April

2, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome fifty-eight Grade 8 students from the

John Burke High School in the District of Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The students are accompanied today by their teachers: Ms

Susan Tobin-Bursey, Mr. Herb Stuckey, Mr. Glenn Rogers, as well as their bus

driver, Mr. Murdock Hiscock.

I might add, Ms Susan Tobin-Bursey is the daughter of a long-time member of

the House of Assembly.

The Chair would also like to welcome fourteen students from the Keyin College

of St. John's Campus. The students are accompanied by their instructor, Ms

Paulette Sampson.

I would like to welcome both groups to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of the Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the

District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the

hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this great House today to recognize the late Mark

Baldwin. This nineteen-year-old man was fatally injured on May 14, 2002 in a

single car accident in Fort McMurray.

Mr. Speaker, family and friends were devastated over the loss of this young

man.

To keep Mark's memories alive, Mr. Speaker, family and friends each year

plan the Mark Baldwin Memorial Hockey Tournament in Cox's Cove in the first

week of February. Family and friends all over Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario

and Alberta come home to Cox's Cove to play in the tournament and reminisce

the good memories with Mark's family.

The three-day tournament is spearheaded by Mark's cousin, Tommy Buffett and

his wife Natasha.

Mr. Speaker, the net funds raised through the tournament goes towards the

Mark Baldwin Scholarship fund at Templeton Academy in the amount of $500. The

scholarship is awarded to a student who is most dedicated and spirited.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Mark's mom, Kay, I would like to thank Tommy,

Natasha, and all of his family and friends who participated in the memorial to

Mark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to Ms Margaret Bradbury of Coley's Point. Ms

Bradbury recently was awarded the Newfoundland Seniors Resource Centre's

Dorothy Whittick Memorial Award.

The award is presented to an exceptional volunteer who has set high standards

for volunteerism and who shows overall dedication to the Seniors Resource Centre

of Newfoundland.

Ms Bradbury is the secretary of the 50 plus club in Bay Roberts, President of

the Bay Roberts Lions Club and an active community peer advocate.

She has also assisted with the Atlantic Seniors Housing project, Seniors

Information Line, RCMP Seniors Advisory Committee and the Community Inclusion

Project.

In accepting this award, Ms Bradbury said: "I like to be there to help

people out, I've been like that my whole live."

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms Margaret Bradbury on

receiving the Dorothy Whittick Memorial Award. Truly an exceptional volunteer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on February 21 of this year, I had the pleasure of attending the

38th Charter Night of the Conception Bay South Lions Club, when a very special

woman, Betty Tizzard, was named Citizen of the Year for 2008.

Betty gives her time and talents to enrich the lives of people in the CBS

area. On Mondays, you will find Betty making lunch and cleaning house for a

woman in a wheelchair, attending a quilting guild, making quilts for Daffodil

Place, blankets for the Janeway, and covers for walkers used by nursing home

residents.

On Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, she transports a group of volunteers from CBS to St.

John's and, along with herself, helps to prepare and serve lunch to

seventy-five to eighty people at the Salvation Army soup kitchen. She also helps

a children's group at the Salvation Army in Conception Bay South.

Wednesdays bring another commitment, a group called New Creations, which make

hats, sweater sets and blankets for the Janeway and cancer patients at the

Health Sciences Centre.

On Thursday and Fridays, Mr. Speaker, Betty and her friends get together to

hem clothes and make curtains and other items for many organizations.

Practically every child she knows is the proud owner of one of her Quillos a

blanket-pillow combination. This is also her time for visiting senior citizens

in their homes.

Saturday and Sunday is set aside for her prayer group to pray for anybody

requiring special prayers, and yes, Mr. Speaker, this includes government.

In addition to her weekly activities, Betty also finds time to collect for

the Red Cross, the Christmas Red Kettle Campaign, St. George's school

breakfast program and many others.

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

congratulating Ms Betty Tizzard on being selected Citizen of the Year for 2008

for the Town of Conception Bay South.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this great House today to talk about the Seaside Fire

Department.

Seaside is celebrating its thirtieth year of operation this year.

Seaside Fire Department is made up of a regional department that represents

and provides services to the communities of Blaketown, South Dildo, Old Shop,

Spread Eagle, Broad Cove, Dildo and New Harbour.

Seaside Fire Department currently has thirty-three members, very active

members on roll call.

On March 28 of this year, I had the opportunity to attend the thirtieth

anniversary of the Seaside Fire Department, along with the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Minister Responsible for Volunteer and

Non-Profit Sector.

We had the pleasure of presenting the following firemen with long-term

service awards: thirty year service: Donald Bishop, Alonzo Reid, Ronald Smith,

Melvin Newhook and Rex Hollett. Twenty-five years of service: Baxter Smith;

fifteen years of service: Ricky Smith, Gregory Brazil and Edward Brazil.

I would like to commemorate these fine firefighters on all their heroic acts

of bravery, for their dedication and commitment of volunteer services to the

communities they save.

I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulations and thanks to the

Seaside Fire Department for thirty years of service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to share with members and the public at large, what

can only be described as a historic day for the Province and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

You have heard our government say on many occasions that we are striving to

take control of our own destiny, we have put action plans in place and we have

exercised wise and strategic financial management to position us for future

economic growth.

We have taken equity stakes in our offshore projects; we have invested in

strategic areas of growth; and we have risen above the detrimental actions of

the federal government and stood strong in the face of adversity.

We have also made it very clear, that we will control the development of one

of our most valuable renewable energy resources, the Lower Churchill project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, our government's Energy Plan set in

place a plan to develop this resource with a view to 2041 when we finally take

full control of the Upper Churchill project.

In the meantime, we have been working to secure maximum benefits

strategically and financially from our recall power from the Upper Churchill

project.

Since 1998, we have had a power purchase agreement with Hydro Quebec for a

block of recall power from the Upper Churchill. This renewal expired on March

31, 2009.

Essentially, this agreement gives Hydro the right to recall 300 megawatts at

the same price as Hydro Quebec's current pricing under the 1969 Churchill

Falls power contract.

Nalcor Energy in conjunction with government, decided not to renew this

agreement.

Instead yesterday, on April 1, we as a Province for the first time in our

history sold hydro electric power from the mighty Upper Churchill River in

Labrador directly through Quebec and this hydro electric power was then sold

into markets in the United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, simply put, we as a Province began

wheeling our power through Quebec unfettered to North American markets for the

first time in history. This is precisely the obstacle that was not overcome in

the original Upper Churchill agreement, resulting in that unfair and lopsided

deal.

Today, we have overcome that obstacle. We have proven that no challenge is

too big or too daunting for our people to take on. In fact, this new arrangement

means that we can now sell our own power, which may access the United States and

Canadian markets.

At the present time, we are working with Emera Energy to have our power get

to these markets. We have concluded a sale agreement with them so that with

their considerable expertise in the industry our power will be sold into those

markets. Our goal is to eventually develop that expertise at Nalcor Energy so

that we can act as a seller into the final marketplace.

A maximum of 250 megawatts of power can be transmitted in the summertime

through lines out of Labrador through Quebec and into the northeastern United

States and can potentially go to other Canadian provinces.

I want to also assure the people of Labrador that the priority of Nalcor and

this government is to ensure that local and domestic needs for power are met

with recall power. As with past recall arrangements, only energy which is

surplus to the Province's own needs would be exported outside of the Province.

We understand from Emera that power from Labrador today is being sold

directly into the United States; destination - New York. Newfoundland and

Labrador is now taking a bite out of the Big Apple, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Nalcor secured this transmission access through Quebec

to the Canada-United States border under Hydro-Quebec's Open Access

Transmission Tariff. This represents a tremendous accomplishment and bodes

extremely well for the Lower Churchill development as we move forward. It also

opens doors in terms of our future ability to sell wind power and other

potential energy into a hungry North American marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, this is truly a historic and momentous occasion for the people

of our Province, as never before have we been granted access to the Province of

Quebec with our own power. This power sales arrangement puts us squarely in the

game as a hydroelectricity producer and seller, with our clean, hydroelectric

generation being sold from Newfoundland and Labrador and finding its way into

the North American marketplace. Just as we have taken equity stakes in our

offshore resources, we see tremendous potential for long-term value in entering

this business arrangement and will continue to assess future potential.

This is about our Province finally acting in a strategic manner and going

through proper processes to wheel our power through our neighbouring Province of

Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is our future and the future of

generations who will follow us. Today's announcement is one more step on that

road. Our view is long-term and we will not be swayed by short-term thinking.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in celebrating what is truly an

outstanding and significant day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously what we have here today is another tweaking of a Liberal government

initiative by the members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: They are getting pretty good, Mr. Speaker. They are getting

pretty good at tweaking other government deals, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, they are getting pretty good at tweaking former government

deals and initiatives in the Province. They are not so good at getting their own

deals in order, though, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, because it was a Liberal

Administration, as the Premier well knows - a Liberal Administration - that

secured the recall rights for power on the Upper Churchill in 2001.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is obvious this last two days that all members are highly charged here in

the House of Assembly, but I would ask member for their cooperation and allow

the members who are identified by the Chair to have their time for speaking.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not in any hurry. I can get on with it whenever they are ready.

Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal Administration, actually, that secured the

recall rights on this power in 1998 and signed the first deal in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, today, talks about our first opportunity to sell

this power directly into the US market. Well, why did you do it in 2004? When

you renewed the deal in 2004 for five years, with Quebec, you had the same

option to do then what you have to do today. You had the same option then when

it comes to wielding power through Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their cooperation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt this government can spin almost anything in the world. They

are the greatest spin doctors I have ever seen, and they can do it without

giving you one ounce of information. For example, Mr. Speaker, we look at this

great agreement they tweaked today, as they say, and they are telling us how

beneficial it is going to be for the Province, yet we don't know what one dime

of profit is that is going to be earned by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We don't know how much money is going to come to the people of the

Province over and above what they got in the last five years under the current

arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are absolutely no details attached to

what the government is giving us today. We don't know if it is financially

prudent or not, but it is the way they spin the information, the way they put

the story out there (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 don't know if it is appropriate to respond to the minister's statement,

but I don't think she could say that with a straight face, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, you talked about being highly charged yesterday. I

think we are really highly charged today and it is all about electricity,

definitely about the electricity.

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of that, I have this ministerial announcement.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge and announce that it is

government's intention to make all regional games held in the Province

smoke-free.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The regional games provide an opportunity for our Province's

youth to come together within their respective regions and participate in

multi-sports events over a three to five day period, in a fun, structured and

non-competitive environment. By participating in this program, the Province's

youth will discover their own abilities while increasing their self-esteem and

improving their physical health.

In keeping with the goals and objectives of our Provincial Recreation and

Sports Strategy; Active, Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador and Achieving Health

and Wellness; the Provincial Wellness Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador, this

government is encouraging all communities across the Province to establish and

incorporate smoke-free outdoor recreation and sport area policies.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, the Recreation and Sports Division of the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, is in the final stages of

developing a how-to manual for communities interested in hosting a regional

games event. The manual is scheduled to be released on May 21, 2009 at the

Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador's Annual General Meeting. Copies will be

distributed to the recreation committee and all municipalities.

And I am pleased to say, within those guidelines, there will be a stipulation

noting that all outdoor recreation facilities and areas must be smoke-free.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that this government will also

apply this same policy in those communities who are selected to host the

Newfoundland and Labrador Winter and Summer Games.

It may not be widely known that the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco and

Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador, in partnership with the provincial

government, have supported over thirty municipalities in the Province in the

development and implementation of 100 per cent smoke-free policies for their

outdoor recreation and sports facilities. Moreover, three provincial sports

organizations in the Province have declared their sports smoke-free, those being

soccer, softball and volleyball.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I invite all members of this House, and all

citizens of this Province, to fully support all future regional games hosted in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and that they be smoke-free.

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 providing us with an advanced copy of his statement

today.

We, in the Opposition, are certainly in favour of this initiative. Again,

talking about Liberal initiatives, it was back in the Grimes Administration and

Tobin Administrations that, due to a lot of good advice and persistence

actually, from the Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, the Province first

embarked on restricting where one could and could not smoke. It started, of

course, with the nightclubs and the bars. There was a lot of furore back then

about whether it was going to bankrupt a lot of businesses and so on but I think

it has proven over time that most people still enjoy those facilities and bars

and have their activities and it has not impacted the financial end of things at

all.

Then of course this government, I do believe, took it a bit further, extended

it to patio decks and so on and now it is becoming a point very recently, most

people now understand that even outdoors sometimes it is not appropriate to be

smoking. We have also, through this government, extended where we can smoke in

terms of distances. The buildings, for example, you cannot be not only not in

the building, but there were further requirements that you move away from the

buildings. We have had it now in our hospitals for example. It is very, very

firm that you cannot smoke in or near a hospital or anywhere upon hospital

facilities. So that is good to see, and this is an extension of that very good

policy. Obviously, when you are around recreation, particularly with the youth

and the children of our Province, anything that you can do to restrict this

deadly, deadly activity, actually, we would certainly commend you for doing so.

Thank you.

MR. BUTLER: Good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before this hon. House to report on a provincial

government led delegation of food and beverage companies that recently returned

from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association show in Toronto. The

delegation marks the second time that Newfoundland and Labrador-based companies

participated in the event that links food producers with buyers, agents,

distributors, and restaurant owners.

The three-day show included 675 exhibitors from across Canada and the United

States. During the show, exhibitors sampled products, participated in seminars

on increasing business activity, and watched some of Canada's top chefs in

action.

I am extremely pleased to report that members of the delegation took

important steps in growing their export activity.

St. Anthony-based Canada Ice Enterprises viewed the event as providing a

tremendous opportunity to market and showcase its product called, 80 Degrees

North Iceberg Water. The show also attracted several thousand potential buyers

and end-users to its booth, leading the company to establish new contacts,

contacts that have already led to tangible results.

In addition to the trade show, companies also attended a networking reception

co-ordinated through the Ambassador Newfoundland and Labrador program and

sponsored by Memorial University's Office of Alumni Affairs and Development.

This reception attracted 150 participants, including Memorial University alumni

and those with a strong affinity to the Province. The event provided an

opportunity for the delegation to market their products and network with a

captivated audience.

Brent Smith of Newfoundland Chocolate Company found the Ambassador event to

be a valuable opportunity to introduce his company's gourmet chocolates to a

group with a strong connection to Newfoundland and Labrador. The company

departed Toronto confident that it will derive benefit and business growth from

its participation in the mission.

Other exhibiting companies included Pure Labrador from Forteau, along with

Dockside Appetizers, Kory Kookies, and Jumping Bean Coffee from St. John's.

Members of the delegation that walked the show included India Gate and IC Spa

Products.

Mr. Speaker, interest in Newfoundland and Labrador-manufactured products and

services continues go grow in markets across Canada and right around the world.

It takes time and persistence for local enterprises to nurture the necessary

relationships to build their export capacity. I am pleased that local

enterprises are benefiting from trade missions and taking a proactive approach

to targeting new sales opportunities.

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 providing an advance copy of his statement.

Trade shows, regardless if they be to Toronto or anywhere else in North

America, of course, are indeed beneficial to people in this Province who have

businesses and who want to grow those business; and also trade shows within the

Province, of course. We have all kinds within, whether it is crafts or

manufacturing. We have many activities by the Boards of Trade and Chambers of

Commerce throughout the Province, and that grows these businesses as well. Even

in some cases, once they have grown provincially, it takes them to that next

level to go national, and that is what we have seen in some of the cases here

with these people.

Being Minister of Industry back in 2002-2003, I had occasion to take

part in

several of these and meet a lot of the entrepreneurs who today have very

thriving businesses because of the contacts that they made back at that time.

Their businesses have grown by leaps and bounds since they made those contacts.

Because business is, to a large extent, contacts: who you know, where they live,

and how can you mutually benefit each other so that you can grow your business?

It is not only through ITRD. We have other relationships, for example, even the

Irish partnership, which is not only a cultural type thing but also an economic

thing.

I would encourage the minister, in fact, because we face some downtimes now,

such as the economy, for example, I am a firm believer that, like they say, if

your business is not doing well you might need to advertise more and buy more

advertising. I think the same thing would apply to trade shows. Just because we

are facing a global downturn in the economy, I would encourage the minister to

keep up these trade shows and activities, because we need to keep your foot at

the door, trying to get through those doors where we can sell our products. We

certainly are supportive of the initiative. It has been going on for years.

I believe Premier Tobin

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks.

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

I believe it was Premier Tobin who ramped up this trade show piece to a new

level, and it is good to see that it has been maintained at that high level and

there has been no reduction in that.

Thank you.

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.

Mr. Speaker, Abitibi's potential topple into bankruptcy will provide no

protection, or very little, under the Wage Earner Protection Program, I think

the minister said yesterday, and we understand that is something like $3,000 a

person. This is for hundreds of mill works who are due to receive their

severance packages in two weeks, as a result of the shutdown of the Grand

Falls-Windsor operation. Government has really been taking a hands-off approach,

in my opinion, when it comes to these severance packages.

I ask you today: Will you look at using profits from Abitibi's seized

assets that are now in the hands of government to honour these severance

packages if they happen to fall through the company's safeguards?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said here in the House earlier in the week, we continue to monitor the

activity around Abitibi very closely. We understand the options that the company

has available to it, and we will see where they go in the next several weeks.

We also clearly understand the responsibilities that the company has, and

while the company is solvent we expect them to live up to those

responsibilities.

In our talks with Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, we have clearly put severance for the

loggers on the table as part of those talks. We are mindful of their obligations

to the people of Grand Falls, and we will continue to keep that in mind as

events unfold.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, these workers have given years and years of their

lives to this company and they are due extreme amounts of money. I guess what we

are asking is: If there is no other security for these workers in being able to

collect this severance, is government prepared to use the profits that you now

earn from the assets that you have seized in Grand Falls-Windsor to pay out

those benefits, not just to the mill workers but also to the loggers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only reiterate what I just said. The company still remains solvent,

even though it is in grave difficulty, but in its current state it has

obligations to the former workers of the mill at Grand Falls-Windsor and we

expect them to live up to those responsibilities.

We are very mindful of the needs of the people in the Central Region of the

Province. That is why we have severance on the table in our discussions with

Abitibi. It is also why we have, in our recent Budget, committed to an

addictions centre in that area of the Province, as well as putting our home

heating rebate services there.

Unlike members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, we have great confidence in

the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister phrases her answers by talking about the current state of this

company, but we know that this company is on life-support and may not survive,

Minister. We also know that there is an unfunded pension liability in the

pension fund for Abitibi workers.

