the money to do just this.

Mr. Speaker, every weekend I drive over this

section of highway to get to my

district. Yesterday, I gave to the Minister of Transportation and Works a number

of photographs that have been taken with regard to the gravel roads in that

area, along with the sections of paved road. There is probably no other

section

of road in the Province in as bad a condition as what this one is. I might

qualify that by saying maybe the one in Conche; there might be a toss-up there.

I talked to an operator who actually grades those sections of gravel road and

he told me from the middle camp on the Red Bay road up to the bridge on the St.

Mary's River it is absolutely the worst piece of road that he has ever worked on

in all of his years in being an operator in grading roads. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

he told me that there is not enough stone left on the road right now to even

fill those potholes, but yet, there are probably about 200 loads of stone

stockpiled up in that area and none of it is being used on this

section of road.

I do not know why that is because that should be happening. I have people

calling me because they are beating up their vehicle. They are ruining the

undercarriage on their vehicle. They are losing tires. They are losing rims, all

of these things. Therefore, they feel that something should be done. I mean this

is not some frivolous issue. This is an issue where you are expecting 20,000

people in Labrador to be driving over a

section of road that today is nothing

only potholes and be driving over that all summer without having any crushed

stone put on the road.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of the issue. He said that he is going to

look into the issue. I can only urge him and encourage him to do it in as soon

as time as possible and to respond to the people in that area with a solution as

to how they are going to put some crushed stone on that

section of road this

summer and be able to make it a safe and drivable road for the people who have

to use it. Mr. Speaker, we know that since the road opened into Goose Bay there

is a lot more traffic on this

section of road. The road is over ten years old.

It has not had any crushed stone on that

section since it was built. I think

anyone who understands gravel roads realizes that at some point you have to put

crushed stone on it. You have to maintain it and keep it to a certain standard.

So that is what we are asking (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking to the petition has

expired.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, being Wednesday and Private Members' Day, we call

from the Order Paper the motion that was put forward by the hon. Member for

Bonavista North.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and begin debate on our private members'

resolution with respect to the Lower Churchill hydro development project. I will

begin briefly by just going over the WHEREASes in the resolution.

What we are saying and what most people know that Newfoundland and Labrador

does have one of the greatest, clean, green hydro resources anywhere in the

world. We are also saying that we have much potential for market for the end

product of this development. We have potential in Ontario, the Maritimes and the

Northeastern States of the United States.

We also know that just recently the Rgie de l'nergie in Quebec made a

decision rejecting a request by Nalcor to use the transmission lines that go

through the Province of Quebec in carrying that power to the Northeastern United

States.

We also believe that as a government that this ruling by the Rgie in Quebec

is contrary to any rules of fair, open and competitive access to the hydro

market. We also believe and we confirm that our government will still continue

to pursue the development of the Lower Churchill.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly affirms

its full support for the approach of Nalcor Energy and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to continue plans to develop this extraordinary clean,

renewable energy project, including two alternative routes to market, including

the Labrador-Island link, the Maritime route as well as the pursuit of a

separate 724 megawatt transmission service request into the Maritimes and the

New England States.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important resolution. It is very timely

as well because of the fact of the decision made by the Rgie de l'nergie in

Qubec just recently. I just want to mention that when we refer to the Rgie de

l'nergie in Qubec, we are talking about a corporation that is similar to our

own public utilities corporation, or Public Utilities Board here in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, hopefully, at the end of the debate, Mr.

Speaker, we can show everyone in this country that our House of Assembly is

totally in support of the action and the process that our government is taking.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by first of all making some comment with

respect to Nalcor Energy. As is known, pretty well everywhere throughout Canada

and in North America, we have, in the Lower Churchill Falls, an unprecedented

resource potential. We also have major potential in terms of oil and gas on our

offshore. We have potential in wind energy and other energy sources, which we

call, certainly, Newfoundland and Labrador an energy warehouse. Mr. Speaker,

because of all of this potential and because of the development stages that we

are currently in, we felt as a government, that it warranted as much hands-on

and as much direct attention as possible.

So, Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador created

an Energy Corporation, and it is now named Nalcor Energy. Nalcor Energy, as most

people are aware, their foundation is built on the transmission and generation

of electrical power. Over the past three years, that company has expanded into

the broader energy sector, where they are now involved in the offshore oil and

gas. They are also involved in industrial fabrication, in wind energy, and in

research and development. So, Mr. Speaker, we do have the best expertise that we

could find in terms of developing our energy potential in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, what do we have in terms of energy potential? Well, we know

that we do have the Churchill Falls generating station already in the Upper

Churchill. This is one of the largest underground hydroelectric powerhouses in

the world. The plant has eleven turbines with a rated capacity of generating

5,428 megawatts of power. In 2008, the operation produced more than thirty-four

terawatt hours of clean energy, with the majority of that energy, as we all

know, is going through a contract that was signed years ago with Hydro-Quebec. I

do not need to comment on that any further.

There is also power from the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, that is going to

feed the mining operations in Labrador West and also the Hydro Labrador

interconnected system through Twin Falls.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador has developed

renewable energy resources currently totalling just over 6,700 megawatts. This

consists primarily of hydroelectric power from the Upper Churchill and some wind

projects that we have been developing recently.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the undeveloped renewable energy potential

exceeds 11,000 megawatts of power. We also know that in our Province currently,

in Newfoundland and Labrador, that our domestic need, our domestic demand for

power is in the area of 2,400 megawatts far less than what potential we have,

Mr. Speaker.

Now we have the Lower Churchill Falls proposed development that we are

currently proceeding with. Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill project includes, as

some people know, two sites. The larger site is called Gull Island and that site

is capable of producing 2,250 megawatts of power. The smaller one, Muskrat

Falls, is capable of producing 824 megawatts of power. These two projects, Mr.

