PDF Version

November 6, 2013 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's proceedings, I want to welcome a couple of special

guests to our Speaker's gallery. One, no doubt, some of you would have seen

around the Confederation Building complex. We are joined today by Kim Hawley

George, who is the Chief Legislative Counsel. This is Take Our Kids to Work

Day , and she has taken her daughter, Sarah, with her today.

Welcome to our gallery, and welcome to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Sarah may be drafting future bills that we will debate in

this House.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we have members' statements from: the Member for the

District of Humber Valley; the Member for the District of Burgeo La Poile; the

Member for the District of Conception Bay East Bell Island; the Member for the

District of Placentia St. Mary's; the Member for the District of Terra Nova;

and the Member for the District of Port au Port.

The Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to honour a dear friend who recently passed

away, Mr. Wayne Trask. Wayne contributed a great amount to many worthwhile

causes within his community and in this great Province.

Wayne played leadership roles in the many undertakings that he was a part of.

Wayne's most important role was being the quintessential family man who included

them in every decision he made throughout his life.

Mr. Speaker, Wayne was probably best known for his efforts in bringing the

1999 Canada Winter Games to Corner Brook. This achievement was only part of the

inspiring individual that those close to him knew. Wayne was a true leader whose

success was based on his ability to empower and to motivate those around him to

make his community and our Province a better place to live.

The echoes of Wayne's voice will be heard many decades from now. Wayne Trask

was a man who gave much love, and his legacy as a leader and a man of action

will always be remembered by those who knew him.

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

a true gentleman, a devoted father and husband, and a dear friend, Mr. Wayne

Trask.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I rise to recognize and congratulate Captain Frank Skinner of Burgeo; Mr. Ben

Savory of Channel-Port aux Basques; Mr. Thomas Upward of Rose Blanche; and Mr.

Ed Strickland of Kippens, upon receiving medals of bravery.

On the night of September 21, 2004, the four crew members of the tugboat,

Point Viking , were contacted by the Canadian Coast Guard to render

assistance to a forty-five-foot yacht, D'Accord , which was caught off

guard by the remnants of Hurricane Ivan. The D'Accord had lost its rudder

and was drifting in the Strait of Belle Isle. The sea was too rough for Search

and Rescue to dispatch its own boat from Lark Harbour.

When the four men entered the Straits off Cape St. George at 4:00 p.m., the

ocean swells were between ten to twelve metres high and wind gusted up to

ninety-six kilometres. The men had to strap themselves to the spars to keep from

going overboard. They managed to get a towline onto the yacht and after one

reattachment got the D'Accord to shore at 8:00 the next morning. The

D'Accord had been carrying four adults and a ten-month old child.

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

congratulations to Captain Frank Skinner, Ben Savory, Tom Upwards, and Ed

Strickland upon receipt of this prestigious award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to acknowledge a noted municipal leader in this Province, and

particularly my district. I speak of Mr. Gary Gosine, the Mayor of Wabana.

This past Sunday I had the privilege of conducting his swearing-in ceremony

at the Dr. Leonard A. Miller Centre in St. John's. In attendance were fifty of

Gary's family, supporters, and municipal colleagues.

The ceremony gave me an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution he has

made to municipal politics in this Province and his unwavering commitment and

dedication to the Town of Wabana and the larger community of Bell Island.

Gary has been a champion for his community for the past twenty-six years as a

municipal leader and I am confident he will continue to fight for the rights of

his community. I look forward to partnering with him to improve the services for

the citizens of Bell Island.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Gary on his re-election and

wishing him a speedy recovery from his quadruple bypass surgery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Placentia St.

Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Anne Whelan of

Placentia. Last week at the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women

Entrepreneurs 2013 Entrepreneur of the Year Awards, Anne received

Entrepreneurial Excellence Award, which is the pinnacle award of that

organization.

Anne operates several businesses, including Caregivers Inc., Blue Sky Family

Care, Brenkir Industrial Supply and Seafair Capital. Her portfolio includes

holdings in health and community care, industrial supply and real estate.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, Anne has been named one of the Top 50 CEOs in

Atlantic Canada by Atlantic Business Magazine two years in a row. She is the

recipient of the Diamond Jubilee Medal for her work in advancing quality home

care in Canada, and especially for children in care. She was named the RBC

Canadian Woman Entrepreneur of the Year Award in October 2010.

Anne serves on a number of business and volunteer organizations in the

Province and epitomizes the success of women in business.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Anne Whelan of Placentia

on her tremendous business successes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On October 17 of this year, a son of Glovertown passed away at the age of

eighty-seven, the Honourable Dr. Maxwell House.

Born in Glovertown in 1926, he would study at Memorial College in 1943 and

then went on to pursue a medical degree from Dalhousie in 1952. After which he

would gain a specialty in neurology, acquiring that from the Montreal

Neurological Institute.

In 1959, House returned to his home in Newfoundland to practice in St. John's

where he would be the Province's only neurologist until 1966. He would be

instrumental in establishing MUN's Medical School and would later teach

neurology at the university for thirty years. During that tenure, he would

pioneer the Telemedicine program a massive achievement.

Doctor House would receive many awards during his life, including the

Canadian Medical Association's Medal of Excellence; he was appointed to the

Order of Canada and later appointed as an officer. Perhaps most notably, he was

appointed as Newfoundland's tenth Lieutenant Governor, serving from 1997 to

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing Dr. House's huge

contribution to this Province and its residents.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CORNECT: I rise in this hon. House of Assembly to congratulate the

Seville Singers who celebrated their forty years of performing and entertaining.

Under the direction of Jean House, the Seville Singers have dazzled audiences

of all ages with their outstanding performances throughout the years. It was a

delight to be at the opening of their reunion weekend to see such a large

gathering, celebrating the success of this group. It was great.

The reunion weekend was a tremendous success and a real treat for all those

in attendance. It was a fantastic weekend of music, singing, and memory making.

From the motorcade to the meet and greet, the brunch to the floor shows,

their church choir performance to the 1950s and 1960s dance, it was a time to

reminisce over precious memories for fellow Seville members, family and friends,

and an opportunity to form many new ones. It was also an opportunity to once

again enjoy the talents of this fine group of singers.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Seville Singers

for their dedication and hard work in organizing this fortieth reunion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to applaud the

agreement with Husky Energy and its partners to advance the development of the

White Rose Extension Project.

Amendments to the benefits terms of the 2007 White Rose Expansion Project

Framework Agreement enhance employment and industrial benefits for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. This will allow for the development of the West White

Rose using a wellhead platform, instead of the subsea development as originally

planned.

A wellhead platform represents an innovative way for smaller satellite

developments in Newfoundland and Labrador. This option demonstrates prudent

resource development by increasing recoverable oil resources and extending the

field's life. The platform will deliver an estimated 115 million barrels of oil.

Based on the latest PIRA crude oil price outlook, full development of West

White Rose is estimated to return $3 billion in royalties, return on investment

through Nalcor Energy, and corporate income tax to the Province.

To enable construction of the concrete gravity structure, a graving dock

complete with gates will be built in Argentia by the proponents. This will

position Argentia as an important new player in the Province's oil industry,

spurring continued opportunities for regional growth and development, as well as

spin-off benefits for residents and businesses in the area. The gates represent

a new, significant piece of infrastructure in the Province and are reusable for

future industrial work.

Mr. Speaker, there will be 1,000 people employed at peak construction for the

White Rose Extension Project, which includes 500 skilled trades positions

involved in the construction of the concrete gravity structure in Argentia. Once

in operation, there will be 250 new platform positions created in the Province.

The White Rose Extension Project builds on the exciting momentum happening in

the Province's offshore petroleum industry, which continues to provide

tremendous benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his Ministerial

Statement. This has been good news for the people of Argentia and that area, as

we find ways to extend the life of our oil well, in this case, 115 million

barrels of more oil. Of course, all of this is built on a foundation that has

been started, when you think about it, back in 1985 with the signing of the

Atlantic Accord, and this particular case here, with White Rose, a project that

was first signed and developed and negotiated by a past Administration the

Liberal Administration.

Interestingly enough of that concept too, the major discussion of the day

was: Do you use a GBS or do use an FPSO? What they did at the time was fund a

group of interveners upwards to about $100,000 who went around the Province and

sought public consultations, which were very key to the decision to use an FPSO

in this particular case. This particular development has brought many benefits

to our Province that we are extremely proud of. The past Liberal Administration

is proud of it, as I am sure this Administration should be as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, this

is great news, but there are serious concerns that government is not yet

addressing. Government must ensure that no offshore workers have to travel at

night to and from work on current or future oil production platforms.

Government must also ensure we heed the warnings of a federal report this

year and be properly prepared in case of a major oil spill offshore. The

extension project does provide tremendous benefits for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, but we must make sure to protect the workers who reap those

benefits and the environment that produces them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's North have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advanced copy. It is great to

see that this is going to benefit a rural region of the Province now. This is

great for the whole Province. We would still like to see more development of our

vast natural gas resources, which amount to some several trillion cubic feet of

natural gas. With global demand for natural gas about to soar in the coming

years, I think we would all like to see government working with our industry

partners to bring that ashore as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our government is continuing to drive positive change within the

child protection system through our Continuum of Care Strategy. This strategy,

which is improving the care options for children and youth in need of

out-of-home placements, includes the Foster a FutureFoster a Child Today

multimedia campaign.

Building on the success of phase one of the foster parent recruitment

campaign, phase two was launched this past September and continues to feature

Republic of Doyle's very popular Mr. Allan Hawco. This compelling campaign

has been extremely successful to date with the creation of almost seventy-five

new foster homes in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, our ultimate goal is to not only create a greater awareness

about the critical shortage of foster homes in our Province, but to also attract

more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to open their hearts and their homes to

children and youth who need a safe and nurturing place to live for a week, a

month, a year, or longer.

