March 24, 2011                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI   No. 4


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome to the public galleries two members representing the Epilepsy Society, Ms Mary Beth Thistle, who is accompanied by her mother, Ms Patti Thistle; also, Ms Gail Dempsey and Ms Pam Anstey, representing Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome Ms Faith Atkins and her classmates from Mount Pearl Intermediate School who are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Brett Langdon.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; and, by leave, the hon. Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

Does the hon. Member for the District of Torngat Mountains have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Frosty Festival organizing committee and the City of Mount Pearl on celebrating the twenty-ninth Annual Frosty Festival last month.

The Frosty Festival was again a huge success this year. I would like to extend my congratulations and special thanks to the Frosty Festival board of directors, led this year by Chairperson Andrew Ledwell. Andrew has been involved with the festival for many years and his experience was a great asset in this role. I also would like to thank all of the sponsors and volunteers, as well as the City of Mount Pearl, for contributing to the festival's success.

After twenty-nine years, there is no doubt that this festival has become a tradition in our community. I attended so many of the events this year, as I have in the past, and can only say that they keep getting better and better. I think this year I saw more new faces than ever before. There is truly something for everyone at Frosty Festival.

I was also pleased that our Premier could join me and fellow MHAs from Topsail and Mount Pearl South for the festival's opening ceremonies.

The Frosty Festival has been named one of the best winter carnivals in Canada. This is a great honour, but to me, it is no surprise. It is a wonderful week of events for our community, our region, and indeed our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Frosty Festival board of directors and the City of Mount Pearl in hosting another tremendous winter carnival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I stand in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate the staff, volunteers, and students of Virginia Park Elementary School on another successful year for the Breakfast Program.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure all hon. members are aware, a healthy breakfast is extremely important for children to start their day. The benefits of quality nutrition are many, but most important, it ensures children have everything they need to learn and grow. The Virginia Park Breakfast Program provides children with a tasty and nutritious breakfast that regularly includes whole grain cereal, yogourt, fruit, cheese, and other nutritious breakfast foods.

I have seen first hand what a difference this program makes in the children's morning, as I and my staff volunteer at the school once a month to help serve breakfast. The smiles and energy of students create a wonderful way to start one's day. My staff and I very much look forward to our designated day each month.

Mr. Speaker, one of the great aspects of the breakfast program is that it is truly a community effort. The program would not exist without the hard work of Virginia Park Elementary staff and volunteers. I would like to personally thank each and every one of them as well as the community sponsors which include the Kids Eat Smart program who is the primary sponsor, the Rotary Club of St. John's North West, St. Paul's Council Knights of Columbus, St. Mark's Anglican Church and of course family members and school staff, especially Lorraine Williams and Patricia Emberley.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all hon. members join with me in sending a big thank you to the staff and volunteers at the Virginia Park Elementary Breakfast Program on their second successful year and wish them continued future success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Community 5 Lions Club 2011 Speak Off held in Dildo on March 2.

This year, Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of attending the Lions community speak off. The contestants delivered speeches that were outstanding. Each contestant captivated the attention of every individual in the hall. There was no doubt that the three judges were presented with a difficult task when asked to select just one individual from a group of competitors that presented all qualities of a winner.

First place was awarded to Stephanie Warren who delivered a speech titled, "It is in us to give" (blood donations). Second place went to her twin sister Natasha Warren from Chapel Arm. Third place went to Shawna Reid from Dildo and fourth place to Sarah Olford from Green's Harbour. All four students were from Crescent Collegiate, Blaketown.

It was stated that Crescent Collegiate students over the past few years have delivered exceptional speeches and that the commitment, dedication and coaching of the teaching staff is what contributes to such success.

Mr. Speaker, Stephanie and Natasha will both represent their region in Placentia on May 27, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all four winners in the 2011 speak off and extend good luck to both Stephanie and Natasha as they compete in the speak off in Placentia on May 27.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ian Warren and Ashley Green of St. Anthony on being selected as the Winterfest Ambassadors for the thirty-first St. Anthony Winterfest Celebrations that is presently taking place

The Winterfest Gala is one of the many events that occur during the ten-day annual festival, and one that I had the privilege of attending this past Thursday evening. Six youth from St. Anthony and the surrounding area vied for the title and were judged on personal interviews, questions, and collages. Each contestant displayed great talent, style, and fashion and I would like to extend congratulations to all that participated.

Ian and Ashley will be attending the remaining events as youth representatives, which I believe they will do proudly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ian and Ashley and to wish them well in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise and inform my hon. colleagues of the passing of a provincial icon, Mr. James Andersen or better known as Uncle Jim.

For over fifty years, Uncle Jim documented the everyday lives of people in and around his community of Makkovik. He was his own time capsule, capturing and storing photographs and videos he would take on a daily basis. He amassed an extensive archive that showcased everything from hunting, fishing, going to church, various community events, and everyday living.

So impressive was Uncle Jim's collection, that The Rooms Provincial Archives honoured him with a showcase of his work in 2008. It was a joint project between The Rooms and the Nunatsiavut Government, which was curated by Rhonda Buckley who, as well, presented a documentary on the life of Uncle Jim.

Mr. Speaker, while we are saddened with Uncle Jim's passing, we are very thankful and deeply humbled by his contribution to record moments in time that showed life on the Coast of Labrador, way back then. Sam Kula, an archival consultant said it is the "largest collection of photographs from a single community in Canada."

When you think of all the great photographers who captured their surroundings, like Ansel Adams and Freeman Patterson, Uncle Jim was always with a camera and he can rest peacefully knowing his work has been persevered and protected for generations to come.

Labrador has lost one of its most prestigious sons and he will always be remembered.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today, joining people around the world who will wear purple this week to promote awareness of epilepsy. March 26 is designated as International Purple Day.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked to wear purple in observance of this special day by two young ladies who want people to know more about epilepsy.

Patti Thistle wrote to me on behalf of her fifteen-year-old daughter, Mary Beth, asking me to support efforts to raise awareness of epilepsy by wearing purple. I am happy to have Mary Beth and Patti Thistle joining us today.

Mr. Speaker, twelve-year-old Faith Atkins, a student at Mount Pearl Intermediate School and an Ambassador for Purple Day wrote to me about Purple Day. She has been actively promoting Purple Day in her school. Faith and some of her classmates have joined us today in the gallery. In addition, Gail Dempsey and Pam Anstey from Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador have joined us.

There are various activities, Mr. Speaker, planned for Purple Day, including purple poster contests and community activities. Faith herself has organized a Wackiest Purple Outfit contest at her school. Mr. Speaker, I was not striving to have the wackiest outfit today, but I am very proud to be wearing purple and I may win the contest.

International Purple Day began in 2008 when a nine-year-old Nova Scotia girl, named Cassidy Megan, asked her principal if they could plan a purple day at her school. Lavender is the internationally recognized colour associated with epilepsy and seizures. For Cassidy, lavender is just another shade of purple so she called her campaign Purple Day for epilepsy. They set the date for March 26, and the event has grown to a worldwide movement, observed in dozens of countries by politicians, schools, municipalities, and individuals.

The aim of the Purple Day Campaign reflects Cassidy's original intent: to raise awareness of epilepsy, which is captured in a letter Cassidy wrote to supporters, and I quote, "I started Purple Day because when I first found out that I had epilepsy I was afraid and embarrassed of what other people would think. I also thought I was the only kid in the world with epilepsy. I wanted to have one day where everyone in the world could show support for people with epilepsy and teach people about epilepsy."

