Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 8 September 2009 (46th General Assembly, 2nd Session, Vol. XLVI No. 29)
2009-09-08
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
September 8,
2009 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 following members' statements will be heard: the
hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the
District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of
Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; and the
hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
Before I ask hon. members for their member's statements the House of Assembly
would like to welcome two new Pages, Mark McKelvie and Amanda Warr, both are
students at Memorial University. Mark is enrolled in the Bachelor of Arts
program and Amanda, the physical education program. I would like to take this
opportunity to welcome the two new Pages and ask all members to show (inaudible)
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the
4H movement in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the Summerside
Rockets 4H club.
Mr. Speaker, this club is the oldest in the Province and very successful as
result of the wonderful volunteer leaders within the club.
Mr. Speaker, on June 6 of this year, club members and leaders from all over
the Province travelled to St. John's to compete in the provincial competition
held at Memorial University.
Mr. Speaker, all members of the Summerside club who participated won their
competitions for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the winners are:
Wilfred Bellows, won the Single Junior Demonstration, Sonya Loder won the Single
Senior Demonstration, Melissa Taylor and Booke Otto competed and won the Double
Junior Demonstration, Abigail Blanchard won the Junior Public Speaking
competition, and Janelle McAuley won the Senior Public Speaking.
Mr. Speaker, I would like for all members here today to recognize the
accomplishments of these fine young people and thank the volunteers as they
continue to promote the 4H movement in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au
Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure to stand in this House today to congratulate a
magnificent young woman from Red Bay who has just recently been crowned the new
Ms Canada Galaxy.
Mr. Speaker, Sherrylynn Butt recently competed in Ottawa as Newfoundland and
Labrador's representative in the Canada Galaxy National Pageant and walked away
with the title. As winner of this competition, she will now go on to represent
Canada at the Galaxy International Pageant being held in Orlando, Florida in
Ms Butt is originally from Red Bay but now lives and works in St. John's as
the marketing and sales manager for Provincial Airlines. She is also a very
strong volunteer in the community. She has represented this Province as Miss
Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003, and won her first national title in 2006. Ms
Butt won over the judges with her personality and her confidence, which is a
major part of the competition. She will now carry on with the responsibilities
of being title holder and immerse herself in Galaxy's chosen charity, which is
the Sunshine Dreams for Kids. She also plans to continue her efforts in
promoting literacy.
I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ms
Sherrylynn Butt, who is a great ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a resident of Mount Pearl and a
constituent of mine, Ms Betty Osmond.
Betty attended and participated in the Canadian Council of the Blind Atlantic
Sports Weekend held in Bathurst, New Brunswick, in May of this Year. Betty, who
lost her eyesight in her late twenties as a result of a car crash, has never
allowed her disability to stop her from participating in life's activities.
Now a senior citizen, Betty, along with her teammates, achieved great success
at the Blind Atlantic Sports Weekend in Bathurst and brought home an impressive
eighteen medals quite an accomplishment. Betty is truly a great role model for
others.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating
Betty Osmond and all of her teammates for their recent achievements. I wish them
all the best in future competitions and hope that their great success continues.
Thank you.
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.
It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize three
young women from my district who received Fry Family Foundation scholarships for
2009. These young women have been involved in the Virginia Park Community Centre
for most of their lives, first through participation in the centre programs and
then as volunteers exhibiting initiative and leadership.
The mission of the Fry Family Foundation is to help in the education and the
development of students. The foundation also provides assistance to battered
women and children, and enhances the lives of senior citizens. The three young
women from the Virginia Park Community Centre have proved themselves in the
areas of concern of the Fry Family Foundation.
Tara Dillon received a $5,000 senior scholarship and plans to use the money
toward a psychology degree at Memorial University. Tara just finished Grade 12.
Melissa Hiscock, also finishing Grade 12, received a $5,000 senior
scholarship which she will use to pursue a nursing degree.
Natasha Gaulton received a $1,200 junior scholarship. She plans to pursue a
career working with children so she can, in her words, be the light in the face
of a child.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me today in
congratulating these three marvellous young women on their scholarships.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay
Verte-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of three
outstanding swimmers from the Springdale Bluefins Summer Swim Club, namely Emily
Edison, Brady Huxter, and Ben Melindy; and two outstanding swimmers from the
Baie Verte Dolphins Club, namely Molly Traverse and Hayley Shave.
On August 27, they captured the top achievement award in their respective age
divisions at the Provincial Summer Club Swim Meet Championships that was hosted
by the Town of Gander.
There was lots of excitement and nail biting races generated by the nine
registered teams, totalling 366 swimmers, creating lots of entertainment and
tense moments for frantic parents and grandparents.
Perseverance, tenacity, dedication and determination are all adjectives that
describe these top achievers. They, along with their parents, coaches, and towns
are to be commended for a job well done.
Hon. colleagues, please join with me in applauding the exceptional efforts of
our talented top achievers who splashed their way to the top at the 2009
provincial swim meet championships.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Southern Avalon Community
Youth Network on the outstanding summer program offered to youth in our area
this summer.
The program consisted of a daytime recreational program for youth ranging ten
to fourteen years of age, weekly special events that included bowling, swimming
and movie night just to name a few. They partnered with other community groups
to offer training for their summer staff, such as St. John Ambulance and
Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.
The program ended with a summer social which I had the pleasure of attending
on August 13 in Cape Broyle. The day's events included activities such as open
mic, a comedian from Yuk Yuks Canada, and members of the Celtic Connection
performing for all in attendance.
The Southern Avalon Community Youth Network has only been operational for two
years. They have made a tremendous contribution in enhancing youths'
opportunities for participation in social and interpersonal development in our
area. It is indeed an honour to have such an organization as part of the
District of Ferryland.
I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the
Southern Avalon Community Youth Network for their success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform people of the
tremendous progress made by our government as part of the Provincial
Infrastructure Strategy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: In February, I was pleased to join Premier Williams to
announce $800 million in strategic infrastructure investments in this fiscal
year alone. I am delighted to announce today that contracts valued at $600
million have already been awarded, and we expect to tender the balance of the
projects in the coming months. Our expenditure this year, coupled with the
contracts we will continue in the coming years, will see the total value of
infrastructure projects tendered this fiscal year at $1.6 billion.
We have never witnesses this magnitude of infrastructure spending in our
Province's history. In the education sector, we have made significant progress.
I am happy to say we have awarded tenders for the construction of nine new
schools
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: - and have awarded the tender for construction of a new
college campus in Labrador City.
In the transportation sector, I believe, Mr. Speaker, our progress speaks for
itself, and anyone who has taken a drive around our Province this summer would
have to agree. Virtually all the tenders for road projects have been awarded and
we are actually getting a jump on next season by calling tenders now for next
year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: However, Mr. Speaker, the highlight of our roadwork this year
has to be the start of hard-surfacing on Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Our second biggest achievement, Mr. Speaker, again in
Labrador, will come later this year when we complete Phase III of the
Trans-Labrador Highway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we promised a road link right across
Newfoundland and Labrador, and in November of this year, we will deliver it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: We have also made major strides in the health care sector.
The long-term care facility in Clarenville is complete and fully operational and
we expect -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I have not gotten that much applause since I gave up playing
hockey.
The long-term care facility in Clarenville is complete and fully operational
and we expect to call tenders for two new long-term care facilities to replace
Hoyles Escasoni, Mr. Speaker, in St. John's -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: - and a new hospital, the tenders for a new hospital in
Labrador City will be called before year's end.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: In Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, the long-term care facility is
nearing completion and we are continuing our aggressive planning for a new acute
care facility. We expect to make an announcement on a site for this new facility
in the coming weeks.
Another major project nearing completion is a new courthouse in Corner Brook,
and work is underway to expand the RNC complex in St. John's.
Throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, we are investing in various municipal
infrastructure projects to strengthen services for residents including water and
sewer projects and waste water management initiatives.
The projects I have outlined today are of course just the tip of the iceberg;
our government is proving time and time again that we are committed to
stimulating our economy, creating employment and rebuilding the critical
infrastructure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador depend on.
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 advanced copy of his statement and I hope
to say that it is a tremendous statement, no doubt about it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: But, Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments I do want to make
with regard to that and I have to go to his second paragraph where he said, "We
have never before witnessed this magnitude of infrastructure." True, Mr.
Speaker, never before have we witnessed the revenues coming into this Province
from natural resources, Voisey's Bay, and other projects that were started by
other Administrations. Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition want to
congratulate government and say
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition want to
congratulate government and wish them all the best with any ventures they want
to bring forward -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the
roadwork that is being done, and I congratulate you on that, but there is one
thing I do want to say after travelling across our Province, and I know some
work is being done with brush cutting, but there are areas right throughout this
Province where much more brush cutting has to be done because there are many
accidents that take place.
I was pleased with the announcement with regard to the long-term care
facilities and I am looking forward, and I see my hon. colleague from the
District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace smiling. Hopefully, the day will come when
we will be able to have an announcement on that new facility, minister.
Mr. Speaker, overall I have to say that the work that is being done is
wonderful, and with regard to the health care system, I just caution you that
with regard to the X-ray labs and so on, I know there is much gone into health
care but I just ask government that you would reconsider some of the decisions
that have been made recently.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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, and I, too, thank the
minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I would like to see some of the hammers in hands, though, that he has talked
about being used on our offices on the fifth floor. That would really make me
feel really happy, Mr. Minister.
We know this is an ongoing issue and I was not going to say that, but when I
stood up I thought that is what I have to say, because I sent the minister a
copy, or an e-mail, telling him how frustrated I am that we have been waiting
months and months and months for some new spaces so that I do not have to have
meetings out in the reception area of our office with my staff, because that is
all we have.