Speaker, can be done independently of each other. They do not need to be done

together. That total project, Mr. Speaker, is predicted to generate 80,000

person years of employment 80,000 person years of employment and it is

supposed to inject approximately $5.8 billion into the economy of the Province,

and other provinces in Canada as well, but mainly in our own Province.

The project is also projected to provide significant taxes to our two

governments. To our own government in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is expected

to contribute approximately $440 million in tax revenue, and for the federal

government, approximately $1.5 billion in federal revenues. So, Mr. Speaker, it

has major potential, for not only our Province but for Canada in general.

That project, as well, Mr. Speaker, engineers say that it could displace over

sixteen megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year in our Province. To

look at it in simpler terms, that 16.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emission

would be the equivalent of 3.2 million automobiles. What it would mean with this

project in full development, is it would be the same as taking 3.2 million

automobiles off our streets in the Province, which would go towards the

elimination of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, also this project, the key feature of the Lower Churchill

project is the development of a transmission link that will transmit power from

Labrador to the Island. This will allow us for the closure of the Holyrood

Thermal Generating Station. This link also could facilitate the development of

the maritime subsea route and increase wind development, both in Labrador and on

the Island. That subsea route is certainly one that we are pursuing more and

more now after the decision that we had received from Quebec recently.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what has been done up until now, every now and then

we hear comments from the Opposition, from both parties, saying that very little

has been done, this is going nowhere and these kind of comments. Well, Mr.

Speaker, in respect to generation alone and environmental assessments, let me

give you a brief review of some of the things that have been done.

The generation project has been registered with provincial and federal

environmental agencies and has started significant consultations on the project

as required by the environmental assessment process. The federal and provincial

governments issued the draft environmental impact study guidelines for public

review on December 19, 2007. In September 2007, the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Agency announced the payment of $50,000 to some groups in Labrador

who would have the opportunity to intervene in the environmental impact study.

Some of these people are right in the Leader of the Opposition's own district,

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Mtis Nation Association, and also

the Inuit of Labrador. A copy of the draft guidelines were provided to these

groups back in 2007.

Also, Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2008 the federal and provincial governments

issued the final guidelines for the preparation of the environmental impact

study. A five member joint review panel was appointed on January 8, 2009. Nalcor

has submitted an environmental impact statement and the panel some time ago had

initiated a seventy-five day public comment period on the EIS. Aboriginal

groups, the public, governments and other interested parties have reviewed these

documents and provided comments on these documents to the panel and Nalcor

Energy.

Mr. Speaker, also with respect to the Labrador Island Transmission Link, the

proposed link represents a key component of the development of the Churchill

Falls project, also a major portion of the Energy Plan for our Province. This

Labrador Island Transmission Link was registered for environmental assessment in

January, 2009. So following public debate, public intervention, the government

review of the project's environmental assessment documents, after review of that

our Province determined and announced that an environmental impact statement

should be done. The procedure for that was later implemented.

With respect to engineering, Mr. Speaker, an RFP for engineering support

services for technical expertise in the areas of geotechnical, hydrological,

mechanical, electrical, submarine systems, as well as project management, was

issued in December 2006.

On February 20 Nalcor issued an Expression of Interest to six engineering

companies to take

part in the early design of the Lower Churchill Project. Some

of these companies were: Hatch Energy, SNC-Lavalin and Fugro Jacques. Also, Mr.

Speaker, there were other engineering firms that

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HARDING: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do have the opportunity, at the end of the debate, to come back with some

concluding remarks, so I will sit and wait for the debate to continue, and close

off the debate at the end.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with regard to this private

member's motion today. The Leader of the Official Opposition does, indeed,

intend to speak to this motion as well; however, she had to step outside for a

media interview so I will get things rolling on this side.

I will say right off, I appreciate the motion. The members of the Official

Opposition will be voting against this particular motion - just so there is no

surprise in what is coming and we will also be proposing an amendment to this

resolution before I sit down, just so there are no misunderstandings.

First of all, it is a bit late in coming. We thought we were going to have

this motion two weeks ago, until the government realized that, in addition to

themselves and their own members, very few people in the Province read French.

We have a French element here, but certainly not the majority. Albeit some

Members of the House of Assembly are bilingual, most of us are not. Anyway, the

government, in their wisdom, decided to delay this until we actually got a

translation. The Member for Gander was prepared to go ahead, even though I

understand he is unilingual; he wanted to get it debated. The Minister of

Natural Resources, in her wisdom, overruled that and thought it best that we all

House to debate it. Anyway, we find ourselves here. I guess it goes to show that

even the government can make mistakes from time to time and sort of rush to

judgement.

the officials of Nalcor, Mr. Martin and his senior management team. We had it

here in our caucus room; it lasted quite a while. It was very informative, a

very informative meeting, because you have to understand both sides of an issue.

If you just go out on one side and do not understand the facts of the other, it

is obviously not doing justice to the issue that you are debating.

Now we appreciate as well, and as this member said to Mr. Martin in the

course of that meeting: We realize that you cannot make political statements. It

is not your role to decide what the policy is. You are an executive, a business

management personnel who works for Nalcor, the shareholder of which is the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did put a question to him, and it was interesting - I guess he knew what he

could and could not say - but I gave him the analogy of what happened here;

because the Rgie in Quebec, this regulatory tribunal which is similar to our

Public Utilities Board, had made this decision, of course, which was not in

favour of this Province. The Premier, quite viciously, I would suggest, attacked

the Rgie in his comments, the Province of Quebec, Hydro-Quebec. We know he has

attacked judges before, in Quebec, and the judges of the bankruptcy courts in

Quebec. We saw that here on another occasion, and he was quite vehement in his

comments.