Mr. Speaker, epilepsy affects over 10, 000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and more than 50 million people worldwide. I am so pleased to bring Purple Day to the attention of this House and my hon. colleagues as I invite all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to wear purple on March 26.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for an advance of her statement.

I am certainly very proud today to rise in the House of Assembly in our Province and to recognize fifteen-year-old Mary Beth and her mom, and certainly Faith as well, for the actions they have taken in promoting epilepsy in our Province, making people more aware of this disease, and creating awareness around it at all different age levels. I think that is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention Cassidy Megan because I think it is an inspiring story of how one child can actually make a difference in a big world. I think this young girl has made a difference. It is quite obvious by the followers that she has in the gallery today and by many others all around this Province and around the country who have come to join with her in celebrating International Purple Day.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the Premier talked about 50 million people worldwide who are affected by epilepsy. That is more than multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, and Parkinson's disease combined affects people in our world. That is quite an alarming statistic.

Mr. Speaker, each day in our country there is an average of thirty-eight people who learn that they have epilepsy. In one year, an average of fourteen people will learn that they have this disease; 60 per cent of these new patients are young children or senior citizens. That is why I find it so enlightening today that it is young people who are bringing this message forward in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate them and I also want to recognize the epilepsy society of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is many of these groups and organizations that people turn to as their first point of contact when they learn that they have a disease like this or someone in their family does. These service groups and organizations of professionals provide an invaluable service to all of those who need to use it. So I want to certainly pay tribute to them as well in the work that they do.

Thank you.

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

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

I thank the Premier for bringing us to this moment here today, and I thank her for the advance copy of her statement. I think what we are doing here today is extremely important.

I, too, want to recognize Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador on supporting this effort of young people who have epilepsy. I think it is extremely important that the association is there giving them their support, and I welcome Gail Dempsey and Pam Anstey from the association.

I especially want to congratulate Mary Beth and Patti Thistle for participating in the awareness raising opportunity for Purple Day and epilepsy that they are doing today. They took a challenge that was raised by Cassidy in Nova Scotia and they have brought it here and have made an extremely important moment here in the House of Assembly this afternoon. We alone here in this Province have 10,000 people living with epilepsy, and it is very important that they feel that they are not alone, and not only feel it, they need to know that they are not alone.

Many efforts are going on this week. I know of one young boy, for example, Nicholas, who is participating with his friends at Mes Amis day care to raise money in their bunny hop this weekend for epilepsy. So there are some wonderful events happening. I would encourage people in the Province, beyond wearing purple this week, and visit the epilepsy Web site to see the different programs they offer, the stories they tell, also here in St. John's, to frequent Previously Loved Clothes and Things, the store where they raise money for the work of the Epilepsy Society. I think in that way we will show them that we really do care about furthering their cause.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significant contributions of social workers across Newfoundland and Labrador during National Social Work Month, and I am pleased to see some members of the social workers' society in the gallery here today.

Social work is an established profession in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 1,350 registered social workers practicing throughout the Province. Within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, these professionals work with individuals, families, and communities in a variety of program areas, including regulated child care, protective intervention, youth corrections, adoptions, and foster care.

This year's theme for National Social Work Month is Social Workers for Dignity and Inclusion: Upholding Human Rights. The theme is extremely important and succinctly encompasses their overall role.

Mr. Speaker, social workers, in particular child protection social workers, are sometimes portrayed negatively with respect to the work they perform, when on the contrary, Mr. Speaker, they are working on behalf of the public interest to ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth.

Since assuming the role as Minister for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services a little over two months ago, I have been out meeting social workers within the department, and Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that they are some of the most caring, socially conscious people I have ever met. They are working hard on the front lines, making difficult decisions in the best interests of our most vulnerable population.

The general public is not always fully informed about the imperative role of social workers and I encourage everyone, particularly during National Social Work Month, to learn more about these highly ethical and skilled professionals.

As Minister for the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, I would like to take this opportunity to commend social workers for their dedication and commitment to the children and youth of Newfoundland and Labrador. They certainly play an essential role in society and March provides an opportunity to recognize and celebrate their important contributions to the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement and to say that we are very pleased to stand and recognize National Social Work Month.

Mr. Speaker, we are also equally as appreciative to stand and to recognize our social workers here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, to say that they work on the front lines is almost an understatement. If there is a child in need in this Province, the first rate of response lies with them. They have a huge responsibility placed on their shoulders each and every day as they provide the care for our children and nurture them along in society in this Province. They have stressful jobs that often take them into certain family situations that are difficult, that take them into our medical system, Mr. Speaker, and, yes, right into our court system.

It is a job, Mr. Speaker, that can only be handled by some of the strongest people that we have in our society and I certainly want to recognize them for the work they do. In recognizing them, Mr. Speaker, I also want to raise my voice to some of their issues. The issue of the shortage of social workers in Newfoundland and Labrador today is a glaring example of where we have not given real leadership to our children.

Mr. Speaker, the statistics released only a short time ago showed that in October of 2009, forty per cent of the vacancies in this Province in social work were in Child, Youth and Family Services. This year, in 2010, sixty-eight per cent of those vacancies are in Child, Youth and Family Services. Mr. Speaker, these statistics are alarming and they need to be addressed. We need to ensure that we have a good compliment of social workers out there working in our system so that those who are currently there do not have to carry the burden and the workload beyond what they are expected of or capable of in many days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I am very pleased to stand with her and with the Leader of the Official Opposition in recognizing the contributions made by the social workers in this Province, especially during National Social Work Month. It is an understatement to say that social workers provide a critical service in our society. Our society cannot operate without them and they really are the unsung heroes dealing with the many problems that a lot of us do not even see.

We need to recognize, not only in name, the work that these men and women do. We also need to show that we care about them by making sure that there are enough supports in place for them as they do their work. They suffer from high levels of stress, there are high levels of overwork and burnout happening among social workers and we do have a chronic shortage of social workers.

More than ever before we need to make sure that we are increasing the number of social workers in this Province, giving them the supports that they need – the administrative supports – and to have enough people doing casework that the workers themselves can take the time to do the paperwork that only they can do. There is work that can be done by support workers working with them, but there is also work that only they can do as the person working with the children.

I encourage the minister and I encourage the government to look at the full situation of the social workers in this Province, especially in Child, Youth and Family Services and make sure that they have everything they need to do their work and do it while remaining healthy themselves.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, each of us has a responsibility for the sustainability of our planet and every action, big or small, collectively helps to make a difference. That is why I rise in this hon. House today to draw your attention to Earth Hour 2011 taking place this coming Saturday at 8:30 p.m. – when every resident of our Province from every walk of life is asked to join together in solidarity for our Earth and turn off their lights for one hour.

Earth Hour is organized by the World Wildlife Fund, a leading conservation organization whose mandate is to stop the degradation of the Earth's natural environment and build a future where people live in harmony with nature. Since Earth Hour first began as a single-city event in Sydney, Australia, in 2007, it has now grown to be a global phenomenon, with a record of 128 countries and territories participating in Earth Hour 2010. It has quickly carved its place in history as the largest ever voluntary action whereby people, businesses, and governments come together to celebrate a commitment to a common cause – the Earth.

While Earth Hour has helped raise the profile of sustainability issues since its inception, Mr. Speaker, we must all pledge to do more when we switch off our lights for one hour each year. That is why, this year, the organizers are asking all participants to go beyond this one act, take action for the planet, and share their planned activities beyond the hour with them at earthhour.org.

Mr. Speaker, there are many sustainable practices we can adopt beyond this coming Saturday evening. We can ensure we turn off lights when they are not in use, recycle whenever possible, ensure vehicle tires are inflated properly, compost and install water-saving devices, just to name a few. These actions, from a worldwide perspective, can positively affect the future of our planet. They can help us extend our commitment to our planet long after the lights are turned back on this Saturday evening.

