May

31, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 29

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): 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 Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the

Member for the District of Kilbride; the hon. the Member for the District of

Topsail.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House of Assembly today to pay tribute to three young men from

Labrador whose lives were suddenly cut short when the boat they were in capsized

at Muskrat Falls on May 18, 2010.

Ryan Russell of Charlottetown was born on June 26, 1991. He is the son of

Gary and Elsie Russell. Ryan is a graduate of William Gillett Academy and had

just finished the Millwright program at the College of the North Atlantic in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He was to start his work term with IOC in Labrador West

today. Ryan was an only child.

Mr. Roy Sainsbury of Cartwright was born on October 5, 1991. He is the son of

Junior Sainsbury and Faith Dyson. Roy is a graduate of Henry Gordon Academy and

had just finished the Millwright program at the College of the North Atlantic in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He was to start his work term with Churchill Falls

(Labrador) Corporation today. Roy was very close to his brother, Brandon, and

his sisters, Alisa and Claire.

Randy Scott Rose of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was born on March 26, 1991. He is

the son of Randy Sr. and Angela Rose. Randy is a graduate of Mealy Mountain High

School and had just completed the Millwright program at the College of the North

Atlantic in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He was to start his work term with IOC in

Labrador West today. Randy was very close to his only sister, Jamie.

These three young men came together as friends with ambitions of great

success, they loved the land in which they had such a privilege to live, they

embraced the challenges of the North and stood proud as sons of Labrador.

Today, the people of Labrador remember them as strong, courageous and

adventurous young men, who had achieved that success in their college education

and in the many friends and family that surrounded them. As Labradorians mourn

the loss of these young men I ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly to join

with me in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to send our sincere and heartfelt sympathy

to each of these families.

I ask my colleagues to pray for their families as the recovery efforts

continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad today to stand in this House to

congratulate Goulds Elementary Grade VI Boys Basketball Team which recently won

the Under 12 Boys Basketball Provincial Championships held at St. Bernard's

School in Witless Bay. After posting a regular season record of thirteen wins

and zero losses in its house league, Goulds Elementary travelled to Baltimore

School in Ferryland where they defeated the host team eighty-six to fourteen. In

their next two tournament games, they played Mary Queen of Peace and Stella

Maris of Trepassey. They beat Mary Queen of Peace by just ten points and earned

a berth in the championship game with an eighty-eight to twenty win over Stella

Maris.

In the championship game, they played St. John Bosco of St. John's and

defeated this team eighty to fifty to capture the tournament gold medal and the

provincial banner.

Members of the winning team are: Joshua Chidley, Sheldon Ryan, Joshua Kean,

Aiden Curran, Chris Mayo, Cody Williams, Aaron Williams, Andre Williams, Nick

Williams, Matt McCrowe, Zachary Gatherall, Julian Vaughan-Jackson, Mark Raymond

and Joseph Whelan. The coaches were Darryl Chidley and Dave Ryan. Ms Laura Kean

was the manager.

I ask all members of this House to join me in extending sincere

congratulations to Gould Elementary Grade 6 Boys Basketball Team.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 16, 2010, the Conception Bay South

Junior Squash Club celebrated its fifteenth consecutive, successful year of

operation.

The Conception Bay South Junior Squash Club was formed in 1995 by Conception

Bay South resident, Mr. Eric Hart. Prior to the formation of this club, players

from the town had not competed as part of the Newfoundland and Labrador's Squash

Team in the Canada Winter Games. Since the club's inception, and under the

leadership of Mr. Hart, there have been players from Conception Bay South on

every Newfoundland and Labrador Squash Team attending the Canadian Winter Games.

Over the past fifteen years, it is estimated that more than 260 players have

participated in this club and, of those, 240 have competed provincially and

sixteen have competed nationally. Mr. Hart's determination and dedication have

ensured the continued success of the club and his efforts remain a positive

impact on the lives of youth who participate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the

Conception Bay South Junior Squash Club and Mr. Eric Hart for his years of

service to youth and the community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize Environment Week, which

is being celebrated May 30 to June 5. This year's theme is Embracing Life on

Earth and provides an opportunity to reflect on the benefits of our Province's

natural wealth which is a source of pride, prosperity and security for all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is also a reminder that we must work

together and take an active role to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador's

environment is clean and healthy for all of us to enjoy.

I had the pleasure earlier today, Mr. Speaker, of recognizing the

accomplishments of a number of environmental leaders for their dedication and

efforts. The Environmental Awards program is an annual celebration of

environmental achievements in our Province and raises awareness of the

individuals, groups and businesses that are taking action to protect and sustain

our environment. It is a joint initiative sponsored by the Department of

Environment and Conservation, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board and the

Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes.

Mr. Speaker, the winners of the Environmental Awards for 2010 in each

category are as follows: Individual: Ms Julie Huntington; Community Group or

Organization: Newfoundland and Labrador Lung Association; Youth, Youth Group or

School: St. Catherine's Academy, Grade 8 class; Municipality or Regional Waste

Management Committee: City of Mount Pearl; Business or Industry Leader: Portugal

Cove-St. Phillips Organic Farm; and Lifetime Achievement award went to Mr.

Leonard Vassallo.

In addition to being celebrated at the awards ceremony, Mr. Speaker, each of

the winners also received a $1,000 honorarium from the MMSB to go towards

furthering their own environmental projects or to donate to an environmental

cause of their choice.

These men and women are environmental ambassadors for our Province and they

have demonstrated tremendous ingenuity and determination, along with an

impressive passion for our environment. We are all responsible for the

environment in our Province and that is why it is so important to recognize

their great accomplishments and encourage others to follow their example.

Mr. Speaker, I also encourage everyone in our Province to participate in the

many activities that are ongoing during this Environment Week. Through a number

of initiatives sponsored by the MMSB, we will continue to raise awareness about

sustaining our Province for generations to come not only during Environment

Week, but every week of the year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today, and

to say that we, in the Official Opposition, want to commend all those who get

involved in Environment Week through not only this particular week but

throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker, we know that many Newfoundlanders has made it known that the

environment is a top priority to them throughout the year. It is not only to

protect it for ourselves, but for our children and our grandchildren for many

years to come. I want to congratulate the government, the MMSB and the

Newfoundland Women's Institute for getting involved and continuing with this

program.

However, Mr. Speaker, there are still many challenges each and every day,

that we have to continue and make sure that we keep in our minds first and

foremost. It is a time for each and every one of us to look at our own districts

and what is happening in them when it comes to environmental issues. It is also

a good time for government to place more emphasis on the many environmental

issues that we debate here in this hon. House from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, I have to close by saying that not very often the former

Administration gets much credit. This is a program that was brought in

twenty-one years ago, Mr. Speaker. This is the twenty-first year for it and we

want to say to government, congratulations for keeping up this wonderful

initiative.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I am very

pleased to join with her in congratulating the winners of the various awards

this year. I would especially want to recognize Ms Julie Huntington who has

given so much leadership in environment issues; involved in whale research and

rescue; the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society; an active executive director

of ACAP. She is currently working on co-ordinating a meeting on oil pollution

prevention in our Province in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico spill and the need

to protect our own offshore. It is wonderful to see her being awarded for all of

her work.

This year's theme for Environment Week is Get to Half and focuses on waste

reduction activities. These are great activities, Mr. Speaker, but they really

do lay a responsibility mainly on the shoulders of the individuals for the

environment. We know government has a major role to play as well.

I am glad to see, and I saw just before I came into the House, that

government has at long last put out a discussion paper a new one on climate

change. The last plan was released in 2005, so I look forward to the

consultations that are to take place with regard to this latest discussion

paper, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, it will not be another five years before we see

some major action from this government.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure over the weekend to

participate in an event during the Fire and Emergency Services Spring Training

School being held in Grand Falls-Windsor. During that event, I presented a

cheque totalling $2,500 to the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Fire Services, Fire Chief Vince Mackenzie. This cheque was made

possible by an option included under the Occupational Health and Safety Act

termed creative sentencing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. O'BRIEN: I will never be accused of mumbling in the House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

In November 2008, a case stemming from an incident involving an excavator

concluded and resulted in a creative sentencing fine being provided to the

Minister of Government Services. After careful consideration, officials in my

department advised me that this fine would be given to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Association of Fire Services to provide improved respiratory protection

for volunteer firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, the funds provided will go towards purchasing fit testing gear.

On Saturday, I helped demonstrate the fit testing equipment which makes sure

that the respiratory protection equipment performs properly when needed. Mr.

Speaker, I would also advise the fire persons across the Province not to rely on

that demonstration, but I am sure the actual equipment works.

Creative sentencing funds have benefited many different groups,

organizations, children and the general public since it was first permitted

under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Funding under this initiative has

purchased learning tools for high school students in a number of different

municipalities across Newfoundland and Labrador, advertising to raise awareness

of workplace health and safety and now fit testing equipment may be included in

that list. Sometimes, creative sentencing is not a fine at all but a requirement

to give a speech to a peer group about safety issues. It is another tool in

addition to fines or imprisonment, but it is not meant to embarrass the guilty

party. It is a means for the offender to give back to our communities and

residents and raise awareness about injury prevention and the importance of

workplace safety.

Our volunteer firefighters give so much to their communities and their

efforts, dedication, and commitment must be commended as they play such an

important role in our rural communities ensuring the safety of residents. These

men and women have jobs and lives but yet feel such a connection to their

communities that they volunteer their time in this much needed way.

Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to provide this funding through creative

sentencing to the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement as well. I

am sure that the event that was held in Gander this weekend, with regard to the

training school, was a tremendous success. We all remember, as the minister

stated here, the incident that happened on the TCH back in November 2008, the

unfortunate incident. I have to say that the some 6,000 firefighters throughout

the Province, there are many issues that they try to resolve throughout the year

with fundraising ventures and so on. They do, Mr. Speaker, require protective

clothing and breathing apparatus.

My hon. colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, responded to

the statement from the Minister of Municipal Affairs just last week. We know

that each and every one of those individuals, as they go out to protect our

property and our lives, they place themselves in danger.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the initiative that was put forward here by

providing this funding, through the creative sentencing to the Newfoundland and

Labrador Association of Firefighters, is truly acceptable.

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 certainly

an interesting example of creative sentencing and what can be done with creative

sentencing. It is an imaginative way of applying fines. I am glad to see this

money going to volunteer firefighters because they give so much to our

community, and anything that can be added to their work that can help them do

their work efficiently and in a very safe way, making things safe for other

people, is certainly acceptable and applauded. It is an excellent use of the

funds.

With regard to creative sentencing, I do have some concerns, not so much

about the process, about not relying too much on it. It is not the best solution

to countering dangerous workplaces and promoting workplace safety. They are

levied after a company or person has been convicted of violating occupational

health and safety regulations. So I think it is even more important that the

government use preventative measures to make sure that our workplaces are as

safe as possible and we do not have to levy too many fines.

I really encourage the government to make sure that we have enough inspectors

and other officials to ensure that workplaces are safe. Preventative action is

much more beneficial than levying of fines; however, creative sentencing is a

good way to go, when we have to do so.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the Rgie decision out of Quebec was delivered related to transmission

capacity for Lower Churchill power, the Premier stated that he did not want to

go through Quebec anyway, and the Maritime route was always his preference.

I ask the Premier: How far along are you in discussions on the Maritime route

and what time frames are you looking at for its development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my preference was always the Maritime

route but that was because it was a personal preference. I think it was more to

get away from Quebec than anything, but it also has to be a rational decision

and an economic decision and based on good financial consideration. So as a

result, all the way through what we have done is we have done parallel plans. We

have looked at the Quebec route and moving all or most of the power into Ontario

but we have also, on a parallel basis, simultaneously looked at the Maritime

route, and the Atlantic route.

As we all know, that is more expensive because it involves underwater

transmission. It is well along. A lot of studies have been done. We have left

that work primarily to Nalcor. Of course, they work with the minister's

department, the Department of Natural Resources, but a lot of studies have been

done. A lot of work has been done over the years basically on the underwater

development as well. It goes right back to the Lower Churchill Development

Corporation twenty or thirty years ago. Timelines are not finite on this. This

is an evolving circumstance because everything is still tied into environmental

approval, finalization of the Aboriginal piece, but from an economic perspective

we are in a situation where we have enough information to really sit down and

talk with any industrial developer at any point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any potential Maritime route would have to go through New Brunswick. The

Premier of New Brunswick and his energy minister are both quoted in this

weekend's telegram that they have not been approached by the Province to discuss

any options related to the route.

I ask the Premier: If the Maritime route was his preference, and he indicates

that it still is, why haven't you started discussions with the Province of New

Brunswick who would definitely be a potential partner, if not a customer in this

project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear exactly what the minister

said nor have I read exactly what either the Premier or the minister have said

but I can tell you quite clearly, we have been talking to New Brunswick for some

considerable period of time. At what level, whether - the Premier and I have had

discussions at just a general level. However, Nalcor Energy and New Brunswick

Hydro were into fairly detailed discussions, quite frankly, prior to them

pulling the plug and going to Quebec and looking at the Quebec alternative. When

that happened and they were doing their deal with Quebec we obviously pulled

back and just let that evolve. Of course, we know what the outcome of that was,

that was finally dissolved and that was the end of that.

So, we are now, even as recently - if I remember correctly, it was last week,

had a conference call with the Atlantic Premiers to discuss Atlantic

co-operation with regard to a full Atlantic energy corridor. That would involve

the premiers working together, their departments of energy and or natural

resources working together, their deputy ministers, as well as the federal

government being involved in putting up money for studies which has already been

allocated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly not the impression that was left by the Premier of New

Brunswick.

In the same article, however, the Premier of New Brunswick did state that it

is estimated that the price per kilowatt hour of electricity could be in the

range of sixteen cents. This certainly does not seem like cheap power. This is

the first time, however, that we have seen a cost attached to the purchasing of

Lower Churchill power.

I ask the Premier: If this costing by the New Brunswick Premier is accurate,

and if not, what are the estimates currently being used by Nalcor to determine

whether this route is feasible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Government of New Brunswick has

already indicated to us that it appears that I do not know if I use the right

term the Premier was misquoted with regard to his article, or whatever release

he did there last week. He had talked, I think, about the economic feasibility

of the project. He talked about the technical feasibility of the project because

of voltage leak.

However, let me assure this House and all hon. members and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that this certainly is a feasible project. It is

certainly technically feasible, it is economically feasible. From a perspective

of the cost, I can tell you that this particular project is the lowest cost, the

cheapest hydro-electric project in all of North America.

With regard to disclosing confidential information that would be very, very

important in any negotiation, I would not be prepared to do that. As a matter of

fact, I cannot even give you the exact number because I do not know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would seem that if the Premier of New Brunswick is putting out numbers on

the cost of per kilowatt power of the Lower Churchill and those numbers are

wrong, I would think that it is incumbent upon the Premier and Nalcor to make

those corrections. So I think it is time to start talking what the cost will be

to generate that electricity. Mr. Speaker, we know that the US market is highly

competitive for energy purchases and one of our direct competitors will be

Hydro-Quebec.

So I ask the Premier: How competitive will we be in the marketplace, and have

you secured any long-term customers that are willing to sign on to this power

agreement for the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I just said it before and I will say it

again. This is the lowest cost hydro-electric project in all of North America.

That is equivalent to could deal head on with La Romaine or any other projects

that come on stream from Quebec.

So from our perspective - this one really slays me to be quite honest with

you. Here we are with the best projects, with the cheapest project. We have a

situation where we have the Province of Quebec, who have already skinned us

alive on the Upper Churchill and are not prepared to just sort of, stand aside

and work with us - and we will pay. We will pay for upgrades; we will pay for

transmission costs. We could provide the Government of Quebec, the people of

Quebec with probably $200 million a year, basically, in rental fees, but yet

they are prepared to try and block us every step of the way.

I can guarantee this House and the hon. members opposite and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we will not allow them to stand in our way. We

will keep pushing forward. We will keep fighting the regulatory process and we

will make sure that our project, which is the best in North America, will

eventually come to fruition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have one province out there saying it is going to be costly power, we have

the Premier saying it is going to be the lowest cost power, but nobody is

showing us the numbers. I think it is time to start showing the numbers. It is

one thing to continuously say it is feasible, it is another thing to start

proving that it is.

Mr. Speaker, Premier Graham also indicated that the project has significant

obstacles such as technical issues, as the Premier just alluded to. The New

Brunswick Minister of Energy has even stated that the Lower Churchill project

could be at least ten to fifteen years out.

I ask the Premier today: How significant are these technical issues and what

impact will they have on the feasibility of the Lower Churchill project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated, I have indicated

that even the Government of New Brunswick, officials from the department in New

Brunswick have contacted my office to indicate that perhaps the and I cannot

give you the exact terms because I was not privy to the conversation, but

perhaps the Premier was quoted out of context. That is probably the fairest I

can be to the Premier of New Brunswick in these particular circumstances.

We know the cost, we know the facts, we know the technical feasibility; we

have done the studies. We have hired the best that money can buy. We have

engaged and we have on our own staff the best that money can buy within

government, within Nalcor Energy. We are doing this right. We are not doing it

the way it was being done with the last government when it was all basically

being given away in the Grimes government, of which the Leader of the Opposition

was part of. We are prepared to give them the marketing and the construction,

and ultimately turn the project over to them; then we would have lost it all. We

would have given it all away again.

That is not going to happen. We know exactly what we are doing, and we are

not going to give our competitive advantage away by disclosing numbers in this

House that would be of benefit to the people who we are going to be selling the

power to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the same government who knew what they were doing on Abitibi as well,

Mr. Speaker. They also said that they had the best legal minds in the world, Mr.

Speaker, when they did that deal.

I ask the Premier: Is he saying today, and to confirm for me that there are

no technical issues that will impact on the feasibility of the Maritime

transmission route?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we certainly did know what we were doing

with Abitibi. There is absolutely no doubt about it whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We are now seeing today that the company that has been

losing half a billion dollars a quarter is now going to go through a

restructuring. It is going to be slimmer, it is going to be leaner, and it is

going to be fitter. We know how it has done that. We know how it has done it. It

has dumped off its environmental liabilities. It has sold off assets. It has

closed down mills all over the country. So basically what it is has done is

taken all of its financial obligations and dumped them on somebody else, but by

doing by what we did, which the hon. member opposite agreed with and has stated

so publicly, we have saved the Province from the embarrassment of having being

left with all of that liability.