As the number of foster families throughout our Province continues to

increase, our efforts to eventually eliminate the need for Alternate Living

Arrangements is becoming more of a reality. In 2010, there was a high of

seventy-two children living in Alternate Living Arrangements and as of October

this year, with children being matched to more suitable placements such as

foster homes, this number has been reduced significantly to approximately twenty

children.

In addition to the recruitment campaign, the department has fully implemented

levels 1 and 2 of a new four-level system. Mr. Speaker, these first two levels

provide compensation specific to each level by recognizing the experiences,

training, and skills of foster parents and matching children and youth with a

foster family which best meets their specific needs.

Implementation of the remaining two levels is underway as the department has

awarded a Request for Proposals for the development of a training program for

specialized level 3 foster homes. In addition, the department is currently

in the evaluation process of a Request for Proposals for level 4 contracted

staffed residential placements with an expectation to award in the coming

months.

We are delighted with the progress to date and I encourage all members of

this hon. House, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to view the

campaign materials and learn more about becoming a foster parent by visiting

www.fosterafuture.ca.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of this statement. I

am very happy to stand and respond to this Ministerial Statement. It was roughly

one year ago, actually, that I stood and responded to the previous minister's

statement about the launch of the campaign. Obviously, this is a successful

story and it needs to be acknowledged.

I applaud government of this initiative and for the good work that they have

done to make this happen. Whether that be the current minister, the former

minster, the staff and the CYFS workers who are out there on the ground doing

the interviews, doing the work to make this happen.

This is a great project and there is obviously a need for that, and that has

been acknowledged. When we can see seventy-five additional homes being created

since the start of the campaign, it is proof that this is working, that

awareness is the key to making real change.

Again, as someone who has looked at the Web sites and looked at TV, these ads

are effective, you see them, and you notice them. I would also like to

congratulate and thank Mr. Allan Hawco for his work in making this a success.

When we have somebody who is certainly a celebrity, not just in this Province,

but all around the world now with this show going everywhere, to have them

contribute their force to this has to be appreciated and acknowledged, and I

would like to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to, hopefully, standing up one year from now and

looking at the third phase, or where this goes in the future. It is a great

project. I commend the government for doing it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister of an advance copy of his statement. The

recruitment of more foster homes into the system and the reduction of children

in ALAs were desperately needed, and this is all now thanks to the generosity of

foster parents and the staff who has worked so hard at Child, Youth and Family

Services.

Also, it is crucial that the new contracted residential facilities be up and

running soon without delay. We still have a critical problem of youth coming out

of care as young as sixteen without safe, designated places to live in the

community. Many are going into substandard boarding homes, many are at risk of

exploitation, and some of our most vulnerable youth are becoming more vulnerable

because of our housing crisis. This has to be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, our government remains focused on the Province's

long-term prosperity by encouraging job creation, strong communities, a vibrant

economy, and natural resource development that benefits all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Our tourism industry is a major economic generator in Newfoundland

and Labrador and is a sustainable industry that delivers maximum economic,

social, and cultural value to communities all throughout our Province.

Once again, this year has proven to be another successful tourism season in

the Province. In terms of our tourism performance to the end of August this

year, the number of non-resident automobile and air visitors to the Province is

up over 2012. The number of non-resident air visitors to the Province increased

2.1 per cent over the same period last year, and occupancy rates reached 53.2

per cent, an increase of 1.6 per cent over 2012 levels. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, Visitor Information Centres reported more than 117,500 visitors for the

period ending September, 2013, representing an increase of 3.6 per cent over

last year's statistics.

Mr. Speaker, our online presence continues to grow as well, with visits to

NewfoundlandLabrador.com up 24 per cent over last year. In fact, Web site visits

for 2013 have now exceeded 1.6 million to date, and visits to tourism operator

sites on NewfoundlandLabrador.com have increased by almost 30 per cent, Mr.

our online communities are more engaged than ever in terms of likes, comments

and views. As an example, our YouTube views increased from approximately 361,000

to close to 1.4 million last season.

With the guidance of our ten-year strategy Uncommon Potential A Vision for

Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism, government and industry are taking provincial

tourism to unprecedented levels of success and showing tourism to be a growing

economic powerhouse in this Province. Tourism spending reached $1 billion for

the first time in 2011, putting us ahead of

schedule for achieving our Vision

2020 goal of $1.6 billion in spending.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate another year of growth in our tourism industry,

we take pride in knowing we have firmly established Newfoundland and Labrador as

a premiere tourism destination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, agree

that tourism is a great economic generator in this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, some of the concerns we have; if we take the $4 million that was

cut from the advertising budget, we will not be seeing the effects until next

year, because the $4 million it is great ads, which I stood up in this House

and agreed to. The $4 million has been cut without any consultations with the

industry on this cut, I might add. We see tourism sites around the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador cut. People are going to these sites with no one

there.

Mr. Speaker, I just received a letter from the minister, over 300,000 people

flew in and out of Deer Lake Airport, breaking records. Here it is a decision to

move a seasonal operation to the Deer Lake Airport to maintain a casual

presence. We have to promote tourism, and by cutting back on all these services

it will not promote tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I look at the ferries, the ferry system. I was on Fogo Island, and the

biggest impediment to their tourism is the ferry. This is the same ferry that

was promised since 2003 to help tourism.

This all goes in one package to the government of what we need to do. Once we

get people here we have to be able to get them to the sites. We have to have

people at the sites and we need people there to ensure that visitors know where

to visit in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I ask you to revisit your cuts, revisit the decisions you made to ensure

that when people come here to visit, that they will have a pleasant visit and to

make sure they will want to come back again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We have much to celebrate in the marketing of Newfoundland and Labrador as a

tourist destination. Our brilliant ad campaign was managed by the staff of the

department and executed by Target Marketing and won lots of awards. However,

many in the tourism industry today challenge the numbers presented here today.

They feel they may not accurately reflect what is actually happening with

tourist visits in the five regional Destination Management Organizations. In

fact, how many are actually just business visits in and out of St. John's? Nor

do they reflect the fact that there are much shorter tourism weeks.

The last Budget also saw an increased pullback in funding to cultural

products, which are the backbone of our tourist industry, museums, theatre

productions, and more. Some had to close all together or provide reduced hours

of operation. Some are managed only by volunteers. Theatre groups could not

continue

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for The Straits White Bay North have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I too thank the minister for an advance

copy of his statement.

We certainly have exceptional people working in the tourism industry, and new

products are being added all the time, like the Fogo Island Inn. Roots, Rants,

and Roars is becoming a success, and so is the Iceberg Festival in my district,

and I was pleased to see the minister attend this past season.

One of the things we really need to do and it is a continuous process is

looking at advancing transportation and telecommunication to really expand the

tourism industry. What I would say, it is great to see the online content, like

the goat on a horse it has over 365,000 hits on YouTube. That is pretty

exciting. It is that type of creativity that is going to see us reach 2020.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, in 2009 government said the exterior renovations

for the Confederation Building would cost $20 million. So far you spent $36.5

million.

I ask the Premier: What is the total expected budget for the internal and

external renovations to the Confederation Building, and when do you expect it to

be completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, the Confederation Building is an icon for the history of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and it is something that we feel as a

government should be preserved.

In doing the renovations, when they were started the price tag was put on it

for the $30 million, but once we got into the work we realized there was a lot

more work needed to be done with the concrete, for example, and around the

windows and that. What we have done, right now there is an estimated price of

around $50 million that the total cost will be.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, back in the spring we questioned the Premier's

move from the eighth floor to the fourth floor. At that time the Premier said

you had to manoeuvre your way through buckets through a rainstorm; however, an

ATIPP request shows from December, 2010 to April, 2013 Transportation and Works

did not receive a single request regarding leaking windows, ceilings, et cetera.

I ask the Premier: Was this extra expense to the taxpayers of the Province

really necessary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the Minister of Transportation, just outlined,

Confederation Building is an iconic building in this Province. It also houses

the majority of government departments and headquarters for services that are

provided to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this building had been sadly, sadly neglected in its fifty-year

history, and it was necessary to replace all of the windows. Until the windows

were replaced and the relevant work that went with that, Mr. Speaker, it was

hardly worthwhile to put in a request to the Department of Transportation and

Works to fix a problem, to patchwork a problem that needed more fundamental work

done. That work is being done now, Mr. Speaker, and we are glad that it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, we know now that the so-called rainy buckets that

you had to kick out of the way, it is just not true through this ATIPP request.

Premier we ask: The renovations that are going to be done for your

convenience on the eighth floor

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not mean to interrupt Question Period, but several times yesterday I

directed the hon. member to direct all of his comments and all of his points to

the Chair. I remind the member again today; if he would do that, please.

MR. JOYCE: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that some of the newly replaced blue windows are

faulty. I ask the Premier: Is it true that these windows will have to be

replaced; and, if so, at what cost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bluest thing in Confederation Building today is me having to answer these

kinds of questions from the Acting Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, $50 million is being spent on this building because it is

required to happen, needed to happen. To replace this building, Mr. Speaker,

would require hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Opposition, or the Opposition as it is composed today, have never gotten

their facts right. I was accused of renovating my particular office on the

eighth floor by the Member for St. John's South, when, in fact, there were no

renovations being done to my office; renovations were being done to his.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, it may be a laughing matter to the Premier and

the members opposite, but her parliamentary assistant, when he was the minister,

admitted that there was an extra cost to put blue windows in this thing. It is

not a funny matter when there are people out there trying to make a living and

you are here making windows blue. It is a serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier said in the media that she would table the

documents on CETA in this House, but we are now in the third day and still no

sign of any CETA documentation.

I ask the Premier: When are you going to finally table the CETA documents

that you promised to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so we can make an

informed and fact-based decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I made a commitment to table our documents regarding

CETA, particularly the documents that were exchanged over the last six months in

this sitting session of the House. I am looking forward to doing that.