Having said that, I do congratulate you on getting some of these projects up
and going. Some of the tenders have been called, and we know that there is
somewhere work has not happened yet, and what I would like to know, Mr. Speaker,
from the minister, and at some point maybe he can provide this information, is
how many new jobs happened this summer because of the projects that he has
talked about, and how many new jobs do we expect for the other projects that are
still ongoing. One point six billion dollars should bring us an awful lot of
jobs, and I would love to have a report on that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to advise my colleagues that the Province's
highly successful resident tourism marketing campaign, For the Love of
Newfoundland and Labrador, has been extended into the fall, with all households
expected to receive the promotional brochure in their mailbox by the end of this
week.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, there was concern expressed in all Canadian
jurisdictions this year that the tourism industry would be hard hit by the
global recession, as economic uncertainty tends to impact negatively on people's
travel plans. I am therefore pleased to report that early indicators to the end
of July show that the Newfoundland and Labrador tourism industry is performing
very well this year.
In fact, as noted in a news release issued today by the Department of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation, overall visitation has increased slightly, by
almost 1 per cent over the same period last year. In addition, traffic at the
provincial visitor information centres is up 9 per cent. Non-resident traffic on
Marine Atlantic is up 4.4 per cent, and occupancy at roofed accommodations is up
one percentage point.
Mr. Speaker, we are determined to keep this momentum going. Tourism operators
tell us that our early decision to bolster this year's summer resident campaign
has been beneficial to them, and when the first fall campaign literature started
flowing to households last week we received an e-mail from one participating bed
and breakfast operator who said he received eleven bookings within just one day.
That kind of response is, of course, music to our ears.
Over the past several years we have made a concerted effort, in co-operation
with Tourism Industry Association and Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, to
extend our tourism season beyond the traditional peak summer months. We have
increased our marketing budget to $13 million annually, and also invested in
product development, training initiatives and marketing partnerships
specifically designed to allow the Province and individual tourism operators to
take best advantage of our year-round tourism potential.
This year's resident campaign has clearly struck a cord, and I believe
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are becoming increasingly aware that some of
the best vacation opportunities in the world are indeed right here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the House to encourage our residents to
continue to support our tourism industry by thinking about taking a fall getaway
to a place they have never been, or to a favourite spot they would like to
revisit.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is great, of
course, whenever we see higher numbers in our tourism industry, because not only
do these people come here but they spend money and if they are within the
Province then they move around. Whether it is a B and B operator or a restaurant
operator, it all means money for the economy and it means, of course, that
people get employed in the course of providing those goods and services.
We surely did not feel too optimistic back last Christmas when we knew the
economic turmoil that took place, and the fact that it might negatively impact
not only our tourism industry, of course, but a lot of different industries.
Fortunately, that does not seem to have been the case and it is great to see
that even under those straining circumstances we still have increases taking
place.
Now, there are still a couple of issues that we have had in the tourism
industry despite the numbers. It is great to see, of course, that the government
has backed off on its Gros Morne piece, which is a crown jewel in our tourism
industry, I think, and not to have the transmission line there.
We still have some issues with our gravel pit campers and so on, that
probably was not handled properly and could have been handled differently. We
still have some issues with our signage problems. Some people felt that the
communication of that issue was not sufficient and it is not the best way to go.
Personally, I think it is. I have no problem with it, but some people do not
feel the same way.
Of course, probably the most troublesome issue in the tourism industry this
year was the Marine Atlantic ferry service. Having lived in, and live in that
town, of course, Port aux Basques, which is one of the main terminals
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Having lived there and experienced every day the people who feel those
frustrations, the truckers and the tourists who come here, and want to come
here, and cannot get here, and want to get off and cannot get there, they have
obviously had some major problems with the Vision . Hopefully those
problems will be rectified.
Aside from the infrastructure which we know is falling apart terribly at
Marine Atlantic, there are service issues which I feel could be addressed which
probably have not been given a high priority. So hopefully with those
improvements in Marine Atlantic as well we can look forward to even higher
numbers later and we look forward to seeing the official numbers once they are
due.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I, too, thank the
minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I am very pleased also to see the increased numbers, both in terms of our own
people in our Province and those coming from outside.
I would like to relay just a little experience I had this weekend, not by
anyway a criticism whatsoever but to point out something else that we need to
deal with. I did some of my own local tourism this year and finally went to the
Beothuk
Interpretation Centre in Boyd's Cove. I have been trying to get there
ever since it opened and I cannot tell you what a wonderful time I had Sunday
afternoon. The centre itself, this wonder provincial historic site, and the
beauty of this site, everything about it was a wonderful experience.
Yesterday, when I was sharing that with some people - a number of people,
actually - in Central Newfoundland, I was shocked that every single person I
spoke to - it does not mean every single person there - but everyone I spoke to
said to me they did not know about the site; they did not know about the centre.
They certainly knew about the centre in Grand Falls, but they did not know about
the one in Boyd's Cove.
Mr. Speaker, the minister says in the end that he invites all members of the
House to encourage our residents to continue to support our tourism industry by
thinking about taking a fall getaway. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what the
department has done with regard to the particular site I am talking about, but
highlighting our provincial historic sites and doing this kind of encouragement
would be something I would encourage the minister to look further at in the
ministry.
Thank you, 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.
Of course, today we are debating a bill that is relative to the Lower
Churchill Project and I just have a couple of questions for the Premier, to
start.
Government's latest shift in position on the Lower Churchill has been to
announce that Gros Morne is officially off the table as a transmission route,
and this was after the Premier and his government had adamantly defended this
route as being $100 million cheaper, money that they would have rather seen
invested in health care, I think were the comments that were made, but them a
few days ago the government said: We are just kidding.
Mr. Speaker, kidding about causing permanent damage to a UNESCO World
Heritage Site was an unbelievable statement for me to hear, but my question to
the Premier today is: How serious are you about a north-south grid of power for
the Lower Churchill Project, or is that just another joke that is being proposed
by the government?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The first thing you should do is lighten up. You must
have had a bad summer; there must be something going on. I saw you yawning over
there a minute ago when the House Leader there was speaking. Anyway, that was a
very light comment that was made in the course of a speech. It was said
jokingly, and it was received that way, and I would say it again.
From our perspective, we are very serious about the Churchill. We are not
going to go through the process that the Grimes' government went through, and
had it all signed, sealed and delivered, and were giving it all off to Quebec,
and Quebec were going to market it and they were going to build it and they were
going to sell it and they were going to construct it, and we are going to give
it away - another big giveaway of the Lower Churchill. We are not going to do
that.
We are very serious about what we are doing. We have put a lot of time, we
have put a lot of money, we have put a lot of hard work, and we have put a lot
of effort into this. We have the best people, the best experts that money can
buy. We have the best people in the Department of Natural Resources, we have the
very best people at Nalcor Energy, and we are going to do it right.
When we do it, we are not going to give it away to Quebec, and if it means we
are going north-south and we can avoid Quebec, we will, because they are trying
to skin us again. They are buying power from us, from the Upper Churchill, at
twenty-five cents, and they are selling it for over $9, thirty-six times what
they are paying for it from us. It is disgraceful, and we are not going to let
them get away with it, so we are serious.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Reports today indicate that New Brunswick is refusing to consider a plan from
Prince Edward Island to transmit power from P.E.I. wind projects through New
Brunswick into New England states. Their reason is insufficient line capacity.
So, given that any overland route to New England has to pass through New
Brunswick, what plans does your government have in place with the Province of
New Brunswick to wheel power from the Lower Churchill Project north to south
through their province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained in this House before, and we have explained
publicly a number of times, there is, because of Quebec's commercial
arrangements in the United States, a process now under their FERC regulations
called Open Access Transmission Tariff. Basically what that says, Mr. Speaker,
is anybody who wheels power through states in the United States has to have
reciprocity and allow states or other provinces to wheel power through their
states or provinces.
Mr. Speaker, under that OATT process we have made two applications into
Quebec to wheel power through Quebec, and one application through New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, the Rgie will hear the application; they will find if there is
room to wheel power through New Brunswick. If there is not sufficient room at
this time and we are not able to come to an agreement with people who hold
capacity then they will tell us what construction needs to happen to allow the
power being used in that province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister should know that the report released today in New Brunswick
outlined that a year ago New Brunswick's utility tendered out some of its
transmission capacity for use by other jurisdictions but all of the excess was
bought up by Quebec. Prince Edward Island did not bid during that process, and
today they are left out in the cold.
I ask the minister: Did Nalcor participate in this tendering process and, if
so, did they secure any transmission capacity at that time?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have an old application in through New Brunswick; we have had
it in some time. Where you are in the process depends on when you apply, because
it is first-come, first-served.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Rgie looks at our application they will look at
the capacity on their line through New Brunswick; they will see if that capacity
can be reconfigured to allow Newfoundland and Labrador access to go through.
Newfoundland and Labrador can apply to New Brunswick Power or Hydro-Quebec
who now hold the extra capacity on that line and we may come to an agreement
where they may let us use up some of that capacity, or the Rgie will tell us
what kind of infrastructure is required to have new capacity through New
Brunswick and we will work that process through with New Brunswick or with other
utilities, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question to the minister is: A year ago, when the utility company in New
Brunswick offered up the power capacity on the line, did Nalcor Energy tender in
that process at that time? If they did not, I would like to know the reason for
that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy
Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I will go back and check the exact time that we made application
under the OATT
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS DUNDERDALE: That is the only process that is available to us, I advise
the Leader of the Opposition, and you really ought to make yourself more
familiar with the regulations.