So I put it to Mr. Martin who, by the way, I think everybody in this Province

respects as a very intelligent business person, particularly when it comes to

matters in the energy sector, no question about it. He has a great deal of

experience at the helm of our Energy Corporation here, not only for Lower

Churchill type projects, of course, but the offshore industry and so on. People

have a lot of respect for him, and he has gathered around him a very

experienced, good team to see that the Lower Churchill, if it can possibly be

done - what are the technical pieces of it, what is the distribution piece, the

transportation piece, the generation piece all the different facets that go

into developing such a major project.

I said to him: How do you feel about what has happened here in the Rgie? I

put it to him in the form of an analogy. I said: It is like our Premier, who is

always comparing a lot of stuff to a hockey team. I said: I will put this to

you; you seem to be the coach on the bench. We are in a hockey game and you are

the coach, Mr. Martin. You have a great team in front of you for example, your

vice-presidents of technology and so on, all your different facets that you

need, engineering departments and so on. You are the coach and you have a great

strategy in your head as to how you want to bring this game called the Lower

Churchill to a successful victory. I said: You have devised that strategy, no

doubt, being the CEO for Nalcor, and you have a great team of players on the

ice, but you happen to run into a referee in one game one game, a very

important referee - called the Rgie. What happens? He makes one bad call

against your team, and your general manager is hanging out of the stands telling

the referee what a fool he is.

The general manager, of course, I refer to being our Premier in that analogy.

I said: How can you, as a coach, expect to do your job, with your team, if while

you are trying to do it on the ice with the referee there, the Rgie, the

general manager is hanging out of the rafters calling the referee everything?

How do you think that referee is going to feel about you? Wouldn't a bit of

common sense dictate in that kind of game that maybe the GM might at least keep

a little bit quiet until the process involving that referee - maybe there is

another series, maybe there is another game comes about - so you do not pretty

well guarantee that you lose the next game?

No, that is not what we had here. Obviously, Mr. Martin did not want to

comment. He said, that is not my place to talk about my GM. He is a very wise

man as well. Besides being very experienced, he is a very wise man.

It is not a game, Mr. Speaker. This thing called the Lower Churchill is not a

game at all. It is a very serious endeavour that has been on the books, the

minds and the thoughts, of a lot of people in this Province for a long time a

long time and not only this government; lots of previous governments have had

thoughts about doing something with the Lower Churchill. Nobody has been

successful to date in delivering it. Some people have come very close to having

deals. The Grimes Administration was very close. It went off the rails on that

one. Before Grimes there were also deals negotiated; for various reasons it did

not happen. It did not happen for various reasons. Sometimes it was technology

reasons, sometimes it was money reasons, and sometimes it was transmission

reasons, the same as we seem to be having now.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this Premier, I would submit, has one major file, one

primary, principal file, on his agenda, and that is the Lower Churchill. It is

pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, that we are a long ways from seeing an end to this

series. By his own admission he says to the media this week, in the foyer of the

House of Assembly: There are no definite timelines now on the Lower Churchill.

In fact, we, in the briefing from Nalcor, had a better idea and were given a

better perspective, actually, on what the timelines might be. We just did not

hear a clip on the 6:00 o'clock news as to no definitive timelines.

Mr. Martin, I asked him, I said: What is the process from here? Well, the

first thing he said we have to do is we have to go back to this very referee,

the Rgie, that just made this decision and appeal to them. I asked how long

that would take. Well, obviously he did not have a definitive answer. It could

take months. It could take even a couple of years, it depends. First of all, of

course, the decision has to be made to appeal. That is the first step the

government has to make. Now, I am assuming the Premier in his comments

subsequent to the decision in saying that we have not given up on any options, I

would assume that option is still alive and well and that we will be hearing

shortly from the government that they do intend to actually appeal the decision

of the Rgie.

Then I asked Mr. Martin, I said: What happens after that? Assuming we appeal,

assuming we lose again and it is pretty obvious that the Premier thinks we

will because he already said the Rgie is biased. So if, of course, they stay

true to what the Premier says they are, we are going to lose at the Rgie, and

the second time around. So then I said: Where do we go from there? He said:

Well, then we have to go to the Quebec Superior Court to ask them to overrule

the decisions of the Rgie. I said: How long is that going to take? Again, years

is a better word to use than months years. I said: Okay, what happens if we

lose at the Quebec Superior Court? Then we have to go to the Quebec Court of

Appeal. How long is that going to take? Again, it takes years to get a matter to

and through a court of appeal. I said: Well, what happens when we get there?

What if we lose there? Because we are still in Quebec, and according to our

Premier we are never going to get a fair shake out of Quebec.

Now, mind you, I think these judges in any courts in this land are pretty

fair-minded and balanced if you give them the right facts, if you give them the

right information. I do not think anybody sits upon any court in this country

that is biased, to start with, and to suggest that somebody is obviously

patently biased well, even if you think so, it is not a very wise thing to do

if you have to be going through their courts, I would think. We saw it here, our

Premier is already out there on that.

Now, assuming the Court of Appeal in Quebec decides we are going to turn it

down, too. Meanwhile, we are gone through the Rgie once, we would have gone

through the Rgie twice, we would have gone through the Quebec Superior Court,

the Quebec Court of Appeal, and then our final court of appeal is going to be

the Supreme Court of Canada. So I asked Mr. Martin, I said: How long is it going

to take for that process? Now, that is just to get through that process, the

appeals process. We are talking years.

The average case to go from first level to the Supreme Court of Canada in

this country on an average type case is about eight, nine years. That is on a

case that is average, not complex, average, eight to nine years. That is not my

words. I mean he knows the same thing. Ask anybody here; ask the Minister of

Justice, he knows himself. You do not get to the Supreme Court of Canada

overnight, a couple of weeks. It takes years.