I do not know what you are going to make an informed decision about, other

than to endorse what we have been able to negotiate for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, access to a wonderful new market and

support for an industry to grow and become all that it ought to be, all that we

know that it can be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to change her position on

processing job losses due to CETA. Two days ago, she said no job loss;

yesterday, she said the $280 million could be used to cover job losses.

I ask the Premier: How many jobs will be lost, how many communities will she

sacrifice, and how much of the federal payoff will be used for job losses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the Fisheries critic for the

Liberal Party would have some understanding of what is happening in our fishery.

We are losing plants; it is a struggle and a challenge. What our government saw

and what our Premier saw was a real opportunity, an opportunity through CETA,

and an opportunity through negotiation with the federal government to lift the

fishery, Mr. Speaker, to give it a boost, to give it a chance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, we are not saying we are solving all the

problems in the fishery with CETA and the $400 million, but we are saying that

we stood up for the fishery and we believe in the fishery. It is about time that

the Fisheries critic for the Liberal Party of this Province did the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I see that the former Fisheries Minister

who lasted less than a year as Fisheries Minister and now seems to fully

understand the Fisheries department answered the question and gave us a

non-answer for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Europeans have been coming to our shores and

taking fish back for over 500 years at a profit. Yesterday, the Premier said

that it is not economical to come here and get fish, bring it back to Europe,

process it, and sell it at a competitive price verbatim, she said that.

I ask the Premier: Is she saying that the Europeans have been losing money on

our fish for 500 years and now want more access to our fish so they can lose

even more money?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, again the Fisheries critic I do not know, I

guess he is reading too much about 500 years ago. Today, there are no MPRs in

the Atlantic Provinces. The Europeans are not here taking their fish.

As a part of this process, Mr. Speaker, it was important for us as a

government to engage the industry. We met with, and I personally met with, the

head of the FFAW who represents plant workers and harvesters in this Province,

Mr. Speaker. The very first comment from the head of the FFAW was that the

Europeans cannot compete with us in processing.

The Europeans processing, Mr. Speaker, pay for more for cost, more for

labour. I can tell you they do not have the skilled workforce that we have in

our plants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources to commit to having an

independent committee of experts review fracking in our Province and host public

information sessions. Instead of an open and transparent process, the minister

is insisting on an internal review.

I ask the minister: Why are you again choosing secrecy instead of an open

review, an open review process by an independent committee and experts, from the

beginning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, the member is hard to please. It

is a major issue in this Province, hydraulic fracturing; our government took a

stance in the interest of the health of the people of the Province, the

environment of the Province, and the interest of industry in this Province.

We have indicated that there is a process that we are going to follow; it is

the internal process, Mr. Speaker. When we get all the information that we need,

Mr. Speaker, that will inform the next steps, which I can assure you will be a

public consultation. It will be open; it will be transparent, Mr. Speaker.

We want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have the right information

so that when we make a decision, all aspects of this will be covered, people

will be informed, and we will do what is right in the best interest of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I am not that hard to please and what we are trying to please is the

people of this Province who obviously have concerns right now with what is going

on about fracking. It is time to get this external, get public engagement in it.

You should have started it months ago. Internal reviews on fracking should have

been completed months ago.

Will you now commit to public consultation sessions and an independent

committee of experts for fracking in Newfoundland? Will you make that commitment

from the beginning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem standing in this House today

and committing to the member opposite, the people of this House, and the people

of the Province that we will engage in the public on the issue of hydraulic

fracturing no question. We will be open, transparent, that is exactly why we

are following this process; but we are not prepared to go out into the public

and engage in a very polarizing issue, a very emotional issue, until we have the

facts right so that we can present it to the people of the Province and,

collectively, we will make a decision about hydraulic fracturing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has been over a month since we have heard anything of the potential sale

of the Come By Chance refinery. People in the area and throughout the Province

are concerned about the future of this business and the 500 jobs that has been

attached both directly and indirectly to this.

I ask the minister: What is the status of the refinery and what is your

government doing to ensure its survival?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to share the hon. member's

concerns. There have been rumours about the refinery and the pending future. Of

course, first and foremost, for us as a government is the concern for the

workers and the people in the region and the impact on the economy. I can tell

you we take that seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I was only on the job a week or so and I met with the owners of

the refinery. We have had a good discussion about what their plans are. They

have a number of options that they are looking at. They have assured us they

will keep us informed, and right now they have moved into phase two where there

is a potential buyer for the refinery. At this point they have not shared full

details with us, but I know they are actively pursuing to try to keep this

refinery active in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, delays in court hearings and breaches of

undertaking continue to cause victims hardship in Labrador. Victims' rights are

not being protected.

I ask the minister: Why is there such a delay in the delivery of justice in

Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we have made considerable investments in the

justice system in Labrador. It was only recently, actually, that we added an

extra Crown attorney to make sure an easy and smooth facilitation of court cases

through the process.

I am not aware of any particular instance that the member is referencing

where there is a significant delay or an infringement on justice being carried

out or being served. If the member wants to provide me with further detail, I am

certainly prepared to have a look at it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, I could provide hundreds of situations.

Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. In Labrador today, offender

protection trumps victim protection, and the victim is the person who suffers

because of the delays in the justice system.

I ask the minister: Will you provide the necessary resources in Labrador to

ensure victim rights are protected and offenders are dealt with in a timely

manner?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, we have made

considerable investments in the justice system in Labrador. I find it a little

offensive that the member would stand on the floor of this House and suggest

that anybody over here is going to support offenders in this Province over

victims. If there is a particular issue the member wants to reference or provide

me with information, I will certainly follow up. I can assure him that the

priority for this government is to ensure justice is carried out in this

Province.

What I cannot do is I cannot assure him of what any particular judge is going

to rule as a verdict on a particular day. The judges are independent of

governments; they are independent of everyone. They apply their own knowledge of

the judicial system and the legal system when they make determinations of what

cases and what the verdicts will be. We have no control over that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Environment's policy on the use of creosote is very clear:

Creosote is banned from any use in a protected water supply area because of very

serious health and environmental concerns.

I ask the minister: Does government have an inventory of creosote structures

and water supplies in this Province; and, if not, will government take immediate

action to ensure one is completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at any time, if there is any damage to the environment or to our

water systems we certainly want to take action to ensure that the right

precautions are in place.

Just recently I received correspondence indicating that there may be some

issues in one particular place. We will take that letter very seriously, we will

investigate and if there are any matters that need to be cleaned up, Mr.

Speaker, we will take the appropriate action.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the department is now aware of the creosote dam in the Town of

Terrenceville as indicated by the minister.

I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Given that your department funded

the removal of a creosote dam in La Scie just a couple of years ago, will

government now do the same for the residents of Terrenceville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I had indicated, there was an issue or a potential issue that was brought

to the attention of the Department of Environment. We will look into the matter,

Mr. Speaker, and if there needs to be remediation or any action taken, we will

certainly, as the Department of Environment, work with other departments that

may be needed to assist in this issue.

I want to assure the hon. member that we did receive the correspondence, we

are looking into it, and we do intend to take the appropriate action.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, creosote is a very serious environmental and

health concern. It contains carcinogens and a number of other ingredients that

cause very serious health concerns.

I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Your department did remove a dam

containing creosote in the Town of La Scie a couple of years ago; if they

deserve it, don't the people of Terrenceville deserve the same?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear that we are not going to suggest

a solution until we understand the problem. This issue has been brought to our

attention, we will take it seriously, we will investigate and if there needs to

be remedial action, we will work as the Department of Environment with any other

departments that may be able to assist to ensure that we address the problem.

I would not want to suggest today that we have a solution until we understand

the problem, the extent of it, and what the remediation may involve. Mr.

Speaker, we have taken this letter, letting us know what may be wrong, we are

taking it seriously and we will investigate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Mr. Speaker, the recent report of nurses leaving

Labrador-Grenfell Health for more lucrative positions at Muskrat Falls is

leaving a tremendous void in the Labrador health care system.

I ask the minister: What measures are being taken to ensure that health care

at Labrador-Grenfell Health is not compromised?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Issues around staffing of any of our facilities are very important to us. The

quality of care that we give, the kind of care that we give, is exceptionally

important. Mr. Speaker, what we have happening in Labrador at this moment in

time is actually a very hot economy. With that comes many, many opportunities,

Mr. Speaker, and people have the right to decide where they are going to work.

In the meantime, in terms of our healthcare facilities there, we have the

kinds of incentives that are unseen anywhere else, Mr. Speaker. We have bursary

programs. We have market adjustments. We have a number of different signing

bonuses as well. We have housing bonuses, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of

initiatives that we employ. Labrador-Grenfell Health is working diligently to

ensure we have the number of people we need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Mr. Speaker, it saddens me that we are not benefiting in

Labrador from this hot economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DEMPSTER: In the meantime, health continues to be an issue. Having

fifteen unplanned vacancies in nursing positions at one health care facility

Mr. Speaker, it has to have an impact on health care delivery in our region.

I ask the minister: Why has Labrador-Grenfell Health failed in their

recruitment efforts to fill those vacancies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fifteen unplanned vacancies what we are talking about here, for the most

part, are maternity leaves. Eight of those people will be back early in the new

year, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of what we are doing around recruitment, I would advise the newly

elected MHA to come over and have a chat with us around the number of incentives

that we have in place. Labrador-Grenfell Health, Mr. Speaker, have been doing an

enormous job around recruiting. We have recruiters at Labrador-Grenfell Health.

We have recruiters here in the Department of Health as well. We are recruiting

nationally; we are recruiting internationally, Mr. Speaker. We are making every,

every effort possible to see to it that we have the right numbers of

professionals working in our hospitals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of violence

prevention cited the two treatment centres for youth as actions resulting from

the sexual exploitation report. Those treatment centres were announced in 2009,

a full two years before the report was even completed.