From our own perspective, as far as the Upper Churchill goes and the Lower

Churchill goes, that is a great project. It is a good project. It is a project

that we can be very proud of, but we will not give that away either, and we will

continue to stay the course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier again if he will confirm to the people of the Province

today that there are no technical issues that will impact upon the feasibility

of the Maritime transmission option under the Lower Churchill project.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There absolutely will be technical issues that will

impact upon the project. Anybody with a clue at all would know that there is

going to be some technical issues when you do a $6 billion to $12 billion

project.

I can tell the hon. member opposite that there will be no technical

difficulties that will be a complete obstacle that would ever prevent that

project from happening. All she has to do is read the journals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The problem is what the hon. member opposite is doing

is reading the nonsense that is being put out by Hydro-Quebec, that is being put

out through journalists that write articles in The Globe and Mail that

say this technology is not available anywhere else in the world when there are

all kinds of examples. Whether they happen to be in Europe, whether they happen

to be in Tasmania, they are everywhere. So she should stop reading Quebec

propaganda and believing in it, and believe in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very typical show that you see in Question Period. Whenever the

government has the heat put on them, when there are questions they do not want

to answer, the first thing they do, Mr. Speaker, is they stand up and attack the

person who is asking the questions question their patronage.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways. It is either the Premier

of New Brunswick is right that there is some technical impact or there is not,

so he cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, before any Lower Churchill power project can be transmitted

between Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, an environmental assessment study

will have to be completed. We know that the environmental assessments have not

been filed for the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I ask the Premier: When will these environmental assessments be filed, what

are the projected costs of these studies and when will they be completed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment for the generation has been filed

now for a long time. In fact, it will be going through the public hearings come

the fall. The environmental assessment for the transmission has been filed as

well, Mr. Speaker, and it was certainly open to public comment for the member

opposite or anybody in the public to comment on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Wednesday, we were briefed by Nalcor, and I put the question to Ed Martin.

He informed me at that time that there was no environmental assessment on the

Maritime route, and I ask the minister to clarify her comments.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we deal with the environmental assessments that

are submitted by the proponents, and those are certainly up for review. So, Mr.

Speaker, I am not sure where the member is going, but those are certainly filed

on the Web site. It is open for public comment. It is open for the public to

comment on. The transmission route has been filed. Perhaps if you want to

clarify it further, I can help you out some more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the minister's information, he informed us that the EIS on the generation

of power was filed, the EIS on bringing the route to the Island was filed, but

not the Maritime route, I say to the minister.

I ask you, when government intends, through Nalcor, to file the environmental

assessment on crossing the Gulf of St. Lawrence as part of the Maritime route

for the transmission of power?

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

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is getting ahead of herself again,

as usual.

Mr. Speaker, we have not filed the environmental assessment across the Gulf

of St. Lawrence at this point in time because we have not decided which route.

We have not yet sanctioned the project, Mr. Speaker. Until we decide where we

have the transmission capacity, only then will it become necessary, if we decide

to go the Maritime route, to submit an environmental proposal. That will be done

at Nalcor at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Finally, Mr. Speaker, it goes to show once again that the

Minister of Environment has no idea what is going on with environmental files in

this Province, not even a project as big as the Lower Churchill, I say. Mr.

Speaker, finally, we get the right response.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this, now that we have established

and you have admitted that there has been no EIS filed on crossing the Gulf of

St. Lawrence, and we know there is not too many ways to cross the Gulf of St.

Lawrence, I ask the minister if she can tell us when the EIS will be filed and

when we can expect to see it completed? Will it take two years, three years,

five years or ten years, Minister?

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

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we will file the EIS when it is appropriate to do so. It will be

appropriate to do so once we get transmission rights through New Brunswick and

decide that that is the most appropriate route to wheel our power. Mr. Speaker,

we have not ruled out, at this point in time, wheeling power through Quebec and

if we wheel the bulk of our power through Quebec, an environmental assessment

will not be required of the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, the issues we are working on at the moment are transmission of

power through Quebec, transmission of power through the Maritimes. We are using

the OATT process in both of those circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Nevertheless, Minister, you know the EIS would have to be

completed before there is any Maritime transmission route of Lower Churchill

power.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Premier stated that he planned to put power lines

through Gros Morne Park but backed off when public pressure was mounting against

the plan. Since then, the government has stated that they plan to put

transmission lines through the Long Range Mountains.

I ask the Premier today: Has Nalcor evaluated the technical ramifications of

that plan, and how much will this route add to the cost of developing the

Maritime route for access?

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

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, I just want to point out to the

Leader of the Opposition that we would not take on millions of dollars of

liability doing environmental assessments that are not required, that is why we

need to decide which way we are going to wheel our power before we engage in

full environmental assessments of certain routes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the second issue there are a range of transmission

routes undertaken and studied when Nalcor did the financials around this

project. There are at least four to five routes that are considered to be - that

we could work with in terms of bringing that power out of Labrador and down

through the Island. All of them have been assessed internally, Mr. Speaker, and

all of them have been costed internally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is that government is still looking at the Maritime route as

a preference; however, they will not tell us how much it is going to cost to

generate power through that route, whether it is going to be feasible in terms

of giving us numbers. They are not filing any environmental assessment to make

it happen through that access. They are not talking to New Brunswick, Mr.

Speaker, and last week in a technical briefing with the officials from Nalcor,

we asked for the timelines for developing a Lower Churchill project. They said

they would have to check with the Premier before that information could be

released. In the

article this weekend the Premier stated that he would have to

check with Nalcor.

I ask the Premier: Now that you have had an opportunity to check, or one of

your talks back and forth, how many years are we talking here before we see the

Lower Churchill developed in a manner that is feasible both from a cost and

technical perspective?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Obviously, it is something that the Leader of the

Opposition is not used to. There is obviously a mutual respect between the

Premier's office, the government, and the Department of Natural Resources, and

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and or Nalcor. We check with each other. We do

not, on the eighth floor, decide that for political reasons we are going to do a

deal with Quebec, and we are going to give it all away to Quebec, and we are

going to let them build it, and we are going to let them finance it, and we are

going to let them sell it, and then finally when we do not have enough money to

complete it, we are going to let them take it over. Then not only would a

Liberal government have given them the Upper Churchill and taken all of that

away and costing us billions and billions of dollars every year - we could have

been a have Province probably twenty years ago if it had not been for the

Liberal government, but no, what was going to happen with the next Liberal

government, the Grimes government? They were going to give it all away again,

because do you know what? They were not going to check with Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. They were just going to go up and tell the officials at

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, this is the way it is because we know what we

are doing. Well, that is not the way this government operates. We work

collectively with them. We work together with them. We share information. We

co-operate and when the time is right that project

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the Premier that the only thing given away in recent

years is a free tab to AbitibiBowater when they pulled out of Grand

Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the government opposite likes to talk

about their preceding governments but they do not like to tell us what the plan

and the scope of the plan is that they have themselves. It is just all rhetoric,

Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, the Premier issued a press release encouraging both sides in the

Vale strike to find a resolution. Well, it was nice to finally hear some word

from government, I say to the members opposite, but three years ago this

government stated that they were considering bringing forward anti-replacement

worker legislation.

I ask the Premier today: Keep it simple, and tell these workers enough time

has passed, whether your government will bring forward the legislation or

whether it is something that you are not entertaining?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, over a year - nearly a year ago I actually

went to the picket line. So I met with these workers on the picket line in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. The minister has met with the company on at least one

occasion, maybe other occasions, has met with the union, has met with the

President of the Federation of Labour, has spoken with her in telephone

conversations. I have spoken with her personally, face to face on this. I have

spoken to her in telephone conversations about this issue.

We have been constantly on top of this issue. I can say it has been discussed

at Cabinet on several occasions. It is something that is very, very important to

government. What I decided to do last week was to call the Premier of Ontario

because quite frankly, I think, as we all know; the problem in this strike is in

Ontario. It is not going to be resolved until it is resolved in Ontario. If I

remember correctly, I think there are like 3,000 workers that are affected in

Ontario. Even if this government brought in anti-scab legislation, it is quite

possible that our actions would not even end the strike.

So I phoned the Premier of Ontario, who happened to be in Israel at the time,

and suggested to him, and he agreed, that we work together. That we monitor this

very closely and that we encourage both sides to get to the table and get this

resolved as soon as possible. So we are very concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it might not have ended the strike immediately but it

certainly would have put a lot of pressure on this company to the point that

they probably would have ended up in shutdown mode.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government today, because the commitment was made to

these workers several years ago that there would be some consideration given to

anti-replacement worker legislation. I have been on those picket lines many

times in the last year, I say to the government, Mr. Speaker, and I have met

with the company as well. These people deserve to have an answer. We know that

the Board of Trade, the Federation of Business and the Manufacturers Association

do not want to see anti-replacement worker legislation in the Province. However,

we do know that the unions are supportive of it.

I ask the government today, to let the people know what your response is: Is

this doable in Newfoundland and Labrador or is it not, so that these workers can

get on with trying to settle what needs to be settled on the ground in this

strike?

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

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Premier answered in the previous question, I have had the

opportunity to speak with the Nunatsiavut government, with Vale Inco, with the

union and with the Federation of Labour. At all of these meetings, Mr. Speaker,

replacement worker legislation has been discussed. They understand very clearly

the difficulties in doing it. We continue to examine the issue, Mr. Speaker, and

try to work through the complications.

Mr. Speaker, they also acknowledge at all levels that this will not end the

strike. Worker replacement legislation would certainly put more pressure on the

company, but, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the problem certainly seems to be

in Ontario with the nickel bonus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another day and another ferry out of service. The residents of

Bell Island are now experiencing three to five hour delays since the Flanders

is in for repairs and the Nonia is the only vessel left servicing the

area. There are obvious problems when two vessels that service Bell Island have

to go in for significant repairs within a month of each other.