I encourage every household throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to join the worldwide movement at 8:30 p.m. local time on March 26 and share in one hour of darkness for the earth. Together, our actions do make a difference for our environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to say that we encourage every household in this Province to take part in Earth Hour 2011.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, what a far cry from yesterday. Here we are having the minister ask us to conserve our energy; yesterday, the Premier was telling us we are going to double it and we have to watch out what we are doing with our plasma TVs.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, it also states that we should encourage and build a future where people live in harmony with nature. Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this Province who are wondering what this government did with the Bill of Rights that they were supposed to bring in so many of those issues could be looked at.

The minister goes on to say that we should be concerned about how we have our tires inflated. I say to the minister and government: You should be concerned about the two million tires you have kicking around out in Dunville. You should be concerned about your prospects of burning tires in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, only recently, the Auditor General said there are 621 contaminated sites in this Province; 252 of them are the responsibility of this government. No comprehensive plan, no timelines to see that those sites are remediated. It is time for this government to do more than talk the talk, they should walk the walk.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all those to get involved in Earth Hour 2011 this year, and hopefully government will see to it that they carry out what they think.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Certainly, Earth Hour is an extremely important symbolic act going on around the world and I really do encourage everybody in the Province, where they can, to observe this hour.

The minister, in his statement, names a lot of things that people can do as individuals or as families and that is all well and good. I encourage all of us to do the things that the minister spoke about, but we also need to look at things that government is responsible for.

In the Speech from the Throne this week, the government talked about a new energy efficiency program. I would point out to the minister that we need a launch of the new energy efficiency program sooner rather than later. When we did have a call for applications to the program that exists, our program was closed rather quickly because of so many applications that came in. That demand for an energy efficiency program is going to go up with our consumers and businesses in this Province.

In looking at energy efficiency in our Province I would like us to cover three targeted groups just as they do in New Brunswick. They have a program for residential need, a program to cover small business and a program to cover industrial need. I look forward to seeing the program that our government is going to come up with, recognizing that while there are some things we can do as individuals, we have a much bigger picture that has to be faced with energy efficiency.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier claims growing demand is one of the reasons we need to develop Muskrat Falls. I am tabling today three documents from Nalcor which shows her projections. You will notice that Nalcor is projecting a 50 per cent rise in energy usage from what was forecasted in 2009 to what we will use this year in 2011. That is an astounding increase, given that our population is the same and that there have been no industrial developments during that time.

I ask the Premier: How did you arrive at these numbers, or are they simply just being created to justify the Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad she is tabling documents. I hope that she has taken the time to read them, Mr. Speaker, because I tabled a document here on December 9, 2010, on Generation Planning Issues 2010 July Update, and, Mr. Speaker, they rose in the House yesterday and told me they did not have it, could not find it, were not familiar with it. Mr. Speaker, I brought another copy with me today and at the appropriate time I will table it again.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor is required to do forecasting to present that information to the PUB, who verifies the information that is put forward. They also have to provide to the PUB a plan to deal with the forecast. That is the process, Mr. Speaker. It is one they should be familiar with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Looking at the 2018 projections and onward, the Premier is claiming that energy usage on the Island is going to more than double in the next two decades after Muskrat comes on stream. In order for that to be even remotely possibly, we will have to see a double in population or a double in the number of mines and refineries and double in the amount of industrial activity that is currently going on. We will have to do all of that, Mr. Speaker, with the fastest aging population in the country and the smallest rate of population growth.

I ask the Premier again today: Where are you getting your numbers from, or are you just putting these figures out there today to justify the Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor provided a briefing to the members of the Official Opposition this morning, so I was living in hope for the better part of the day that we would have a more informed debate here today. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have asked for further briefing and I have encouraged Nalcor to give them one every day if that is possible to see if we can get them to where they need to be.

Mr. Speaker, the government, through either the Premier's Office or the Department of Natural Resources, are not the ones for determining the forecasting of load. We have experts, resident within Nalcor, who do that, Mr. Speaker. That information is tested at the PUB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You need briefings from Nalcor just to untangle the answers that the Premier gives each day in the media, Mr. Speaker, around the issue.

Let me ask her this question, because when we talked to Nalcor this morning about where their numbers were coming from on the demand, the only thing they could indicate to us in terms of take-up on power is what is currently going on in the Province today. All the information that documents demand in power load apparently came from the Department of Finance, Premier, from your government.

I ask you today, if you are going to be as keen to table that information in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor provided to the members of the Opposition this morning a number of assumptions that have to do with load and forecasting of load. They talk about industrial development here in the Province, and they talk about such things as a paper mill, as Vale Inco, as other industrial developments throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker.

As I said here yesterday, our load is forecasted to grow at about 0.7 per cent a year up to 1.7 per cent a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that talks about growth in population; it speaks to further industrial development here in the Province. The problem with the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is they have no vision. They have no belief in our capacity to grow and they certainly do not have a plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have lots of vision, I say to the Premier opposite. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have so much vision that we are already projecting what the light bills are going to be for the people in this Province when you get finished with them. That is what I say to you, Premier.

Let me ask you this question, because out of all of the adjustments that Nalcor gave us this morning we are meeting our power commitments to those customers, with the exception of Long Harbour today. We already know we have enough power to look after Long Harbour if it was to come on stream tomorrow or next year, or whatever the case may be. In fact, where the glaring omission was, Premier, is that their assumptions are based on information – I say it again – from your government, from the Department of Finance. I know you talked about plasma TVs yesterday, but it would be a lot of plasma TVs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I ask you, Premier, to table that information in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, they are desperate for somebody to do their research for them. I suggest you do it yourself because the sources you are relying on now are clearly failing you.

Mr. Speaker, projections around economic outlooks and economic indicators from the Department of Finance are in the public domain. All they need to do is look at them, this is not secret information.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is an expertise within Nalcor; there is an expertise within the PUB to test the information coming out of Nalcor. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have the capacity now to deal with the current issues. We do not have the capacity, Mr. Speaker, to deal with growth; we do not have the capacity to deal with an incident that would take capacity offline.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is comprehensive, sensible planning for the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe if we could get a few less insults flying from the Premier and a few more answers from across the House we might be able to move on a little bit quicker.

Mr. Speaker, she says there is nothing secret here; however, the environmental review panel that is examining the proposed Muskrat Falls Project is looking for the very same information. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in a letter to Nalcor this past week they have indicated that thus far they have not been provided with the adequate information on financial benefits and detailed analysis of project alternatives. Mr. Speaker, they have given Nalcor until the end of the month to bring that information forward.

I ask the Premier today: If there is nothing secretive here, why was the information not given to the environmental panel on March 7 and 8, and why are you not prepared to table it for the people of the Province today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all of the information required by the environmental review panel will be provided by Nalcor. Mr. Speaker, this is an important –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - step in the whole review of this project. We have spent considerable time getting ready for that review, providing information to the panel, Mr. Speaker, providing funding to different stakeholder groups so that they can be prepared to ask penetrating questions in this whole process. Mr. Speaker, this is a good project for Newfoundland and Labrador, there is no need to hide anything with regard to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are just trying to get to the bottom of whether it is good or whether it is bad. The quicker the information comes, the more of an opportunity the public will have to examine it, I say to you, Premier.