So I ask the minister: Will you now release the report, its recommendations,

so we can see what actions you have actually taken?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the member accused government of not acting, and I listed off a

whole suite of things. There are many more that I could continue on, that we

have been doing. Certainly the report helps inform that, but it was an example

of all of the great work that this government is doing around violence

prevention.

Mr. Speaker, my mind does not change, our government's position does not

change, and we take the advice of the RNC very seriously. Mr. Speaker, as a

former lawyer and a Member of the House of Assembly, I would assume that all of

us here would take the advice of the RNC very seriously as well.

Mr. Speaker, I also heard the member talking about putting fear out into the

public. This is not about putting fear in the public. This is about a specific,

vulnerable group of people who could be put in harm's way, and we are not going

to live for that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would also say that as a lawyer I can tell

when somebody's statement is actually not correct from the facts. Government did

a survey in 2010 which revealed that 25 per cent of people

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: - are more likely to get involved in violence prevention

and be more concerned for victims as a result of increased awareness. In fact

the minister, in 2012, celebrated that government is making great strides in

increasing awareness of the issue of violence and abuse in our Province.

I ask the minister: Which is it? Does increasing awareness of violence

perpetrate or hide it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our record on violence

prevention, and we are particularly proud of the piece around awareness. It is

critically important that we educate and make people aware of the serious issues

that are involved, particularly when it comes to vulnerable people, and in this

case predominantly women, Mr. Speaker.

We have a very solid record. When we came into government in 2003, many of

the groups that you see today, the regional co-ordinating committees, the

women's centres, the multicultural women's centre - very little funding under

the previous Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, we have increased that three times

in the last ten years in our government. We are very proud of what we are doing

around awareness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

We are hearing in the media about women suffering miscarriages alone, after

long waits in the Health Sciences ER. I am also hearing from people with horror

stories of ER wait time and other experiences. Despite the ER wait time strategy

released last year, congestion is still an urgent issue as this year's Eastern

Health accreditation report reveals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: How is she

going to immediately address the critical ER overcrowding and long wait times?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reference the first part of the statement first of

all, and that having to do with the miscarriages that we have read about in the

paper. Those are certainly very unfortunate and very emotional issues and we are

very concerned about those, Mr. Speaker.

I have on a number of occasions, and I will continue to do so, say that

quality of care is exceptionally important to us. We want to ensure that members

of the public know they have a route to go should they need that through our

Client Services offices. So I want to put that out there first.

In terms of our emergency departments, Mr. Speaker, we are making incredible

progress there, but it does take time. We have invested over $400,000 in wait

times just in the emergency departments alone. A number of initiatives have been

undertaken, some of it having to do with fast-tracking whereby we take

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

We know all the problems. All we have to do is listen to people telling us

what the problems are. We also know solutions that have worked in other places.

What I want to know from the minister, Mr. Speaker, is: When will she commit

sufficient resources to end the suffering endured by ER patients? That is what

is needed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will just continue on. We have invested $400,000 in the new

fast-track system in our emergency departments, our Category A emergency

departments, whereby we look at the acuity of patients when they come in. There

are some that are fast-tracked into other areas because they can be in and out

in a faster period of time, thereby freeing up our physicians and our nurse

practitioners, Mr. Speaker, for some of the other patients who do come in to our

emergency departments.

We have also invested $4.1 million she is asking about investments, so I am

allowed to say it this time. You will recall last year she told us not to talk

about how much money we spend. We are looking at $4.1 million in renovations,

Mr. Speaker, at St. Clare's emergency department as well, and we will continue

to do that. We are also looking at increased hours of physicians and so on

within the emergency departments, and other health care professionals within the

emergency departments during times when we know there are peak times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I suggest that the minister better look at the value she is getting for the

money that they are putting in.

A condition of Nova Scotia's public utility board requires that Emera file

regular update reports with them throughout the construction of the Maritime

Link.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will she allow our public utility that

independent oversight role during the construction of the Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we cannot be accused of as a government and

as a provincially-owned Crown corporation is of keeping information away from

the people of the Province with regard to Muskrat Falls. Our friends opposite

try on a daily basis to make that accusation and it just does not stand up.

There has been more information released on Muskrat Falls than any other project

in the history of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, on Nalcor's Web site there is a monthly update of the number of

jobs, the benefits that are occurring, particularly in Labrador because of the

development of Muskrat Falls. We are going to continue to do that, Mr. Speaker,

and we are going to broaden the information available to the people of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will that broadening include

releasing the engineering oversight reports, including the independent engineer

reports that they are getting in Nova Scotia and we are not getting here?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know this is Question Period and they get to ask us questions

and we provide the answers, and we are happy to do that. I would just like to

know what the Leader of the NDP would do with the engineering reports, Mr.

Speaker, because we have a proposal now in response to the UARB request on the

availability of non-firm power. It is a pretty straight concept if you have been

mired down or studying about Muskrat Falls for the last two years, Mr. Speaker,

and we can see in the questioning of this House this week that the NDP do not

understand the difference between a firm power sale and a non-firm.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the Family Violence Intervention Court was a

successful program that finally understood the complex dynamics of domestic

abuse. It intervened immediately, women and children were safer, offenders were

treated, and the victimism rate was much lower with a budget of only $500,000,

0.2 per cent of the entire Justice budget.

I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: What efforts did she

make to stop the closure of the court?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to take that question and remind the member opposite

about the tremendous investments we continue to make in support of violence in

this Province, in particular violence against women. We take that issue very

seriously. The Family Violence Court was one tool, and albeit an important tool

that helped just shy of thirty individuals last year go through the process, I

am very pleased that it was a successful process; but we must be reminded that

there are other ways to provide supports to violence against women and to

provide it Province-wide, not just for people on the Avalon or in the St. John's

region.

We have ensured the RNC have made it a priority as one of their long-term

plans. Constable Suzanne Fitzgerald is actually employed in a position that

works to provide supports, and that is a result of budgetary decisions that we

made in supporting the RNC. The RCMP, as well, have made it a priority to focus

on violence against women.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a very quick question without any

preamble.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women: Will she demand to have the court reinstated?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, for a very quick response.

MR. KING: I can assure the member opposite that the Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women has made every effort to represent the views of women in

these decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, on a point of order.

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, the Premier had said I

had renovations done to my office. I did not have any renovations done to my

office. It was suggested by the House and I refused, saying it was a waste of

money.

If the Premier is suggesting that I had renovations done to my office, I ask

her to table the evidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an

enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the Park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday

living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and

residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone

coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park and the enclave community of Trout

River.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, Trout River is a beautiful little town of around 650 people. It

has its own school, its own clinic, and its own services. You still cannot get

blood collection done there from the Woody Point Clinic, but it is a nice

self-sufficient community. It is a fishing community, a park community, and a

tourism community.

To get to Trout River, you go through Trout River Gulch. On one side it is

like the Garden of Eden; on the other side is like the face of the moon. One

side is green and lush; the other side is pretty desolate. Driving through Trout

River Gulch is so hazardous that in the wintertime the Department of

Transportation and Works has a gate across the road on both ends of Trout River

Gulch so that if there is enough of a storm in the Gulch, you are simply not

allowed to travel on the highway.

Mr. Speaker, these are the conditions people find themselves living in, in

Trout River, without access to cellphone service of any kind. It would be a

simple matter for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

for the government, to partner with private enterprise and have the people

of Trout River agree to pay a certain rate on their cellphone coverage, in

addition to any ordinary rate, so they would have a cellphone tower erected in

their town. This is a petition from the residents of Trout River asking

government to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS in 2006, the provincial government created a commission to review the

Individualized Student Support Plan/Pathways model and make recommendations to

improve the delivery of special education programming in the K-12 education

system; and

WHEREAS in 2007 the ISSP/Pathways Commission delivered a final report to

government outlining seventy-five recommendations for creating a better system

for the delivery of special education programming; and

WHEREAS to date, many important recommendations of the ISSP/Pathways

Commission have not been acted on, including those related to public disclosure

of assessment and wait-list information; guidelines for comprehensive and

ethical assessment practices; procedures to address the needs of all at-risk

students; creating an effective appeals process for families; meeting the needs

of exceptionally able or gifted learners; expanding the role of student

assistants into teacher-assisted roles; introducing special education department

heads in schools; and improving on

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: special education teacher qualifications and certification;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to fully implement the recommendations of

the ISSP/Pathways Commission in order to improve the delivery of special

education programming for all students, parents, teachers, and schools.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I notice, Mr. Speaker, I am running out of time here. I just wanted to say

that this petition is timely, seeing that government is going through its

pre-Budget process right now. We all know we have great schools, we have great

teachers and staff, and we have great students. These changes will only make our

schools better.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I now call upon

the Member for Humber Valley to introduce the Motion that stands on the Order

Paper in his name.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this week I introduced a Motion:

WHEREAS one of the key points of the Muskrat Falls development was the

ability to use 40 per cent of the power for industrial development in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Premier and other government members repeatedly said that 40 per

cent of the Muskrat Falls power would be used for industrial development in

Newfoundland and Labrador, with a focus on Labrador; and

WHEREAS the new arrangements between Nalcor and Emera of Nova Scotia mean

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has now committed excess power

to Nova Scotia; and

WHEREAS this power will be sold to residents of Nova Scotia at rates well

below what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be forced to pay; and

WHEREAS residents of Nova Scotia have benefited from a full Utility and

Review Board hearing on Muskrat Falls and will be the primary beneficiaries of

our resource;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls upon the government to send

the Muskrat Falls Project back to the Public Utilities Board for a full public

review for the protection of our ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have discussed in the House in the

past. When you think about when did this all start in our Province you can

actually, I believe, go back to 2009, maybe even before that within meetings

when there was a way that we could develop the Lower Churchill. That has been a

dream for people in Newfoundland and Labrador for many years. It has been a

dream that we be able to do that, primarily driven by the fact that we wanted to

go around Quebec. We felt a stranglehold by the province of Quebec because of

what we consider to be the bad deal on the Upper Churchill.