I ask the minister today: Can you tell us what the amount is of that unfunded

liability?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely clear on the

question. I could not hear her, in the noise of the House. If she is asking

about the unfunded liability of the pension plan of AbitibiBowater, we believe

that the fund is 75 per cent funded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the company was to go bankrupt, what does this mean for the pension plan

if it is already carrying an unfunded liability, and will that fund be secured

against creditors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to state is that in this

House I do not like to deal with hypothetical situations, and certainly I will

not deal with hypothetical situations because the company has not even applied

for bankruptcy protection at this point in time.

Under our own legislation, which we brought in March 2008, the deficit in

regard to the unfunded liability in regard to pensions has to be funded over a

period of time of five years. That applies to bankruptcy as well in regard to

that. As you know, if a company goes bankrupt well then you are lined up with

all the other creditors. Certainly, the deficit then is a non-secured liability,

it is a non-secured credit. We are aware of it, we are monitoring the situation,

but we can't deal with a hypothetical situation because they haven't even

filed for bankruptcy protection at this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister might want to refer to this as

hypothetical, but this is the reality: today there is a company in this Province

that has displaced hundreds of workers who are depending upon receiving a

pension from that company that has an unfunded liability.

Now, if that company is to go bankrupt - I just want a straight answer - is

the pension fund protected against creditors or is it not? Could these people

foreseeably lose their pension fund?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, all pensions around the world at this

particular time are affected by the global downturn. Certainly, you will find

that even our own pensions in certain areas are suffering in regards to global

markets, and this pension is no different. There pension is there, it is

protected. The pension is separate from the company itself. It is affected by

the markets no differently than any other pension, and that is what we have

today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, personal care homes in the Province with greater than fifty beds

are able to avail of Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation insurance on

their loans. However, smaller homes don't have that same security and, as a

result, they are unable to secure funding from banks right now for expansions or

upgrades.

I ask the minister and the government, if they are prepared to lobby the

federal government and to ask that there be exemptions made under the Canadian

Housing and Mortgage program, so that smaller homes across the country also have

that financial security in their operations.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The issue around CMHC's lending policies and practices, as

you have clearly indicated, are subject to the rules and regulations laid down

by that corporation. Any assistance that we, as a Province, can provide any

industry in securing funding from a federal agency we would be only too glad to

assist them with that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that major changes like this need to start somewhere. I am asking

you, as the minister, if you are prepared to have it placed on the agenda for

the next First Ministers' Meeting across the country, and to highlight this as

an issue of policy that needs to be changed in the country.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have control of the First Ministers'

agenda, obviously, but I can undertake to pursue it with the appropriate

minister responsible for the corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

Minister, of course that is not the only thing we know you do not have

control of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, has the government given any consideration to

using our own housing corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to secure

financing for the small personal care home operators in the Province, many of

whom we know could be forced out of business if they cannot secure this

assistance?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the primary mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is to

look after people who are in low-income situations, to assist them either in

securing assistance to upgrade their own personal homes or to assist them in

accessing affordable housing that might be administered through Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. We have no mandate in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to

engage at all in personal care homes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect minister, we know what the mandate is of Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing today.

We are asking: Have you ever looked at expanding that mandate to be able to

ensure loans in the Province for small personal care home operators, like

Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation does for larger homes across the

country?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member, I am not

aware that housing has looked at that, and I have to say, I doubt that we would

go down that road.

Mr. Speaker, we have a huge amount of infrastructure under the responsibility

of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing right now that is in the range of thirty to

fifty years old; that has, by and large, been neglected for most of that thirty

to fifty-year period, Mr. Speaker.

Only under the past couple of budgets, since we have been in power and since

we have been able to get our financial house in order, have we increased funding

in multi-millions of dollars annually, Mr. Speaker, in order to be able to begin

retrofitting the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units.

As for abilities of personal care homes to access financing, Mr. Speaker,

there is a suite of programs in Innovation, Trade and Rural Development in the

form of loans. I know some personal care homes in the Province have access. It

is a loan and it is there, able to be accessed if the business case exists, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2006, government did increase the subsidy they were paying out to personal

care homes but at the same time, they also removed the night security grant.

They then later changed the staffing requirements that these homes had to meet

and they also had a mandatory increase in the salaries or the minimum wage in

the Province. All of these policies have caused financial hardship to personal

care home operators, especially small operators in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I ask the minister today, if he is prepared to revisit some of those policy

decisions allocated to personal care home operators and if he would reinstate

the grant for night security?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Anytime, as government, anytime we have a role and responsibility to ensure

there is appropriate standards of care being provided and regulations are in

place to protect the residents of those homes, that is our responsibility I say,

Mr. Speaker. So any standards we have introduced, any new policy changes that

have come in place, have come in place focused on ensuring that we provide safe

quality care.

Now the member opposite would have people believe that the personal care home

sector is in dire straits. Let me point out something. If we look at the

personal care home sector in this Province since we formed government, there has

been an expansion of capacity in that sector by about 1,000 beds. If you look at

the number of new homes that have opened in recent years, I say, Mr. Speaker -

in fact, I am aware today there are two under construction as we speak.

So, anytime you look at an industry that expands its capacity by 1,000 beds

or more in about a four-year period and we see new homes being built all the

time, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, these people make decisions to invest because on a

sound business case -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his response.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, we have created a regulatory regime that is appropriate for that

industry. We have created a regulatory regime that provides an adequate

protection for the residents of those homes and they are able to survive, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But, the minister knows that the expansion of beds is in larger personal care

homes in the Province. He also knows that the policies are not causing financial

hardship for those homes. It is the smaller homes, the homes that we have seen

go out of business in the last few years.

Mr. Speaker, in this current Budget the minister also approved a personal

care home subsidy rate of $37 per month per subsidized client, but if you do the

mathematics on what your government requires in staffing in one of those small

homes, plus the fifty cent increase in minimum wage that they have to start

paying this year, you will find out that your subsidy does not even cover the

minimum required costs that they will increase by this year.

I ask you minister: If you were going to give them a subsidy, why not give

them enough to cover off the mandatory policies that you are putting in place

this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if we had made an adjustment in the personal

care home rates this year, and was the first time we have ever done it, then

yes, that is a reasonable question, but I think the member needs to put in

perspective the kind of investment we have made in that sector in recent years.

This is not the first; this is one of a number of increases we have made. We

made the changes that she referenced earlier around consolidation of the rate

with the former night security rate, we blended those together and provided an

enhancement in that area, I say, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, since we have been in government, I think there has

been about I stand to be corrected on this, but since we have been in

government this is probably the third, if not the fourth increase we have

provided in rates for personal care homes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I go back to my earlier comment, Mr. Speaker, obviously, this sector is

flourishing. All we need to do is look at the number of new homes built and the

expansion of capacity in that sector. So obviously, those owners see it as a

viable business to be in and are comfortable with the regulatory regime in which

they operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Minister, you are giving it out in one hand and you are taking

it back in the other, and that is the point. Every time that you have made an

increase you have also changed policies and requirements that have caused

financial hardship for the small personal care home operators in rural areas of

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, currently today, under this government, whenever seniors living

in personal care homes receive an increase, either in their old age security or

in their CPP, your government is clawing back this money. You are the first

government to do that. That practice came in in 2003 when you took office.

So I ask you today: Will you stop clawing back the additional benefits that

are being paid to seniors in personal care homes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite keeps referencing her question about rural Newfoundland

and Labrador. I just want to point out a couple of things.

If you look at the homes that have built all you need to do is look at

the homes that have been built in recent years. There is one in Port Saunders

that has been recently built. There is a new one open in Botwood, I say, Mr.

Speaker. There is a new one open out in the Springdale area, I say, Mr. Speaker.

There are two homes in my own district that have exchanged hands in recent years

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Again, small homes. So individuals are entering that market,

buying homes that are varying sizes.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite speaks like she is representing the

voice of every single personal care home in the Province, but many of them are

doing quite well, many of them have expanded their business, many of them have

recently opened businesses; and, like any business, some operate more profitable

than others and some are managed better than others.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Our role as a government is to ensure that there is fair

compensation for those clients we subsidize, and we have

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't believe what I am hearing the minister say, because he knows the

difference. These people have met with you, Minister, several times in the last

two years. These people represent an association of sixty members. They operate

small homes across the Province.

My question was: Why is it, when you put a subsidy out there in your Budget,

like you did the other day, at $37 per person, that then you go and claw back

the very money that they receive as additional benefits on their Old Age

Security and CPP? You are the first government to do that, and I ask that you

stop the practice. Will you give that consideration?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in this House, we are always considering

how we might improve our health system. Every year in our annual budgetary

process we look at opportunities to invest new money in various parts of the

health system, and we will do that again in years to come. In fact, this year we

have invested so much money in our health system we have become the Province

that invests more on a per capita basis than anyone else in the entire country.

That is the kind of consideration we give our health system.

My commitment to the member opposite, and to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, is that we will always be looking for opportunities to improve our

system, and where we have a capacity, and where it is appropriate, we will make

the necessary investments to ensure we build on the successes that we have had

and build on the good work that we have already done in the last four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently in the Budget, Memorial University requested $27 million in funding

and the government opposite voted $21 million.