Nalcor also indicated that Gull Island would not proceed unless energy markets are secured for 100 per cent of its energy output; however, Muskrat Falls, is looking at only 40 per cent of its power output which has been identified right now, and that is us here in this Province who will pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, this being the case, why are you determined to proceed with Muskrat Falls when you have no buyers for the power and no contracts in hand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we need power to supply the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, their plan is to sell all the power to Quebec and take whatever crumbs we could get from it. Mr. Speaker, this is the best solution for the energy needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the most cost-effective way to replace Holyrood and to meet our energy needs here on the Island, Mr. Speaker. It is also the most effective way to provide energy for industrial development in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when people come to invest in Labrador, we are not going to say to them: Hang on now, put your billion dollars in your pocket and give us five or six years to develop an energy supply for you. We have more vision than that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If that is the approach the Premier wants to take, because I think that may be a good approach, I say to you, Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Let me just say this, if that is the case, why is the Premier and the government giving away our power to Emera Energy, paying for half the cost, running a transmission line where there does not need to be one when we can keep that power right in Labrador for industrial development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when Muskrat Falls is completed there will be over 500 megawatts of power available for industrial development in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful thing. Mr. Speaker, they do not want power for industrial development in Labrador, they and their supporters want to bring it all to the border and let Quebec do industrial development in its province or make money by selling it within Canada or in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Muskrat Falls works for the people of the Province. It is the most cost-effective way to meet our power needs. Their plan that they are recommending to the people of the Province will cost ratepayers $2 billion more than Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to get into the math, but if there are 500-and-some-odd megawatts in Labrador and an 864 megawatt project, I think we better crunch the numbers again.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was announced that the federal government and Quebec have reached an agreement for offshore resource management. This agreement would allow Quebec to develop the Old Harry oil field, which potentially contains twice the oil of Hibernia; however, a large portion, or perhaps the entire well, rests within our Province's jurisdiction.

I ask the Premier: Now that Quebec has an agreement in place, will you pressure the federal government for a tribunal to finally establish a certain offshore boundary between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, up to this point we have not had a mechanism with the federal government and Quebec to resolve the border issue on Old Harry. Mr. Speaker, we have talked about this too a number of times here in the House, so we will do it one more time.

Mr. Speaker, we were able to settle our boundary issues with Nova Scotia because they have an Atlantic Accord, the Nova Scotia accord with the federal government, and we had a Newfoundland and Labrador accord with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, Quebec needed a similar authority process, and now, I understand, such a process will be in place, they will initial the documents this afternoon. Once that is in place, Mr. Speaker, we will have the capacity to work together and the means and process to settle the boundary issues on Old Harry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that there was a proposed boundary that existed in 1964. In a tribunal headed by the Supreme Court in 2002, there was a ruling that that boundary is no longer in existence.

I ask the Premier today, in respect to this 1964 boundary - because I understand that that is the boundary that we are respecting the Province today in carrying out seismic work and exploration work in that particular area. I ask her why she has not taken more clearly assertive action on this particular issue to ensure that there is a boundary set. I ask her again: What does this agreement today mean between the federal government and Quebec, in terms of who owns what percentage of this particular area?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been quite clear in this House, and outside of this House. If you paid any attention to the media at all, all last summer there was a weekly reference to the debate between ourselves and the Province of Quebec with regard to Old Harry. We do not accept the 1964 boundary, Mr. Speaker. It was never ratified. The information is fifty years old. The boundary still needs to be resolved. Hopefully, after today, Mr. Speaker, we will have a mechanism where we can do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2010, Hurricane Igor devastated many homes and communities in our Province. Six months after the disaster, we hear absolute frustration from communities who are trying to secure proper funding for displaced families.

Two seniors in Bonavista were originally allocated $32,000 to repair their home. When the contractor arrived to begin repairs, they realized there were more extensive damages. Volunteers in the community had to tear the house down and rebuild it. To rebuild the house, they were only given $22,000. A group of volunteers are in the process of rebuilding it right now, and they know the supplies will cost more than what government has offered.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of this situation and, if so, can you justify short changing these families who are trying to get their houses rebuilt following this terrible disaster?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

First, I have to say upfront that we are very proud of this government's response in regard to that terrible disaster Igor. We have, at this point in time, about 75 to 85 per cent of our claims closed in regard to that (inaudible), which is unprecedented in any province in Canada. We have responded very, very well.

In regard to the issue at hand, when we go in and have the adjusters and the structural engineers assess the damage to a household it is assessed at what they see at that particular time. They are made two offers: one is a contract offer that includes labour cost, the other one is a settlement for materials only and then they can do the work themselves. They have to make that choice. We are guided by the federal guidelines in regard to those offers and we cannot offer anything above those guidelines and specifications that are in those guidelines provided by the federal government.

In this case in question we will then push it off to two organizations, the Salvation Army or the Red Cross, which will address those issues that are not covered under those guidelines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Reverend Squires, on behalf of the affected families, has gone back to government to try and obtain additional funding for the rebuilding of their homes. All the labour is being provided completely by volunteers and the only labour being paid is for the contractors who are doing foundation work. These people are simply asking for the cost of supplies to be covered so that the church does not have to foot the bill. This, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not too much to ask for.

I ask the minister: Is your government willing today to commit to properly providing funding so that those affected people can get back in their homes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Emergency Preparedness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the federal guidelines we can only address issues pre-existing Igor. We cannot deal with issues that pre-existed or went before Igor – in regard to structural damage, maybe rot in the foundation, et cetera. In that case, we would address the issue in regard to the homeowner. We would tell the homeowner to contact the Red Cross or Salvation Army. The Red Cross or Salvation Army has to address those issues in other areas.

I would advise this particular couple, and Reverend Squires for that matter, to get in contact with those people. They are on the ground, they are absolutely good to deal with, and they have done well in regard to the issues that fall outside the federal guidelines. In this case it falls outside the federal guidelines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we would recognize Reverend Squires as being somewhat of a godsend to the people of Catalina and the region in leading the effort to help the people. Over the past three weeks he has called several times to Fire and Emergency Services to express his concerns about the recovery effort. As of today he is still waiting for a response.

I would ask the minister, if he can tell us: Why, in three weeks, have they not received a call back from that department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Emergency Preparedness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I am certainly pleased that you asked me that question in the House. As a matter of fact I was on the way to my office this morning and I listened to that interview and I just about went off the road when I heard that remark. I came in; I checked the logs – as you know in every ministry every call is logged as it comes in.

There have been no calls to my office from Reverend Squires. If there was, he would get a call because I pride myself, as all ministers pride themselves, in responding to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I stand here today and I ask Reverend Squires, if he called my office, please produce his telephone bills because they are long-distance calls and they would be recorded. They are not recorded in my office, nor are they recorded at Fire and Emergency Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Reverend Squires will produce records if that is what he needs to do confirm the fact that he has called government looking for assistance.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier about recent developments in government's attempts to deal with the challenges in our fishing industry. She chose not to answer it and the minister really did not answer the question. I asked three or four questions, he danced all around them and so on and threw it back across the floor.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in this Province are asking for government's leadership; to show leadership in terms of the MOU report, and not only that, in terms of restructuring our fishery in this Province; it is so vital and so important to us. So far this minister, the Premier – it has come up blank, the government is not offering any answers.

I want to ask a very clear, a very simple question this afternoon to the Minister of Fisheries. I ask: What do you plan to do to ensure the future of the fishing industry in this Province and the future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the words in the Speech from the Throne: we will not cut rural Newfoundland and Labrador adrift. I can assure everyone in this House, everyone watching, we will not abandon rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we set out a process here of $800,000 whereby there were three parties in it. Mr. Speaker, we received the report. I have said that the restructuring part of it was not there. We have written back to both parties and asked them now to submit what they might see as how we can move forward with the restructuring, Mr. Speaker. Clearly it cannot always be the responsibility of government. Industry has a key role here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been eight years, it has been twenty months with the MOU, and it has been $800,000 as the minister just acknowledged. There are three groups: one of them is government, one of them is the processors, and one of them is the union. When we ask industry to give us their recommendations, I believe we can only expect to get what we got.