Mr. Speaker, it is on a first-come, first-served basis; so, once you make the
application, whatever capacity is available you have first dibs on that
capacity. Our application was made some time ago, Mr. Speaker. It obviously was
made after New Brunswick and Hydro-Quebec made their application. It is now
being looked at. If the capacity can be found on existing lines it will be
awarded to Newfoundland and Labrador. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, new infrastructure
will have to be constructed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week government announced that they would remove lab and X-ray services
from health facilities in Lewisporte and Flower's Cove, and Mr. Speaker,
hopefully they were just kidding when they made that announcement, but we will
find out I guess. But this will certainly negatively impact the services to
thousands of people in dozens of communities in these regions of rural
Newfoundland.
I ask the minister today: Why is government attacking basic front-line
medical services in these rural communities that some have had the ability to
enjoy for nearly fifty years?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we put this whole thing into context here.
The fact of the matter is, is that this government is investing unprecedented
amounts of money in health care in this Province, certainly in the Lewisporte
area. When we look at all the services that are provided throughout this
Province we have to look at sometimes streamlining services that we may provide,
and that is exactly what we did here in Lewisporte. We looked at it in
Lewisporte, we looked at it in Flower's Cove, and we understood that we need to
be able to make advances in promoting and providing services, for instance, to
seniors in Lewisporte.
We were given a task by Central Health in saying we want to see a priority of
building a new long-term care facility in Lewisporte, for instance. As a
government we listened to that, but again, we have to look at ways to streamline
the system in order to be able to provide funding for these type of things, and
to provide quality service to people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the rationale I am hearing from
the government when you say to people, because we give you infrastructure in
your community it entitles us to take something away. It is an absolutely
ridiculous statement!
Mr. Speaker, I listened to a CBC interview that the minister did last week
when he stated: I have no idea if there is any money savings or not, I have no
idea. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled that a minister would announce such a
significant closure of medical services without completing the due diligence of
looking at the cost measures.
I ask the minister today: Have you looked at cost at all in this case, and if
so, what are the savings to government on closing services like X-ray and labs
in rural areas of this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, is when I was asked the
question I certainly did not know what savings there were involved. This is not
only about saving money, Mr. Speaker. This is about streamlining a system to
make a system work better for people. Just because a service is actually in your
small community does not mean it is the best service that we can provide as a
Province. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we were not looking at exactly how much
money we were going to save. However, I can tell you that the program in
Lewisporte, for instance, costs about $400,000 a year to keep lab and X-ray in
that particular community. We look at that, Mr. Speaker, and we decide, can we
go ahead and provide a service as good or better by removing that particular
service? And not only removing it put it in a different location, centralizing
that particular service. We feel very, very comfortable with what we are doing
and it is a final decision. It is the right decision for the people of the area.
It is the right decision for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, two weeks before this announcement was made the
Minister of Health was in Lewisporte and met with the local health care
committee and toured the local health facilities. At that time residents there
told me he was encouraging them to continue to lobby for improved X-ray and
laboratory services.
I ask the minister today: Were you aware when you visited Lewisporte two
weeks ago that this announcement was coming, and if so, did you hide the
information from the people in that area? And if you did not know, why didn't
you know as the minister two weeks before a major service was being closed in
this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I do not know - you know, I do not really know how
the Opposition operated because I was not around when they were government you
know, and we do not hide things in this government. You know, we are upfront
with what we do. We could have decided to leave the announcement on laboratory
and X-ray and waited until we built the new facility and then we would go out
and tell everybody that we are not doing it now.
I met with the people in Lewisporte back two, three, four weeks ago whenever
it was, and we were very clear with them. This particular facility would not
include X-ray and laboratory services in the new building that we are building,
just as simple as that. It was just as clear as that and that is exactly what I
delivered to the people.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Officials from Central Health have stated that they had no role in the
decision. They only found out a couple of hours before it was actually announced
and it came as a complete shock. Local doctors in both Lewisporte and Flower's
Cove believe this is downgrading patient services and patients' health will be
negatively affected. In fact, I heard a doctor from Flower's Cove on the radio
state that lives will be lost as a result of this decision.
So I ask the minister: Why did you refuse to consult with professionals
within the health boards and why did you not accept advice from professional
doctors who are working in those communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where the
Opposition is obviously not listening to what is being said by Central Health.
Central Health was very, very clear. Karen McGrath, the CEO of Central Health,
was very, very clear when she said we were a part of this whole discussion. We
have always been a part of this discussion. We understood exactly what
government was looking at doing here. We understood that there had to be some
decisions made. In fact, Central Health, Mr. Speaker, were the people who came
to us. They came to us and asked us if we would consider doing this piece of
work to be able to continue on and, for one thing, create a cost savings, and
number two, to be able to provide quality service to the people of Lewisporte
and area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister also hinted in the media that Lewisporte and Flower's Cove will
not be the only areas that are affected by this
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS JONES: Why don't you go meet with your constituents in Flower's Cove
and explain to them why you are closing their service as opposed to shouting at
me across the House of Assembly?
Mr. Speaker, when the minister was discussing it in the media he said that
there may be more to come, and I ask the minister today: What other areas of the
Province are slated for closure and when will those communities be notified?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, we were very upfront in telling people that we are
now doing an assessment of all X-ray and labs throughout the Province. As we
know, the Cameron report was very, very clear in its recommendations that we had
to look at laboratory services. I can tell you now that we are assessing every
particular site in Newfoundland and Labrador. The assessment is not complete yet
but when it is complete we will certainly be back, and we will certainly be
making announcements as they become available.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In 2007, during the last Voisey's Bay strike, I questioned the government on
their plans to bring forward anti-replacement worker legislation in the
Province. The minister at that time and his colleague, the Minister of Labrador
Affairs, indicated that this was a priority for their government and a review
was taking place. It is two years later, we have another strike related to the
Voisey's Bay mine that is currently taking place and we have not seen any
anti-replacement worker legislation.
So, I ask the minister today: What is the status of this legislation and when
will workers in the Province see some kind of a bill being presented to the
House of Assembly?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to be clear, business, labour and government committed to reviewing that
particular legislation, and I should point out that that particular review is
underway. What we are trying to do is to try to find ways to modernize all
labour legislation. The review is ongoing. When the review by all three parties,
business, labour and government, is completed we will bring forward the
appropriate legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is easy for the minister to say that, but today while striking workers are
on the picket line replacement workers are being flown in to take their jobs.
Two years ago your government announced that they would do this, and I ask you
today, minister: How much longer is it going to take, and when will we see some
action from your government on this legislation?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I point out once again, that that process is underway, Mr. Speaker. It is
a piece of work that we have picked up that we said we will review. We are
reviewing however, in consultation and in partnership. This is a tripartite
procedure that is happening between or among business, labour and government.
All partners here are working diligently toward this end.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The deadline for registering home heating fuel tanks was reached on July 31,
2009, meaning that it is now illegal for oil to be delivered to any unregistered
oil tanks in the Province. We have received numerous calls and inquiries from
seniors, low-income earners, people with disabilities, and social assistance
recipients who require oil tank replacements in order to maintain a heat source.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BUTLER: I ask the minister responsible, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm
that there are close to 5,000 families in Newfoundland and Labrador that are
unable to meet the regulations due to financial barriers, and I ask what action
has been taken on their behalf?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, about 50,000 out of 60,000 people have had their tanks
registered. As the hon. member opposite mentioned, the deadline was July 31,
2009. That was after several extensions within seven years. As the minister
would know, the environmental cost of not registering your tank is far greater
than the cost of doing so. The cost to your own property, your neighbour's
property and to the environment can sometimes lead up to $250,000 we have seen,
to clean up these. I am sure the hon. member will agree, because it was his
government in 2002 that brought in these regulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the minister again because
she failed to answer my question.
Since this issue has resolved, I have been dealing with officials with
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing who have confirmed that there are 5,000 people
that they deal with or HRL&E deals with, who are unable to look after this
expense. I have been in touch with officials, and I also spoke with the Minister
of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and they have confirmed with me that
various provincial agencies are looking at alternate considerations and it could
take up as high as two months. People have concerns knowing that the winter
months are upon us.
I ask again: What has been done, and when will we hear some word on what
those various agencies are planning?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member heard me
correctly but I did say 50,000 out of 60,000 have registered. So, if you
subtract from that, there is 10,000 left. At the time when the government
opposite brought in the regulations they also brought in a $300 rebate at that
time, and while that does not sit with my department, I am sure the Minister
Responsible for Finance can very eloquently speak to that; that $300 rebate
remains in effect today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will let it go for now but the
question has still not been answered. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I have been
in touch with officials with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I have also had
correspondence with the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, I
have her e-mail here.
So, I will go to my second question. Mr. Speaker, oil companies -
AN HON. MEMBER: Third.
MR. BUTLER: Third, I am sorry.
Oil companies and licensed inspectors have been backlogged with requests from
homeowners who have the ability to pay for inspections on their unregistered oil
tanks for some time. The Minister of Environment is allowing homeowners leave to
receive oil deliveries while they wait but we also know that there are communities
in rural areas of this Province, such as the North Coast of Labrador, who have
yet to receive inspections.
I am asking, what assistance is your department offering oil companies and
licensed inspectors in meeting their urgent demand for fuel tank replacements in
areas such as the remote areas of Northern Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we did hear from the industry that there was a
capacity issue out there, and that is why we extended. We had said that anybody
who has an arrangement in place with the oil companies can continue to receive
oil until March of 2010.