I ask: Why did you not give them the full amount of money that they

requested? What did you expect them to do to make up for the shortfall? Are they

supposed to cut programs or services?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, when we go into

the budget process, we often have many budget requests for all kinds of

different expansions, or new programs, or ways to grow institutions. When we

look at that through the budgetary process we have to make decisions, we have to

set priorities and we have to fund those priorities.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that was in the media today was the fact that the

acting president of the university indicated that they would have preferred to

have $3 million more regarding their fixed costs and their salary increases.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the salary increases, and the way that we have

budgeted money - not just this year but certainly in the past, probably going

back to at least 2001 - is that we increased the base budget to cover the salary

increase cost, but when we get to the incremental cost of the step increases,

and some of the benefits that go along with that, we fund that at 75 per cent as

opposed to 100 per cent. In previous years government departments, as well as

the university and other agencies, have been able to certainly cover their

salary costs based on that amount of money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done this year has certainly been no different than how we fund

the step increases at 75 per cent. Sometimes the full 100 per cent is not

necessary because there may be times when the staffing is not always at 100 per

cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister says that when they look at the budget they make decisions.

Well, let me ask you, Minister: What was your decision in terms of how the

university was going to make up for this $6 million shortfall? What were they

supposed to cut to do it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, let me just make a comment first about what the

acting president said on Budget day. He said this is very good news for us on

the whole.

Mr. Speaker, what the issue is, they came in and asked for $27 million. What

we were able to provide for the university was almost $5 million to maintain a

tuition freeze. We also had incremental adjustments so that they could expand

their programs in health care in their professional schools. We added $1 million

so graduate students could have fellowships. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker,

we have also funded their ocean strategy with money for the School of Ocean

Technology. We have put money into the Holyrood Marine Base. We have put money

into research and development. There is incremental funding for Sir Wilfred

Grenfell College so they can become a more autonomist institution. There is also

incremental funding for the Centre of Environmental Excellence. We brought in

the post degree for social work, the fast track program, and there is also

incremental funding for mass communications.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: We looked at all of their priorities and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the minister was robbing Peter to

pay Paul, I say to her.

The university is saying they may have to make cuts in their staff and in

their faculty. Minister, can you tell me how you can allow the university to be

laying off people, reducing its faculty, at a time when they need stability and

not shortcuts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government has said many times that Memorial

University needs strong leadership, and under strong leadership they will be

able to deliver their full suite of programs with the budget they have been

allotted this year.

With regard to salary increases and step adjustments, they indicate that they

would like to have $3 million more. They have 75 per cent of what has been

requested, and when you look at leaves of absence and maternity leave, and other

leaves and vacancies, and filling vacancies, and people leaving at a higher step

and coming in on a lower, they should be able to operate. In this Budget alone

for their salary increases and step increases this government has given them

$8.7 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister likes to poke her fingers in, and intervene in, the university

when it comes to who is going to run it and who is going to operate it, but she

is not going to intervene to make sure they get the money to maintain the

complement of services and staff that they require.

Mr. Speaker, Memorial has been requesting a capital grant for the past number

of years, actually, to upgrade the forty- or fifty-year-old science lab that is

critical, as we know, to research at the university.

I ask the government: When they put out their infrastructure priorities for

the Province, was this not considered? If it was, why wasn't it funded?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, when we do a budget, particularly for

the university, there are many demands and many requests, especially in the area

of infrastructure. This government has committed funding that we are going to

upgrade and build new residences here in St. John's as well as Corner Brook,

and we have also indicated that we are going to be building an academic building

at Sir Wilfred Grenfell at the tune of $34 million, Mr. Speaker. So we have

looked at all the infrastructure requests from the university but we have to set

priorities.

The residences right now, and the academic building, are what we have

announced and are the priorities of government. By saying that, Mr. Speaker, it

does not mean that we feel that the science building and other buildings do not

need to be upgraded or new buildings, but we can only do so much in any given

fiscal year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The summer season will soon be upon us and the summer maintenance crew for

the Department of Transportation and Works will be assigned their duties.

I ask the minister: Can he tell this hon. House what the budget for the

summer maintenance is this year? Is it more or less or the same as it was last

year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I cannot give the exact number but it is the

same as it was last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the budget for

materials needed for the summer maintenance program this year has been

determined, but that the budget for workers is under budget because of salary

overruns for last year.

I ask the minister: Can he confirm to this House that there will be less

workers for the summer maintenance program or are they going to be the same as

last year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is any change in the number of workers

that we are going to have on our summer maintenance program. I am not aware of

it from any discussions that I have had with the department. I do not anticipate

any changes, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I asked the Minister of Natural Resources some questions earlier in the week

concerning the caribou hunt, the illegal hunt that was taking place in Labrador.

We understand now that the hunt is winding down, if not concluded.

Just some clarification, when we asked the minister during the week, the

indication was that they could not send in our enforcement officers because of

security risk. I assume that it was our security conservation enforcement

officers that might have made that assessment, but later it was reported in the

CBC National by Mr. Mansbridge that actually it was the RCMP who made the call

on the security issue.

I am wondering if you can clarify for us: Was it an RCMP decision as to the

security or our enforcement and conservation branch, or was it a combination of

both?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our conservation officers on the ground who are well versed in

this activity and well trained to do this kind of work, made an assessment that

the situation was too volatile, and for reasons of safety and security it was

very wise to be prudent in their activity.

They were in constant communication with the RCMP in Happy Valley-Goose Bay

describing the situation to them and the RCMP confirmed their decision not to

take any more provocative action to exacerbate the situation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister indicated in this area again throughout the week when I asked

the questions, we now know that the hunt is concluded or is concluding,

apparently. We do not know if they have hunted them to extinction or not,

because I guess we were just monitoring. We have not had any reports.

Could you give us a status now as to how many they did ultimately kill, to

our knowledge based upon that monitoring? Also, will there be charges laid

against these illegal Quebec Innu hunters, and what do you intend to do on a

go-forward basis to make sure that it does not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we estimated that in the Joir River herd there were

approximately 100 to 108 animals. Our best estimation from our observations

during the last week, is that forty of those animals have been taken.

We understand that the group of Innu hunters from La Romaine have gone home.

There are still some hunters from Saint-Augustine still in the area; at least

twenty-six snowmobiles still in the area. There has not been any hunting

activity in the last three days and we are very hopeful that the rest of the

group will return back to Quebec. We will continue to do, in terms of education

and discussion with the Quebec Innu, in conjunction with the Labrador Innu, to

rise awareness on the vulnerability of this herd and to do everything we can to

prevent hunting.

Evidence is being assessed, and where evidence will support it, Mr. Speaker,

charges will be laid, and the Department of Justice is engaged in that activity

at the moment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

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

introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Chiropractors." (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seeing today was a day of making history, maybe, just maybe, with this

petition I might make history once again.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stand today and present another petition on behalf of

the residents of Long Island with regards to the Long Island causeway, and to

join the member for that area, for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, to bring

forward the concerns of the constituents of that area, being the critic for

Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for that area stated, I think it was around

March 30, that he has been lobbying government now for years to try to get a

good service for the people in that particular area. I know that particular

petition and request he was making has been ever since this government has been

in, and previously to that, but there was an announcement made back in 2003,

that a causeway would be built to Long Island.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am presenting these petitions, to call upon

government to reconsider their decision.

Mr. Speaker, those people, like they said, had an excellent service for some

twenty-five years and that is all they are asking for now. They are asking for a

fixed link to the island; and, not only that, they have asked if government

would look at providing an adequate ferry service because at the present time,

apparently, they are not receiving that. There is some concern from parents with

children who have to travel to school, as well as business individuals and so

on.

We are calling upon government to look at this petition, to reconsider their

decision to not proceed with the causeway. Hopefully they will reconsider a

fixed link between Long Island and Pilley's Island for the residents of that

particular area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue Administration. (Bill 4)

I further move that the bill be now read a first time.

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

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

entitled,

An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue Administration, Bill

4, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 4 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration," carried. (Bill 4)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue

Administration. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act. (Bill 5)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

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

entitled,

An Act to Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund Act, Bill

5, and that Bill 5 be now read a first time.

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

introduce Bill 5, 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 Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce

a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund

Act," carried. (Bill 5)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Repeal The Labrador Transportation Initiative

Fund Act. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 5 has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I

move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board,

to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding

Act. (Bill 6)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act, Bill 6, and that this bill

be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 6 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act," carried.

(Bill 6)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 6 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 6 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 7)

I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

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

Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill, An

Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 7, and that

Bill 7 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill shall 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 Human Resources, Labour and Employment to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act," carried. (Bill 7)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 7 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper Motion

1, moved by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to

move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of government, the

Budget Speech, and to continue the budgetary debate.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and speak to the motion on the Budget. As you can

tell from the last few days of debate in the House of Assembly, there is

certainly no shortage of issues coming out of this or surrounding this Budget

that are of concern to people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a couple of issues today, and one is the

issue that is unfolding in Grand FallsWindsor. Mr. Speaker, it is a really

sad chapter, in fact, in our history. If you look at what is happening right now

there is so much uncertainty around all of this for the workers in that

particular area, but what was really ironic about all of this is that - and I

think I read this in an editorial somewhere in the last couple of days as well -

the irony was that it was on Budget day in this Province, a day when we brought

down one of the largest revenue budgets ever in the history, a Budget that was

nearly $7 billion to allocate programs and services to the people of the

Province. It was on the very day that the mill in Grand Falls produced for the

very last time. It was a day when workers walked off the job, when the doors

were locked, and they knew the next day they did not have the opportunity to get

up, to pack their lunch bags and to go through the plant doors again.