The question is: How many more months do we need as a government to bob our heads up and down, so to speak? How many more consultations?

The time has come to give the industry and the people involved in this industry some idea as to where we are going.

So I ask again: Mr. Minister, what is your government's plan for our fishing industry, for its workers, and the challenges it is facing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my point exactly: the Vardy Report, 1998; Vardy on shrimp, 2002; Gregory/Broderick Report, 2003; Dunne Report, 2003; and Cashin's report on RMS and collective bargaining, 2005. I think we have bobbing up and down long enough, Mr. Speaker. It is time that we get on with the business.

I finally ask him – I ask the member opposite and I ask the Leader of the Opposition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Do you support the MOU report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has stood on so many occasions and asked if I support or if the Opposition supports the MOU. We have been very clear in saying that we support the process of the MOU and going through the process. Now, are there things –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DEAN: I have not –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: - (inaudible) and said implement all that is in the MOU. As a matter of fact, we have been very clear in saying that would be devastating. It would not be correct.

Our question to the government is: What are you going to do with the MOU? What is your plan? If it is Plan A, Plan B, where is it you are going with the fishery in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members for their co-operation in allowing the minister to answer his questions.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to lay it out quite clear to them. Who took the next step? We as a government; we as a department. We have written both parties. We have even outlined things that I would ask them to consider as to how –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: I can't answer it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier yesterday spoke about meeting with both federal Natural Resources Minister Paradis and the Prime Minister, about her government's support for an independent offshore safety authority. She also expressed the hope that the federal government would concur with the provincial government's position of acceptance of Commissioner Wells' recommendation for an independent safety board for the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Does the Premier have anything in writing between herself and the federal government on this issue, and if so, would she table it in the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, there have been discussions between officials. There has been correspondence back and forth that we have engaged with the federal government. We have indicated to the federal government that we support Commissioner Wells' report. We support, in particular, Recommendation 29, which recommended the establishment of a separate safety agency, and we are still engaged with the federal government on encouraging them to concur with the report's recommendation and to concur with the view of the provincial government that we should move forward in that direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to correspondence.

Could that correspondence be tabled here in the House, I ask the minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the normal route would be, I would suggest, that they make a request through the department, and if she makes a request through the department I will certainly respond to that.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope the response will be that we will get copies.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier told the media that negotiations around loan guarantees from Muskrat Falls will not be affected by a possible upcoming federal election because she is dealing with a working group designated by the Prime Minister and work will go on.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said if a federal election does occur she will be asking federal party leaders to publicly state their support for a loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls Hydro Project.

Mr. Speaker, today I ask the Premier: Would she also ask the federal party leaders to state their position on an independent offshore safety authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday there were a number of things that we will be asking for the positions of political parties. I would be happy to add her suggestion to the list, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to seeing the letter that I am presuming the Premier will be writing to the three parties.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Minister of Natural Resources brought up Captain Turner's report on the legislative and regulatory regimes capabilities and practices in place in the Province for prevention and remediation of oil spills which we have not yet seen. It was supposed to be released in August of last year but received an extension at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will we receive this report, and does the minister know at what stage the report is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the report has been received by the department and the department officials. There has been a review of that report. As I understand it, Captain Turner is making some final editing to the report and I expect very soon I will have that report in my hands and I will be able then to bring forward the recommendations from my review of the report.

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table Generation Planning Issues 2010, July update.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the 2010-2011 Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Architects Licensing Board of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Correctional Services. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of La Poile and those residents who live in the District of Burgeo & La Poile, particularly the communities of Rose Blanche and Harbour Le Cou as well.

Speaking of movies the other day - who came to dinner with us - this is another movie; it is called Porta-Potty II. This is the sequel. You will all recall when we had the situation in Burgeo where the residents of Grey River and Ramea had no washroom facilities, for example, when they waited for the ferry. We have a similar situation for the residents of La Poile, whenever they travel from La Poile to Rose Blanche, an identical situation, actually. They have to go to catch the ferry, and of course the ferry is not always on time, sometimes it is late and so on. People have to virtually, literally in this day and age, get out and use the washroom out in the open air behind the old fish plant that is there and so on. That is just totally unsanitary, indecent and not proper in this day and age.

I call upon the Minister of Transportation and Works, pursuant to this petition, to address that matter. Humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche Harbour-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom or waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to immediately construct and operate a waiting room, restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such waiting area washroom facilities.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

I call this the porta-potty petition, Mr. Speaker, because you will recall the last time we did this the current Minister of Labrador Affairs was then the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. After I entered this petition the first day, his response was to stick two blue porta-potties out on the head of the wharf for these people. Now that was the response. I happened to get a photograph of that sent to me and I introduced it here in the House. It is an absolutely disrespectful response, to treat the people of this Province, saying you are okay. If you live anywhere else in this Province you have rules and regulations you have to live by, but when it comes to the people who live in some areas in outport Newfoundland, you get a porta-potty. That is what you get – totally unacceptable; inappropriate. I am sure the Minister of Transportation and Works will deal with the manner in an expedient manner. It is just unacceptable and we call upon him to have a look at this situation to see if we can get these people looked after as they properly, humanely, deserve to be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 1, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn 10:00 p.m. today on Thursday, March 24, 2011.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, Thursday, March 24, and be it further moved that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. today, Thursday, March 24.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Both motions are carried.

Motions carried.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper I call Order 1, Committee of Supply, resolution to Bill 2 respecting the Granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We will continue with debate on granting Her Majesty's Supply.

I recognize the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

I want to say it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to be able to stand today and take a few different occasions throughout the afternoon and evening to speak on Bill 2, where we are debating Interim Supply.

Before I get into my few comments, first of all I want to say it is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the people of the great District of Port de Grave and to say that, as in the past, if there is anything there that I see that should be brought forward and praise given, I will do that. However, I will bring the concerns of the people of my district forward, and also of the people around this Province that I represent as a critic for four or five departments.

Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to welcome the new Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the Member for Humber West, and to wish them every success as they carry out their duties serving the people who duly elected them since the last sitting of this House of Assembly. I also want to mention the hon. Member for The Isles of Notre Dame who, since we last met, has taken on the position of Minister of Business. I hope that one of his first obligations will be to bring some new business forward to the district that I represent.

Mr. Chair, I also had the honour to work with him on the Public Accounts Committee. I am going to tell you, if anyone wants to go in Cabinet that is the place to start, the Public Accounts Committee. I think since we took over the Public Accounts Committee two years ago, there are about six members who have stepped from Public Accounts right into the Cabinet. They are all across the way and I can see them there.

Mr. Chair, I also want to wish the new Premier every success in this Assembly, and also welcome back our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition. As someone said yesterday, she is in full form. I want to say to you, fellow colleagues, she has been in full form; we have known about it before this House of Assembly opened because we have had to deal with her seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day since she had her illness.

Mr. Chair, as we know, Interim Supply, which I just stated is Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of the Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

That bill, as the minister mentioned when he introduced the bill, outlines certain sums of money totalling just about $2.7 billion. We know that there are quite a few dollars going into education, into health care and they are all listed. I also look forward, even though we have heard the Throne Speech only recently, I look forward to when the Budget comes down because I guess that is where we see the details on the plan that this government has for the future. We will see various items from the various departments unfolding as we go into that.