In terms of Labrador and various parts throughout Labrador, the member from
that area has met with me. We have discussed this with the Nunatsiavut
government. They have gone forward and hired somebody to come in and inspect the
oil tanks there, and that is moving forward and they have until 2010 to do it,
but I cannot emphasize enough that this has been seven years now. You know, I
agree with the move that you took back in 2002 to bring these regulations into
effect because the year before that there were over 600 oil spills. We are down
to twenty-nine in recent years. So it was a good move and we are following
through.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: A final question, Mr. Speaker, is for the minister. She has
stated that her department has made an arrangement with the oil companies to
allow them to deliver oil to households waiting for inspections and we applaud
that because those people were placed in a very awkward position. However, some
of those people are calling now and asking: Can you check with the department or
with the Minister of Environment, in the event of a spill from my unregistered
tank while I am waiting, who is responsible? Will the department bear the
financial cost, or the oil company?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any responsible homeowner would certainly have an insurance policy in place,
I would expect. If there is a tank that an oil company sees it is not fit to
deliver, they will not deliver, and that is the practice that they have been
following for years and years. If a tank is not suitable for delivery, then they
will not do it, as part of their due diligence, anyway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.
Mr. Speaker, over the past week, residents of Stephenville have been reeling
over news that the Stephenville Airport Corporation has reached a breaking point
in its capacity to pay their employees and the Canada Revenue Agency. There was,
as we were aware earlier, funding available through the Building Canada Fund
that saw $3 million invested into the Deer Lake Airport, I believe, along with
$3 million from the Province.
I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Has your department
identified the Stephenville Airport as a priority, and is there any application
pending for financial assistance with the federal Department of Transportation
under the Building Canada Fund that might be able to assist Stephenville?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, we have provided funding and the feds
will cost-share funding for infrastructure improvements at Deer Lake Airport.
I did have a teleconference with people in Stephenville back I guess it was
back in May, if my memory serves me correctly. They inquired, at that time, as
to whether or not we would entertain a proposal from them, as we were as well
inquired of by the people in Goose Bay. We told them that anybody who wanted to
put forward a proposal, we would entertain it; we would provide the appropriate
level of analysis, do our due diligence, and if it made sense we would go
forward to the federal government.
As of today, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that there has been any application
made by the Stephenville Airport Corporation to our department or the feds for
any support when it comes to infrastructure improvements in Stephenville.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the Town of Stephenville, within the last few days actually, has
committed to giving the Airport Corporation $200,000 to keep the operation open.
We also know that this is only a temporary band-aid solution.
I ask the minister: Is the Province prepared to invest in the Stephenville
Airport, with or without federal assistance, given the precarious situation that
they are now in?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the government has invested in the Stephenville Airport
Corporation. We have done it now for a number of years. There is an operating
line of credit, for instance, that the government has guaranteed for the
corporation. We have also given some money to them so they can do some business
planning. We have also provided some funds for them so that they can do some
short-term planning that they are currently involved in.
In direct response to the member's question, if the Stephenville Airport
Corporation has any needs, they have, in the past, approached government; we
have been able to satisfy them, we have been able to work with them, and I would
assume we will continue to do that in the future.
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, in spite of all the expertise that government has had working
for years in Nalcor and in the Department of Natural Resources, we are here now
in a special session of the House to enshrine in legislation the correct
definition of the Lower Churchill River in what is, without doubt, a very
important piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he could tell the House how it came to be
that the Lower Churchill River definition was not properly worded in legislation
in the first place.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we know, certainly in terms of legislation, that you try to be
as careful as you can as you construct the legislation so it expresses clearly
what you mean; but, Mr. Speaker, when lawyers go at it - and will all due
respect to lawyers - there can be different
interpretations of what the
legislation actually says.
We are very comfortable with the legislation, Mr. Speaker, but the lawyers
for CF(L)Co feel there is some ambiguity around the
definitions. Rather than
argue the point, Mr. Speaker, or to add to any kind of confusion, we decided
that the right thing to do was to come into the House of Assembly, address the
ambiguity so it is absolutely clear what it is we are talking about, so Nalcor
can get on with the work of developing the Lower Churchill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I probably agree with the minister a bit on what she is saying about lawyers,
but maybe if they had a GPS in their hands at the time they may have gotten
co-ordinates straight, because that seems to be what is clearing up the
ambiguity.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of this poorly worded legislation that
has led to confusion between Nalcor and one of its subsidiaries.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this situation, in one way,
because it brings to light the negations that are going on between these two
bodies, Nalcor and CF(L)Co, and highlights the fact that the water rights of
this Province are not sacred, and we have known that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is it the intention of government to allow
Nalcor to give away, in the future, more of the Province's water rights?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we had a situation when we came to government
that the Province was not the steward of our water resources here in the
Province. We brought legislation here under the Water Rights Act to ensure that
the Newfoundland and Labrador government held true responsibility for all the
resources of this Province, Mr. Speaker, including our water, which is extremely
important to us.
Mr. Speaker, when we brought in legislation setting up our energy company, we
put into effect in that legislation the governance of that company and under
what circumstances they could in terms of their assets, what they could do
with those assets. Nothing can be divested from Nalcor unless it comes back to
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
We had a great debate about this in this House, Mr. Speaker. We abandoned the
rules for a week so that everybody's questions could be totally satisfied, Mr.
Speaker, and they could have a comfort level as we move forward with the
establishment of this company.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, following up, then, on what the minister has said, what is this
government going to do to ensure that, having given that right to Nalcor, that
any government coming after is going to have the right intention to say no to
Nalcor doing something which would be giving over water rights?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is refer the Leader of the NDP
not only to the legislation governing Nalcor itself but also in terms of the
legislation governing water rights in this Province, and the body that will have
the ultimate authority with regard to water rights in this Province, Mr.
Speaker, is the PUB.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.
MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador
Water Rights Act. (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to
introduce the following resolution:
WHEREAS subsection 8(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act authorizes the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council to suspend the Child and Youth Advocate; and
WHEREAS following correspondence sent to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council
by the Speaker of this House dated August 17, 2009 expressing concern about the
operation of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council suspended the Child and Youth Advocate; and
WHEREAS subsection 8(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act states that a
suspension "shall not continue in force beyond the end of the next ensuing
session of the House of Assembly"; and.
WHEREAS in correspondence to the Clerk of the Executive Council dated
September 4, 2009 the legal counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate has stated
that the advocate requires additional time in which to prepare a response; and
WHEREAS it is proposed that the Child and Youth Advocate be given the time
she has requested for the preparation of a response;
NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly, under the authority
granted by
section 7 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, concur in the
continuation of the suspension of the Child and Youth Advocate by the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council until the next ensuing session of this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker:
WHEREAS government announced on August 31, 2009
that X-ray and laboratory services in Lewisporte and Flower's Cove will be
discontinued and that Flower's Cove will operate on a twelve-hour basis; and
WHEREAS residents of these communities and surrounding areas will be forced
to travel much further distances to receive these basic health care services;
and
WHEREAS on September 3, 2009, hundreds of residents from both communities and
regions protested against this decision by government to discontinue services;
and
WHEREAS doctors have publicly stated their fears for the health of residents
will be compromised and that doctors will be forced to leave these areas; and
WHEREAS discontinuing these services will not improve health service to these
communities directly affected nor to the surrounding region;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to
reverse their decision and continue X-ray and laboratory services in the
communities of Lewisporte and Flower's Cove; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to
reverse their decision and keep Flower's Cove as a twenty-four-hour operational
clinic.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity again to make the government aware, of course, of
the need for dialysis services in Port aux Basques and region. As I have
indicated in my previous fifty-two petitions in this House this year we have a
serious situation where, at any given time, ten to fifteen people from Rose
Blanche, La Poile, Grand Bruit, up to the Codroy Valley and so on, need and use,
on a regular basis, dialysis services. In order to get those services, they
currently have to travel three hours at a minimum. They either have to go to
Stephenville or they have to go to Corner Brook.
That is a pretty costly event, in and of itself, the transportation cost
alone, to say nothing of the emotional and physical toll that it takes upon the
people who need the service, particularly those - and most of these people who
use these services get it three times a week. Three days of their lives are
spent in a taxicab or a vehicle to travel into Corner Brook to get hooked to the
machine and then travel back again.
Now, we have seen some improvements over the years. We have some dialysis
services now in St. Anthony. We have some done in Grand Bank. Of course,
everybody knows that you cannot do everything at one time, but we have been
quite some time now waiting. This issue has been brought to government; we have
had successive ministers. I have not had an opportunity yet to meet with the
current Minister of Health, in his new position, but I will. I did meet with the
former one, and albeit they paid lip service, that was about it. They paid lip
service. There was no indication that it was going to be dealt with and so on,
but hopefully, with the new minister, if I can get his ear sometime, hopefully
we can see something done in next year's budget to address this issue so that
the people out there do not have to be disadvantaged to the extent that they are
at the present time.
We have had the Premier, for example, and others, talking about how you try
to make people's lives safer, for example. This is an example where people are
improperly, unjustly, putting themselves through terrible anguish in order to
access this service.
Now we see, of course, government is cutting back on some services, trying to
streamline them, they claim, and X-rays and so on, and laboratory services.
Unfortunately, for these people who are hooked to dialysis machines it is not
that simple. So if there are going to be savings, if there are going to be
priorities as to what can be done to assist people, surely the ten or twelve
people who live in the southwest corner of this Province deserve the same
treatment, the same respect, and the same facilities that everybody else in this
Province have. You do not need and you should not discriminate against these
people. The need is there, the need has been justified, and I suggest we are in
a better time than we have ever been financially to be able to do this.