So that is years on that process, but then the real thing that knocked the

wind out of me when I asked Mr. Martin, I said: Assuming we go through all of

that eight, nine, ten-year process and the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately

decides in our favour on some of the issues, on all the issues that we had

before them, where does it leave us? He said, the problem is then we have been

knocked out of the queue. What he meant by that was, the decision that the Rgie

has now made means that by the time this ever gets heard eight or ten years out,

we are so far back in the queue anyway when it comes to accessing the Quebec

Hydro lines to transmit our power that there are a host of people lined up ahead

of us. How do we get onto lines that are already then used up again?

That is what I read from the briefing. That is what I was told from the

briefing, that we are dead in the water on a Quebec route even if we win at the

Supreme Court of Canada level, ultimately, because you can be sure, by the way,

if we win on the Rgie end, if we win at any level of this appeal, you can feel

certain and sure that we are going to get Quebec Hydro appealing. So,

ultimately, it is always going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. It

would be great if we could appeal to the Rgie, get a decision and Quebec Hydro

laid off, but I do not think any of us are naive enough to think that. Whatever

we win they are going to appeal, whatever they win we are going to appeal.

Bottom line, the Supreme Court of Canada eight, nine years out.

The reality of the Lower Churchill being done on this Premier's watch, unless

he is going to be seventy-four, seventy-five years old, he is not going to be

around when this happens, if it happens. That is the reality, certainly not

through a Quebec route. It is just not on. If it is, he beat Mr. Smallwood's

record in terms of longevity as a Premier. Now, he has already told us he is not

running the next term. He is running the next time but not after that.

So, I guess if you put A and B together, we are progressing along quite

nicely here. It is not getting done on his watch. That is the bottom line. Using

his own words, what he has told us himself, he is not running in 2015, and we

all know the facts that in order to go through Quebec following this route it is

eight, nine years out. This Premier is not going to see the Lower Churchill done

through Quebec unless - and this is what we would advocate - there is a change

of approach. Instead of trying to beat people over the head with levers to get

your way, you have to negotiate.

This is a gentleman who came into power because of his negotiating abilities

as a business person. We have seen very little of that. This approach with

Quebec is certainly not working. My advice would be, let's change the style,

let's change the approach if we ever want to see this good project come to

fruition and make the necessary changes of style and approach.

Now, that brings me to my amendment, which is we absolutely disagree with the

approach, and that is what this motion calls for. Therefore, we would move an

amendment to that.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair

that we amend this resolution after the resolve clause, to read:

BE IT RESOLVED

that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly affirms its full support to

develop this extraordinary clean, renewable energy project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take a few moments to review the amendment and allow the other

parties in the House as well to review the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the House Leaders ready to proceed?

The Chair has reviewed the amendment as put forward by the Opposition House

Leader and has determined the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to get on my feet here today in the hon. House to

have a few minutes to talk about this private member's motion. I want to just go

over the motion, as my colleague for Bonavista North laid it out, because there

may be viewers in the audience who did not hear him and to reiterate as to what

this motion is about here today. The motion basically says:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is home to one of the best undeveloped

clean, green, renewable energy projects in North America at the Lower Churchill

River in Labrador; and

WHEREAS Ontario, the Maritime Provinces and the Northeastern United States

are in need of affordable, clean energy sources; and

WHEREAS last week's ruling of the Rgie de l'nergie in Quebec on a

transmission service request by Nalcor Energy once again demonstrates the

province's arrogance and discriminatory business practices, in particular their

determination to see the Lower Churchill proceed only on their terms; and

WHEREAS this ruling is deemed by this Province to be completely contrary to

the rules of fair, open and competitive access; and

WHEREAS this government is determined to proceed with this project in the

best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly

affirms its full support for the approach of Nalcor Energy and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to continue plans to develop this extraordinary clean,

renewable energy project, including two alternate routes to market, including

the Labrador-Island link, the Maritime route as well as the pursuit of a

separate 724 megawatt transmission service request into the Maritimes and New

England.

Mr. Speaker, this particular issue I say holds, for me, a very important part

of my life having grown up in Churchill Falls, educated in Labrador. I grew up

all my life there. My father, as I have said in this House before, worked early

in the 1960s on the Twin Falls power development - that was before even

Churchill Falls was even thought about to supply power to the communities of

Wabush and Labrador City and to the iron mines that started there back in the

early 1960s.

Then, in the 1970s the community of Twin Falls was moved to Churchill Falls.

All of the families were moved out of there. I think it was fifteen, sixteen

families were moved out of there to Churchill Falls. Of course, Churchill Falls

has been there for some time, almost over forty years now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you having grown up on that project as a matter of

fact Russell Wangersky from The Telegram might be interested to know that

I use to deliver The Evening Telegram in those days up on the

construction sites as a paper boy. I think they were paying ten cents for the

regular paper and twenty cents on the weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are older than I am.

MR. HICKEY: Not quite that old.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the construction of the Churchill Falls. I have

watched where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were taken off jobs, shipped off

on the next plane only to see replacement workers coming in from Quebec and

other parts of Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we have never gotten our fair share of the Upper Churchill. I

can tell you what, under the leadership of Premier Williams and this government,

we plan on getting our fair share out of the Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about what is after happening over

in Quebec in the last number of weeks - I will say today is very much different

from the days of Premier Peckford, Premier Tobin, Clyde Wells, and Roger Grimes

when they were in power, very much different.