Mr. Speaker, it was ironic that while we were introducing the largest Budget

ever in our Province, to the people and to the taxpayers, that we had another

group of people somewhere else in our Province that was experiencing the largest

setback ever in their lives.

Mr. Speaker, we have continued to raise issues and ask questions around what

has been happening in Grand Falls-Windsor. We started long before the Budget,

plan to rejuvenate the economy in Central Newfoundland. Because what we see is a

vision that lacks substance, a plan that lacks vision, and certainly not one

that will be a catalyst for new economic development and growth, at least at the

stage of where it is now.

Mr. Speaker, I say that because the members opposite took great offence,

apparently, to some comments that I made. In fact, I heard the Mayor of Grand

Falls when he said: Oh, I think this infrastructure funding is going to be great

for Grand Falls-Windsor.

Well, he is entitled to his opinion, but I have taken a lot of phone calls

from Central Newfoundland since all of this happened - a lot of phone calls -

and I am still taking them, even before I came to the House of Assembly today.

They are just not from people who want to be frivolous or want to be political.

These calls are from people who have serious issues, serious concerns, and they

are worried. They are worried as to what the future will hold for them, and they

are hitting the panic button, many of them.

Mr. Speaker, when government laid out its plan for Grand Falls, which was

supposed to be the grandiose solution to what was happening out there with the

economic shift, they were really disappointed if anyone dared to speak

negatively about it, but the reality is this: the millions of dollars that were

committed for infrastructure projects in Central Newfoundland will be welcomed.

They will be welcomed by the construction industry right across the Province,

Mr. Speaker, because it means jobs for everyone, short term jobs for everyone

who are eligible, qualified, and have the skills to work in that business. So,

when government says, we are going to do an upgrade on a hospital, we are going

to do an upgrade on a college, we are going to do an upgrade on a school, we are

going to fix this road, we are going to fix these potholes, we are going to do

this and do that, it is no different from what is happening with infrastructure

development right across the Province.

People have to remember, that the provincial government has just signed on to

multi-millions of dollars from the federal government to do those infrastructure

projects. The federal government will transfer huge sums of money for

infrastructure over the next two years to be invested in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: It is correct, I say to the minister, and I can get the

information that was provided by the Federation of Municipalities and the

National Federation of Municipalities, Mr. Speaker, which shows the amount of

money for every jurisdiction of federal infrastructure dollars.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, the government themselves will put money

into infrastructure. The provincial government will put money into

infrastructure as well. All of that money has conditions and all of that money

will be spent over the next few years.

What is happening in Grand Falls-Windsor is no different than infrastructure

spending that will be spent in Western Newfoundland, that will be spent in

Northern Newfoundland and Labrador, or that will be spent on the East Coast of

the Province, Mr. Speaker. It is all money that is being spent right across the

Province in all different areas. It is not like the government said, we have an

economic crisis in Central Newfoundland so we are going to take a large chunk of

this and we are going to spend it out there, and that is going to be our

stimulus for that region.

Mr. Speaker, what they have done they have done with everyone in the

Province. Whether it is municipal infrastructure money, whether it is highways

infrastructure money, whether it is provincial or federal sources of money, it

is being spent right across the Province.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, what else did they announce for Grand

Falls-Windsor? Well, they have an office out there, and from what the workers

are telling me the provincial government has them going around like a crowd of

chickens with their heads cut off, because they are going to one office on one

side of the road and they are being told to go to another office on the other

side of the road. They are being told to go to this office, to go to that

office, because, Mr. Speaker, their member, who happens to be the Minister of

Human Resources, Labour and Employment, has a budget to put an office on every

corner in Grand Falls, and to send people wherever they want to go to get a

resume done, to find out about a job, to go talk to this one, to go talk to that

one.

Let me tell you, minister, what your constituents have said to me. Let me

tell you what they have said to me: Going in and out of an office everyday is

not helping me deal with the job I have gone, the severance money that I do not

know if I am going to get, the pension benefit I am not sure if I will ever be

able to draw down, but in the meantime my member has opened an office and I can

go in there any day and get a resume done, but where am I going to send my

resume? I cannot send it to Alberta, because they are all getting laid off in

Alberta and getting sent home. I cannot send it to Gander, because there is no

new industry in Gander. I cannot send it to Wabush, because 200 people just got

laid off up there in the mine. So, thank you to my MHA for opening an office

down the road so I can go in and get my resume done, but I have nowhere to send

it. That is what they have been telling me.

So, Mr. Speaker, that was one of their solutions. That was one of the

solutions. Not all bad, I say. There is lots of opportunity for people to

retrain, to look at money for retraining. Providing those services is very

important, very important, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that, what else did they do? They decided we are going to move

the infamous baby bonus office out of St. John's to Grand Falls, and we are

going to move the office that does the calculations on the Home Heating Rebate

to Grand Falls as well. Nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, but is that the

answer to stimulating the economy of Grand Falls, where hundreds of mill workers

just got displaced? Is that the solution, Mr. Speaker? Wow, that is so creative,

I must say, of the government opposite. So creative! Where have I heard it

before? When Stephenville shut down, where did I hear it before that, Mr.

Speaker? When another government did it, moving the offices into Corner Brook,

and the members opposite stood up everyday and said: Oh, you cannot do that.

That is shameful to do that! And what are they doing, Mr. Speaker? The exact

same thing! The exact same thing! You talk about being short on ideas. You talk

about being short on innovation. It is recycling. Recycling!

I heard a minister the other day comment in the media, and I knew I had heard

the phrase before so I went back and I looked it up. It was the exact same words

used by one of their former colleagues four years ago, responding to the same

issue. I had to get the two transcripts and sit down, Mr. Speaker, to make sure

that I was not making a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, that is supposed to be their solution for Grand Falls, move the

baby bonus office, move the Home Heating Rebate office, but remember, the people

who work in those offices it is their jobs. When the office moves they have the

right to move as well. They have the right to move as well, move with the job

and with the office to Grand Falls-Windsor. So there may never be either new job

created by moving these two offices. What it will do is give the town a little

bit of taxes. You put two more offices out here, maybe they will get some taxes

but I am not even sure if they can tax government offices. I will have to

double-check that one. Maybe they will not even get the taxes.

The other solution, Mr. Speaker, was the youth addiction centre, a very

important piece of infrastructure, very important programs for this Province. If

there is anything in this Budget that I would pat the government on the back for

it would be to do the addiction treatment centre and the youth mental health

treatment centre, because they are definitely, definitely needed. People are

crying out for those services in the Province. So if there is one thing I would

compliment the government on it would be that.

What I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, is the justification of government putting

the centre in Grand Falls, other than the fact that they are doing it because

the area is economically depressed right now. This is how narrow minded this

government is, that they would look at an area that is economically depressed

and they would take a service, a vital, critical service that should be designed

and the only decision around where that treatment centre should have been placed

in the Province is where the best services can be provided to the people who

need it. That should have been the only thing that equalled into the equation of

where an addiction treatment centre should go. Just like when government makes

the decision as to where the treatment facility for mental health services

should go in the Province, it should be based on one thing, Mr. Speaker,

providing the service to those that need it, not because an area is economically

challenged.

I know today, I had an e-mail a while ago from some people who left Grand

Falls and moved to Ontario. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had conversations and

dialogue with a person of very high calibre, tremendous skills who worked in

Grand Falls area, who was a psychiatrist in Grand Falls, who operated his own

clinic there, who moved out of the Province and left because of the workload,

because of the lack of support services that were being provided to them. Mr.

Speaker, today, there is not a psychiatrist there for the patients to see.

We had, only a couple of weeks ago, a family in that area who called me, in

fact, because they had to bring their son to St. John's to get psychiatric

treatment. They could not get the treatment in Grand Falls because the

psychiatrist that their son was seeing had closed up the clinic and left the

Province because they were overworked, because of the caseload that they had and

they were not able to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if government's decision to put the addiction treatment

facility in Grand FallsWindsor was based on the fact that it is going to

serve the most people, that it is going to provide the best service, that they

are guaranteed to be able to recruit the complement of staff that they need,

then I have no problem with it. I have absolutely no problem with it. Put it in

Gander. Put it in Corner Brook. Put it in St. Anthony, as long as you are going

to meet the needs of those who need the service but do not do it because you are

short on ideas and you are short on vision and you are desperate to be able to

say to the people of Grand FallsWindsor, this is what we are going to do for

you. For God's sake, be a little bit more creative than that, I say to the

members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, if the service is going to be there, if the resources are going

to be there, and it is going to reach the people who need it, we have no problem

with it. Absolutely no problem with it!

Now, Mr. Speaker, what else was in this for Grand Falls? The other thing that

was in this was money under the development program, the Community Development

Trust, which was a federal government program, a program that was signed in

2007-2008. I think the first money flowed in 2008-2009 to the provincial

government for $23,400,000; a cheque from the federal government to the

Province. The very government they say that never gives them any money; another

cheque from the federal government to the provincial government.

Well, out of that money, Mr. Speaker, they have done a number of things, such

as building resource roads. They have used some for grants and subsidies. We

will have to find out what that is about. Some of it went into aquaculture. Some

of it went into professional services I do not know what that one was about

- and some of it will now be used over the next two years, with $2.5 million

this year and next year, to help Grand Falls-Windsor diversify their local

economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we also know that under the Community Development Trust in

other provinces in Canada that money got used to help make workforce

adjustments. I refer to the Province of British Columbia, where monies under

that program were used to help workers who were displaced, who needed to bridge

the gap, Mr. Speaker, in terms of receiving pensions and benefits, who needed

adjustment measures within the Province in order to find new jobs and new

opportunities, and money was used under that program to do that.