We also know that when we are in Interim Supply we cannot put a motion forward where we say we are going to increase anything or alter anything. It states very clearly in our Rules of the House that the only motion allowed to be put forward is amount to be reduced, and I am not standing here today to try to reduce it because I know the importance of what this has to do to see that the various departments function and the people who work for government.

Mr. Chair, I cannot help but mention the hon. Member for Lake Melville and the Minister for Labrador Affairs, because the other day when he closed debate I have to say he was in full form. It is good to see that he always has the interest of our party at heart. Every time he stands he tries to lead us in the right direction. I guess that goes back to the year 2000 when he was supporting one of the gentlemen for the leadership of our party. He was right full of vim and vigour at that time in the Glacier in Mount Pearl let me assure you, running around all-day long with the placards on his back.

He also refers to two other gentlemen who happened to be on our political stripe; they are the hon. Todd Russell and Mr. Danny Dumaresque. I do not know what it is, I have heard the rumour that he is probably thinking about running federally. I do not know why he is doing that unless he afraid of the other guy who might take him on provincially. I cannot say for sure but I know he has concerns about it, and hopefully that he will decide sooner rather than later because the federal election is going to be called fairly soon.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, as it states in the Throne Speech, this is government's vision and their plan for moving forward. When the Premier stood in her place the other day and made a few comments after the Throne Speech, she stated that this was not the full picture. I sure hope so, because what I read into the Speech from the Throne, I hope there is going to be more detail; there will be more information and issues brought forward in the Budget so we will be able to see what it is when she refers to the full picture. I just want to touch on some of them briefly.

When it comes to the fishery and aquaculture, I am not going to go into the MOU and where I see things unfolding, what has happened in the past and what is happening now, but I will probably before this day is over. Really, there was very little there with regard to the fishery. We know that government has put a lot of money into aquaculture, and that has been proven over the last few years.

When it comes to the actual fishery as we know it – I mean, this is the mainstay for this Province for some 500 years, and I have to say I think what has happened down through the years, there has to be a political will to bring forward the change. Like I said, I will elaborate on that later on. I do not think that has been done for many years, what has to be done. Whether we like it or not, we know we have the main resources like the oil and the minerals - I hope they discover more - but the day is coming when we are going to see the oil not to the point of what it is today, bringing in the resources that we have coming today. Let me assure you, I believe, for rural Newfoundland, and not only rural Newfoundland because the other larger centres benefit from what goes on in the rural communities in relation to the fishery.

Under natural resources we heard more of the same about Muskrat Falls. I have to say, I am not familiar with it like the Premier or the Leader of the Official Opposition when it comes to all the detail with Muskrat Falls, but I have to say, since the questioning has taken place over the last two or three days, I do not think I am the only one in this hon. House who has not understood it all; because people opposite have listened very intently to what is transpiring when the questions are asked and the answers are given. Hopefully, as time goes on we will really, really see what will happen, where people are expressing the concerns that they do about this deal.

Then we go into INTRD. I do not believe there was any major mention of broadband or the cell service. These are issues that have been brought forward by the people of this Province. Hopefully, maybe there is something in the details when the Budget comes down, hopefully, because people are waiting to see that.

Under Justice, I do not think there is any mention of any plans with regard to the prison. I know there have been negotiations back and forth. I guess there were certain uncertainties that were expressed by the minister in the federal government, but I do not think there is any mention that this would be looked at. Hopefully, more details along that line will be outlined when we see the Budget. One thing I know was not there is the whistle-blower legislation. This is a piece of legislation that government said would come forward. Hopefully, we will see something on that because there are many departments where I think should be forward to clarify different issues and let the people, whether it is in education, whether it is in health, to speak out and not have their voices not heard.

Under municipalities, one of the things, I guess, that was really mentioned there was regional co-operation. That is all good and wonderful. We need more of that, not with regard to the way amalgamation unfolded a few years ago. There was nothing there of where Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador talked about a new funding regime for municipalities. There was no mention of any changes with regard to the MOGs. There was very little on waste management, only that they hoped there would be regional co-operation with help to solve their problems.

Under health care, there is no doubt they are taking the advice, I guess, of the AG, and others, when finally we see the issue of chronic diseases coming forward. I hope that will be detailed more to us in the Budget so we will see where the health care system will go. There was mention of this in their 2008-2011 business plans, but now finally, hopefully, we are going to see the plan unfold.

Also, they mentioned they will continue to invest in long-term care. That is one of the issues, I guess, in the area that I represent. Even though it is not being built in that district, but one thing about it, it represents the people of the full region.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am happy to rise today and have at least ten minutes anyway to talk about some of the work that has been done in my department. I heard the hon. member opposite mention some of the things that he is expecting or anticipating around the Budget. I also heard him mention some of the things that perhaps have already been done. So, that gives me a nice opportunity now to stand and talk to some of the issues that we have addressed through Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Though I cannot release any of the Budget details, as we all know, I can certainly make some reference to the vision that we have and where we intend to go with the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

First of all, I just want to outline in general form, particularly for those who are at home who may not know as much about all of our departments as they would like to know, and give them some idea of some of the areas that we look at within INTRD.

First of all, we have a great focus, Mr. Chair, on business development, certainly of key industry sectors throughout the Province. We also have a great focus on economic diversification, particularly in regard to communities in Newfoundland and Labrador that may have been hard hit as the result of industry downtown, as the result of industry closure, and so on.

We are also, in my department, responsible for the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. There is a lot that I could tell you about that program, but I will just give you the 30,000 foot look today because we only have the ten minutes to be able to do it, and perhaps focus on one or two of them.

Within my department as well, ocean technology, that particular sector, is of extreme importance to us. The sector itself has grown from more than $250 million, Mr. Chair, since 2006 to a sector that is now valued at $509 million. In just that short period of time, from 2006 to now, the growth in that sector is about 126 per cent, Mr. Chair. That is quite an increase in that sector. So, that is an area that we are very closely focused on.

As well in my department, as is evidenced in the name of the department, we have a very clear focus on innovation. We have an innovation strategy that we have implemented and that we will continue to work towards strengthening over the next few years.

As well, of course, INTRD is responsible for broadband and issues associated with improving technology and the Province's communication capacity in that regard. Of course, while there remains some work to be done, we are exceptionally proud of the fact that at this point, and in such a short period of time, we have managed to connect and provide access for 80 per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador – or 80 per cent of the Island portion of the Province and 95 per cent of Labrador now have access to high speed.

That, since 2003, Mr. Chair, we think is an incredible growth area. As well, where once there were only 114 communities, there are now 450 communities that have been given access to high speed. We realize that we still have some work to do and so that will be part of the strategy that we will continue to work toward.

We launched several other initiatives around support for young entrepreneurs and so on. So, at a very high level, those are some of the things my department is involved with.

Rural initiatives particularly are important to my department. In fact, nearly $3 billion, Mr. Chair, has been invested in provincial infrastructure over the last seven years, with more than 80 per cent of that investment taking place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since 2003, capital funding of approximately $137 million has been allocated for major school projects.

I do not intend to get into all of the other departments, but I certainly want to make the point that across government we have a view to helping rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. We do not operate in silos, but my department takes the lead on rural development. As a result of that, we are able to at least today highlight some of the investments that have been made. Health and Community Services would be another area where a huge, huge infrastructure investment has taken place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am sure my colleague will speak to that when he has opportunity. The fishery is another, forestry and so on, for there are many years.