I listened to the hon. member across the way and he made some comments to the

fact that we should change our style and approach. Change our style and approach

he said just now. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are changing our style and

approach. We are sending the message loud and clear to the people of Quebec, to

the Rgie, to the Quebec government, to Hydro-Quebec that this Province, under

the leadership of Premier Williams and this government, we are going to get our

fair share from our resources in our homeland for the best benefit of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: When we look at the whole Quebec regime and the Rgie and

their ruling, there are a couple of points I just want to highlight just so that

people can understand a little bit about what is going on. There are three major

issues here, Mr. Speaker, that I want to touch on here today which I think are

very important for us to look at. There are three major points as I see it. One

is the availability of transmission capacity. I have had some twenty-five years

with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I am very familiar with hydro developments

and I am very familiar with transmission lines, powerhouses and the technical

piece of this.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, what we have watched over the last number of

months and years is Hydro-Quebec in a flurry to develop hydro projects within

the Province of Quebec. There has been a huge push. We saw it down in Labrador

main. They are trying to push one there and in other places, Quebec with the

Manic projects, in James Bay, in LG-2, and every single bit of electricity,

wind, that they can get onto their lines they are trying to do it. Why are they

doing that? It is very simple why they are doing it. They want to choke off the

capacity from our Province to transport through the Province of Quebec, Mr.

Speaker.

You do not have to be an expert here to understand what they are doing here.

Then, of course, they feel that if we choke off the capacity on the transmission

lines to Quebec, then, of course, we would have pay now for the upgrades if we

want go through Quebec. That is fine, as long as it is reasonable.

Let me say this and I thought it was very interesting when we looked at the

availability of transmission line capacity, Mr. Speaker. First of all,

Hydro-Quebec transmission is required to disclose available transmission

capacity on the transmission lines that connect Churchill Falls to the Quebec

grid. These transmission lines, Mr. Speaker, would obviously be the less cost

transmission and thus quite valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Under the open access regulations, Mr. Speaker, regulations in Quebec,

Hydro-Quebec transmission was obligated to provide a customer, like Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro, Nalcor, with a calculation of this available transmission

capacity. Hydro-Quebec transmission did not do the calculation and thus offered

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro none of this capacity, Mr. Speaker.

Just to prove my point, the Rgie backed up Hydro-Quebec transmission by

saying that these lines were fully utilized by Hydro-Quebec transmission based

on all of the power that has flowed historically a very important point but

what the Rgie failed to distinguish, was that only a portion of that power is

firm. Under the 1969 Upper Churchill contract and the balance should have been

made available to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro non-firm power is not

supposed to be included in the calculation of the available transmission

capacity, Mr. Speaker.

The second point, which I just want to relate here, which is a very important

point also, is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was required to declare its

intentions to Hydro-Quebec transmission within forty-five days of receipt of a

system impact study in order to proceed with the next phase of the process. Mr.

Speaker, even though Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro advised Hydro-Quebec

transmission that it saw deficiencies in the study, it notified Hydro-Quebec

transmission by letter of its intention to move the next phase into the

prescribed timeline in order to preserve its place in queue, Hydro-Quebec

transmission responded by saying that the process had been aborted by

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and bumped Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro out

of the queue. How convenient, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro asked the Rgie to reinstate its place in the queue but the Rgie sided

with Hydro-Quebec transmission. The Rgie argued that Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro should have completed a framework for the next set of studies within the

forty-five days. This finding does not accord with our understanding of

administrative law principles and fairness, Mr. Speaker.

The third point, Mr. Speaker, which I want to speak about for a second, is

States. The third point, when Hydro-Quebec transmission had provided

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with the system impact study, it indicated that

there was adequate capacity to move power into New Brunswick and to New York.

Therefore, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro asked for these routes to be made

available. Of course, Hydro-Quebec transmission and the Rgie refused, because

they argued it was a new request and such a request for partial service cannot

be granted. Of course, we disagree with that, Mr. Speaker, especially because

since the service was operated by Hydro-Quebec's production company for its

transmission service request. So those are the three main points, Mr. Speaker,

that we feel we have certainly been done wrong by.

There are a couple of other points too, that I just what to make, because as

we look back on the history of the Upper Churchill - and I have to say, Mr.

Speaker, I am proud that I have both of these projects in my district, the Upper

Churchill and indeed, the Lower Churchill. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that

certainly, from where we sit, from a Labradorian's perspective, from our major

towns in Labrador, we would like to see this project move forward. You know,

when we looked at the translation of the Rgie decision, there were a couple of

things there which were very glaring, and Premier Williams has already

identified these, but I think it is important for the people of the Province

that they can hear them again.

What the Premier said at the time, and this was on May 26, he said, "It

reached certain conclusions without legal justification to support same; It

ignored express factual evidence and denied existence of some; It made findings

of fact while ignoring the weight of the evidence; It contradicted itself and

put aside its own previous decisions; It used unsupported conclusions to

pre-empt legitimate related arguments; It ignored established principles of open

access; It engaged in significant misinterpretation of evidence; It justified

unsupported statements on the basis of "discretion"; It supported suppression of

necessary evidence and working papers to assess System Impact Study; It engaged

in a major misinterpretation of the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) which

has no legal ground in civil administrative or common law rendering the entire

complaint process ineffective; It breached principles of fairness and natural

justice.

"The overall result is to deny access to Qubec facilities for the benefit of

fellow Canadians while expecting open access from our American counterparts when

requesting similar access south of the border," said the Premier. "It is

behaviour which should not be tolerated by Canadians or Americans who believe in

fairness and competition in the market place for the benefit of consumers."

While the hon. member across the way just made the comments that we need to

change our style and approach, I fully disagree, Mr. Speaker. We have gone down

the road under the Grimes Administration and the Tobin Administration in which

they tried to develop this particular project, and each and every time, Mr.

Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition does not like to hear the truth. I will take my leave and sit

down.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not about wanting to hear; it is the fact that every member has fifteen

minutes to contribute to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that government brought the motion back, now

that they have had an opportunity to read the actual report.