I ask the minister: What types of repairs are being conducted on the

Flanders and when can the residents of Bell Island expect a dependable and

reliable service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in response to the member's question from across the way. Certainly, the

Flanders was put out of commission over the weekend. She had some damage

done to her bow thruster and we hope to have it repaired in the next number of

days. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to keep some level of

service to the people of Bell Island.

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 communities such as Bell Island experience delays in their ferry service

many concerns arise. Residents of Bell Island rely on the ferry to get to work

in St. John's and the surrounding area and they rely on it for social reasons,

but most importantly medical emergencies and appointments.

I ask the minister: What other solutions has your department been considering

to ensure that these residents have full and reliable access when necessary for

travelling from Bell Island to St. John's?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware as a government of

our responsibilities, not only to the people of Bell Island but the people of

the Province. In these cases we do everything we possibly can to make sure there

is a level of service that will meet their basic needs.

In this particular case, in emergency situations we will deal with through

air or other means in order to take care of that particular situation.

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, last Thursday the Minister of Finance said that government was

coming to the end of its five year video lottery terminal action plan and that

government will now decide which way to go. The minister did not support the

idea of holding public consultations. Mr. Speaker, a sensible way to proceed

would be to hold broad consultations that would aid government in developing its

next steps in dealing with the addictive nature of video lottery terminals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask it the Minister of Finance: Since 72 per cent of problem

gamblers are VLT addicts, why won't the minister commit to holding consultations

around the Province to get input?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the one thing this government has done since

it came into office in 2003 with respect to VLTs is reduce the number. We have

reduced the number of VLTs in this Province by 25 per cent. We have reduced

hours of access. We have reduced the pace of play. We eliminated the stop button

from the machines.

We hear from the general public on this issue. People have very strong views

on all sides on this particular issue. The options are clear. It will be

necessary for government, when the current policy ends on March 31, 2011, it

will be appropriate then for government to get together and consider the options

that are before it and make the necessary decision to move forward.

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.

This government holds consultations on all kinds of issues. Right now we have

got a whole set that are going to happen with regard to environmental issues. So

I ask them minister to look at what is happening in other departments.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said last week during Question Period on

Thursday that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation had provided government with some

information regarding VLTs and on-line poker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: What kind of information did ALC

provide, and will he release this information to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in the public domain that the

ALC has contacted this government, along with the other governments of the

Atlantic Provinces, to allow it to move forward into new areas, including

on-line poker.

The Government of Prince Edward Island has, in fact, passed legislation to

allow that to happen. The Atlantic Finance Ministers intend to meet at the FPT

meeting in Prince Edward Island next month to discuss this particular issue. I

will be bringing the matter to my colleagues in order for them to be informed

and to make a decision on this issue. At that point, government will make its

decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, I would ask this minister to

release documents so everybody else can have the information to give feedback to

him.

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard, during Question Period and debate on the NDP

private member's motion, that the Ministers of Finance, Health and Community

Services, and Business are all very concerned about problem gambling. However,

Mr. Speaker, when asking the Minister of Finance if his government would

nominate a representative from the Department of Health and Community Services

to sit on the board of ALC, the minister just listed who sits there now

basically refusing to answer the question.

So I ask the minister: Why is he against nominating a representative to the

ALC board whose responsibility would be the health and well-being of the people

in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Very simple, there is no vacancy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the

2009-2010 annual report for Professional Engineers and Geoscientists

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act, Bill 23.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Court Security, Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice today to move the following private member's resolution,

seconded by the Member for Labrador West:

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 North Eastern United States

are in need of affordable, clean energy sources; and

WHEREAS last weeks ruling of the Rgie de l'nergie in Quebec on a

transmission service request by Nalcor Energy once again demonstrates that

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 and for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

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 New

England.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair and Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in the area from

Labrador Straits to Happy Valley-Goose Bay with regard to the Trans-Labrador

Highway. I will read it into the Order Paper.

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 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 call upon government

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

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of petitions from communities all over Labrador. I

will be presenting those every day in the House of Assembly. The reason for that

is, Mr. Speaker, not only is there an extreme need to pave that

section of road

and for government to start putting together an actual strategy to lobby for the

funding to do that, but today there are sections of that road that is in very

deplorable condition.

In fact, for the last number of weekends, as most members, I go to my

district and most of it I am spending on the road travelling from community to

community. I can tell you that I have never seen the road in as bad a condition

in all the years that I have been driving it, as I did in the last couple of

weeks.

Mr. Speaker, the whole

section between about thirty, forty kilometres outside

of Red Bay right up to Mary's Harbour is absolutely disgraceful. It is so bad

that I even had people calling me from Mount Pearl this weekend who were up in

Labrador on business and called because they could not believe, Mr. Speaker,

that the road was just so bad in that area. They said they wanted to call

because they did not know if anyone in the Province actually realized how bad

this

section of road is right now. There is nothing only potholes that stretches

for about eighty kilometres.

I talked to the operators who actually do the grading on the road and they

themselves told me that they are doing themselves physical harm because they are

operating these graders, and the blades are actually digging into the bedrock

and they are getting these jolts on the equipment. There is no crushed stone

left on a lot of sections of this road. In fact, most of the

section I am

talking about is ten, twelve years old, Mr. Speaker, and it has not been

resurfaced since the time it has been in operation. Right now, we have probably

three times more tractor-trailer traffic even now than we have ever had on those

sections of road, and it is having a toll. I know that government is spending

money there. I am not saying that. I know that they are spending money on

completing the

section of road that is there and doing other upgrades, but you

have to realize

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - that there is a

section right now that desperately needs to

have some work done on it and you just cannot ignore that when you have 20,000

people in Labrador

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has long expired.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 31, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 of the

clock today, being Monday.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, May 31, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

today being Monday, a parliamentary day.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Government

Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance

Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, Bill 21, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Government House Leader if she can repeat the bill number

again, please?

MS BURKE: Number 21, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Member

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services to ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, Bill

21, and that Bill 21 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have

leave to introduce Bill 21 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act", carried. (Bill

21)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And

Brokers Act. (Bill 21)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the directions given by the hon. the

Government House Leader and hearing the Clerk read the bills. It is an important

procedure here in this House that Parliament be allowed to operate

uninterrupted. So I ask the hon. people on both sides of the House to kindly

take their conversations or their fights to the outside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Portability Of Pensions Act, Bill 22, and I further move that the said bill be

now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister

of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act, Bill 22, and that

Bill 22 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 22 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board

to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act", carried.

(Bill 22)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 22 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 22 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper we will call Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 reads: That this House approves in general the

budgetary policy of the government, otherwise known as the Budget Speech.

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks

now he will conclude the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is hard to believe that the Budget was brought down on March 29, and that

is only, what a couple of months ago. It has been a long few months that we

have been in this House, apart from the Easter break.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which was two weeks.

MR. MARSHALL: Which was two weeks.

The Budget that we released, Mr. Speaker, on March 29 was the seventh Budget

of the Williams government, continuing our substantial investments in economic

stimulus in health care and in education. You recall that the Budget 2010 was

called: The Right Investments For Our Children and Our Future, and that it

presented a very sound and a very progressive fiscal framework with investments

targeted for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now but also in

the future.

The Premier was quoted at that time as saying, we will continue our

aggressive infrastructure strategy and we will keep the momentum going. He said

that as the world emerged from a very uncertain global economic downturn, the

Premier said that now is not the time to pull back on stimulus spending. Now is

not the time to slam on the brakes. Now is not the time to stop providing jobs

and opportunities for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, I said that the economic outlook for our Province

was positive. That our objective was to provide investments that would further

stimulate and would support the projected growth. I said that we had weathered

the recent economic challenges better than most other provinces and

jurisdictions in the world but that the economic recovery which was taking place

was very fragile. In spite of there being very good economic indicators, there

was still a lot of uncertainty. I said at that time that until we see traction

in the world economy, especially in those countries which buy our products -

which buy our products that particularly affect rural Newfoundland, our fish and

our newsprint and our forestry and our manufacturing goods - that until that

took place we had to maintain the momentum here and we had to do it ourselves.

We had to do it here at home and we would continue to invest to provide jobs and

opportunities for the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this would be a good time for us to go back and look at the

situation we found ourselves in when the Williams government first came into

office. We had many, many years of deficits; many, many years of deficit after

deficit after deficit. As a result of that, the government has had to go into

debt. They had to borrow in order to finance those deficits. As a result of

that, we were spending an awful lot of money on interest on our debt; money that

was going outside of the country in some cases, money that was going to our

money lenders, money that we all looked at and said: Wouldn't it be great if,

instead of that money going in interest on our debt, that we had that money and

we could put it into things like health care, put it into education, put it into

important social programs that would benefit our people?

The first thing we had to do in taking office, we had to make some tough

decisions. We had to make some prudent financial decisions, which we did. They

were not popular at the time, but people knew that they were the right things to

do.

In addition, our Premier negotiated with Prime Minister Martin the Atlantic

Accord 2005 and returned to our Province with a cheque for $2 billion. That

agreement was supposed to be an eight-year agreement there was an eight-year

agreement - and the $2 billion was a minimum payment. He was smart enough to get

the cheque and bring it back. That cheque went into our bank account. We put it

in the public sector pension funds, the teachers' pension fund in particular,

because of the respect we have for our pensioners.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we made prudent financial decisions and ran surpluses, for

the first time in a long-time. I asked, in the Department of Finance, when in

the past government did not have a deficit; when did the government of this

Province not represent a deficit? I was told there was one time when the

Liberals were in office, when they received some money from the federal

government in order to take over the ferries, I think, on the South Coast.