We are not going to see any of that being used in Grand Falls-Windsor. We are

not sure what that money is going to be used for yet. I guess the government

will tell us. Someone will tell us eventually. If not, when it is all spent I

guess we will find out; but someone may tell us. You never know.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is what we are dealing with today, and today we are

dealing with the possibility, the prospect, that AbitibiBowater could go into

bankruptcy. This is a company who, in the last two weeks, have tried to

refinance its loans to no success. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they have called all

the talks off, and they have not been able to raise the capital that they needed

to refinance the loans and the debt that the company had. So, in the absence of

a restructuring plan, there is a very good possibility that they are going into

bankruptcy.

We have been, for days - for days - asking this government, what does that

mean? Do you know why we are asking? Because of e-mails like I have here from

workers in that area who are saying, what does this mean to me?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was an interview on the radio this morning I

do not think I have a copy of it from one of the workers out there, and I

think they put it better than anyone I have heard in the past, because they were

definitely speaking on behalf of the workers and outlining exactly how they are

impacted.

Mr. Speaker, they are concerned, and every time that I have stood in this

House of Assembly and asked, what will this mean to the severance packages for

workers out there? I am always being given the hands-off approach by government.

We have no control; it is all under federal legislation. We do not know how much

the severances are. We do not know how they are going to be affected.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about hundreds of people, with nearly $25 million

of their money on the line in this Province, and of all the ministers of the

packed benches on the other side, no one can tell us what the fallout will be

for them.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know what the fallout is going to be for them under

current Canadian and U.S. legislation. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there will

probably be no security for them. What is $3,000 to be paid out to a worker who

should be receiving $80,000 or $90,000 in severance? Mr. Speaker, it is a far

cry from where their expectations are.

What we are saying to government is that if this company goes into bankruptcy

and those severance packages are no longer on the table come April 16 for those

workers, what will your role be? Are you prepared to step up to the plate? Are

you then prepared to step up and pay the severance to these workers, based on

the fact that you have secured the assets and the resources that stimulated

their jobs? When their jobs went, you moved in and secured the only thing that

could earn a profit to pay those particular wages.

Now, I do not have a problem with you securing those assets, so don't

interpret it as I do have a problem with it because I do not, but what I do see

is this: I see government today earning money off those assets, and I see people

in that area who are going around in worry, and tormented, and in panic because

they do not know if there is going to be any severance cheque for them two weeks

from today.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are asking government: Are you prepared to put your money

where your mouth is, when you went out there a few weeks ago and you stood in

the union halls and you told these workers not to worry, that we will look after

you? Because those are the speeches that were made: Don't you worry; we will

look after you.

Well, they are asking today: How are you going to look after me? They want to

know how you are going to look after them. Are you going to ensure that they get

their severance packages?

Let's talk about their pension funds. What does it mean for the pension

fund if this company goes bankrupt? I don't mean the flak that I got from the

minister today in Question Period. I mean, really, what are the consequences?

There is a pension fund that we know is underfunded. There is an unfunded

liability in this pension fund, and we do not know if there is any security on

that fund when it comes to the creditors. If there is no security on that fund,

what does it mean? Does it mean that pensions will be paid out until the pot

runs out and then that is the end of it? Does it mean that you are only going to

get 75 per cent of the pension that was supposed to be accrued to you because

the rest of the money is not there to pay it, or does it mean that you are not

getting any pension?

These are the questions that we are asking, and do not get up in the House of

Assembly and get on with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo around this and that and

something else. Come clean with people and tell them. Do you not know what the

consequence is? Because if you do not know say you do not know but at least make

an effort to go and find out. Do not wait for another two weeks until the shoe

drops and the bottom is gone out of it and then you are going around scrambling

to find out what this means, if there is money that has to go in, if there is

any security from the creditors, if there is either pension cheque going to be

sent out or if the fund is just going to run out of money in a certain period of

time. This is people's lives and it is simple questions, questions that

government should know. Questions that ministers, if they were on top of the

situation and they had their heads wrapped around it, they would know these

answers. They would know them like this, right off the top of their heads. If

the people of the Province cannot depend upon their government to protect them

at a time like this, who do they depend upon? Who do they depend upon? There is

nowhere else for them to turn, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we are seeing in Grand

Falls-Windsor, and I have no problem with the Mayor of Grand Falls coming out

and touting the fact that he likes the infrastructure money. I would expect him

to, but I am sure today he is every bit as concerned about what is going to

happen with severance and pension plans for workers in Grand Falls-Windsor as

anyone else in this Province is. That much I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, it does not hold water with me. I have the members opposite

everyday trying to stop me from asking questions when it comes to how these

workers and families are impacted but I will tell you, I will not stop asking

the questions and I will not stop expecting to get answers. Now I am not getting

a whole lot yet but it is quite obvious that the ministers do not have their

heads around this issue. They do not understand the international laws that come

into play here and they do not understand how these laws pertain to everyday

workers who have given their life to this plant and this operation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little bit as well about the Lower

Churchill, I only have an hour in debate. I want to talk about this deal because

yesterday in the House of Assembly I asked a number of questions around the

Lower Churchill project, and guess what? I never got an answer. I got all fluff

and no stuff is what I got, not one answer came from the minister opposite. Two

very important questions, I might add.

This is a government that is out there everyday talking about how they are

going to do the big deal around the Lower Churchill. If you were to sit back and

read the material, if you were to sit back and listen, if you were to take a

little bit of time to do a little bit of research, you would find that there are

a lot of questions around the government's Anglo-Saxon route to develop the

Lower Churchill project. You would find that there are a lot of questions but

there are no answers. Talk about spinning an issue, talk about trying to

convince the public in the face of facts. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the perfect

example. I have never quite seen anything like it in my entire life.

There are lots of editorials around, there are lots of pieces in the paper,

there are lots of letters which challenges the government's perspective on the

Lower Churchill and what they are proposing.

First of all, the first thing you get out of this government opposite is if

you ask a question about anything, you are against it. So as soon as I ask

questions about the Lower Churchill project, you are automatically against it.

Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. I would love to see the

development of the clean energy of the Lower Churchill in this Province, but I

would like to see it done sensible. I would like to see it done in a way where

people can actually see a return for their money. I would like to see it done in

respect for the Aboriginal people that live in Labrador, such as the Innu and

the Metis. I would love to see it done, taking into consideration the great risk

and sacrifice for all Labradorians and to ensure that they get benefits from

this resource, just like the people in Grand Falls, I believe should be getting

benefits from the resources and the rivers that have been developed in their

area. I think adjacency needs to be a principle that is not just a side

agreement but is a part of the full agreement anytime you do a deal.

Let me take you through a little bit of history around the Lower Churchill

project. In fact, history that goes back to probably two or three years ago when

the Premier had his first spats with the Province of Quebec, and the Government

of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the Premier went off on his tangent, he was volatile, he

was not going to rely on Quebec, they were too political. He did not want to

have anything to do with them. We are not going to be governed, he said, by a

process that Quebec wants to do. This is the kind of language that he was using.

Making all kinds of overtures and insults to the point that a couple of days ago

he had to come out after that and apologize to the people in the Province of

Quebec and to the people of Canada for his comments, for his behaviour. He said

it was not my intention to offend the people of Quebec under any circumstances

and he was sorry for it, but acknowledging as well that he was merely making a

statement.

This is the kind of Premier that we have, Mr. Speaker. One that says one

thing one day, says another thing the other day. Go back two years ago and read

these articles, articles that were the fighting words for the Premier of Quebec,

fighting words for the people of Quebec: we would have nothing to do with you.

So harsh, so extreme, that a couple of days later the Premier had to come out,

get down on his knees and apologize to the people of Quebec for his volatile

manner and his angry words that he had shot across the bow.

Mr. Speaker, the underlining current was this. We are not going to be doing

business with you. We are not going to develop the Lower Churchill to wheel

power through Quebec. No, we are going to look at our own route. We are going it

alone - I think were the words he said. We are going it alone, and this year we

have a deficit of $700 million or $800 million in the Province, but we are going

it alone on the Lower Churchill.

You talk about how they spin information. He said: we do not need to go

through Quebec. We will not go through Quebec. We do not need to go through

Quebec. We do not need you to do this. We are going to look at the Anglo-Saxon

route. We are going to look at the route that brings the transmission of power

to the Island of Newfoundland. There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. We

are going to look at running a line under the water, a subsea cable under the

Strait of Belle Isle. Fourteen kilometres of subsea cable at a cost of $1.5

billion, I think it is, Minister, or more, maybe even $2 billion. That is what

you asked the feds for, $2 billion. You never got it. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we

are going to run a subsea cable under the Strait of Belle Isle, and then we are

going to bring a transmission line down through one of the most prominent

national historic parks in the country, one of the national historic parks that

have fostered development in tourism for the West Coast of Newfoundland and the

Northern Peninsula and the people of the Province for the last two decades.

Don't worry, Mr. Speaker, we are going to run towers, sixty-meter towers,

right down through. We are going to run power lines through hundreds of

kilometers of a national park, of Gros Morne on the Northern Peninsula, and we

won't bother to ask Parks Canada. No need to ask Parks Canada about that. They

just have a law, Mr. Speaker, that says, we don't have that kind of

development in national parks in the country. But that is okay, we are the

government, so we will forge ahead. Then, when we get that transmission line and

all those towers coming down through Gros Morne, then we are going to bring the

line across the Island.