It is one thing to have physical infrastructure being built, which we see a
lot of, and it has been acknowledged here today by the Minister of
Transportation, for example, great to see those things, but I think even more
importantly than that we have to make people be as comfortable and secure as
they can when it comes to getting their treatment. It is no good to have a big,
fancy building that is full of equipment if somebody has to travel through, and
I would say torturous winds like the Wreckhouse three times a week to get
dialysis. It is just unacceptable. They are being treated as second-class
citizens and they deserve better treatment.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition on behalf of people in the Lewisporte
area who have been campaigning and lobbying government to ensure that they do
not have a cut in their X-ray and laboratory services and facilities in that
particular region.
Mr. Speaker, these petitions are signed by hundreds of people in that region
and I am assured that there are thousands of people that are signing petitions
that I am sure will be sent along later. So you can look forward to a long fall
of these petitions, unless government is only just kidding and decides to not
cut the services in these particular areas.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is dealing with Lewisporte, but really it is no
different than Flower's Cove. These decisions, Mr. Speaker, to cut services in
health care is always usually dependent upon providing a better service for
people in a region or it is done as a means of saving money for government.
When I listened to the Minister of Health in his comments on the radio I was
absolutely astounded to learn that in making this decision and hastily running
out and communicating it to the public, he did not even do diligence in looking
at whether this was a cost relative issue or not, whether it was going to cost
government more money or the consumer more money, meaning the patient, or if it
was going to actually save money. To me, Mr. Speaker, that was unbelievable
because you would think that any minister making a decision to cut services like
this would, first of all, look at all the facet of the decision that they are
going to make, and it is quite obvious that he failed to do that in this case.
Mr. Speaker, this is really an attack on primary health care in rural
regions. You can colour it up anyway that you want, Mr. Speaker, but that is
exactly what it is. Am I standing here today saying that government should put a
laboratory and an X-ray in every single clinical operation in the Province? That
is not what I am saying, but I am not saying that you should be cutting services
in areas where they have been provided and have worked for fifty years to people
in this Province. It is an unacceptable decision for government to make,
especially at a time when they can financially afford to maintain services like
this to people in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, why would they do this?
I remember back in 2007 this same government went into Robert's Arm, in Green
Bay, and they were going to close down the local clinic that was there, the
medical clinic. At the time, the people really got out, they lobbied against it
and at the end of the day government reversed its decision. That was an attack
again on rural health care. If the people in that area did not get out and fight
that decision, I am sure we would have seen more of it happening.
So what I would say to people in the Province, it might be the region of
Lewisporte petitioning government today but if you have those services and you
live in a rural area in this Province, that you should be out there fighting to
defend and support the services that they get because you could be next.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure today to be able to stand and present a petition on behalf
of the tenants of MacLeod Place, here in the City of St. John's. Seeing this is
the first petition, I will read the prayer of the petition:
WHEREAS housing is a basic human right to which every person, regardless of
income or circumstances, is entitled; and
WHEREAS repairs are necessary from time to time to maintain housing
accommodations for continuous and safe occupancy; and
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation rents and manages
housing accommodations located at MacLeod Place, in the City of St. John's; and
WHERESAS the persons residing at the aforementioned housing accommodations,
including seniors and others on fixed income, are not in the position of being
able to reasonably afford the cost of maintaining their accommodations;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to take whatever actions are necessary to immediately address
the issue of the maintenance of housing accommodations located at this
particular address.
Mr. Speaker, like I said, this is a petition that has been brought forward,
and I know for a fact that those residents have been in contact with their MHA,
they have been in contact with the minister responsible, also with officials at
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I know they were promised that an engineering
technician would drop by to visit the property and it is my understanding that
has been done Friday past.
The concern that they have is that this has taken place before and people
have come by and taken pictures but nothing after that has happened, and what
work has been done is not to a standard that they believe that it should be once
you are spending taxpayers' money to upgrade those facilities.
The main concerns they have there are safety issues, Mr. Speaker. They
believe that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is responsible and not their
responsibility. In their petition and the information received, they mentioned
numerous items that they feel should be taken care of with regard to the steps
to the units. Apparently, the gentleman who goes around delivering the mail has
been injured and said that he would not be delivering mail. The eavestroughs are
dropping off the houses. They found mould in their bathrooms and bedrooms, and
Newfoundland Power even has advised them that meters have to be replaced because
there is a strong possibility that there may be fire in the panel boxes.
They understand, Mr. Speaker. Those people understand fully that Newfoundland
and Labrador Housing has some 43,000 units that has to be done, but they believe
that the work, when it is to be done, should be done up to a standard that those
issues that they are presenting today should not be a concern.
We know today there was an announcement made with regard to Greenwood
Crescent with regard to repairs, and that's wonderful, which comes under the
$14.5 million fund, Building on Our Strong Foundation. So we are just calling on
behalf of those residents, calling upon government, hopefully that funds can be
made available where they can see that the work, the safety issues that they
bring forward, can be addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to once again deliver a petition on behalf of the
people of Ramea, Franois and Grey River, with respect to the provision of
medical services to those communities. I have given dozens of these petitions in
this House, and now, of course, we are months removed from the last time I had
an opportunity to do that, but the circumstances, they have changed somewhat.
The petition is still relevant. We did, of course, always have, or supposed to
have two nurse practitioners in the Town of Ramea which services that area. We
have always been short one. The most we ever were successful in having was one
nurse practitioner. Lo and behold, that person, that individual has given notice
that effective September 14 she is leaving. In fact, she submitted her
resignation to Western Health and moved on. So we are left now with absolutely,
or were left up until this Friday, I understand, with no nurse practitioners
here whatsoever.
Now, thank you to the people of Western Health who deal with this. They have
been fortunate, so far, as a temporary remedy, to contract two nurses who would
service the area on a temporary basis, two weeks on and two weeks off. I think
they have a commitment from one nurse but they are still waiting to confirm the
availability of the second person, but again, it is temporary. It is not
permanent and it does not give the necessary stability that a person needs,
because when this individual goes there to work now, he or she, they are on call
24-7. For the two-week period they are there, they are on call every minute of
every day for fourteen straight days.
Also, we pointed out to the minister in the past some idiosyncrasy, shall we
say, between how people get treated in other parts of the Province versus how
they have been treating them. God knows that Ramea, Grey River and Franois are
as remote as any place you are going to get in Newfoundland as a remote
community. It is certainly as remote as many of the communities on the Labrador
Coast. No different. Yet, if you are a health care provider and goes up to the
Labrador Coast, you get incentives. They give you an incentive to recruit you
and an incentive to retain you. There are also provisions, for example, whereby
if a person comes into town they will assist them with their daily living
allowances. They can provide them with facilities.
My understanding is that there are two such facilities on Ramea Island that
is owned by Western Health, where the nurse practitioners or the nurses can stay
but if they come in on a short-term basis the department actually charges them
rent. Now, can you imagine! Not only are you having difficulty getting
somewhere, you have a facility there that you own and you get somebody to come
in to provide the service, and you tell that person you have to pay for the
rental? I mean, that is just unbelievable.
Hopefully, the distinctions that currently exist between how practitioners
get treated in those areas of rural Newfoundland versus how they get treated in
other areas of our Province, I think we should have some consistent tools that
we apply so that again, everybody gets treated fairly. The solution is only
temporary, it is not permanent. Hopefully, the new Minister of Health will get
an opportunity to address it so that we can have a permanent long-term solution
for the medical needs of the people of those communities.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of issues I would like to address,
by leave. The first I would like to address is that we request leave, and I
understand there is mutual agreement from the members of the Opposition, that we
will proceed with the bill as given by Notice of Motion by the hon. Minister of
Natural Resources, Bill 37. Today it is our intention to do first and second
reading, if time allows, in the House this afternoon to continue with first
reading and second reading of Bill 37, which certainly would not be the normal
procedure that we would follow in order to see a bill progress through this
House.
With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to move through first and
second reading this afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. Government House Leader have leave to proceed with first
reading and into second reading of Bill 37,
An Act To Amend The Energy
Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave?
The hon. the Government House Leader, by leave.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated, there is another issue that I would like to address by leave
as well. Considering that we have initiated this particular sitting of the House
of Assembly in order to primarily address Bill 37, but we have also had a
resolution put forward by the hon. Minister of Finance and the President of
Treasury Board for another matter we have to address.
Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances of the House of Assembly we would
have Private Members' Day on Wednesday and the time of the House for that
particular day would be from 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. So again, Mr. Speaker, we
request by leave, and I understand through mutual agreement with the members of
the Opposition, that tomorrow we will continue with Bill 37 or the resolution
that has been put before the House by the hon. Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board. So we will proceed with regular House business tomorrow and
that we also would request, by leave, that the hours that we sit tomorrow would
be from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. as opposed from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the request by the
Government House Leader.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, we would certainly consent, by leave, to deal with tomorrow as a regular
business day as opposed to Private Members' Day. Just for the record, the Leader
of the Opposition did read in a Private Member's Motion earlier. That was done,
not because we thought we were having a Private Members' Day tomorrow, but just
to give notice of it so that whenever the opportunity rolls around again that
that resolution could be dealt with as a Private Member's, that it would be.
That is all.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to
forego Private Members' Day tomorrow and continue with government business and
to set the regular government hours from 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.? Consent from
the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Opposition House Leader, by
leave.
The hon. the Government House Leader, by leave.
MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To continue on with business, our first request for leave. I move, seconded
by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
Water Rights Act, Bill 37, 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 Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act, Bill
37, and that Bill 37 be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Natural Resources shall
have leave to introduce Bill 37 and that this 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 Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An
Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights
Act," carried. (Bill 37)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and
Labrador Water Rights Act. (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37 has now been read a first time. When shall the bill
be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,
by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like call second reading of Bill 37.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37,
An Act To Amend The
Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act, be now read a
second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of
Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act." (Bill 37)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill that has
brought us all back into the Legislature this week. Bill 37 will provide for an
amendment to Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that a technical briefing was held with the two
Opposition parties last week by officials in the Department of Justice and
Nalcor Energy. I trust that was helpful in providing context around why we are
here and the purpose of this amendment. I know the media also had a briefing
this morning on the bill as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights
Act was introduced into the House in the spring of 2008 to provide water rights
to our Energy Corporation, Nalcor Energy, for the purpose of developing the
Lower Churchill Project. This act is the vehicle that enabled us to issue a
water rights lease on the Lower Churchill River to Nalcor Energy.