To develop the Lower Churchill in our minds was something that we have always

dreamed about. We all knew as people who have been elected officials and people

in this Province understood the importance of 2041. To us that meant we would

get control of Churchill Falls back.

In 2009 and going into 2010 when this project was announced, it was announced

on the concept, and we have often heard it, 40 per cent for the closure for

domestic use. We would then close up Holyrood. It would mean that we would

decrease the amount of greenhouse gases in our Province, something that would

help protect our environment. We would be into a partnership with Emera and 20

per cent of the power would be used by Emera to support their investment into

the Maritime Link.

A lot of people we have heard publicly say: Well, this is actually free power

to Nova Scotia. I have never really said that because what happens is Emera

would build the Maritime Link and in return for building that link they would

get use of 20 per cent of the power. That power, of course, would go to them at

no charge because they made the upfront investment.

The third and final piece of this was 40 per cent of the power would be used

for extra demand in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have often had a major focus

on the industrial development, and in particular the mining industry in

Labrador.

One of the things I have often questioned about that is that this particular

project never did include a transmission line from Muskrat Falls into Lab West.

We have been always told that we would build that as they needed it. Well, there

is no question we could say that about many things. The demand within our

Province we could say they would build as we need it, but right now the

transmission line into Lab West is not part of this project.

The project itself is about a generating station at Muskrat Falls with some

tie-back transmission into Churchill Falls, the Upper Churchill, and then there

is a 1,100 kilometre transmission line that comes into the Island portion. That

is connected then with the Maritime Link which will be built by Emera, and that

of course connecting Nova Scotia and customers beyond, we were led to believe.

When you think about what has changed, there have been a lot of changes in

the world since this project was first announced. Very few people back a few

years ago would have any idea what shale gas and what would happen in the US

because of the recent discovery, and the way they actually extract oil and gas

in the US right now. A few years ago people never really looked at the US as a

country that would be self-sufficient in such a short term, but that is what we

face right now.

This project now, this $7.7 billion project that we talk about, is currently

not finalized. Even today, we find ourselves in Nova Scotia answering questions

to get our partner, I guess Emera in this case, so that this can actually become

an official project where we can then go and get the federal loan guarantee,

which is a big part of this.

When you come back to our Province just a few years ago, and you say once the

project was announced, well then what happened? We had the joint panel review

that came back and they actually reviewed both the development of Gull Island

and Muskrat Falls. They came back in August, 2011 and they were not convinced

that this was the right time to do this project, for a number of reasons, and

made a number of recommendations.

Our own Public Utilities Board here in Newfoundland and Labrador, their role,

Mr. Speaker, is that the rates charged what they do is they want to ensure

that rates charged to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are just and reasonable

and that the service is safe and reliable. That is the role of the PUB.

In this particular case, when this was put to them they were not when the

discussion with the PUB on the development of Muskrat Falls, they said then they

were not satisfied that we would need the demand for this kind of development,

and they said they needed more information. Indeed, what happened then, they

asked for more time. They asked for an extension, it was not given.

In this particular case, the PUB we went out and used outside consultants,

and there were quite a few. We saw those consultant reports that have been put

forth in this House. They became the foundation to go ahead and sanction this

project back on December 17, 2012.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that the PUB in our Province did not

do or Nalcor and this government did not do a good enough job in satisfying

the answers that they were asking at the time. They said their mandate was

limited. There was no technical briefing, which I find very ironic when you look

at what is happening in Nova Scotia right now. We have Nalcor officials at the

VP level who are actually presenting at a technical briefing in Nova Scotia now.

That is exactly what is happening with the PUB, or the UARB as they are called

in Nova Scotia.

When this deal was signed formally, I guess in July, 2012, there were a

number of very detailed and complicated, I would say, Mr. Speaker, agreements

between Emera and Nalcor. The sanctioning piece of it came on December 17, as I

said, back in 2012. To me, this is where the real uncertainties about this

project started because we were not sure if we had a partner in Emera. We had

said that on that day. We said: Can we count on Emera to be there as a partner?

Because there was a piece of the process that they are not finished with in Nova

Scotia yet. This was to go through the UARB, which is our version of the Public

Utilities Board.

On July 22 of this year, they came back with a number of conditions. What

they said was they really wanted to codify or formalize the discussion that was

occurring during the negotiation between Nalcor and Emera. There were

conditions, and those conditions were about access to surplus power. Because

what they wanted to do was not just take the power in return for their

investment into the Maritime Link, what they wanted to do was take excess power

so that they would create a blended rate for the people of Nova Scotia.

Of course, this blended rate which would be much cheaper because they would

get this power at market price energy, which in today's world is somewhere

between three-point-eight and five cents. We do not know where that is going to

go because it is market-based pricing that actually changes, some say, by the

hour. So we have no idea where that will go in the future.

The important thing is that Nova Scotia wanted to make sure they had this

available to them so that they would blend it in. Now, all they are saying is

this was a first right of refusal, essentially. They never said they had to use

it. They said you have to come to us first. This government sees this as: well,

this is a customer. This is someone there waiting to buy our power. In this

particular case, any of that revenue, as we all know, will not go back to the

ratepayers who will use it.

Sanctioning the deal on December 17, 2012, I believe that was prematurely

sanctioned right then. We should have made sure Emera understood what was going

on, that there would not be conditions that would be coming some seven months

later or eight months later.

This actually changed it a lot, because what has happened now, just a few

weeks ago we had to go back and do a compliance filing to satisfy the six

outstanding conditions of the UARB of July 22. How do we deal with this? They

have made it quite clear that these conditions as a matter of fact, I have it

right here, the Market-priced Energy Condition.

The board directs as a condition to its approval of the Maritime Link Project

that Nova Scotia obtain from Nalcor the right to access Nalcor market-priced

energy they make reference to some paragraphs there. They want right to access

this energy when needed to economically serve Nova Scotia and its ratepayers; or

provide some other arrangement to ensure access to market-priced energy.

What we have heard so far is that if we want to satisfy that condition, we

will go out and we will use either the surplus energy from Muskrat Falls or

other sources. I have heard it said that we will dip into our warehouse and we

will build wind or we will develop small hydro, but I have never seen the

financial or business case to suggest that we can actually produce any of that

at prices where it would be profitable. This is a limited condition. This

expires in 2041.

What we are talking about here right now is we would use other sources of

energy that we would have in our Province. I am looking forward to the debate. I

am looking forward to some of the information that will come back out of this,

but there is another key thing in all of this. On July 22, when we heard from

the UARB in Nova Scotia, we also heard from Quebec, and that would be

Hydro-Quebec. They were challenging the Water Management Agreement that we have

in place, that we put into our PUB in 2009 saying that we indeed have a right to

manage our water supply on the Churchill River. Indeed, this has been a

challenge.

I understood this was going to be introduced into a Quebec court in

September. I have not heard if it is there yet. We have not had much luck with

challenges we have made in Quebec courts. I hope, and I want to, for the next

generations of Newfoundland and Labrador that we win that court case, but there

is a lot riding on that court case.

Nalcor, even in their own words, would say that a project like Gull Island

with a water management agreement has a potential to be around 2,250 megawatts

of power or 12 terawatts with a water management agreement. They also say,

though, without it, it could be as little as 400 megawatts. Muskrat Falls

without it could be as little as 140 megawatts.

We can dismiss all of this, but this is not me saying this. This is Nalcor

saying this. This is not the Official Opposition saying this or MHI saying this.

Nalcor is saying this. This is the importance. It is Nalcor saying this. It is

in their annual reports, actually.

Other than that, we did meet with Nalcor on a number of occasions right now,

and I did ask: If you had to run Muskrat Falls for twenty-four hours a day, how

much energy could it produce? We have been told on two different occasions that

at 824 megawatts total capacity of Muskrat Falls, it would be around 70 per

cent, so that would be 570 megawatts. That came from officials at Nalcor. That

is not me standing there as a critic of Natural Resources, not anybody else here

standing as the Official Opposition, or any other interest groups that are

outside today. This is Nalcor themselves saying this.

So we have questions about where the surplus power would come from. We have

questions about the excess power, how much can be generated, and what is the

future cost for Newfoundland and Labrador to supply this condition in Nova

Scotia. Without this condition met, we have the federal loan guarantee. There is

a federal loan guarantee that everybody took great joy in celebrating, worth $1

billion. Right now, if we had to meet those conditions, our value on that

federal loan guarantee I can guarantee you now will not be worth $1 billion.

Someone else will reach that benefit, I say, Mr. Speaker.

This is the reason we will continue to ask those questions. This is the

reason we will continue to say that our own Public Utilities Board, acting on

the behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, should have another look at this

project, I say, Mr. Speaker.

My time is about to run out. I will back in the last fifteen minutes, Mr.

Speaker, and I look forward to the comments from the minister. He is on his feet

right now. I will be taking notes.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some

comments about the motion today. There are many statements made that I want to

have a discussion on. Today, Mr. Speaker, there are some key important points

about this argument that I want to put forward.

The Liberals today, Mr. Speaker, are trying to make a case to send the

Muskrat Falls Project back to the utilities board for review. I have two issues

with it: Some of the arguments that they are using to put forward shows that

they really do not understand Muskrat Falls; secondly, the Public Utilities

Board has had an opportunity to review Muskrat Falls. The board was asked to

examine whether the development of Muskrat Falls as the Interconnected Island

Option is the least-cost approach to providing power for the future of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as compared to Holyrood, which is the Isolated

Island Option.