That money was to last a long time. That money was to cover a number of

years. What the government of the day did: they took it and they included in the

revenues for that one year and then said: Look, we have now run a surplus.

Of course, that was not good accounting practice; that was not in accordance

with generally accepted accounting principles. That money should have been put

in an account and so much of it brought into revenue each year over a period of

time, like we did with the $2 billion. When the $2 billion was brought back by

the Premier we had the cash, and the cash showed up on our books as a liability.

We had not earned it yet; it was an unearned liability.

Then each year, as it was earned, it was brought into revenue. We did not

take it all into revenue in one year to distort the financial position of the

Province. We did it properly, we did it in accordance with generally accepted

accounting principles, we did it in accordance with public sector accounting

standards, and we did it in accordance with what the Auditor General would

require.

Running those surpluses enabled us to do something that the government of

this Province had not done; it enabled us to start paying down our net debt;

because, by definition, if you run a surplus, your net debt starts to come down.

We did that. We had four years of consecutive surpluses after, I do not know,

thirty, thirty-five, or forty years of continuous deficits.

In addition to paying down our debt, paying down our funded debt we pay our

debt as it comes due - we also put money into the Public Service pension funds

in order to reduce the unfunded pension liabilities. In addition, we had the

opportunity to reduce taxes. In addition to that, we made the decision to make

strategic investments - strategic investments - to diversify the economy so that

we would be in a position for future economic growth when the oil and gas, the

non-renewable resources, are gone, as they certainly will be one day.

We had the benefit of expanding world economy. We had the benefit of high oil

and gas prices. We had the benefit of the $2 billion, and we had the benefit of

putting our fiscal house in order by making prudent financial decisions.

Then we got hit in 2009 by the recession, an economic hurricane. The

Opposition House Leader called it an economic tsunami. There is no doubt about

it, the year 2009 was a rough year financially, not only here but around the

whole world. The effects of the worst recession since the Depression continue to

resonate. Now financial leaders are paying close attention to another crisis. We

had a crisis in the United States, starting with the housing sector, that

transferred to the banking sector and led to a lack of confidence, led to higher

interest rates, led to people not investing, and led to job losses and a

recession. Now we have a similar situation in Europe. We see financial leaders

are paying close attention to the spiralling debt crisis that is happening in

Europe in particular, Greece - and (inaudible) countries contributed to a $1

trillion bailout package for Greece.

Our concern is what this will mean to us. If Europe slows down because of

austerity measures - Europe is our second-largest market - that will affect our

economy here, although other economists are not so concerned because they feel

the effect will be indirect, because they feel that the transfer of trade, or

trade between our country and Europe, is not as high as our trade with the

United States; although, indirectly, if Asian companies are affected, that could

reduce their demand for our product, because a lot of our economic growth - most

of our economic growth - is based on the export sector which, of course, depends

on demand for our commodities, and China and India, and places like that, have

been generating that.

The world economy, as we know, is not out of the woods as yet. The Governor

of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, had said Canadians should not be fooled by a

quick recovery; it is not business as usual. It will take time to recover from

what occurred in 2009.

Here in this Province we certainly knew the sting of the recession.

Employment fell by 2.5 per cent; the unemployment rate went up last year. Gross

Domestic Product declined by 10.2 per cent, mainly due to declines in natural

oil production. The oil coming out of the ground is not as much as what it was

when I gave the Budget two or three years ago, when it was up around 132 million

barrels; now that is down to ninety-two this year.

There is a famous Texas oil man named Boone Pickens. He said oil is very hard

to find, but he said what is even worse, once you find it and you start taking

it out of the ground, it comes out of the ground very quickly.

We are certainly seeing that, and that is why there is a need for more

exploration in this Province. I am delighted in particular that this government

and the Minister of Natural Resources have brought in a program to encourage

Nalcor to drill and to invest in rural Newfoundland, on the Great Northern

Peninsula, at Parson's Pond.

In particular during the recession certain industries, particularly the

resource industry sector, were very negatively impacted in an adverse way: our

mining, our forestry and our fishery, and these impacts were particularly hard

felt in the rural parts of this Province.

We, in Newfoundland and Labrador, faced challenges and we have made it

through better than most other provinces, and there are many positive indicators

in our economy. Because we increased the minimum wage, and because we gave our

employees a raise of 20 per cent over four years, labour income was up 4.2 per

cent, personal income was up 3.9 per cent. Because we brought in the biggest

personal income tax cut in the history of the Province and then increased it

again the next year, especially for those at the lower end, disposable income in

this Province increased as well. People had more money in their pockets to pay

their bills.

In addition to paying their bills, retail sales tax went up 2.6 per cent; the

housing sector went up; the car sales went up; and it is because people had more

money in their pockets. That generated consumer spending, which is a very

important part of growth in Gross Domestic Product. Especially in the United

States consumer spending is extremely important. That sector, the consumer

sector, is not as large in our Province. Our export sector has the biggest

impact on the GDP in this Province.

Due primarily to strength in oil prices, we revised the deficit which we

thought would be $750 million; that fell to $295 million, 61 per cent less than

we forecast. We thought we would get revenues of $6 billion. Expenses, we

thought, would be about $6.7 billion. We were therefore looking at a deficit of

$750 million. Our revenues were $600 million more than we had budgeted because

of strength in oil prices and our expenses went up to $6.9 billion, for a

deficit of $295 million.

The global economic outlook for this year, for 2010, is improving. There is

no question about that. There is lots of good news coming out as we can see in

certain economic indicators.

Not all countries are progressing at the same rate, Mr. Speaker. The recovery

of the world economy is picking up steam but it remains fragile. It remains

uncertain and there are concerns that economic growth will be restrained because

factors such as the high Canadian dollar, potentially higher interest rates,

sluggish employment figures in the United States of America - which is the

biggest market for our products - and potential slowdown as well in other parts

of the world, in particular, Europe, which is our second largest market.

The United States is a major customer for Newfoundland and Labrador products.

Their economy has not gained traction, there is positive news but the housing

sector there continues to underperform. If Americans are not working, Mr.

Speaker, then they do not have the income to buy our fish, to buy our newsprint,

to buy our forest products and our manufactured products.

I heard recently, one of the economic advisors to President Obama said that

the American economy is starting to wake up. He said: When it does wake up, when

it gets out of bed, when it goes downstairs, has its breakfast and it goes to

work, then we can adjust our plan accordingly.

The International Monetary Fund said the world economy would grow by 4 per

cent. We are optimistic, in spite of the uncertainty that exists coming out of

Europe, in spite of lower employment numbers in the United States, we are

optimistic that this year, 2010, will be positive for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There was an interesting

article in Maclean's magazine recently

talking about what is happening here. Smart investment, strategic planning and

the resolve of Premier Williams to fight for the people of this Province is

paying off for you and me today, but it will pay off more importantly for our

children tomorrow.

We have a lot to look forward to. Most economic indicators are forecast to be

positive, but we still face challenges in the fishing, the forestry and the

newsprint industries as a result of weak markets and the high Canadian dollar.

The start of 2010 looks promising. Housing starts are up about 60 per cent

relative to the same period in 2009; urban housing starts were up 26 per cent;

employment increased in each of the first four months of this year and is up 2.3

per cent on average people are getting jobs in this Province; the unemployment

rate is predicted to fall; average weekly earnings were up by 6 per cent in

January and February. This is certainly a sign of good news. Consumer confidence

remains very high and total retail sales continue to increase. So that is the

consumer sector.

In addition, in the business investment sector, that part of the GDP, capital

investment will lead the country based on investments that the Vale Inco site

I guess it is the Vale site now at Long Harbour, and in the oil projects the

investments that are taking place in the oil projects.

This year, we are predicting that our revenues will increase from $6.6

billion last year to $6.8 billion - we think it will go up about $200 million

and our expenses will go up about $100 million to $7 billion, leading to a

deficit of about $194 million. That is based on the price of oil, which we

estimated would average over the year of $83.48 a very aggressive number. It

is based on the dollar being at about ninety-six-and-a-half cents. We know that

every cent the dollar goes down, our revenues go up about $26 million to $27

million. For every dollar oil will be less than $83.48, our revenues and other

things being equal will go down about $30 million.

Of course, how we do will also depend on the price of oil in world markets.

It will depend very much on the production numbers and, as I said earlier, the

production numbers are declining. The oil is coming out of the ground, but there

is still some good news. There has been a discovery in, I think, the Orphan

Basin. There is drilling taking place in the Laurentian Basin and the Flemish

Cap. There has recently been some encouraging news coming out of Parson's Pond

on the Great Northern Peninsula, which we all hope will lead some day to an

onshore oil and gas industry.

The objective of government was to provide investments that would further

stimulate and support this projected growth, so while the world economy is

uncertain, while it is fragile, then the necessary thing is to continue to

stimulate a mild stimulant. Even though we are running a deficit, the deficit

is very mild. In this country, every government, every provincial government,

the federal government, are running deficits.

Ours, on a per capita basis, is the second lowest in the country.