Mr. Chair, I think it is apropos to say that there has been a tremendous transformation in the economy of our Province of late, certainly in terms of our communities and our regions. Where once we were so heavily focused on the fishery, on forestry and with small manufacturing, there has been a shift. That has resulted in a shift from how we approach communities in regions of the Province as well, as we look to the diversification projects that are necessary.

Traditional industries, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, have become much more innovative and expanded the scope of their business activity as a result of that innovation and use of technology and so on. We have experienced, Mr. Chair, in all of our communities I would suggest, a rise in the knowledge base of industries. There has been a demand that as a department and as a government we focus on other industry sectors. As I mentioned earlier, ocean technology would be one of those, life sciences, information, communication, technologies and so on.

There has been a perception out there as well, Mr. Chair, and I think we need to clarify this myth, this perception, that progress has been made only on the Northeast Avalon. Mr. Chair, we do not share that view. We see the emergence of new businesses and new industries throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and there are high degrees of optimism out there as a result of some of the work that has been done, particularly in the sense of ensuring that investments that we make are in long-term, sustainable industry and market development. One of the things that we look to as we see to ensuring that long-term sustainability, one of the central elements of that, Mr. Chair, has to do with industry clusters, with clustering a number of different business activities around a particular sector. We have found that the prospects of achieving success are significantly strengthened when we do that, Mr. Chair.

Through our many investments, just in INTRD, if I look at the $60 million in economic business investment initiative, 71 per cent of that $60 million, Mr. Chair, has been spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We can see this commitment through the clustering that I just referred to on the West Coast, for example, which is emerging as a centre of environmental excellence. We can see it on the South Coast as we position the Province as a leader in aquaculture. We can see it in Eastern and Western regions when we see hubs for tourism and cultural tourism springing up; on the Northern region of the Province, which has massive energy potential, Mr. Chair. In Central Newfoundland where industries are being clustered around health care and life sciences. I look to my own district and I want to mention that we have looked at three particular initiatives there just in the last year; MUN's new research office is located in Grand Falls-Windsor. At the College of the North Atlantic we have initiated a new Medical Laboratory Assistant Program and of course the new e-health program has been funded and set up in Central Newfoundland as well.

The notion, again, is the idea of clustering particular sectors in certain areas of the Province where it makes sense. Many other communities and regions are leveraging their cultural heritage as a means of generating revenue as well. We just need to look to Labrador and the Northern Peninsula where outfitters are introducing new products and exploring new opportunities. The Town of Tilting, as an example, has established An Artist in Residence Program. In Battle Harbour, in Labrador, cultural experiences are offered in remote communities where they are bringing back to life a former fishing settlement; again, examples of clustering around a particular sector.

Since 2005, Mr. Chair, more than $34 million has been approved by my department for initiatives that involve RSDF, the Rural Sector Development Fund. Seventy percent of that $34 million, as well, Mr. Chair, has been spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Just to give a few examples so that we understand those expenditures. In Placentia, more than $450,000 was used to support the construction of the Placentia Bay Cultural Arts Centre. In Holyrood, close to $150,000 was approved to support the expansion of the local marina. In Bonavista, more than $300,000 was injected into the construction of the Bonavista Institute of Cultural Tourism.

As well, in Burin, the development of an industrial area spanning eight acres is underway. In Marystown, the new marine industrial park is enabling the local industry to better accommodate and provide services to the world's largest vessels. In Lewisporte, Mr. Chair, the marina there is now leading to new business developments, and a hotel is being built as well. In Grand Falls-Windsor, which was certainly hard hit and is an example of how we have supported an area where industry closure has affected the area, more than $2 million was invested on projects through the RSDF fund on industrial trades facility at the College of the North Atlantic and the redevelopment of the downtown area.

If we look at the Port of St. Anthony, Mr. Chair, where together with the federal government we invested more than $5 million, and also in Port aux Basques where we used monies to convert the fish plant and so on.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS SULLIVAN: Can I just have two seconds to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, by leave.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I could go on, I have pages and pages here where I can show examples of investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair, but I think I have given the gist of it here. We can see that we are spending 70 per cent of our funds in investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador through various initiatives that we have here. In Labrador, for example, I was there just about a month ago I guess, and announced a $251,000 investment in the College of the North Atlantic's two Labrador campuses, the one in Lab West and the one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Chair, I think we have adequately made the point with just this look at one of the sections of my department, the RSDF primarily, where we invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and where the benefits of that investment are certainly being realized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very glad to be able to stand again today during this debate on the Interim Supply bill and to raise issues of concern that are covered by government jurisdiction and governance. I started speaking on Tuesday about concerns with regard to child care, and I have more that I want to speak about, so we will do that first today.

Just in case there are people in the Province who do not understand what our child care situation is in the Province, we have quite a mixed bag when it comes to child care. We have child care that happens in some wonderfully programmed and regulated centres. For example, child care centres that are attached to the university, to the College of the North Atlantic, that are attached to the House of Assembly for people who work in government. We have child care that is covered by community centres. Some of the family centres around the Province have child care in them. We have child care that is covered by other non-profit situations; some that are union controlled, attached to union workplaces. We have some wonderful not-for-profit centres, and we also have child care that is covered by individual companies, entrepreneurs, and that is for profit. So we have quite a mixed bag when it comes to child care in this Province.

One thing is certain: we do not meet the need for child care in the Province, whether we are talking about child care in urban or rural settings. The needs are different in both places, but neither rurally nor in the urban setting do we have enough child care places. We do not have enough child care places: one, just when it comes to numbers period; and we cannot meet the need, two, because in many cases the child care is not affordable for people who are working on lower incomes. If one is on income assistance, one can get help with child care and on very low incomes one can get assistance, but low-middle income workers cannot get assistance.

With the mixed bag that we have, we really have an issue in this Province and we really need to have a full study of our child care program. That is why I am quite disturbed by the direction in which government is going at the moment. In the Speech from the Throne on Monday, we certainly did not get any promise of new child care spaces in the immediate time and neither did we get a sense of vision from this government when it comes to child care.

We do have in place a program under the Department of Education which is moving toward a better early childhood education program, and that is wonderful. We need early childhood education, but early childhood education should not be seen separately from child care because early childhood goes right back to the minute a child is born. It is not when a child turns four years of age.

We need much more of a vision in this Province; from the time a child is born, a child is part of the whole educational system. I really believe, as in other provinces, our child care should be tied to childhood education and it should be under the Department of Education. We should not have one part of taking care of children under our community services and another part under education because it is all education. It should all come together under education.

That is why I am really concerned that we do not have any vision coming from the government and therefore I have no great expectations of what is going to come out in the Budget when it comes. What was promised in the Speech from the Throne was the potential of a new initiative that I am waiting to hear about in the Budget. The potential of that new initiative, creating child care spaces sometime, potentially. That is not what people in this Province are looking for.

Today, on Radio Noon on CBC Radio, they had their talk show and the theme was child care. There were quite a number of calls, both from people who need child care to those who actually run child care facilities about their concerns about our system. Those who run child care in the private sector and who are for-profit – that is not wrong, it is part of our system – have all kinds of frustrations because they are under the restraint of trying to pay workers within the parameters demanded by government, and yet finding that they do not have enough income to help them do that and at the same time get the profit that they are trying to get.

What I would ask our government to do, Mr. Chair, is to look at what is happening right now on Prince Edward Island, this little, tiny province – which certainly does not have the revenue that we have; which is much smaller than us in both population and in geography – that this little province is coming up with some wonderful initiatives. One that has really caught my eye is the one that they call the Preschool Excellence Initiative.