Mr. Speaker, issuing these water rights to Nalcor Energy triggered the
requirement under the Electrical Power Control Act for a water management
agreement to be negotiated between the two operators that hold rights on that
river.
Under the Electrical Power Control Act, where two or more operators hold
water rights on the same river, they must conclude a water management agreement
to ensure that the benefits of the river are optimized for the power generators
and the people of the Province.
Any water management agreement reached between the hydroelectric developers
must be approved by the Public Utilities Board. In any instance where the
developers cannot come to an agreement on a timely basis, the PUB can impose an
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, an issue has come to light during the course of Nalcor Energy
negotiating a water management agreement with the Churchill Falls (Labrador)
Corporation. It is this issue that has brought us back to the House of Assembly
this week.
CF(L)Co is the operator of the Upper Churchill generating facility and holds
the water rights to the Upper Churchill waters. During negotiations between
Nalcor Energy and CF(L)Co over a water management agreement, CF(L)Co advised
that it felt aspects of the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
Water Rights Act infringed upon its water rights for the Upper Churchill
development. Mr. Speaker, that was not our intent.
We are here in the House of Assembly to give CF(L)Co the assurance it
requires to enter into a water management agreement with Nalcor Energy, on
behalf of the Province, free of any ambiguity as to the Province's intent when
we passed the original legislation to enable the granting of water rights on the
Lower Churchill River to Nalcor Energy.
This amendment changes the definition of the Lower Churchill River to provide
clarity as to what waters are included in the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland
and Labrador Water Rights Act. In drafting the act, we had to define exactly
what water rights are included under the legislation. Very simply, this is the
clause that we are revising.
CF(L)Co interprets the current act as including waters of the Upper Churchill
in the Lower Churchill, which was certainly not the intent. We are certainly
agreeable to amending the legislation so as to avoid any obstacles to the
successful conclusion of a water management agreement.
Mr. Speaker, you can see the current definition under
section 2(b). It states
that the: "Lower Churchill River" means that part of the Churchill River below
the 425-foot contour line, or all the area that lies below elevation 425 feet as
referenced in Appendix A of The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited
(Lease) Act, 1961, downstream to the intersection of the Churchill River with
the meridian of 60 degrees and 45 minutes west of Greenwich (PRONOUNCED:
Gren-ich), and includes all waters that originate within the Churchill River
catchment area and all rivers that naturally flow within the catchment area or
from diversions into the catchment area..".
The concern identified here by CF(L)Co is the closing portion of the
definition. Precisely the wording they have issue with is; "and includes all
waters that originate within the Churchill River catchment area and all rivers
that naturally flow within the catchment area or from diversions into the
catchment area...".
CF(L)Co considers this to mean that the Lower Churchill River includes the
waters granted to CF(L)Co for the Upper Churchill in the CF(L)Co Lease Act. That
was not our intention, Mr. Speaker. Our objective in bringing forward this
definition was to clearly define the Lower Churchill from the Upper Churchill
and not to overlap in any way, shape or form with the Upper Churchill water
lease.
As such, we are addressing the concern raised by CF(L)Co by more clearly
defining the Lower Churchill River and stating explicitly that the Lower
Churchill River excludes the area identified as the Upper Churchill in the
CF(L)Co Lease Act.
You can see the wording of the amendment. It now reads under
Section 2(b),
the "Lower Churchill River" means: that part of the Churchill River below the
intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian 63 degrees and 40 minutes
west of Greenwich, downstream to the intersection of the Churchill River with
the meridian of 60 degrees and 45 minutes west of Greenwich, and all waters that
naturally flow into, or by diversion flow into, the Churchill River between
these two points, and that part of the Churchill River upstream of the point of
intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of 63 degrees and 40
minutes west of Greenwich that lies below the 425-foot contour line or below
elevation 425 feet, as referenced in Appendix A of The Churchill Falls(Labrador)
Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and all waters while they are in that
area. In
Section 2(c), "diversion" means "diversion" as defined in the Water
Resources Act.
We are changing the definition of the Lower Churchill River to provide
CF(L)Co with the assurance it requires to finalize a water management agreement.
The proposed amendment is intended to alleviate the concern that the definition
could infringe on CF(L)Co's rights to the Upper Churchill River. It will
facilitate, Mr. Speaker, the ongoing discussion between Nalcor Energy and
CF(L)Co on a water management agreement. The successful conclusion of this
agreement will allow us to move on to the next steps in the planning process for
the Lower Churchill project.
If this definition issue caused CF(L)Co to delay entering into the agreement
Nalcor Energy still had the option of placing the proposed agreement in front of
the Public Utilities Board and asking for an agreement to be imposed upon the
parties. This would be a legitimate process, Mr. Speaker, as provided for under
the legislation, but it would take up valuable time - time that is better
applied to other tasks before us in advancing the project.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if the agreement was put before the PUB for
consideration, the PUB will be considering a proposed agreement that was subject
to the same ambiguous definition of the Lower Churchill River raised by CF(L)Co.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and to avoid potential confusion and delay,
the amendment to the act is the most prudent course. We want to ensure all
pieces are in place so that this very important project proceeds and moves
forward to the next phase. The next steps for the project include, among other
things, continuing discussions on power purchase agreements and finalizing
market options.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate our government's commitment to the
development of the Lower Churchill project. The project is continuing to move
along on multiple fronts, including the environmental assessment process for
both the generation and transmission projects. Nalcor Energy is also continuing
its investigation and analysis of market access options and market destinations,
and it is continuing negotiations with the Innu Nation on an impacts and
benefits agreement.
As the minister responsible for Nalcor Energy, Mr. Speaker, I meet regularly
with the officials of the Crown agency to get updates on the outstanding issues
that need to be addressed before project sanction. In this context, Mr. Speaker,
project sanction means the very important decision by Nalcor Energy and the
provincial government that gives the project the green light to proceed. This
decision is critical and will only occur after a number of outstanding issues
have been resolved. Some of these outstanding issues include ratification of the
New Dawn Agreement with Innu Nation; an environmental assessment, which is
expected to be complete next year; finding customers for the power, and
obtaining financing for the project.
Mr. Speaker, we are confident that these issues are not insurmountable and
that the project will proceed. These issues, however, do take time and we want
to be certain that we remove any potential obstacles to moving this project
forward.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we eliminate any impediments to the
development of the project, and that is why we have no issue in addressing the
concern raised by CF(L)Co by bringing forward this amendment.
The recurring question I have received since we announced the reopening of
the House last week, has been: Why must this amendment be done now? That's
simple, Mr. Speaker. We have an identified issue, and a simple resolution. Let's
get this done so we can move on with project planning. It is important that we
address this difference of
interpretation to move forward and conclude an
agreement.
To ensure, Mr. Speaker, that no impediments to this agreement remain,
government has agreed to recall the House earlier than usual. We want to
conclude this agreement so we can move on to the next piece of work.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly want to have a few words with regard to the bill that we are
debating today. Of course, this particular bill was introduced by the government
and the House was called to specifically deal with it. I guess for us, we have
continued to question what the urgency has been by government to actually call
the bill at this particular time. Not that we have a problem with being in the
House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, because I am certainly prepared to stay now
until Christmas, now that I am here, but the reality is that we were scheduled
to open in a few weeks.
Obviously, when you look at this particular bill that is defining the water
rights and the water catchment areas for both the Lower Churchill development
project and the Upper Churchill, or at least for the Lower Churchill, therefore
giving better clarity to the catchment area for the Upper Churchill, one would
have to ask: What is the urgency? We have certainly asked that question of
government and of officials when we were going through the briefings.
Unfortunately, we did not really get a response that indicated urgency in any
way. In fact, the only response that we were given is that negotiations between
Nalcor and CF(L)Co, who are the owners of the Upper Churchill project, would
have been at a stalemate without defining the catchment areas on the river. Mr.
Speaker, any delays there, of course again, would have only been a matter of
weeks and not necessarily a matter of months or years.
So, you know it is really difficult to understand what the motivation would
have been for government at this time to bring forward this bill and to call an
emergency session of the House to deal with it. If there was an understanding
that they were close to signing off a deal on the Lower Churchill maybe I could
understand it, Mr. Speaker, but what we do know about this deal so far is that
there is no market. There is no signed, sealed market for the power. We also
know, Mr. Speaker, there is no financing in place for the project. We know that
the New Dawn Agreement with the Innu in Labrador has yet to be ratified. We
know, Mr. Speaker, that the environmental assessment process if not completed,
and we also know that government has not even determined a route for the
transmission of the power, so why there would be urgency in clarifying a
catchment area in the river is somewhat mystifying in the midst of all of this.
Therefore, you know, we can only assume that there are other factors that
motivate government to move with this legislation immediately. Mr. Speaker, I do
not deal in conspiracy theories but I have very little trouble when it comes to
speculating sometimes as to what a certain situation might be.
Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that both CF(L)Co and Nalcor have been
granted rights in the Province to the same body of water as a source for the
production of power on the Churchill River, and in the context of trying to
negotiate an agreement for the purposes of operating both projects in a manner,
I guess, that would result in effective production on a go-forward basis, for
both the transmission and the distribution of power, they are required under the
act, under
section 5(4) of the Electrical Power Control Act of the Province, to
actually define those particular parameters and catchment areas.