Mr. Speaker, following nine months of review and $2 million, the Public

Utilities Board concluded that they cannot make a decision; they do not have a

conclusion. They were not in favour of saying it was the least-cost option, but

what is always lost, they certainly did not say it was not the least-cost

option.

Mr. Speaker, despite these facts, Manitoba Hydro, the experts that were hired

by the Public Utilities Board, the consumer advocate, who himself hired an

expert, Dr. Wade Locke a provincial economist, and Navigant, a company out of

the US, had all the same information that the Public Utilities Board had. Mr.

Speaker, all four of them independently returned a decision, a conclusion, that

the Muskrat Falls Project is the cheapest way to provide reliable, clean energy

for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the expert analysis provided by Manitoba Hydro in particular

represents a real productive piece of work that came out of the efforts and

initiatives of the Public Utilities Board. It was a good piece of work. It is

just unfortunate that the Public Utilities Board could not do the same. Mr.

Speaker, the conclusion was early on that this is a great project for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, we hear reference all the time to least-cost

option. What that means particularly so I can explain to the people watching

today, it is the cheapest option that we can find to make sure we have the power

we need in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we have to find the cheapest option because the ratepayers, all

of us, have to pay for the cost of whatever we are going to do to provide energy

in the future. Mr. Speaker, the next option is $2.2 billion more than Muskrat

Falls. We have looked at all other options, Muskrat Falls is the cheapest. What

I do not understand is why the Opposition continues to fight Muskrat Falls with

no alternative, when we have proven it, and experts have proven it, Nalcor has

proven it, that it is the best option for Newfoundland and Labrador to get their

power in the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we build this, when we build Muskrat Falls, we are

guaranteed an amount of power. We need the guaranteed power. Twenty-four hours a

day, 365 days a year, when you turn the switch, the power comes on. It does not

matter, Mr. Speaker, if you have a mining development in Baie Verte, a fish

plant in Twillingate, or a hospital in St. John's, we need that guaranteed

power, and that is called firm power; we know we have it.

Mr. Speaker, when we develop this, we are going to have a lot of firm power.

In 2017-2018 when we throw the switch we are going to have a need for about 40

per cent of that power right away for the people of the Province. We also have

an agreement with Nova Scotia, an agreement with Emera, where they would build

the Maritime Link. Essentially, what they are doing is taking 20 per cent of the

capital costs of the Muskrat Falls Project, which includes the Maritime Link,

they are taking 20 per cent of the operational costs of Muskrat Falls, and in

return they are getting 20 per cent of the power.

Mr. Speaker, we still have then 40 per cent we are going to use, 20 per cent

for Nova Scotia, and now we have 40 per cent that is surplus to our needs right

away. So what are we going to do with that, Mr. Speaker? We have to make a

choice. You have heard it said that we can spill it, which means open the gates

and let the water flow; but no, Mr. Speaker, this government is responsible and

looking to the needs of the people in the future. We have a chance to sell that

power and make money.

When we hear talk of things like paving roads, when we hear talk of child

care, more programs for seniors, Mr. Speaker, all of this costs money. We have

to find ways to get more money into the revenue for the Province, and get that

revenue from our resources. The Liberals say it is a bad idea. We say no, it is

surplus, and rather than let it flow, let us sell it and make money for the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, we will sell that 40 per cent surplus power. As

time goes on, when we need that power we will not be selling it; we will be

using it. We have said there is industrial growth; there are growing demands in

the Province. When we need the power, Mr. Speaker, we will have it available.

You see, Mr. Speaker, our Premier, our government, is driven by principle.

One of the fundamental principles of this Muskrat Falls development is that we

are going to develop this for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first. We will

meet the needs of power for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first and foremost.

All that we do, through these agreements, will protect that principle, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, this gets me to Nova Scotia with the Maritime

Link. So because of the Maritime Link and that 40 per cent power, we now have a

chance to sell that power when we do not need it because we have access to

markets. We can sell it in New England, we can sell it in New York, we can sell

it in Ontario, or we can sell it in Nova Scotia. It does not matter to us who

buys it. It just so happens that Nova Scotia wants access to that power.

Mr. Speaker, how much are we going to have to sell? This is where it gets a

little complicated, and I will not get it tangled up with numbers too much, but

we have 40 per cent of the firm power that is going to be available right away.

So we sell it until we need it. I want to be clear. We have not signed a

contract that commits the 40 per cent of firm power to Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals think we have guaranteed this to

Nova Scotia, but we absolutely have not done so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the guaranteed amount of power we have, that firm power,

well, every year there is excess rain and snow that will add our ability to

generate more power. This power will depend on how much rain and snow we get. It

is not guaranteed. We are guaranteed to get some, but we do not know how much

rain or snow we are going to get.

What we have done, what Nalcor has done, is studied the hydrology, studied

the river, and studied the climates. Fifty years of work and data, Mr. Speaker,

tells us that while we will not know each year whether it is up or down, we will

have an average supply of 1.2 terawatts of power that is surplus to our needs.

This power coming from the excess rain and snow is called average supply, but it

is non-firm because the actual amount is not guaranteed every year. It will

depend on the rain and snow levels in the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, this power is also surplus to our needs. Again, we are back

to making a choice: do we let it go or do we sell it? Well, we are going to sell

the non-firm power and that is the commitment we are making. We are going to

sell this non-firm into Nova Scotia. We are not giving away anything. We are not

committing to sell power that we need right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are only guaranteeing that Nova Scotia has access to the power created from

the rain and snow, the non-firm power, which is an average of 1.2 terawatt

hours.

So, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the spin or the lack of understanding from the

Opposition, we said 40 per cent of Muskrat Falls' power will be kept available

for industrial development in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have kept that

commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition and the critics have said

there are no markets for our power. Well, the rate we are going, we are not

going to get out of the Atlantic Provinces with our power. Nova Scotia wants it.

Mr. Speaker, the agreement we have, the Energy Access Agreement, will provide

1.2 terawatt hours of power between Nalcor, Emera, and Nova Scotia Power and is

what the UARB wanted as one of their conditions to make the Maritime Link for

Nova Scotia the best option for them as well, understandably. It is a win-win.

It is a good business deal, Mr. Speaker. We need to sell our extra power that

we not using, Nova Scotia needs access to more power, and they agree to buy it,

but they also agree to buy it at market price. We are confident that this

business arrangement meets the UARB requirement for access to more energy, while

providing more value for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, Nova Scotia needs more power, we have power to

sell, and they are going to pay us market price. That gets me to the markets and

rights, something that is fundamental to this and it is important that you

understand it. Market price and ratepayer costs are two different concepts. The

market price is the price that power companies, like Ontario Hydro, Emera, and

New Brunswick Power, are willing to pay for the power for their customers.

There are a lot of companies that do not produce power like we do, Mr.

Speaker. They have to go out and buy it, and there are many markets. There is a

bidding process. Let me tell you how it works. There is a bidding process on the

power and the highest bid sets the price that the power companies have to pay

for their power, no matter if you are in Boston, New York, or Nova Scotia.

Companies buy power at market prices set by the bidding price. We do not set the

market price. We do not control it.

In an agreement to supply Emera with an average of 1.2 terawatts of non-firm

power, they have guaranteed the going market price for power. It is important to

understand market price is what the power companies pay for power; it is not

what the ratepayers pay. The ratepayer pays more than the market price.

Mr. Speaker, here is how it works. In Nova Scotia, the UARB will determine

the rates. They will calculate Nova Scotia ratepayers' price. The UARB does

that. They will use the following: 20 per cent of the capital cost of Muskrat

Falls including the Maritime Link, 20 per cent of the operating cost of Muskrat

Falls, the market price Emera pays for the power, the cost of Emera to deliver

the power to their customers, and there will be a return built in for the Emera

power company. That is how the rate will be set.

The Public Utilities Board in Newfoundland and Labrador will be determining

the rates we have to pay, based on the cost of Muskrat Falls, the cost for

Newfoundland Hydro to deliver that power to the customers, and a return to the

Newfoundland Hydro company. Muskrat Falls is the cheapest option to ensuring

that we have the best rates in the future. It is not about Nova Scotia, Mr.

Speaker; it is about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, so we are clear about the discussion we are

having today, the Opposition is absolutely wrong in their claim that power will

be sold to the residents of Nova Scotia well below what Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians will pay. We are selling the power to Emera at market prices. The

UARB will set the rate for the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, not Nalcor, not

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I can assure you not the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They are going to calculate their own rates based on

all the costs that I just explained.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of the rates for Nova Scotia, Muskrat Falls is the

best, cheapest option for Newfoundland and Labrador. Nothing will change that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, they keep pushing every day, questions here and

there. I am not sure if they agree with Muskrat Falls or not. I think maybe it

is time for them to stand up and make a definitive statement: We are or we are

not. If you are not, tell us what the alternative is.

Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls Project is the least-cost option. It is the

cheapest way for us to get power we need in the future. It is clean, renewable

energy. It is reliable. It will minimize the increase in our monthly utility

bills, which is important for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is

going to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the cheapest rates

possible. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, as an added bonus to all that, which the Liberals want to say is

a bad idea, we are going to be able to sell the surplus power. We are going to

be able to take a renewable resource and sell it time and time again when we do

not need it to make money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, how can you stand or go on Open Line and say

this is a bad idea? We have always said and our history shows the past ten years

we have been firm, dedicated, and highly successful in developing the resources

of Newfoundland and Labrador in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador to get full benefit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, back to the motion. The Public Utilities Board

will have a chance to set these rates. There is no benefit to bringing this back

to a Public Utilities Board review.

Mr. Speaker, the motion lacks understanding and I hope I have helped clarify

it. I can tell you, this motion is not in the best interest of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians and I will not be supporting it today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Babe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, before going through why this matter should be

referred back to the Public Utilities Board, I would like to discuss briefly the

background of Public Utilities Boards in general.