Mr. Speaker, let's go back and look at the history around this Lower

Churchill development project, because this is the hallmark of the government

opposite. They came into power on a soapbox that said: We are going to do the

Lower Churchill. We are the government to do it; we know what they are doing.

The first comments, Mr. Speaker, even before the Premier took his seat as the

Premier of the Province was that he was going to have redress on the Upper

Churchill before ever there was a deal on the Lower Churchill. Those were the

first comments that he made, Mr. Speaker. In fact, that was on August 2, 2002. I

have a copy of it right here in my hand.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in November of 2009 he had a very different approach when

he turned around and said in the House of Assembly that the Upper Churchill

redress is a separate issue from the Lower Churchill and we are proceeding on

both. So, all of a sudden that has changed. No longer is redress on the Upper

Churchill a contingency of doing the Lower Churchill project. That is the not

the first time we have seen the flip-flop on this whole deal. This has been

nothing only a soapbox and smokescreen for this government opposite for the full

seven years that they have been in power.

Let's look at when they came out and made the statements they were going to

go it alone. We are going to go it alone they said on the Lower Churchill

project. Well right after that, Mr. Speaker, they went out and they called for

Expressions of Interest to develop the Lower Churchill. That was the first thing

they did. They did not get any Expressions of Interest that met their

satisfaction, so they went back to the next step. The next step was go it alone

with federal guarantees. You remember back in the federal election, the Premier

was out waving the paper around, getting a commitment from every federal leader

that they were going to sign on to the Lower Churchill project because go it

alone, Mr. Speaker, meant that the federal government was going to have to put

up the money. That is what it meant.

Outside of that, they never ever declared or explained or defined what go it

alone actually meant. Catchy little phrase, like redress on the Upper Churchill,

that was going to grab the attention of the public out there and they were going

to swarm at the feet of the government - on what? False prophecies I say to

members opposite - false prophecies.

The next issue, Gros Morne Park - let's not forget Gros Morne Park because

the government was determined to put a transmission line down through the UNESCO

World Heritage Site, the crown in the cap of Western Newfoundland and

Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism industry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is what

he said, he would prefer not to have to put the line through the park but going

around it would add more than $100 million in cost to the project. We cannot

just carve out those kinds of dollars without even having a proper costing. It

is wrong to oversimplify. Then he went on, on July 7 he said, he is willing to

risk losing Gros Morne National Park's UNESCO World Heritage status if the cost

of preserving it is too high. That was on CBC.

What happened in less than a month after that? Less than a month after that

when every environmentalist in the Province was on their taps, Mr. Speaker, when

the people on the Northern Peninsula in the district of the Member for St. Barbe

was out protesting this is what the government - this is the irresponsible

message that came from the government: I was only kidding. We were just testing

your mettle, that is all, but we would like some financial help to go around the

back of the park. That is what they said.

Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? A government who is trying to convince

people that they are seriously trying to do a deal on the Lower Churchill out

one month saying that we have no other choice, we are going through the park and

this going to happen, and then less than a month later have the face, Mr.

Speaker, and the gumption to go out there and say to people: We were only

joking. This was only a joke. We were kidding. That is some of the history that

has occurred.

Let's talk about the Rhode Island MOU another big platform day on the Lower

Churchill, Mr. Speaker, when they rushed home in the Province, called the big

press conference back in 2007. We have signed the MOU with Rhode Island on Lower

Churchill power. We have signed an agreement. No, we cannot give it to you. No

one can access the agreement, but we have an MOU with Rhode Island. Well, I

called the Government of Rhode Island, Mr. Speaker, and they faxed me up the

agreement. Guess what the agreement said? It said that the State of Rhode

Island, at some point, will need power and it said that the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, at some point, might be able to give it to them. That

was the MOU on Rhode Island. There was a process to get there. They had to meet

certain targets in a certain period of time. Guess what? None of them could be

met and the reason they could not be met is because there was no project on the

Lower Churchill and the MOU was out the door. There was no press conference to

tell the people of the Province all about that. That did not happen, Mr.

Speaker.

Now, let's talk about the next

chapter in the Lower Churchill because it

reads like a Newfie joke book. That is what it reads like. It reads like a

Newfie joke book. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Newfoundlander and

Labradorian publishes those joke books, but maybe he should get the proceedings

from the House of Assembly on the Lower Churchill and he could have a whole new

book for himself, Mr. Speaker, because the Williams government's treating of

this file is like one joke right after the other.

Let's look at the next joke: the New Brunswick Power option. Again, Mr.

Speaker, in 2007, Nalcor declined a bid for transmission capacity with New

Brunswick Power. Mr. Speaker, government claimed that the 300 megawatts of power

that was offered would not provide the needed capacity that they needed. They

wanted 740 megawatts, Mr. Speaker. It was premature, the minister said in the

House of Assembly. Government had not determined the optimal transmission route.

Government had not determined the optimal transmission route they were going to

take. It was premature. They were not going to tie their money up in bidding for

that capacity.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that if they had have bid, which they did not do,

they may have gained access, and in gaining access to that capacity, they could

have leased it out to another operator, and they would have reserved the

capacity for when they needed to use it. Now, we know there is no capacity left

through New Brunswick. There is not enough room on the line in New Brunswick

today to run even the 300 megawatts that was there then. There is no capacity

left in New Brunswick and they know that there is no capacity left on the lines

in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the next fiasco which has to do with

the Rgie board.