When we do, Mr. Speaker, we are going to close out Holyrood, because we are

going to have clean energy in the Province, we won't need Holyrood. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that myth was disputed by profs at the university, who say that you can't

close Holyrood. The government, in their own plan, in Hydro's own plan, they

tabled with the Public Utilities Board, says they can't close Holyrood, that

they have to operate Holyrood. Even with the transmission line, even with the

power coming into Soldiers Pond, they would have to operate Holyrood at about 30

per cent capacity, if not more, in order to do the conversion of power from the

Lower Churchill into the main grid for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the government out there is saying, we are going to close down

Holyrood's polluting plant when we get this clean energy, but it is just a

little tinge away from the reality of what Hydro has tabled in their own

long-term plan to the Public Utilities Board.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have no idea what the breakdown of cost

is on all that. What we do know is this, that to bring the line to develop the

powerhouse at Gull Island, Mr. Speaker, and to develop the powerhouse at Muskrat

Falls, and to transmit from Gull Island back to Churchill Falls, to build that

line, to transmit then from Gull Island to Muskrat Falls and, as I said, develop

the powerhouse at Muskrat Falls, and then bring that transmission line from

Muskrat Falls right on down through to the Straits of Labrador by subsea cable

under the Strait of Belle Isle and then down through the national park of Gros

Morne, and then across the Island of Newfoundland and into Soldiers Pond, the

only thing we do know is that government has a big round figure of $10 billion

to do all of that. But where is the figure that tells us how much the

transmission line is going to cost from Muskrat Falls to Soldiers Pond? Where is

the breakdown that tells us how much it is going to cost to develop the

powerhouse at Gull Island and to tie it in to the Churchill Falls project? Where

is the breakdown of the costs of where they are going to develop the powerhouse

at Muskrat Falls?

No details again, no information, just haul the big round number, the big

round figure, out of the air and stick it out there and now you believe me, you

trust me, this is what it is going to cost. We cannot tell you anything else

because it is all sensitive. It is all highly confidential.

Well, Mr. Speaker, nothing they had to say to the nurses at the bargaining

table was confidential - they were touting that all over the Province - but when

it comes to the Lower Churchill, and how much it is going to cost to do each

section of this line, that is highly confidential information. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do not buy into that argument. I do not think the government has

their head around this at all. I think they are being led here, and they are

trying to lead everyone else along with them. They are trying to lead us into

thinking that doing this is going to be feasible for the taxpayers of the

Province.

Let me just tell you where the real unfeasibility of all this comes in. When

you start talking about bringing the transmission line from the West Coast of

Newfoundland, then - you are going to tie it in to the West Coast of

Newfoundland - to that Lower Churchill grid, you are going to bring it over to

Port aux Basques, you are going to run a subsea cable that will be over 100

kilometres across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, you are going to run that line then

through two Atlantic Provinces, you are going to bring that line through Nova

Scotia and you have to bring that line through New Brunswick.

Just think about that, Mr. Speaker. You are not only going to run this

transmission line across Labrador, under the Strait of Belle Isle, across the

Island of Newfoundland, but now you are talking about bringing it to the West

Coast of the Island, then bringing it under the Gulf of St. Lawrence, then

bringing it ashore and across Nova Scotia, and then running it through New

Brunswick before you ever get to enter a market in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, what happens when you actually get that far? Let's just say

you get that far. Then I will come back and talk about the challenges of getting

that far. Let's just say you get that far. Then what do you have to do? Then

you have to transport that power through five states in the U.S. Through three

provinces and five states you have to transport Lower Churchill power before you

get to the very market, the New York market, that you could have gotten through

by going through Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at the transmission capability through the

states; because I have looked at it, Minister. If you look at the transmission

capability through Maine, through New Hampshire, through Massachusetts and

through Connecticut, you will find that those states do not have the power

capacity to wheel the power that we have. Is government now proposing they are

going to build transmission lines through three provinces and five states, and

cross two bodies of water, and they are going to come back and tell us it is

still feasible?

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I have a degree of respect for Ed Martin,

who is the President of Nalcor, but I am going to tell you they have a lot of

talking to do yet before they ever convince me that having to build transmission

lines through three provinces and five states is actually going to be feasible

for the development of Lower Churchill power.

You talk about the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, and not getting payout until

2041. I would say it will take 2,000 years to get payout under the proposal that

this government has for the development of this project. It is all smoke and

mirrors.

Anyone with common sense who sits down and goes through these documents, and

sits down and goes through the plan that this government is producing, will know

that it makes absolutely no sense financially what they are proposing.

Notwithstanding the fact, Mr. Speaker, that they still have to go through a

national park. Even if they do not go through the national park and they have to

go inside of the national park, it inflates the cost of the project again.

So, Mr. Speaker, prove your point. Prove your point. Put the numbers out

there for the public. Put it out there for the public. Tell us how much of this

transmission line you are actually going to build. Are you going to build the

lines through Nova Scotia? Because we know today the capacity is not in Nova

Scotia to wheel that power from the Lower Churchill. Or is the Nova Scotia

government going to build those lines? I have not heard the Nova Scotia

government announce, or Emera announce, that they were going to build that line

in Nova Scotia. So, are we going to build it or not?

Let us talk about New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker. Let us talk about New Brunswick

and what has been happening there; because, in New Brunswick, the Premier of New

Brunswick, who was speaking in Toronto a couple of nights ago, Premier Shawn

Graham, has already said to this government - a good Liberal Premier, I might

say, Mr. Speaker, is already saying to the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador - that I am putting the stake in the ground and you are not coming in

here wheeling power through New Brunswick and giving no benefits to the people

of my province. You are not going to come in here and do what you want to do. If

any power is going to come through New Brunswick, we are going to get paid for

it. We are going to benefit from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

I recognize the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The same regulatory process by which we got the right to wheel power through

the Province of Quebec into New York, that same process exists in New Brunswick.

We have applied. There is nobody who can stop it unless they are going to cancel

all of their commercial arrangements in the U.S.

The Leader of the Opposition, as in so many other things, does not have a

clue what she is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I read the full agreement this morning.

Mr. Speaker, let me inform the minister that the agreement they announced

today, they could have done it in 2004 because the wheeling rights she talks

about that they have through New Brunswick were in place for a number of years.

It was their government who missed the boat five years ago in negotiating that

deal. Now they are out there today saying: Oh, look at us. Look at what we have

done.

Well, it is time you woke up and did it, I say to the government opposite. It

is time you woke up and did it.

Mr. Speaker, let us get back to New Brunswick, because the government

opposite is out there talking about running power through Atlantic Canada and

they do not even talk to the governments and the premiers in those provinces.

They do not even talk to the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, but they are

telling the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are going to run the power

lines up through Atlantic Canada. We are going to bring the power through Nova

Scotia, even if we build our own lines. We are going bring the power through New

Brunswick, even if we build our own lines. Well Mr. Speaker, the Premier of New

Brunswick has news for them.

Mr. Speaker, the reason the Premier, two years ago, was volatile with Quebec

when he ended up apologizing to the people of Quebec - they would not have

anything to do with Quebec, because they had to pay to get the power wheeled

through Quebec. Will they think they are going to get the power wheeled through

New Brunswick for free?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, that is right. That is right, Mr. Speaker, they are going

to pay. They are going to pay to have the power wheeled through New Brunswick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, on a Point of Order.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, misinformation again.

Wheeling power through provinces, Mr. Speaker, is a regulated activity, and

the amount of money that is paid is regulated, not negotiated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no Point of Order.

I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for just confirming what I said. If they put the power

through Quebec or if they put it through Nova Scotia, or if they put it through

New Brunswick, they still have to pay. But, they will make people of the

Province believe that if we go through Quebec, if we take a financial secure

route for the Province, that it is a bad thing,

all because the Premier had a fight and a racket with the government of

Quebec. So, he says, we are doing the Anglo-Saxon. We are building lines, we are

putting subsea cables in, we are going across two provinces, and if we have to,

we are going to build this line down through five states on the Eastern

Seaboard, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in order to get to the market, government would have to be able

to feed this power into a grid when it crosses the border. Maybe they can tell

me, on another point of order, if the State of Maine, if the State of New

Hampshire, if the State of Massachusetts, and the State of Connecticut, have the

transmission ability today for the government to be able to wheel that power. My

guess is, Mr. Speaker, they don't have that ability.

Mr. Speaker, they have the option at anytime to table the information. They

have the option at anytime to table what the cost is of developing every single

section of this project and disclose that information to the people of the

Province. They have, at any opportunity, the ability to table in the House of

Assembly what it will cost to put the subsea cable across the Gulf of St.

Lawrence. They have the option, Mr. Speaker, at any time, to table for the

people of the Province where they will have to build transmission lines. Will

they have to build lines through Nova Scotia? Will they have to build lines

through New Brunswick? At anytime, Mr. Speaker, the minister and her government

can disclose that information to the people of the Province, but they are not

doing that. At anytime they call tell us, Mr. Speaker, what the deal is when

that power crosses the border into the United States: what grids it is going on;

how it is going to be transported to the market; will they have to invest in the

transmission lines there; and will someone else be building those lines and they

be leasing or renting the space on the lines. These are the details that they

keep hidden. These are the details that they do not disclose to the people of

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they have an EIS out now that is about that thick on the

development of the Gull Island power plant and the transmission of that power,

but they will not tell you how much it is going to cost to develop the

powerhouse at Gull Island. Now, why won't they tell you? Because they know,

Mr. Speaker, that there are economists, there are accountants, there are

investors, and there are companies, that if they put those numbers out there

they can sit down and crunch that information and they can tell government if

what they are doing is a smoke screen or if it is realistic.