Mr. Speaker, we live in the free enterprise system. The free enterprise

system is the best system in the world to produce the most benefits and the best

benefits at the lowest cost for most people. It is well established worldwide.

Hallmarks of the free enterprise system worldwide are the language of

system, is the US dollar. That is without dispute. It may be disputed here, but

that actually is without dispute.

One of the most important hallmarks of the free enterprise system is

competition. Competition among actors, people who play a role in the free

enterprise system, brings down the costs of good, increases the volume of goods

and creates a better standard of living for everybody worldwide who lives under

a system that embraces the free enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, only democracies embrace the free enterprise system. Other

systems that are not democracies may well have business, but they do not have

the free enterprise system. The Public Utilities Boards were created in order to

offset some of the worse aspects of competition.

For the last 100 and maybe even 200 years, it is the nature of competition

that strong players will gobble up small players and small players eventually

will create monopolies, and monopolies mean that only one party controls

everything. Only one party controls supply; one party controls the demand.

Individuals, consumers like the people of this Province and the people of this

country, are not well served by monopolies; however, sometimes it is necessary

to have a monopoly. Sometimes some major undertakings are required where there

can only be one player.

Mr. Speaker, that is in the case of large utilities in years gone by of

railways, water utilities, and electrical utilities. Because a utility, a

company that would engage in producing such a major undertaking, needs to be

assured that they will not have competition and needs to be assured that they

can get a reasonable rate of return for their investment. That is not disputed.

On the other hand, consumers need to be assured that they will not be gouged

by a major monopoly like an energy company, or like a gas company, or like in

some places where water rates are supplied, or in the old days when railways

were more regulated that the freight rates would not be gouged by that.

The compromise and one of the beauties of the free enterprise system is that

our legislators, including the members of this Legislature, created boards,

regulatory boards that some would say all regulation is bad; others would say

you need maybe absolute regulation. The Public Utilities Board is the board that

strikes a balance between an investor getting a reasonable profit so that a

major undertaking is done and a reasonable rate of return otherwise, they

simply would not do it, and why should they and a balance between that and the

consumer saying that I can only afford to pay so much. The consumer needs the

electricity in this case the service, which is electricity and the investor

needs to guaranteed that there is a reasonable rate of return to assure lenders

and investors that the debts that are incurred, which are usually massive debts

that have to be repaid over a long time, have a guaranteed income stream.

Part of the legislation that enables Muskrat Falls is that we have, in fact,

created a monopoly for Nalcor in this Province for electricity rates. This

brings us to the Public Utilities Board. This government claims that they have

seven experts who have guaranteed that this is the so-called least cost option;

however, having practiced law for nearly two decades, I can easily remember

cases whereby if somebody wants to advance a case and to prove a case, you get

an expert. If that expert does not give you the answer you want, you get another

expert. If that expert does not give you what you want, you get another expert.

The Premier said two days ago we had to go to seven experts to get the answer

we want; seven experts say that this is the best deal. If one expert would say

it, why would you need to go to seven? The one expert, Mr. Speaker, in this case

is the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board is the expert. The

Public Utilities Board is charged with ensuring the interest of the people of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the best at it. They have no

stake in the outcome. The Vice-President of Nalcor, when I spoke to him, said:

Look, we are going to do what is right. He said: I have no skin in this game. It

does not matter; we are going to do whatever is right for the people.

Well, I say even more so that the Public Utilities Board has absolutely no

stake in the outcome, except doing what is right for the people of the Province.

This government sent this matter to the Public Utilities Board and said: Do your

job, tell us what is the best outcome, you are absolutely the best people to

look at this, and you are the ones who we trust, that we have empowered, that we

have appointed people to sit on the board. These are people who are not

unfriendly to government; they are people who are friendly to government. The

government says: You tell us this is the least-cost option.

In fact, that is the wrong mandate to give to the Public Utilities Board. It

is not to tell the Public Utilities Board to rubber-stamp this for us. It is not

to say to the Public Utilities Board: You tell us this is the least-cost option.

It is for government to say to the Public Utilities Board: Tell us what is best.

Tell us what is best for the people of the Province because that is the job of

the Public Utilities Board.

The Public Utilities Board had this matter before it for many months. Over

the period of months, they had hearings, people made presentations, they

listened, they struggled, they struggled, and they listened. At the end of it,

they came back and they said: We are really sorry; you have not given us enough

information for us to be able to give you a decision. We just do not know, based

on what you have told us.

Did government do the right thing? The right thing would have been for

government to say: Well, we are really grateful for your feedback; if you do not

have enough information, clearly it is in the public interest that you must have

enough information. What does the Public Utilities Board need in order to be

able to provide an answer that this is in fact the best decision, the lowest, or

the government says the least-cost option? Then they would have empowered the

Public Utilities Board, and said: Take more time, what resources do you need, go

back, and then tell us.

This government did not want an unbiased answer. They did not want the answer

from the Public Utilities Board unless it was saying yes, this is a great deal.

It is not the job of the Public Utilities Board to have a rubber stamp and say:

Government, put whatever you like in front of us; we have a rubber stamp that

says okay; and everything you give us to stamp, okay. It is not okay.

Now, they did not say it was bad either. They just said: We do not have

enough information. What are we supposed to do? You do not chastise the Public

Utilities Board like I saw in this House less than a year ago. They were accused

of not doing their job, of falling down on the job, and really leaving

government in the lurch. They did not do that. They did what I would say is

probably the most responsible thing, and they said: We just do not know based on

what you have told us.

So government plowed ahead, hired some more experts, and got the answers that

they wanted. You can pretty much buy any expert you want in this world and get

whatever answer you want. If you do not like one answer, then buy another expert

and then buy another expert. How much have we paid now for seven experts to say

what it is? MHI, for example, Manitoba Hydro, that did the Wasquatum power deal,

had an overrun of 85 per cent. They had an 85 per cent overrun on a project that

was only a fraction the size of Muskrat Falls. If they had an overrun of 85 per

cent that is only a fraction of the size of Muskrat Falls, they are probably not

very reliable for us to take a chance on. I say we will put our luck and our

future, and stake our outcome with the Public Utilities Board. That is why this

resolution is here, it is a private member's resolution.

In addition to what was before the Public Utilities Board a year or so ago,

two years ago when they had their hearings before, now we have had as one of

the former Minister of Fisheries and a few other things used to say, the water

is changed on the beans. Clearly, there has been a lot of different fallout in

this project. Now we have court challenges, water reversion rights, issues with

the UARB in Nova Scotia, and a change of government in Nova Scotia.

This party, the Official Opposition has said, set all of this straight, send

this matter back to the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board might

very well say: government, you kind have made a mess of it so far but at this

point you cannot unwind the clock; you cannot get out of this. You are going to

have to finish the project, but here is what we think you should do. This will

be the rate for certain consumers.

The government might say to the Public Utilities Board: What do we do with

the eighty-five-year-old widow or widower, old age pensioner living on a fixed

income with electric heat? What are we going to do for that person when power

from Muskrat Falls comes in at twenty, or twenty-five, or thirty cents a

kilowatt added to the regular price that we have right now and this person is

just scraping by living on a Guaranteed Income Supplement? What is the

protection for that person?

The Public Utilities Board might hear from small businesses, the ones that

the Minister of Justice calls the mom and pop businesses that cannot afford an

increase in minimum wage. I accept that there is a legitimate concern for these

small businesses. If they cannot afford an increase in minimum wage, how on

earth can they afford a catastrophic increase in the price of energy? If they

are running on the price of energy and if they are paying now $2,000 or $3,000 a

month to run a little business in St. John's, or maybe in some rural area, and

all of a sudden the price becomes another $1,000 or so a month, it adds to their

overhead substantially and literally drives them out of business.

This government has just improved the Municipal Operating Grants. I take my

hat off to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for those increases that we have

seen. This is a help. It moves forward, but the tiny municipality that I live

in, that I grew up in, two years ago had an energy bill of a little over $20,000

a year for street lights and to keep the town hall heated and to pump water. For

250 people and a $20,000-odd power bill, how much will it mean to these

communities?

Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board is the one that is absolutely

unbiased. They already have demonstrated the strength of their perseverance and

their will power to say we cannot give you an answer because you did not give us

enough information. The people of this Province trust the Public Utilities

Board. So I say this government should trust the Public Utilities Board a little

more and then maybe the people of the Province would trust the government.

At this point, trust in government is at an all-time low. That could be

restored in part maybe by referring this matter to the Public Utilities Board

and ask them: What do you need, now that so much more time has passed, in order

for you to render not the decision that we want, not the decision that

government wants, but the decision that is in the best interest of the people of

this Province. What do you need?

There is no big hurry any more. Maybe you can use some of the work you did

previously but we really need an independent, unbiased opinion from the Public

Utilities Board, and that also needs to be based on the changes that have taken

place in the last six months, or the last year since this deal was sanctioned.

Since this deal was sanctioned roughly a year ago, who knows how much money

has been spent so far. The only safe and realistic and reasonable thing for this

government to do is to refer this matter back to the Public Utilities Board to

ask for a clean review, a new review, and integrate all of the facts since the

project was sanctioned. I have no doubt there will be some issues arising for

them, some negative issues; however, it is doubtful that we can stop the project

at this point.

Maybe we need the power. Maybe we have made a bad deal with Nova Scotia.

Maybe the so-called free flowing reinvestment of a non-renewable resource of oil

into a renewable resource back to back with a fifty year mortgage, most of us

will be long gone before that mortgage is paid off, yet we are saddling the

people of this Province with a fifty year mortgage in the mega billions of

dollars, and we have no idea where the price of energy will be over that time.