Mr. Speaker, in reading the decision of the Rgie, I had to blink at least

ten times because I could not believe what I was actually reading. As complex as

a document it is, it is very simple and very simplified. That is that the

Government of Newfoundland had no factual case in which to argue to the Rgie

with, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason that when the Premier came back and

stood in the House of Assembly he could not give us any technical reason why it

was rejected, he could not give us any sound facts on the reasons it was

rejected. All he could give us was a homily, Mr. Speaker, a full homily on a

great fight with Quebec. That was all I got out of his speech.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, he stood up in this House of Assembly and he said that

the ruling that came out of Quebec was one of the most horrendous, absurd

rulings that he had ever seen and he could not give us not one reason why that

was, not one reason, Mr. Speaker. I can stand here any day and bash any

province, any premier, any issue, but if there are no facts around it, what is

it? It is just that, Mr. Speaker, it is another series in the book that the

government is writing on the Lower Churchill project. That is all it is.

There were three pieces that they appealed: the availability transmission

capacity; they looked at the completeness of the system impact study; and they

England and New York. In fact, the decision of the Rgie board, regardless of

what the members opposite would like the people of this Province to believe,

they can sit down and they can read it for themselves even in the expert

testimony, the expert testimony that was brought in by Hydro-Quebec

transmission, there was not even a clip in the report that was counteracted by

Nalcor Corporation. Mr. Ed Martin told me himself that they tried to counteract

it. They tried to bring in their own people but, unfortunately, they had no

facts to base it on. The regulations were the regulations. That is the reality

of what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Speaker, the issue around the transmission lines, which Nalcor requested,

are the very same ones that were already in use by CF(L)Co, Mr. Speaker. In

fact, when I asked Nalcor, who wanted to be able to boot CF(L)Co off the power

lines to access that capacity, I said to them: Where are we going to run the

power for our winter availability? Because that was one of the customers that

you would have booted off the system, which happens to be ourselves, Mr.

Speaker, which happens to be ourselves. We are bringing in money; we are

bringing in money today on winter availability being transmitted, Mr. Speaker.

What he said to me, Mr. Speaker, in the briefing, because I give no credence to

what the minister is saying, but I will tell you what Ed Martin said. He said,

yes, we would have had to boot that off the system, but we would have had the

ability to keep it back on until we were prepared to use the lines and use the

system.

Mr. Speaker, the government's claim to the contrary was that the decision

does not say anywhere that CF(L)Co is owned or otherwise the property of

Hydro-Quebec - nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. What the decision does

indicated is that CF(L)Co's power feed is historically integrated into and

synchronized with the Quebec grid. Mr. Speaker, therefore, CF(L)Co is a

designated resource, because this is the reality on the ground. So, Mr. Speaker,

Nalcor had to make a technical argument that CF(L)Co did not deserve the status

in order to displace the historical feed from CF(L)Co with the hypothetical feed

from the Lower Churchill.

That was the argument they had to make, I say to the minister. It is written

in black and white in paragraph 15, Mr. Speaker, and continued on in the

briefing, and this is what Nalcor had to argue, Mr. Speaker but the Rgie held

that CF(L)Co was a designated resource, and that they would take priority over

future Lower Churchill projects for the transmission lines, based on the

historical electricity flow.

That was the perspective, Mr. Speaker, that was outlined in the report, and

that is a synopsis from Hydro-Quebec and from Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. The minister

will have an opportunity to get up and brief us on Rgie when she is ready.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, was a request for transmission access. Mr.

Speaker, within forty-five days of receipt of the System Impact Study, Nalcor

either executes a service agreement or they had to confirm its intention to

execute a Facilities Study Agreement. Mr. Speaker, they are getting awfully

worried over there. I am reading all of this right out of the book, actually.

Mr. Speaker, a System Impact Study is a survey requested by Nalcor, of

Hydro-Quebec transmission. Now, Mr. Speaker, apparently, from what Nalcor told

us, they did not have an option. Hydro-Quebec transmission has to do this study,

and they have to do it according to information or specifications that are

provided by Nalcor themselves.

It looks, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what needs to be done to the electricity

transmission system in order to accommodate the request by Nalcor to transmit

power. Nalcor claimed that the multiple options presented in the SIS which came

back from Hydro-Quebec transmission was incomplete, Mr. Speaker, because it did

not include all of the possibilities and options for power transmission which

Nalcor had requested.

Mr. Speaker, the information the technical and feasible information that

was presented - was not contested by Nalcor in paragraphs 386 and 388 in the

document; and, in fact, Nalcor preferred to argue merely that the report was

incomplete rather than address the technical issues that were raised by the

witness.

Mr. Speaker, that is the question that we have not gotten the answer to: Why

would Nalcor use their time to go in there and argue about the time limits on

the report, Mr. Speaker, and that the report was not complete, as opposed to

going in there and counteracting the technical and factual information that was

being provided by other witnesses? That is where the big question is in all of

this.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that this is a government that is

not doing any deal on the Lower Churchill. They have no capacity to transmit

power, they have no province that is prepared to talk to them, they have no

feasibility to do this project, they have no access, and for the last seven

years it is has been one

chapter after the other, Mr. Speaker, that has been a

farce on top of a farce.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Hydro-Quebec is not paying her a retainer, they should. They

should, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: They could not have any stronger advocate sat the Rgie

making their case for them.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition is a

whole explanation of the Rgie's case without any frame of reference at all

especially without any reference to what is required over Open Access

Transmission Tariff not a reference. She finally got it to read, but she never

informed herself - not this much, Mr. Speaker - about what is required under the

Open Access Transmission Tariff.

What we have seen here in this House of Assembly today is scandalous. I

thought we had reached our lowest point in discussion in this House around the

Abitibi file; but, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a new low today. It takes your

breath away.

Mr. Speaker, we are into a situation in this country where we do not have -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read it?