Saskatchewan is lower than ours. Ours is $383 a person, but let's look at some

of the others: Manitoba is $446 million; New Brunswick is $833 per person;

Alberta is $1,288 per person; Ontario is $1,507 per person; the federal

government is $1,450 per person. Ours is mild. We can handle it because we had

four years of surpluses. We had four years of accumulating cash which will

enable us to pay down our debt as it comes due, to finance our deficit, to

finance a $1 billion infrastructure strategy and enable us to pay our debts when

they come through.

The investments have been outlined by other members in this House and we have

a $1 billion infrastructure program. I remember when I was here two years ago it

was $400 million; I thought that was a lot of money, now it is $1 billion. It is

going to be $5 billion over the next few years. We are putting $2.7 billion into

health; $1.4 billion into education.

I would like to say there was an

article of APEC that I read which talked

about the future and talked about how Newfoundland and Labrador, that when the

oil and gas is gone, Premier Williams' vision is a vision of self-reliance for

this Province. It is a vision of becoming an energy warehouse with the power

coming from the Lower Churchill over to the Island and down through the Maritime

Provinces into the United States and into Ontario. It is a vision of using our

wind so that down the road when the renewable energy - I am sorry, when the

non-renewable resources are gone, we will be able to offset the advantage that

the low cost producers have like China and Asia. We will be able to offset with

an advantage on the energy side and that will attract business investment to

this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's vision is the right one. It is a vision of

self-reliance and we are going to continue on that path. As soon as we get

through this economic uncertainty, we will get back to our original plan where

we will get back to surplus, pay down our debt and continue to lower taxes and

diversify the economy for those days when the oil and gas is gone.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I can see that my time is up. I thank you all very

much and I urge passage of Budget 2010, the right investments for the future of

our children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the

government.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now resolve itself into a

Committee of Supply, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

The Committee are now considering the Legislature, the Consolidated Fund

Services, and the Executive Council.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Committee are now considering the Legislature, the Consolidated Fund

Services, and the Executive Council.

CLERK: Subhead 1.1.01.

CHAIR: Shall subhead 1.1.01 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, subhead 1.1.01 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, what we are going through is a budgetary process and an Estimates

process and a Supply bill. Back on March 29, I stood here and delivered the

Budget on behalf of the government. Of course, while the Minister of Finance

delivers the Budget, the Budget represents the vision of the Premier and the

entire Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is a process that is involved in that, that is taking place here today.

The principle behind everything is that the people's money can only be spent

with the authorization of the elected representatives of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Government cannot arbitrarily spend the people's

money. The government does its Budget but then also prepares Estimates of how

each department is going to spend the money. That money is examined. Those

Estimates are examined by the representatives and they must approve it through

the passing of the Supply bill. Only then does the government have authorization

to spend the people's money.

We go through a budgetary process of where the various well, the Minister

of Finance goes on what is called pre-Budget consultations and travels around

the Province and talks to the people as to how they would like to see the money

spent. Others will write various government members. Throughout the year people

will make suggestion to Cabinet ministers and to government as to how they

should spend their money. People in the House, members of the House, of course,

have lots of very worthwhile suggestions to government as how it should spend

the people's money. There is a process which I just want to say that the

pre-Budget consultations, after they are completed, what we have heard is

summarized and it is provided to each of the Cabinet ministers. They all get a

copy of everything the Finance Minister heard when he or she travels around the

Province.

There is a procedure then, when the ministers go forward and they meet with

the Premier and the Minister of Finance and his staff. They argue as to why

money should be spent on certain things. They are subject to challenge. It is

known as Budget defence by some people because they are actually challenged as

to how they are going to spend the money. They are asked: Do you need all that

money? You are asked if you had money last year for the same program, why was it

not all spent? We really drill down and if you want to spend money it has to be

justified because there are so many needs out there, so many things we want to

spend money on, we have to ensure that we spend it on the most important things.

We have to make sure that our priorities are in tune with the wants and the

hopes and the dreams of the people of the Province. Then the Budget is

finalized, the government agrees to it, and then it is delivered by the Minister

of Finance.

We then go through this Estimates Committee where the House resolves itself

into a number of committees. The proposed expenditures of each department are

presented to the committees. The Opposition members of the committee, and the

government members of the committee have a chance to ask not only the minister

but also the minister's senior officials who are there as well, because they are

the permanent civil servants, the permanent employees of the department who know

the intimate details of what is happening in government.

There is a give and take; it is not asking a question and then answer. It is

not done before the cameras; it is done outside the House of Assembly. I think

it is a great process because there is give and take, questions are asked;

answers are given. It is not done before the cameras. I think most of us would

like it to be. I wonder if it was done before the cameras, if we then get people

playing to the cameras and getting too political rather than doing what we are

doing now, which is a very serious examination of the Estimates.

There are three committees that do this. Most government departments go to

those committees. As I said, they do not take place in the House of Assembly,

although some of them do but the cameras are not on. There are certain parts of

government that, from tradition, are still debated in this House of Assembly.

That is what we are doing here today. We are doing Estimates for certain

departments, but other departments were done in committee.

What we are going to do in this House today is we are going to do Executive

Council, and that consists of Government House, the Office of the

Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier's Office, Cabinet Secretariat, the

Communications and Consultation Branch, Financial Administration and strategic

human resource management, the Public Service Secretariat, Climate Change and

Program evaluation. Now the other parts of Executive Council have already been

completed in committee. The Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, the Voluntary

and Non-Profit Secretariat, the Rural Secretariat I think was done with INTRD.

The Women's Policy Office was completed with Natural Resources when their

Estimates were done. The Research and Development Office was also done with

INTRD's Estimates, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer was done with

the Department of Finance.

Mr. Chair, what we are going to do, as I say, there is the Estimates of the

Government House. There are the Estimates of the Premier's Office. Under Cabinet

Secretariat there is executive support, there is planning and co-ordination.

That is a transparency and accountability office. There is the provincial

government programs office, and that is an office of Ms Madonna Brewer who is

examining government programs to ensure that we are spending the people's money

wisely. To ensure that we are getting value, we are getting value for money. It

is not program renewal or anything like that. It is merely to ensure that we are

using best practices as we spend the people's money, and the people's money is

very important. It is not government's money.

People constantly say government should spend money on this and government

should spend money on that, but it is not government's money. It is the people's

money which government has gotten through taxes and fees and borrowings, but it

is not - I would like to say, government does not have a machine in the basement

of the Confederation Building or the Sir Richard Squires building which prints

money. Money that government has to spend comes from the people and therefore it

has to be spent as wisely as possible, and that office, that particular office

is there to ensure that that is happening. That is the provincial government

programs office.

In addition, there is the economic and social policy analyst. That is people

who provide support to some committees of Cabinet. Cabinet has a Social Policy

Committee, it has an Economic Policy Committee, it has a committee called

Treasury Board, and it has a routine Committee on Routine Matters and

Appointments. People may not realize that and this may explain why people

sometimes think that government does not move quickly enough. That if government

is to do something, if a minister wishes to do something, the minister must

prepare a paper to be considered by his colleagues or her colleagues and the

department will prepare an analysis and a position will be prepared. Then the

paper will go to Cabinet Secretariat, it will be dealt with by officials there,

and it will be referred to one of the committees of Cabinet.

In the case of an issue, an initiative that will involve the payment of

money, that will go to Treasury Board. If there is a policy issue it will go to

one of the other two committees and eventually it will end up in Cabinet and a

decision will be made by the entire government. Then it will become government

policy or the expenditure will be announced, but it may be the passing or the

filing in this House or the introduction in this House of a new piece of

legislation to be debated here in the House of Assembly and, if passed, it will

become the law of this Province.

There is also the Protocol Office. The Protocol Office deals with our

relations with other governments, with foreign governments. When the Royals

visit, they are involved there; when ambassadors from other countries come here,

or consul generals might come here.

I know when I served as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, from time to

time you would have to meet with an ambassador from some foreign country who is

down here on a visit, or it might be the consul general from that country. It

was very interesting to meet with these people, and the staff of that office

would prepare briefing papers that would tell you about our trade with that

country and our relations with that particular country. It was certainly

interesting.

Also, there will be the Communications and Consultations Branch of Executive

Council. Their Estimates will be considered. Also, there is some financial

administration and human resources in the Executive Council which deal with

human resource issues and financial issues for - I think it is five different

departments. As you know, certain departments have those units and they look

after the human resource needs and the financial needs of a few other

departments.

In addition, Mr. Chair, there is the Public Service Secretariat, which used

to be known as Treasury Board as well. The Public Service Secretariat provides

human resource advice to the government. You might say the Deputy Minister is

the VP Human Resources for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also,

with respect to the Treasury Board committee of Cabinet, when the matters

involve finances, then obviously the Department of Finance provides analysis and

assistance to the committee, and when there are human resource issues, it is the

Public Service Secretariat that supports the Treasury Board committee of Cabinet

in dealing with those issues.

Another thing that is constantly in the news, another division, is the

employee relations division, and that is Collective Bargaining. This is a

division that has a group of experts who negotiate the collective agreements of

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are quite busy, I can tell

you. They go through a process, through a cycle of negotiating these contracts;

lately, every four years. Right now, I think we are down to three. They have

been called upon to assist in developing a fee

schedule for the medical

profession, the doctors. That is presently being negotiated, and both sides have

agreed not to say anything while negotiations go on. We also have the interns

and residents, their contract is outstanding. We also have the, one more, and

that is the women in Burin who work for the women and men in Burin, I should

say, who are employees of the Burin-Marystown employment corporation.