We have no idea where technology will evolve over fifty years, but we are

signing on the dotted line for the people of this Province for a fifty-year debt

without the benefit of the Public Utilities Board reviewing this matter. That is

why I support this private member's resolution, and I call on other members to

do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, first off, let me say it is great to be back in the House of Assembly.

I know all my colleagues on this side of the House echo that. I am particularly

happy the member across the way who just spoke is in the House of Assembly. I

know he was all bent out of shape about coming back, but I am glad he did show

up and I am glad he spoke to this today, although I do not know how much of it

stuck.

It was a pleasure to get the request to be able to speak on this today,

because I have quite a bit to say about Muskrat Falls and all the benefits that

obviously we will all have from it. Now, I could talk about a number of

different angles. There are a bunch of different ways I could go on this,

talking about the benefits and the overwhelming positives regarding Muskrat

Falls.

I could talk about the business case, I could talk about how it is the

least-cost option, but I know the crowd across the way has heard this from one

of their potential leaders. I do not want to beat a dead horse, because they

have heard it. They have heard it many times. Not only from a potential leader

this time, but from the golden boy they tried to get before. They understand

that, so I want to go on to the next one. I could talk about how it will

stabilize electrical rates. It is very important.

We are here as MHAs, we have to obviously have the best interests of our

constituents in mind. Personally, for me, that is a very important one as well.

I could talk about it, but I will not go any further. I could also indeed talk

about the benefits to the people of this Province, particularly the Innu and the

folks in Labrador. I could talk quite a bit about that, and the proposed 3,300

jobs, I believe, at peak time 3,300 jobs. Well-paying jobs, too, might I add.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: I could, Mr. Speaker, go on to talk about how it will end

our dependency on oil. We know the issues that can come up in budgetary process

when you are trying to gauge something on a commodity and prices, there are

highs and lows and peaks and valleys. Of course, that presents challenges, and

we have seen that first-hand. We are trying to move away from that. Oil has been

great. It has provided huge amounts of revenue to our Province, to our coffers,

but of course, again, it is not dependable.

During the debate we had on Muskrat Falls back last December, I guess it was,

in the House of Assembly, I spoke at length regarding the environmental impact

and the positive environmental impact that Muskrat Falls will create for the

Province, particularly the shutting down of Holyrood. We all know, we have heard

numerous people, we have heard the Mayor of Holyrood Mr. Goobie, is it, I

believe? He spoke at length of it, and how that is going to benefit his

residents.

I know I have heard from the MHA of the area a number of times talking about

how this has just been literally a black cloud hanging over this community for

so many years. The environmental side of this is absolutely huge. Again, I could

go into much more of that but I will not; I will continue on.

Mr. Speaker, today what I want to focus my attention on is the reason why we

need Muskrat Falls and how that relates to industrial development, particularly

the mining sector in Labrador. What I will present are facts, Mr. Speaker,

because I think it is nice to present facts time and time again here in the

House as opposed to rhetoric, and that is much what we hear from the other side.

The information that I speak of comes from experts in their respective fields.

It does not come necessarily from politicians just pulling them out of thin air

for their own purposes. Of course, we have heard from the other side and

sometimes that is where the conversation goes.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador needs a new source of

electricity generation because demand for electricity on the Island will exceed

supply in the very near future. That is a fact. That is not my opinion. It is

not any of our opinion; it is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I want to see: What is driving this demand? We can look at a few

things here. It is being driven by a strong economy and new business

development, business development that we have never seen before, nothing that

we have ever seen before in the Province. I know I speak for others when I say

no matter what part of the Island you are from, or Labrador, you cannot go

anywhere without seeing this development. It is not just a Northeast Avalon

thing, definitely not. I am from Glovertown and Glovertown is booming, a town of

about 2,300 people, booming, that one town; we have hundreds of them. Let's keep

the focus here, the Island and Labrador, the development is just booming, so

that is something to keep in mind.

It is also being driven by the growth of residential customers and higher

than average new home construction. Again, no matter where you go in the

Province, whether it be in Labrador or Newfoundland on the Island, you see

construction everywhere you go. It is amazing and it is great to see.

We see demand rising due to growing electrical use in homes due to higher

incomes, as well as increased use of electric heat as opposed to traditional use

of oil or wood burning. Of course, we see increased demand as it relates to

industrial electricity, and that is where I want to spend some time today.

The data behind Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's electricity demand forecast

has been validated by its outside independent expert, and that would be MHI. If

I can quote them, what they said about the forecast: It was diligent and

reasonable. We validated that. There is an increased demand in electricity. No

one will argue that, I do not think, on any side of the House.

Industrial development: Once a hydroelectric generating facility is built and

commissioned at Muskrat Falls, there will be power to service the Island's

increasing electricity demands and to support industrial development in

Labrador. Let us not forget, about 40 per cent of Muskrat Falls energy will be

available to supply industrial customers in Labrador. That is a massive piece of

that: 40 per cent for the industrial needs of Labrador.

I ask the members opposite: Are you in favour of industrial development in

Labrador? If the answer is yes, which I think it would be, then by default you

are in favour of Muskrat Falls because you cannot have one without the other. I

think that is the point here that I am trying to make today. Obviously, we are

in favour of industrial development. I think everyone would be. How are you

going to achieve that? What is the key factor? Of course, Muskrat Falls is that.

I know that question in particular used to make the former Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair squirm in her seat because, of course, she was, as

were all of us, in favour of industrial development in Labrador. Again, she had

to play politics with us so she was always riding on the fence.

Now, folks, politics is what it is. When you look at politics, I see it can

be very beneficial; but when you allow politics to handcuff you into making

irrational comments and making you side one way or the other just for the sake

of opposing for opposing, I think that is where that is where the problem lies.

There is over $10 billion

MS DEMPSTER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: Certainly, I want the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair to listen to this, because I have heard some bizarre comments today as

well as yesterday. So I want her to pay particular attention.

Some estimate it will be upwards of $15 billion of investment possible over

the next decade in Labrador $15 billion over the next decade. Small potatoes,

I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Muskrat Falls is an instrumental piece to achieving that

investment, black and white.

The new Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair today, as I said it was not

today, it was yesterday or the day before made a bizarre comment and the

comment really struck me. Of course, we all know what the development is going

on here on the Island, particularly what is going on up in Labrador. She said:

There is a mass exodus of people moving out of the Province for work. Nothing

could be further from the truth. To say that and to say it with a straight face,

she deserves an Academy Award, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: and no development. I am going to get to that in a

second.

So let us just see. Let us just say that she was correct in what she said and

that she was sincere when she said there has been a mass exodus from the

Province a mass exodus. Why would you not then support Muskrat Falls, which is

going to put so much money and resources into Labrador to keep that supposed

exodus of people staying put? You cannot speak from both sides of your mouth.

You cannot say there is a mass exodus of people, yet we do not want to develop

it to give us the tools to allow our sons and daughters to stay. You cannot have

it both ways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Now, if I may say a little something more on the member's

comment yesterday, while we do have obviously a population of residents who are

transient, who come back and forth, and do turnarounds out West, that has always

been the case and it always will be. As long as there is oil out in Fort

McMurray we are going to have that, and so be it. It is great.

I just want to name off a few spots and I want to see if it jogs the member's

memory, if she has heard of any of these, and she can stop me if she has not:

Long Harbour, Bull Arm, Marystown, Placentia, Argentia, Voisey's Bay, IOC, and

Wabush. Then there are other places like Glovertown, my own hometown, that has a

contract with Hebron down at the local shipyard with over 100 women and men

employed doing work on a Hebron Project.

Then I extend it right over on the side of the Island, and I noticed,

actually, on the Member for Burgeo La Poile's Facebook page I liked the

comment, actually. He was talking about how there is new fabrication work

beginning soon in Port aux Basques. There is actually going to be a job fair in

a couple of days, a huge contract being let.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: It is great to see.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about Muskrat?

MR. S. COLLINS: No, we are talking about White Rose Extension, that one.

I am talking about all the great things happening and all the jobs. Now, I will

say to the Member for Burgeo La Poile, I will bring it back to Muskrat Falls.

I would like to talk about another contract that has been let recently, and I

believe this is in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. It is a huge

contract issued by Nalcor in Forteau. I will admit, Mr. Speaker, my sense of

geography

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. S. COLLINS: My sense of geography of the Island is spot-on; it is

really good. Labrador, it is not as good, but I am getting there. I am pretty

sure Forteau is in her electoral district.

Yet, when she stood up to speak about the mass exodus of people and how

terrible things are and how bleak they are, she failed to mention a huge

multi-million dollar contract in Forteau shame on you. If I was home in

Forteau listening to that I would say: Unbelievable, she did not even make

reference to it. It is not even important enough to make reference to. I say

that is a shame, Mr. Speaker. It is a definite shame.

I want to talk for just a short time as well with regard to Muskrat Falls'

jobs. It is not only in Labrador, of course, they are throughout the Island. I

was at an event in Gambo this past summer and we were talking about jobs and all

that good stuff. I was speaking to a young man; he graduated with my wife from

high school and he went on to do an engineering trade. He said: I just got a job

at Muskrat Falls. I said: Well, that is amazing; you are actually the first

person I know personally who got a job at Muskrat Falls. He said: Really? I

said: Well, I believe so.

He said: Do you know there are another four people from Glovertown who are

working with me, and another two from Gambo? Furthermore, he said, not only is

it for us in Newfoundland but I graduated from university, from the trade that

he has, with four people from Labrador. Every single one of those people from

Labrador is employed at Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am going to go back to the

mineral side, but we can all acknowledge the huge contribution that the mineral

sector plays in Newfoundland and Labrador. The annual mineral shipments I

guess this will be an estimate for this year will be $4.3 billion, huge money

obviously.

The mineral exploration sector is robust with annual expenditures of over

$200 million. That number is set to grow greatly in the years to come.

Additionally, the mining industry provides valuable jobs for many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

That is something that is very, very important to me as a rural MH