Mr. Speaker, why won't they put the information out there? They won't put

it out there because they do not want it debated. They do not want to be

challenged on anything they do, so they keep the facts hidden. That is what is

going on with the Lower Churchill project, Mr. Speaker. That is what is going

on. They are not putting information out there because they do not want to be

challenged on what they are doing. That is the only reason, the simple reason,

Mr. Speaker.

This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that when the Voisey's Bay deal was

done, the entire deal ended up online practically. The deal, Mr. Speaker, was

tabled in the House of Assembly. There was a full debate around it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, they have this idea out there that they are going to build transmission

lines right through Atlantic Canada and right through the Eastern Seaboard and

they are going to develop the Churchill project and they are going to run it

through national parks and under the Strait of Bell Isle and through the Gulf of

St. Lawrence, but we are not going to tell anyone how much it is going to cost

to do this.

Mr. Speaker, they will tell you that this line is going to be able to

transport this amount of power and this generating station will generate this

amount of power. But, Mr. Speaker, even in all of that information, which I will

not get into today because I only have ten minutes, if you sit down and you look

at all of that information, government is even inconsistent with its own

numbers. Numbers that they were putting out a few years ago as to what the

production capability was at Gull Island is all of a sudden changed. The

production capability is all of a sudden changed with no explanation, with no

rationale. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the tie-ins for the project from Gull Island

have even changed.

I know I would say a lot more about this than the minister knows. I would

profess that I know more about what is going on with the Lower Churchill

project, Mr. Speaker, than the minister knows, because it is all being handled

by Nalcor and the Premier's Office. The minister, Mr. Speaker, is only propped

up with a few notes when the government needs someone to speak. That is about

the extent that the minister knows about what is going on with the Lower

Churchill project, just like with Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, just like it was the

Premier's Office making the calls over to AbitibiBowater. It was the Premier's

Office that was calling up the head office of AbitibiBowater, not the minister's

officer. They only prop the minister up with her notes when they need her to get

out and say something, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is that it is the big energy

corporation, Nalcor, and the spin doctoring from the Premier's office that is

managing the Lower Churchill, not the minister's office.

Anyway, all will be known, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you one thing, that

government's concept of development of this project is far from feasible and I

would challenge them to put the information out there. I would challenge them to

put the numbers out there, because do you know something? When something is good

for the people of the Province, don't hide it. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I do

not mind being proven wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being proven wrong when that wrong

is going to amount into a great project that is going to derive wonderful

benefits for the people of the Province. Let them prove it. Let them come out

with the details and the expenditures and the cost estimates and where they are

going to transmit the power and the cost of building the transmission lines. I

am sure the minister would get up today and give me that information, but she

does not have it. She does not know it. She has not gotten that note yet from

Nalcor. Ed Martin has not sent her over the details yet on all of that, and

until he gives it to her, she does not know the information.

Mr. Speaker, my guess is this, give it another year and the Province will not

be going it alone, but they will be going. Give it another year and it will not

be going the Anglo-Saxon route. It will be going down through Quebec and right

into the State of New York. You can mark it down, and they know it themselves.

This is all one big spin for the people of the Province. Why? Because the

Quebec. When they have a temper tantrum they run for the next available option

and they will try their best to push it into play. It does not matter how big

the key is, it has to fit in that hole because I cannot be proven wrong.

Mr. Speaker, my prediction is this. Give it a year or so from now and we are

going to be back here talking about doing a deal on the Lower Churchill that

will be wheeling power through the Province of Quebec and into the U.S. market.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of details around the Lower Churchill deal that

have yet to be sorted out. If there is a way that we can bring transmitted power

to the Island, of course. I would like to see a lot of that power left in

Labrador for the development of industry in Labrador, because I think it needs

to happen. I think the demand is there for it and there is a resource sector

based there that can use that power.

I say to the Minister of Finance, it is not about what is there today. It is

about where your vision is to ensure that there are developments in the future

to use that power. I can safely say, Mr. Speaker, with the visions that the

members opposite have, we are not going to see it for quite some time.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. If there is a way that we can wheel

power and leave it in Labrador, if there is a way we can wheel power to the

Island to create industry for ourselves, that should be our focus. That should

be our focus because it is about developing as a Province first. It is about

developing industry for our own people first and not just giving it to someone

else, not just looking at a way to transport it through two other Atlantic

provinces and five states because I am having a temper tantrum with someone.

Let's talk about going it alone for a moment, because that was the big

phrase by the provincial government when it came to the Lower Churchill: we are

going it alone. We already know that the Minister of Finance had been in Ottawa

when they were bringing down the stimulus package looking for $2 billion from

the feds in loans and grants and programs. We already know that he went there,

cap in hand, trying to get the $2 billion for the Lower Churchill project just a

couple of months ago. He said: we will take it in a grant, we will take it in a

loan, we will take it in some other form. We are looking for $2 billion. Well,

we know that did not happen. That never materialized. I give the man credit and

I pat him on the back for actually going to look for it, but that did not

happen.

Mr. Speaker, the government's phrase is: we are going it alone. They make

the phrase and then they go it alone to the federal government to look for $2

billion. Then they come back and bring in a Budget that has a deficit of over

$700 million. Then they hide the numbers. They will not even give you the

numbers of what it is going to cost to develop the project.

So, they may be going it alone but no one will know how much they are going

it for or where they are getting the money at. If we do not know how much the

project costs, if we do not know what the return is going to be on it

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: how do we know how it is going to be financed? They know

that, and that is why I have gotten their goat over there today. I have gotten

their goat over there today and they are shouting from the benches because they

know what we are saying is right. They know what we are saying is all right, Mr.

Speaker. They know that if they disclose the information we will be able to

figure it out and we will know that they cannot go it alone; they do not have

the money to go it alone. It is not feasible what they are proposing and they

know it. It is like this, you can make anything feasible.

It is like when the Premier drove up the Northern Peninsula back in the

election of 2003, and he looked across and seen the Labrador Straits, where I

live, Mr. Speaker. He looked across and said: Well, that is nowhere to build a

fixed link. The next morning he got on the Open Line show and said: We are going

to build a fixed link across the Strait of Belle Isle, one of the priorities of

my government.

What did they do, Mr. Speaker? What did they do? They convinced people that

they were going to do this. They convinced people that this was on their radar.

That it was a possibility, and guess what? They threw $300,000 into a study.

They got a study back, and they said: Oh no, it is not feasible.

Well, it is like this, Mr. Speaker, we know that you can make anything

feasible if you want to, and you can make it unfeasible if you want to. So I

guess it is going to be a wait and see on this issue. A wait and see on the

Lower Churchill, but if the government has nothing to hide, I would suggest that

they put the information out there, they educate the public and they stop

spinning the yarns and let people look at the documents, look at the financial

information, and make their own decisions and their own judgements.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say, are quite capable of making our own

determinations and

interpretations of deals like this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very unlikely that I will get any leave today,

so that will conclude my comments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment,

twice yesterday the Chair had to stand and interject because of the level of

noise in the House. I am asking all members to be cognizant of the speaker that

is recognized. I am hesitant to stand while a speaker is recognized and take

away from their time speaking, but I am asking for a level of decorum in the

House.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is almost hard to know where to start, Mr. Speaker, after that. From what

I can understand, the oil is gone, we are not going to be able to develop the

Lower Churchill, I doubt we can do anything with wind power, and nobody is going

to move off the Avalon. According to that, it is all gone. Well, Mr. Speaker, I

am here to tell you it is not gone anywhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition started out talking,

today, by saying that this government had no plan, no vision, and no idea of

where we are going with the situation in Grand Falls-Windsor. I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, my experience is that that couldn't be further from the

truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: This government, Mr. Speaker, this Premier, has vision, this

government, this Premier, knows exactly which road to go down, and this

government, this Premier, will put in place, for Grand Falls-Windsor and

surrounding areas, a plan that will take us into the next 100 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: I want to say, I couldn't be happier to be part of this

government at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: At a time when my district needs the support of a government

that knows how to govern. Can you imagine what it would be like if

AbitibiBowater went down under their watch? Can you imagine what that would

bring?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I shutter to think how things could happen; a

government that believes nothing good can happen off the Avalon. Certainly, we

couldn't possibly take any business and put it in the Central part of

Newfoundland and Labrador, because we can't find people out there who could

staff up a business. How ridiculous, how ludicrous, is that, and what an

appalling thought! What a demeaning, disrespectful comment to the people of

Grand Falls-Windsor! It is not very difficult to figure out why, from Bay

Roberts to Port aux Basques, there is not a member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: There is not a Liberal member - I want to say that again -

between Bay Roberts and Port aux Basques and we know why. We absolutely know

why!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this afternoon's

time to talk about and talk to the people of my district. Because, more than

anybody in this House, more than anyone who gets the odd phone call, Mr.

Speaker, I understand my district. I understand the hardships of the people who

are in that district. I understand precisely how they feel to have lost a

100-year-old industry. We have all benefited from that industry. We