So, in terms of looking at the bill itself and being asked to support this
amendment, we certainly have no problem with supporting the amendment; however,
Mr. Speaker, we have a number of concerns and questions relative to the Lower
Churchill Project that we feel government has an obligation and a responsibility
to the people of the Province to provide clarification and to provide answers
on.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is very important to have a negotiated
settlement with regard to the water rights both by CF(L)Co and by Nalcor
Corporation; however, the government's officials in the briefing, and the
Premier himself, indicated to us that this legislation is coming forward at the
request of CF(L)Co at this time, and that CF(L)Co is asking that there be a
clear definition so that negotiations can continue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, even though the act allows and says that there has to be
clarity around this, meaning the Electrical Power Control Act, it also allows
for, I guess, a resolution dispute by the Public Utilities Board if, for some
reason, there cannot be a negotiated settlement.
We also know that Hydro-Quebec owns 33 per cent of the shares in CF(L)Co; I
think it is 33 per cent.
AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-four.
MS JONES: Thirty-four per cent, is it?
I know that they own a percentage of the shares, whether it is 33 per cent or
34 per cent of the shares, in CF(L)Co, and we also know that Nalcor Corporation,
to date, and the Lower Churchill Project, would be solely owned by the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador unless, of course, the government opts to allow for
private investment in the project as a means of raising financial capital. I
guess those things will remain to be seen as time goes on, but it is very
important that there be a clear definition, that there not be any disagreement
of overlapping rights, and that is in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if for some reason there cannot be a negotiated settlement,
then there could be one reached through the Public Utilities Board. They would
have the option to impose an agreement that would clearly define what the
catchment areas are on the river for both the Lower Churchill development
project and there, in essence, giving parameters to the Upper Churchill Project.
That does exist; because, even though we are changing the act today and we are
making those amendments, there is no guarantee that CF(L)Co and Nalcor
Corporation will reach a deal and a settlement around a particular water rights
agreement.
We know that in order for the financial piece to fall in place for the Lower
Churchill development project, water rights have to be defined and it will be
one of the key components in terms of raising money to be able to finance this
project, whether that is monies that we will invest as a Province, the federal
government, or from other sources.
So, the nature of the bill is important; however, the urgency of it is
unclear in my mind. That is one of the concerns that I have in terms of
government bringing it forward, as to why it could not have waited a few more
weeks to have the act amended to clearly define those particular catchment
areas, as opposed to having it done immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I talked about the fact that we certainly do not feel a deal is
imminent any time soon. In fact, if you listen to the tone and the language that
was used by the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources a couple of days
ago in the Province, in referring to Quebec as being obstructionists in this
entire deal, one can only conclude that there are no documents being drafted for
a Lower Churchill deal between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government
of Quebec, or Quebec Hydro, any time soon. So, with that particular piece out of
the way and, as you know, anyone who has followed this project will have
realized that the routing of the Lower Churchill Project through Quebec with
open access to the lines and the markets may have been the most feasible and
definitely the most profitable route for the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador to take, and anyone who understands simple mathematics could sit down
and figure that out for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the tone and the language being used by the
Premier in taking Quebec on - in fact, what surprised me was a comment made by
the minister when she said that they had been getting nowhere, making no
progress with Quebec, which certainly left me with the impression that they have
been approaching the Province of Quebec as a part of a negotiation on the Lower
Churchill, and that they have been asking and pleading and begging for the
Province of Quebec and Quebec Hydro to get involved in this particular project,
but obviously it has been to no advantage for the government opposite and they
have been unable to build that level of negotiation. So that was the context in
which I had taken the comments that she made in the media just a few days ago.
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of that, what are the options for the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador in developing the Lower Churchill Project? I guess one
of those options has been the one that has been touted by the Premier on a
number of occasions, and that is the one that talks about a north-south grid.
What that is, it is a transmission line that would come through Labrador into
the Strait of Belle Isle, across the body of water in the Strait of Belle Isle;
it would come down through the Northern Peninsula, across the West Coast of the
Island; it would go underwater across the Gulf of St. Lawrence; it would go
through three provinces, two other provinces in Atlantic Canada - Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick - and then it would go through five states on the Eastern
seaboard before it reached the market. That is what the north-south route is.
The north-south route is not just bringing power to the Island of
Newfoundland; it is really about bringing power to the Island of Newfoundland as
a means of accessing the export markets. So it means crossing two bodies of
water, running a transmission line through three provinces and through five
states, in order to access the market.
Of course, people will look at this and they will say: Well, that is a
significantly higher cost project to be able to do that, significantly higher
cost, going to require a great deal more investment, it will provide for a
smaller return for the people of the Province, and it will take a longer period
of time to pay for itself because of the cost that will be involved.
Then, Mr. Speaker, people say: Why isn't there more of an effort? Why hasn't
there been more of an effort to negotiate with Quebec? From what I am
understanding from the minister's comments there were efforts to negotiate with
Quebec, but Quebec did not want anything to do with Newfoundland and Labrador
and did not want anything to do with the Lower Churchill Project. The reason for
that is because, while the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have been
courting the fiddler in the entire project around the Lower Churchill, Quebec
has been writing their own ballot and moving on with the game. That is the
reality.
You look at what they are doing on the Romaine River right now in Quebec,
which will generate every bit as much power as what the Lower Churchill will
generate in the four phases of their project, which will take probably a little
longer period of time, but if you look at what they are going to generate there,
something like 2,000 megawatts of power, or 1,500 megawatts of power over four
different phases on that river - and they have already started. They have
already started. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are spending like $30 million this
year on the Quebec Shore connecting communities and building roads to the
Romaine River where the power project will be developed. They have equipment
there. They are already started, Mr. Speaker, the development process on that by
building the roads that will connect the communities right to where the source
of the power supply will be developed.
Mr. Speaker, this is the reason that Quebec is no longer interested. Although
the minister has been knocking on their door and now the Premier is out with the
fighting words for them, calling them obstructionists and so on, Mr. Speaker,
the reality is, while the government opposite was dragging their heels and
trying to figure out if they were going east, west, north or south, whether they
were going to pay for it themselves or have private investment, while they were
out figuring all of this out and joking around with the national government on
putting a line through a park - a UNESCO world site in the Province - while they
were out playing the little jokes, Quebec was moving on. They were moving on
with the development of power. They were moving on with filing the applications
to access the transmission lines to be able to transport the power that they are
going to develop. Mr. Speaker, that is the reality of what we are dealing with
in terms of Quebec. That is the reality. So we are back talking about the
north-south route again.
One change that has already occurred with this route has been the fact that
we will not go through the park, apparently, although in every single interview
since last spring when the Premier was interviewed, when the minister was
interviewed, they defended the route through the park. They defended it. They
said it was $100 million cheaper. That was the huge consideration, $100 million
cheaper to put this route through the park. In fact, the Premier went as far in
one of his clips - because I have it here - saying that I would rather spend
$100 million in health care in the Province before I would spend it in putting
it through the park.
So, Mr. Speaker, after being out there and defending that particular route, I
was absolutely astounded, my jaw dropped, and I do not mind admitting it, when I
heard the rationale, when I heard that government was withdrawing from this
route and that they were only joking. He said: I am only joking. I was only
kidding, testing the mettle - he says - testing the mettle of Parks Canada and
the federal government.
An unbelievable statement, and I know there are something like three
communications people or something up in his office, or two at least, and I am
sure they would not have advised him to use that as a rationale for changing his
mind and changing his perspective. It is absolutely amazing, amazing that you
could defend something so adamantly and then casually throw it out as a fact
that you are just kidding.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the north-south route, whether it is going to
cost $100 million more to run a transmission line through the Northern Peninsula
or not. Let's talk about it, because the news out of New Brunswick today causes
some doubt in my mind as to the north-south route. The news in New Brunswick
today, Mr. Speaker, is that they are not granting the Province of Prince Edward
Island access for the transmission of wind power through News Brunswick into the
New England States. This is the very same line in the very same province that we
need to be able to access if we are going to do the north-south route; unless,
of course, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is also going to pay to
build transmission lines through all of the other Atlantic Provinces as well.
Maybe we are going to build the transmission line right down through the Eastern
Seaboard; those are the kinds of details that we do not know.
Mr. Speaker, the news out of New Brunswick today is saying that while the
P.E.I. government might have announced a $1 billion, ten-point plan for wind
energy development that would see the island increase its wind production to 500
megawatts by 2013, that there will not be any available access on their lines.
They are saying that all of our access is tied up. In fact, New Brunswick Public
Utility, and I am quoting right from them, is saying that there was a bid, a
tender that was out a year ago for its transmission capacity to be used by other
jurisdictions, whether that be Newfoundland and Labrador or Prince Edward Island
or Quebec. They are saying all of the excess was bought up by Quebec at that
time. They said that Prince Edward Island did not tender in that process and if
they wanted to export wind power to New England it must have negotiated with New
Brunswick Power or with Quebec at this stage in order to do that.