MS DUNDERDALE: I read it. I read it, make no mistake, and I know the OATT

regulations as well. When I get up to speak in this House of Assembly, I pay the

appropriate respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by at least

knowing what it is I am going to talk about.

transmission grid across this country where provinces can wheel power back and

forth as is required for their different uses throughout the country and for

what I believe is for national security in this country, Mr. Speaker, we do not

have any kind of regulation or any kind of recourse to go to ask, can we wheel

power through different provinces to market what we have, particularly here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the United States, Mr. Speaker, they do have such regulation, and that

regulation you hear us refer to as FERC. Well, FERC is the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: I advise the Leader of the Opposition to pipe down now and

learn a few things. Hold your tongue and open up your ears and learn something

so you can stop making a fool of yourself.

Mr. Speaker, because FERC has a reciprocity regulation, Mr. Speaker, it

requires that states

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on, a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the word "fool" was ruled as being unparliamentary

in our House of Assembly only a week ago, and I would ask the minister to

withdraw the comment, please.

MS DUNDERDALE: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, because of FERC regulations we have to have - anybody that has

commercial arrangements in the United States wheeling power through states in

the United States has to allow other states or provinces to wheel electricity

through their states or provinces, Mr. Speaker. So, because of Quebec's

commercial arrangements in the United States, and because of New Brunswick's

commercial arrangements in the United States, they have to allow open access on

their systems, Mr. Speaker. That is what is required. To do otherwise you are in

contravention of FERC regulations which has very serious consequences, Mr.

Speaker, so it is extremely important that you follow the rules in the OATT

process.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Opposition House Leader lay out a scenario

where we would be years and years and years tied up in court on appeals without

ever being able to access transmissions through Quebec. Now, the simplest thing

I can say to that, Mr. Speaker, is if that is the case, Quebec does not have

open access and that is a huge, huge problem for Quebec.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is the application that we

filed complaints about and which we are now appealing the ruling on, is not the

only application before Quebec. We have another application within HQT for 720

megawatts of power that is still progressing through the system. So, Quebec is

not shut off to us, not shut off to us at all. If he were correct, if the House

Leader was correct in his assertion, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has a very, very

serious issue that they are going to have to deal with very quickly because they

have to give access and if they are not giving access then they are in

contrivance of FERC and that will interfere with them being able to sell power

in the United States. Now it is as serious as that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the problems with the Rgie ruling, let me deal with

the most significant piece. Mr. Speaker, historically we have been able to move

5,428 megawatts of power out of Labrador along the lines through Quebec, to the

heritage pool in Quebec, sold to customers in Atlantic Canada, in New York, in

Ontario and so on, Mr. Speaker, but the contract that CF(L)Co has with

Hydro-Quebec is to sell them 4,082 megawatts a year. That is all. That is the

firm contract.

Mr. Speaker, we own 300 megawatts of the power that is produced at Churchill

Falls. We refer to it as the recall block. We refer to it all the time. Mr.

Speaker, we have 225 megawatts that we refer to as the Twin Co block that we use

to service the iron ore mines and the people in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we also

have available capacity from time to time in the year, outside of the winter

availability piece - which is another big piece that I will not address today

because it is a complicated piece - but we have access to another 682 megawatts

of power.

Another point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, that the Rgie ignored

completely, was that the recall power, the Twin Co block and the other available

capacity that is on the line has precedence over the 4,082. Our needs and our

customers have to be served first on the line, not Hydro-Quebec. So, Mr.

Speaker, for Hydro-Quebec to come back and say, and for the Rgie to come back

and say that they were not going to make any available transmission capacity

available because all 5,400 megawatts-plus had to go to Hydro-Quebec is wrong,

Mr. Speaker. It is wrong. There is over 1,400 megawatts of capacity left on that

line.

When we talk about the power that will be generated from the Lower Churchill,

the power that we would use in Labrador, the power that will be brought to the

Island, Mr. Speaker, that is the project. That is the project. Given that we had

1,000 megawatts - 1,400 megawatts of that capacity on the line, Mr. Speaker,

that is the project.

Now, I was going to address the other transmission piece that she harps on,

on a regular basis with regard to New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, we have two

applications in through the MBSO in New Brunswick for transmission capacity

through New Brunswick, which are progressing very well.

The Leader of the Opposition references the auction that took place some time

ago where we did not access the capacity for 300 megawatts of power, and why

didn't we buy it up? Because we would have had that capacity then in

2015-2016-2017 when we had the Lower Churchill developed. Well, Mr. Speaker, you

have to pay for that capacity. So, why would we spend $30 million, $40 million,

$50 million, $60 million paying for capacity that we do not need and may never

need? She talks about: well, if you were not going to use it then you could have

leased it to somebody else to use.

Well, we know where the power is being generated in this country, and

especially the Eastern part of the country. We do know what we are doing. They

do know what they are doing over at Nalcor, and there was no power source to

feed in to those 300 megawatts. They will provide us the capacity and we will

pay for it when we need it, Mr. Speaker. That capacity is still not being used

up on the lines, I say to the members opposite still not being used. They want

us to waste tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, since we have come to government there has been a mantra, almost

a daily mantra on: You are not going to do the Churchill, you are not going to

do the Churchill, you are not going to do the Churchill. Last year - anybody can

go back to Hansard and have a look. You do not even have an EA in place; you are

not even doing the environmental assessment. We seen a little modification of

that story this week, Mr. Speaker, because now they have it narrowed down: well,

you are not doing an environmental assessment of the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, we have environmental assessments ongoing of the generation

project. We have environmental assessments going on of the Labrador Newfoundland

link. We have completed our negotiations with the Innu Nation. It still needs to

be ratified, Mr. Speaker, but we have signed off on the New Dawn Agreement which

addresses the Upper Churchill and gives the Aboriginal people of the Innu Nation

redress on the Upper Churchill. They get a fair return on the Lower Churchill.

That is a very significant piece of work, Mr. Speaker. We are learning more

about the run of th