There is a policy planning division. There is a Centre for Learning and

Development, which provides training. New training is very important for our

public service employees. The Public Service Secretariat provides core training

which crosses departmental lines. Of course, departments also receive funds to

provide training specific for their department, for their particular employees.

There is also Strategic Initiatives. There is also the Opening Doors program,

which is headed by Jim McDonald, under ADM Marilyn Field. This is a wonderful

program which provides jobs and opportunities for persons with disabilities in

government. Recently, that was extended by this government to provide further

jobs and opportunities for persons with disabilities in government boards and

agencies outside government. So that provides more opportunities.

I believe that sums it up. I think everything else the Office of the Chief

Information Officer, we have dealt with that. So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward

to the discussion that will take place today. I think the members of the general

public who are watching will find it interesting. You will see a bit of give and

take. We have our officials standing by, because obviously - I read some

comments by the Opposition House Leader last year who said that ministers cannot

be expected to know all the intimate details of the departments, so we rely on

our officials. If we do not know the answers, we will certainly undertake to get

them and provide them to members of the government.

With that, Mr. Chair, I look forward to the discussion that will take place

today.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words at this point in the debate.

As indicated by the minister, we have been several weeks now since the Budget

Speech was given back in late March, I do believe. The second part of the

process was examining the Estimates. That is where every single department of

government - and I believe there are eighteen of them right now - members

opposite and the Opposition get to appear at a hearing and discuss with any

given minister all the details concerning that minister's budget for that

particular year, and ask whatever questions you would like to ask.

It is a very different process, but it is a very valuable process. Now it is

not functioning as efficiently as it can and ought to. When I say functioning, I

mean because it is not totally transparent. We come in here, for example, it is

recorded and it is typed up, but the public does not get to see it. The most

that the public get to see here in terms of direct questioning of ministers is

during Question Period. That lasts thirty minutes each day that the House is

open. As people who watch this program regularly are well aware, it is called

Question Period probably for a very good reason. That is because we ask the

questions in the Opposition but you do not get any answers. So it is not called

an answer period, it is just called Question Period.

Sometimes you do ask a question, in fairness to some government members, and

some members shoot straight. You ask a question; they have an answer, they give

it to you. Like the Minister of Finance, for example, he is not known for being

evasive usually. He was a bit evasive with the Leader of the NDP last week and

again today when it came to membership on the Atlantic Lottery Corporation. He

seemed to be very evasive last Thursday, but I guess he has his reasons for

that. She asked a very pointed question: Could you put somebody from the public

on there instead of your own hand designated people? Anyway, he seemed to be a

bit unequivocal, or equivocal I should say, about it last Thursday and today he

was a bit coy as well, but that is the process.

Of course, in Estimates like this, we get to ask a pointed question and the

public can judge for themselves whether the minister knew his stuff and whether

he was prepared to answer or was he fudging on his answer. It is quite true as

well that you cannot expect any human being to have every single answer to every

single question, particularly here. We are doing the Estimates today in the

House of Assembly, for Executive Council, the Legislature and the Consolidated

Revenue Fund, three particular parts of government. Of course, the Minister of

Finance is not sitting over there today with all of his officials seated around

him like they would be in a normal Estimates hearing. Now, he has them, as he

says, lined up. They are probably outside the door, outside the Chamber here or

on the Blackberries or whatever listening to us and they are prepared to get the

information to him as soon as they can.

Again, the process is a bit different than your normal speeches that you

would hear in the House of Assembly in the sense that the minister has made his

introductory remarks, I will have an opportunity to make some introductory

remarks and I will ask some very specific pointed questions. Of course, the

minister is listening and he and his staff have an opportunity to answer back.

It is sort of a give and take. We can speak after the initial fifteen minute

each. It is usually a ten minute-ten minute thing. I will ask a bunch of

questions, the minister has some time to think about it and then he will respond

to them accordingly. Of course there are always questions.

Government is a pretty big machine. It is a very big machine. Some people

might think - it is not like running your own household, for example, it is a

big, big house. There are a lot of bedrooms in it. There are a lot of different

rooms in it and somebody has to keep track of all of those rooms and who is

paying the bills. Pretty - use that analogy, but that is what it is like. It is

like a home, government is, but it is a much bigger home. How is the money

coming in? Who is spending it? Is it being spent wisely and at the end of the

day do you have either dollar left or is your credit card maxed out? That is

pretty well how it works. You pray that at the end of the month or at the end of

the year you have some money left in the bank. Well we know right now, today,

based upon this government's Budget that there is not going to be any money left

in the till at the end of this year. I believe the figure the government has

told us right upfront is something like $194 million that we are going to be

short. That is even based on all of their estimates. That is what a budget is by

they way, a budget cannot be an exact science, but they are estimating that come

the end of the year this home that we live in called Newfoundland and Labrador,

our bank account is going to be short about $194 million this year. Now, that is

not the total amount we owe. We have a pretty big mortgage on this house too,

massive, in the billions of dollars.

So some might ask you: Well, why are we not able to pay our bills at least on

an annual basis? This was a government that took over in 2003 and told us that

they were fiscally responsible, they were going to run a great shop, and we are

going to pay the bills and so on. So you might ask yourself: Well, that seems

contrary, how can you tell me on the one hand that at the end of the year I am

going to hold just on this year's Budget $194 million? Somebody might say: My

God, where is the money coming from and who is managing it?

We see one of the big things that the Minister of Finance had to do this year

because much of our revenue comes from the offshore and, by the way, this

government, for those out there, you might be fooled by the polls or whatever,

but this government had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the money

that comes into this Province today. Not a bit. The money that is coming into

this Province today from the offshore was developed years ago. Now, they might

make some money in the future when Hibernia South gets up and running, when

Hebron gets up and running. No question about it. We may well have some money

coming in from the offshore, that you can look at it and say: We put this money

in the coffers.

Of course, any of the ministers over there can get up and shout and scream

about the Atlantic Accord. We probably know that is where they are going to go

two favourite words on their lips these days for quite a while. Anyway, we are

sitting here the minister had to make a big decision: How much do we think we

are going to get for a barrel of oil? So he went off and he spoke to a bunch of

people who are supposed to have some pretty good information on the markets,

actuarial people in the markets who said: Well, we predict I think it is

$82.48 is the figure. Somewhere in that ballpark: $83, $84, $85. We will take a

round figure; we will say $84 and call it square. Based on us getting that for a

price of a barrel of oil, our minister says we are still at the end of the day

going to hold $194 million.

Some people would say that is not bad out of a, what, $8 billion bank book.

That is not too bad at all, especially when you are putting it in the right

places, by the way. Government members think that Opposition members are always

critical and never agree with anything government does. That is the usual words

that we hear. In fact, we hear more than that. I heard again today the Premier

slam the Leader of the Opposition because she did not have her flag on her back

unpatriotic today. She never came wrapped in her flag again today, so she got

a few punches from the Premier.

Anyway, I digress. Let's go back to the Budget. We know that we are into

tomorrow, I believe the first part of June. So this fiscal year, we have April

month gone, we have May month gone. Two months out of our twelve-month cycle in

this fiscal year, which ends next March 31, is gone.

I do not know if we have had a day since the first of April when the price of

a barrel of oil has been over $85. Not many, there has not been many. The price

of a barrel of oil has usually been down. Of course, there is more than the

price of a barrel of oil. It is also based upon the value of our Canadian dollar

because we get our oil paid for in American dollars, not in Canadian dollars. I

believe, as the minister said, for each $1 difference in the currency, if it is

up or down, we are somewhere in the vicinity of $26 million difference. That is

how much the value of the Canadian dollar can make to us in terms of our

Treasury. So as you see, it is a pretty nebulous science to try to decide what

we are going to get.

Now, we all hope - you hope that the price of a barrel of oil stays up so you

get your money in. Then on the other end, that causes some problems because if

the price of a barrel of oil goes up, of course, we cause a lot of people in

this Province some anguish; people who have to buy gas, people who have to heat

their homes, for example. That leads to increased prices in those areas. So it

is not all good. An increase in the price of a barrel of oil is great for the

Provincial Treasury but it impacts a lot of people's pocketbooks when it comes

to buying your utilities and paying for your utilities in the Province.

We are going to see, hopefully at the end of the year where it all pans out.

The minister usually gives us a mid-year review, some time around December

month. Hopefully the price of a barrel of oil will have stayed somewhat

reasonable, so that $194 million deficit does not go beyond what is expected.

For example, there are people out there in the market - some are predicting a

$50 barrel again before long. If that happens we are going to have a big, big

deficit come the end of this year. God forbid, if that does happen.

Included in the discussions here today, of course, is more than just

Executive Council. People want to know, who is Executive Council? What does that

mean? Well, of course, as part of the Executive Council we have the Premier's

Office. The total cost that we are talking about here today to run Executive

Council and the minister alluded to some of the pieces of Executive Council

already. The total cost this year, 2010-2011 Estimates, about $143 million to

run the whole show. Now, what are we getting for $143 million, you might ask? A

pretty logical question.

Well, let's start by saying some of the things that are inside of that

Executive Council framework. One thing inside of it is Government House. Yes,

that is the Lieutenant-Governor's place downtown. We are part of the British

Parliamentary system. We pay the shot. I am not sure, I think maybe the

Lieutenant-Governor's wages are actually paid by the federal government, I do

believe, but the actual maintenance and upkeep of the Government House

facilities are paid for and supported by the Province. There is a cost to that.