No different; no different than what we were being told back in 2002 by the
Province of Quebec. If you want to access the market, if you want to wheel the
power you have to negotiate with us. Well, this is what New Brunswick is saying
today to Prince Edward Island. They are saying if you want to transmit power to
here you now have to deal with us or you have to deal with the Province of
Quebec, because they have won the tender to access all the excess capacity that
is on the lines through the Province of Quebec. What I would like to know is did
Nalcor Energy tender? Did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador even
tender a year ago when that capacity was out on the open market in New Brunswick
and available to other jurisdictions? My guess is they did not, because just
like when Quebec developed the Romaine River and moved in right under their
noses, they were too busy caught up with all the games. They were too busy
caught up with joking around with people over whether they were going east,
west, north or south and what route they were going to take. This is what has
been happening. Government has been at this for six years; six years in terms of
trying to move forward with a development on the Churchill River, on the Lower
Churchill Project. They did nothing only be critical of what other people have
done in the past but yet they have not moved forward themselves; not moved
forward themselves. Now, whether you want to go north, south, or east or west it
is going to cost you a lot more money, undermining the feasibility of the
project for the long term to be able to do it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like know at this stage is why Nalcor and why
the provincial government did not tender for capacity on that line through New
Brunswick if they were serious about a north-south transmission route? If they
were serious about building a transmission line through Labrador, cross the
Strait of Belle Isle, down through the Northern Peninsula, cross the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, through Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick, and through five States to
get to the market, why did they not tender a year ago when that capacity was
open? If they did tender, I would like to know why they were not successful in
gaining some access. Because, what has happened now, the minister gets up and
talks about the agreement that allows for other provinces to apply for access on
transmission lines through other provinces. Well, that is a whole different ball
game. That is a whole different ball game as well, because when we are applying
for access on that line now it is also going to involve a negotiation with New
Brunswick and with Quebec. While they may not be able to restrict us, they do
now have capacity for use themselves that we do not have access to unless they
want to give it to us. That is the reality.
So, I would like for the minister to clarify some of those questions when she
stands on her feet to talk about this particular bill, because, Mr. Speaker,
those particular aspects are very important. They are very important. Because,
Mr. Speaker, if government has not been able to determine a route, and an
effective route, how are they going to determine and secure markets?
Let's talk about the market access piece for a minute. How are they going to
secure and determine those particular markets that are going to be required?
Well, first of all, we know, Mr. Speaker, that they had an MOU with the State of
Rhode Island. We know they signed an MOU with the State of Rhode Island. They
called a press conference on it and they said we have signed an MOU with the
State of Rhode Island and so on, and we are going to work together. It was done
back in June of 2007. We are going to work together; we are going to look at
what are some of the options; we are going to access and implement the expansion
of the market for the sale and purchase of renewable electricity generated by
the Lower Churchill Project. That was the essence of their MOU.
Now we did file, Mr. Speaker, and in fact, we asked in the House of Assembly,
I asked in the media, for copies of the MOU that the Province signed with the
State of Rhode Island. Well the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in
their openness and their accountability policies, refused to give us a copy of
the MOU that they had signed with Rhode Island. But it does not matter; I have a
copy of it, Mr. Speaker. I got it from the State of Rhode Island government is
how I got it. They were much more open and accountable than what the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador was.
Let me tell you what was in the MOU that they signed with Rhode Island, very
little, very, very little. In fact, I was absolutely astounded when I sat down
and read the agreement after they had sent it to me to learn that it was all
pretty willy-nilly stuff. However, one of the things in here was this, one of
the things that might have had a little bit of substance in this whole MOU that
they signed with Rhode Island was the fact that they were going to develop some
capacity and the energy to be generated on the Churchill River development. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, they even put time lines around it.
In Phase I of their agreement, Mr. Speaker, which was supposed to be
completed by December 31, 2007, nearly two years ago, it was during that time
period that they were supposed to have completed a long-term sale and purchase
arrangement and the action plan to address the technical regulatory and
statutory requirements for the transmission of Lower Churchill power. That was
the agreement that was supposed to be worked out nearly two years ago between
Newfoundland and Labrador and Rhode Island.
Now I would like to know if that was ever done, because when the Province
signed this MOU with Rhode Island, they called a big press conference, talked
about their agreement, their MOU with Rhode Island for the purchase of Lower
Churchill power. Certainly, there are probably not enough households in Rhode
Island to consume the amount of power that is going to be generated by the Lower
Churchill Project. So you are going to need more than one customer, more than
one market to be able to make the project work.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the government called a big press conference,
announced the MOU, refused to release it to the public in Newfoundland and
Labrador, refused to give it to the Opposition. We had to go to the State
government in Rhode Island to get a copy of the agreement, and what do we find
in the agreement? Very little, with the exception of one undertaking. The one
undertaking which was supposed to be defining the agreement and the negotiation
with regard to the long-term sale and purchase agreement between the State of
Rhode Island and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was supposed
to be completed by December 31, 2007.
Now, I would like to know why there has not been another press conference
announcing the agreement, because if it was done it would have been done nearly
two years ago. So why is there no press conference talking about secure purchase
agreement for market access of Lower Churchill power even if it is only with one
State? Is it because it does not exist? Could it be because it does not exist
and that the agreement was never ever finalized, never ever negotiated? I would
like to know the answer to that. Maybe when the minister stands up today to
close debate, or tomorrow, whenever she speaks to close debate, she can provide
some answers with regard to that MOU that caused so much fanfare back in June of
2007 in the Province because we have not heard a word about it since then; have
not heard a word about it.
The other thing it said in the agreement is that upon the completion of Phase
I, which is the power purchase agreement, then they would move into Phase II,
and Phase II would be to negotiate a binding form of agreement. That agreement
would be how they were going to execute the deal and that they would report
within ninety days on the initiation of the Phase II activities; within ninety
days. So that would be three months. Still, we are talking nearly fifteen months
ago that that part of it would have been finalized. So we are talking a long
time now. If this MOU was ever worth anything than those agreements should have
been in place for an extended period of time and that they should now be
released to the public.
Outside of this, where is the other market access for Lower Churchill power?
Not only have they not determined what route they are going to take, not only
have they got Quebec and Quebec Hydro not even prepared to talk to them because
they are developing their own hydro projects, they will be much more advanced in
the development of those projects than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador
will be and therefore will probably secure access on the lines before we do. Not
only that, Mr. Speaker, they are talking about a north-south grid. They have not
even got a deal with the Province of New Brunswick to wheel the power through
New Brunswick, and yet we know they are out there today saying to the Province
of Prince Edward Island, who only wanted capacity to wheel 500 megawatts of wind
power, that you are not going to get it; that you are not going to get it. So
therefore, Mr. Speaker, not only have they not determined the route, they have
not even determined how they are going to negotiate or how they are going to
finalize a deal on either of these routes. Both of them are completely up in the
air in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and they are no closer to finalizing any of this
today than they probably were six years ago when they came into office and
started talking about the deal itself. That is one issue.
Now, let's talk about the markets again. Other than the MOU that was signed
with Rhode Island, where is the market access for power for the Lower Churchill?
Where are the market agreements? I am tired of listening to people in Nalcor and
people in government saying: look, there is a demand for power in North America.
There is a demand for energy in North America. Well, that is all well and good.
There is a demand for energy in Canada too, right across the country probably.
There is a demand probably for power in Lake Melville today because they do not
have enough hydro power and they are supplementing it with other power sources.
There is a need right across Labrador, so do not talk about need. Tell me where
the market access is. Who are you signing deals with? Who are you negotiating
with? Other than the big press conference and hoopla around the Rhode Island
piece, we have not heard tickety-boo in terms of market access. We do not know
where the markets are for the Lower Churchill Project, what the Province is
signing on to, what Nalcor is signing on to as part of that deal. We do not know
that, Mr. Speaker.
The other thing we do not know besides the route they are going to take,
besides where the market is, we do not know how they are going to pay for it. We
have no idea how they are going to pay for it. What we do know is that back in
February Gilbert Bennett, who is the vice-president of the project, the Lower
Churchill Project with Nalcor, was in the media saying that they know now that
the project went from $6 billion to $9 billion to $10 billion. This was back in
February. In February we were talking about a $10 billion project.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily have a problem with the fact that it
could cost $10 billion. I do not know if that $10 billion is a route that takes
us through Quebec. I do not know if it is a route that takes us through three
Atlantic provinces, across two bodies of water and down through five States. I
do not know what the $10 billion figure contains. No one has broken it out, in
terms of what is contained. I do not know if the extra $100 million for the
routing of the transmission line around the park is included in that amount of
money. I do not know if included in that is any benefit agreements for Labrador.
I do not know if included in that is any kind of investment into future power
supply for Labrador communities. All I know is what he said in February, that it
is not $6 billion any more, it is not $9 billion any more; it is $10 billion.
The rationale for that is the increased cost of materials, the increased
labour market costs. All of those things are contributing to a higher investment
required in order to make the project work. So, what is the situation now, six
months later, seven months later? What is the situation now? Is it still $10
billion or is it not?
These are the pieces and the questions that we do not have answers to. We do
not know what the $10 billion includes. We have no idea what makes up that
particular figure in terms of the investment cost. We do not know if the payout
on the IBA agreements with the Aboriginal people in Labrador is a part of that
$10 billion agreement.
Mr. Speaker, they are talking about raising money, raising money to finance
the Lower Churchill Project. How do you raise that money? Where are the sources
of revenue that are going to make up that $10 billion? The government has not
told us. They have not told anyone in the public. They have made statements
like: We will go it alone.
For example, you have to remember, you have to go back a few years. Some of
you may forget, but it was your government that, going back a few years ago, put
out the Request for Proposals to develop the Lower Churchill Project. Do you
remember that, and do you remember one of the proposals that came forward at the
time? I am not saying if it was a good proposal or a bad one, because I have
never seen the details of it to be able to make that kind of an assessment, but
it was a proposal that collectively defined markets, routing and financing,
three of the things that your government has not been able to define in the last
four years since; have not been able to define in the four years since. So, Mr.
Speaker, at that time they said we would go it alone. They would look at this
megaproject; they would arrange the financing. To date we have not seen any
indication from government of their ability to be able to do that.
They also said that it is their preferred option to lead the project. Well,
this is what they have criticized every other gover