This year it is going to cost about $704,000 to run the Lieutenant-Governor's

place.

Now, over the years, of course, we have had some heated discussions in this

Chamber as to whether we in the Province should be paying that kind of money for

a Lieutenant-Governor. Personally, I happen to be in favour of it. I think it is

a great set up. I am an historical type person. I did my honours degree in

history, and love the set up. I think we should have it, and sometimes to be a

great country you have to pay for some of these things that are an essential

part of it. So, no problems here from this member as to what we are paying out

to sustain the Lieutenant Governor's residence in this Province.

The next piece of Executive Council would be the Premier's Office. It costs

$2 million a year to run the Premier's Office. Now, you might ask yourself: My

God, how many people does he have working up there? It is not a small job, by

the way. Big job. Lots of people want a piece of your time. You have to be

involved in overseeing, as we already said, eighteen departments. Even though

you have ministers who run the departments, of course, the Premier is ultimately

responsible. The buck stops there. So, that is just from the governmental point

of view, he has eighteen departments that he has to oversee. That says nothing

about the other things he has to be involved in. Discussions with other premiers

and governors, discussions with the federal government, it is public stuff that

he has to do. For example, out in the District for the Member for Lewisporte on

Friday past, I believe, opening a medical facility clinic. That type of thing.

So there is a whole pile of stuff that he has to do, and obviously one person

cannot do it. One person needs help to do it. The question always becomes, what

is a reasonable amount to give to a person to do it, and what functions do they

perform?

We have had Premiers in the past known to be pretty thrifty - watched the

dollars very, very carefully. I remember back in the early 1990s when former

Premier Wells took over. You want to talk about the knives out. The Minister of

Finance knows him. He worked with him as well. He knows what kind of character

he was. I articled with him, I know what kind of character he was. When he came

in here he took a pretty sharp knife to some of the departments and his own

particular office.

The Premier, of course, is involved in some major files. The Lower Churchill

file, for example, obviously the Minister of Natural Resources plays a big role

in that, as she should, and the Minister of Environment, but ultimately those

types of files, and people recognize - those types of files are so big that the

Premier's hands are all over them. No question about it. Like no decision is

ever going to get made by Nalcor and Mr. Martin, or by the Minister of Natural

Resources or the Minister of Environment, that concerns the Lower Churchill file

that the Premier is not going to know about and consent to. Absolutely not!

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very pleased to be able to stand today and to have input into the

discussion that we are having with regard to the expenditures of government.

Today, of course, we are particularly looking at the Executive Council of

government and the Consolidated Funds. It is an important task that we have here

in the House of Assembly because the amount of money that we are talking about

is quite substantial, and as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, it is

the money of the people of the Province. It is not the money of government, of

any one party, it is the money of the people of the Province and we all have a

responsibility to make sure that this money is spent carefully and spent well.

A large part of the money that is spent in this Province, of course, is

provincial money; money that comes from provincial taxation and provincial

revenue. As a matter of fact, in our Budget 74.8 per cent is from provincial

sources; 25.2 per cent are from federal sources, but federal money also is

public money and is money of the people. So the Budget is the people's money, as

the minister has pointed out, and we have a responsibility to look at it very

carefully.

When the general public hears about the Budget they receive these days, they

even get it in the mail, Highlights of the Budget and highlights of the

government spending and highlights of the revenues that come in. Through the

media they do hear the Budget being presented and they get the analysis of

various interest groups with regard to the Budget. Then, of course, here in the

House of Assembly, both in the House itself in general sitting as well as in

Estimates, the public gets further analysis of the Budget, but there is an awful

lot of detail in the Budget documents that, of course, the public does not get

at. They could; they are public documents. Anybody can go online, for example,

and they can bring up the Estimates document for 2010.

This is an extremely important document, because it is in this Estimates

document that we find all the details of spending. Whether it is the spending of

a department, whether it is the spending of the Premier's office, whether it is

the spending of the Cabinet Secretariat, no matter what the expenditure is, all

the detail is there.

I have to admit, though, Mr. Chair, that it is not easy to read these

documents, and I think for the general public it certainly would not be easy for

them to just take the documents and read them and understand them. Especially

when you go through the Consolidated Funds

section in the beginning of the

Estimates book, it is a lot of economic language, a lot of economic detail. Even

in our office, for example, we have to hire somebody with the knowledge of an

economist to work with us as we analyze. Just as the government has its own

economists who put these documents together, we all have to sit and analyze

these documents, and that is our responsibility.

Whether it is government being accountable for how it is spending the money,

or whether it is the Opposition here in the House, it is our responsibility to

speak to what we find in these documents and to ask questions of these

documents.

For example, this year - and this is a straightforward piece of information

that anybody can find when one looks at this year's Budget, the Budget for

2010-2011, what stands out in a major way is the fact that 34 per cent of all of

our revenue now comes from offshore revenues. Of our Budget of over $6 billion,

$2,128,400,000 comes from offshore revenues, or 34 per cent of all of our

revenue.

This has to stand out for us because the total revenue from the offshore is

even more than what our Budget use to be, say, ten years ago. I remember when we

even reached a billion dollar Budget here in the Province, as a lot of us would

remember. Now we are talking about a Budget that is well over $6 billion and it

is because of the offshore revenue. We are in a different age in this Province,

Mr. Chairman, when we have something like offshore revenue being such a major

part of the provincial revenue. So, when we talk about the provincial revenue

of our revenue being almost 75 per cent coming from the Province, a large part

of that is the royalties and the taxation that government gets from the

offshore.

Something else that stands out when one reads our documents and this is

information that you really have to look for and find; it is not information

that just has a flag on it - is the assets. Not that it is not public, it is.

One can find what the assets of our government are. Right now, this year, our

assets are $2.9 billion. Those assets: some of it is cash assets, some of it is

investments, some if it is capital assets, but our total assets are $2.9

billion. Of that $2.9 billion, $1.8 billion is in cash. Some of it, the majority

of it, is cash, $1.79 billion, and some of it is temporary assets, $0.61

billion, but we have $1.8 billion in assets that are accessible to government.

We have

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

So, what this government now has in hand this year is $1,798.4 billion in

cash on hand. That is from our Public Accounts document from March 2009. Now, we

need cash in hand, there is no doubt about that. Government says that this money

is being used to cover off or some of this money is being used to cover off -

both this year's and last year's deficits, and that is good.

So, while the balance, when you look at what our income this year is and what

our expenditure this year is, we do have a deficit forecast of $194.3 million.

We also have quite a bit of money available to take care of that deficit, if the

deficit remains at $194.3 million. Last year, for example, our deficit was

forecast what we ended up having to pay was less, but we had the cash assets

to pay.

So, in total, over last year and this year, in paying out the deficit, at the

moment it looks like $489.2 million would have to come out of our cash assets.

If that were to happen, it still means that at the end of this fiscal year we

would have $1,300.2 million in cash or billion, rather; the figures are

getting to me, Mr. Chair, they are so large - $1,300.2 billion in cash, even

after we take care of last year's deficit and this year's deficit, so we are in

a very good situation. We have never had this much money held in cash assets

before.

While it is good to have this much money in cash assets if one has to run

deficits - and I agree with the deficit that was run this year and last year. I

have not disagreed with that; I agree with it. From an economic perspective it

is a good thing to do, and we have the money to take care of those deficits out

there invested, and money that is available, readily available, to take care of

our deficit. At the same time, I do have a question for the Minister of Finance,

Mr. Chair, and that is with regard to the thinking of government of maintaining

such a large cash asset. Why? We have never had it this large before. In the

past it was usually around half a billion dollars, so what is the thinking of

the Minister of Finance in maintaining such a tremendous amount of money in cash

assets, especially when there are needs that could be taken care of? There are

programs that could be stronger programs. We have places where some of that

money could be used.

When the minister does respond to questions that is one of the things I would

like to know: the rationale of the Department of Finance around maintaining such

a huge cash asset, Mr. Chair.

I see that I have only nine seconds left, so I will not go into any more at

this moment.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP for their

comments and their questions.

The Opposition House Leader said that I was being coy with the Leader of the

NDP in responding to her question, which was a recommendation to appoint someone

to the board of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation that had experience in

addictions and was an expert in addictions. To answer that question in more

detail: the Atlantic Lottery Corporation is s separate corporation that is owned

by the four Atlantic Provinces: P.E.I, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are allowed to appoint two members to the

board of directors. We have recently appointed two. Mr. Terry Paddon, the Deputy

Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Finance is always on the board

representing the interests of the Province and the second person appointed is

Mr. Kevin Breen who, I understand, is a former councillor for the City of St.

John's. Mr. Breen is appointed for a term. So, we could not appoint anyone else

until the term is expired, and that there would be a vacancy on the board. The

Leader of the NDP has made a suggestion, a recommendation, which government will

certainly take under advisement, in terms of when the time comes to appoint a

member to represent the government on the board, as to whether it should be

someone with skills in, or a background in addiction, and it is a good

suggestion.

The Opposition House Leader talked about debt. He talked about all the debt

we had, and it is important to note that when the present government came into

office, under the present Premier, the debt we were facing was just under $12

billion. That is our net debt, $12 billion, and that net debt, under this

government, after four consecutive surpluses, was reduced to just under $8

billion. That is quite a drop. It is a $4 billion drop approximately. That is

outstanding. That is good news for the people of this Province because we are

spending less money now in interest on the debt and we going to spend that money

on more important things.

The House Leader also talked about we are running a deficit. We are running a

$194