PEI, in starting this initiative, is coming from the same type of child care situation that we have. They had a mixed bag and they still have it – they are moving out of it – a mixed bag of different types of child care: the not-for-profit, the for-profit, the public – in terms of being attached to public institutions, public agencies. They had to deal with that. What they have done is they have come up with this initiative which will increase government funding by 60 per cent. There is going to be a 60 per cent increase in government funding for child care.

What I really like about what they are doing is that they are going to create non-profit centres called Early Years Centres. These not-for-profit centres, which are going to be created all over the province – some of them are already existing facilities that are private, for-profit centres. Those private, for-profit centres that already exist and are owned by individuals are going to convert to non-profit centres. They will help a conversion from centres that are already in existence and help them to become centres that will no longer be for profit. They will also build new centres. Their goal is to make sure that everywhere in the Province there will be centres that are supported by government, that are regulated, that have workers who are well-paid, and that children will be taken care of, not just from the time that they are four years old, but from the time that they need child care.

One thing that they are doing, which is something that I know this government is considering as well, which certainly is a movement around early childhood education right across the country, is to extend Kindergarten through Grade 5 to a full day. I do know that we are considering that here, and I think it is very important.

They are even looking at the possibility of having a full day for your-year-olds. Now, they are not certain about that one but they are looking at it. What will be important for these Early Years Centres, the Early Years Centres will put together child care and early childhood education so that it will not be divided, that you will not have one department looking at child care and another department looking at early childhood education. It would be the realization that whether a child is six months or four years the child is in a continuum of development and learning. There is nothing as wonderful to watch as a young child seven, eight, nine or ten months old and how they learn how. Their whole system is there to absorb and to learn because that is what it is all about at that time.

This initiative that they are using in PEI is going to have a tremendous impact both for families, in terms of the stability of the families and the economy of the families; it is also going to make a big difference in women's opportunities for work and education. Their new Preschool Excellence Initiative has both of those things as the objective of the centres. The centres are there for the good of children, for the good of the families, and particularly for the good of women.

I really encourage –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I was just about to clue up, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, by leave.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

Just to say that I really think this is a very interesting model for us to look at, it is the model of a province that is in Atlantic Canada, the model of a province that does not have the resources that we have, but that is really working towards creating quality child care and quality early childhood education that will help children from all areas and all walks of life. One of the things that will be so important about the model that they are using is that when children go into Kindergarten, whether it is at age four for the junior Kindergarten or at age five for the regular Kindergarten, they will be going into Kindergarten with a readiness that they definitely would not have if they did not have this opportunity at the Early Years Centres.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to get up and respond to some of the comments put forward by the Leader of the NDP.

This is my first opportunity to be able to speak in the House, other than the ministerial statement today, as the new Minister for Child, Youth and Family Services. If there is one thing that I want to assure the Leader of the NDP, everybody watching today and everybody in the government and throughout the Province, if there is one thing that is a top priority for this government, it is certainly child care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: I can guarantee you that this is one of the top priorities of this Premier and of this government. Mr. Chair, within one week of being in the department, the Minister of Education, myself, and the Premier had the opportunity to have Lana Payne in to discuss this issue. Child care is certainly an issue when it comes to the labour force, when it comes to our provincial economy, when it comes to having a skilled workforce. It is absolutely at the top of our priorities.

Mr. Chair, I heard the Leader of the NDP refer to the PEI model. Early last month, I did have the consultant in who developed the entire PEI model into my office for two days of discussion. Some very interesting points there, some aspects of it were not a good comparison for this Province because in PEI they, in fact, have excess spaces and, as we all know, that is not the case here, Mr. Chair.

As you know, last year in the Throne Speech we announced that we would be implementing a ten-year early childhood care strategy. Mr. Chair, the one thing that we all have to realize - and Lana mentioned this today herself on the air; I did get to hear some of that - is that this is not going to happen overnight, Mr. Chair, it is a ten-year strategy, but we are certainly going to make progress. We will make it in this year's Budget coming, with a project in this year's Budget. It is one component of what we are attempting to do; but, by no means, is it the entire ten-year strategy. That is something that is very critical and that we are working towards.

Mr. Chair, I do want to give a few facts in terms of numbers. Since coming into government in 2003 there were 4,381 child care spaces. Today, Mr. Chair, we are at around 6,500 child care spaces. Since coming into power, Mr. Chair, this government has increased the number of child care spaces by 41.5 per cent. That is very significant. That is not to say that we do not have a long way to go, because we certainly do, but it is quite an improvement. We also have, since 2006, announced seven new child care centres opening. Right now, we have twenty-one projects currently on the books through our capacity initiative, Mr. Chair. So, there are going to be great announcements ahead when it comes to child care spaces.

Certainly, as we all know, spaces are just one issue. Recruitment and retention of workers, the affordability, all of these things are critical issues that will be addressed in the ten-year strategy. It is important that we do it and we do it right, Mr. Chair. We need to do a complete look at how it is being done, not only in PEI where I have looked but all provinces. Even outside of this country, Mr. Chair, there are some great models to look at outside of the Province as well.

Mr. Chair, on Tuesday, the Leader of the NDP - and I am not going to give away what is in the Budget – did have some comments to say about what she thinks is going to be in the Budget. I have to raise some concerns that have been said to me by people in the public since she made her comments. The first one, Mr. Chair, and these are her words: If this is about having money maybe so that grandparents can take care of a child, Mr. Chair, then I am not going to be very happy.

Well, I cannot tell you the number of calls and comments that I have had on this comment, Mr. Chair. For one, many grandparents in this Province take care of children. I, for one, am very grateful to have my grandparents take care of my child, because I could not do this job if I did not have my grandparents helping out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: To even allude to the fact that this would not be something good for children is absolutely wrong, Mr. Chair. A lot of us in this House were all raised by our grandparents, and I think we all turned out okay, and lots of other people who have been raised by their grandparents are fine. I cannot speak for all of us, hey, Mr. Dean.

Even beyond that, there is nothing with grandparents taking care of children, but even beyond that, if a grandparent wanted to do an ECE course and work in a child care centre or set up a family home centre, then what is wrong with that, Mr. Chair? So, that comment certainly did not go over too well with the public, and that is the feedback I got back around that.

The other comment that she said was that – I will get her exact words here – she says that this "is going to be a focus on infant care. Now that really made me question, why a focus on infant care?" Well, Mr. Chair, that question speaks to how little the Member for Quidi Vidi knows about child care. Of the child care spaces that we have for infants with parents in the workforce, there is only 1.8 per cent availability. It is one of the critical areas where we need to improve, Mr. Chair. That is why we put a particular emphasis in the Budget on infant care. So, for her to question that, I am absolutely bewildered why she would question that.

So many friends, colleagues, people of my age and some of your children and grandchildren, one of the difficulties they have is one, when they go back to work after a year, it is very difficult finding spaces for infants. Perhaps her confusion is with the definition of infant care because infant is under two years old so maybe that is her confusion. Even if she was not confused about that piece, Mr. Chair, it is not correct to assume that everybody takes one-year leave. There are many professions out there: doctors, lawyers, self-employed business people, politicians - I was back here after three-and-a-half weeks myself. People who do not qualify for EI do not take a year. Then you have a whole segment of the population who do qualify for EI but they cannot afford to stay home because they cannot afford the amount that they are getting on EI so they have to return to work. All of these people are faced with the challenge of finding infant care spaces. I think the direction that we have gone in the Budget announcement is a very good one and one that needs to be addressed and one, when I met with Lana Payne, it was her top priority: infant care. I am not sure why she would be confused about that, Mr. Chair.

As I said, one of the critical pieces of work that we are doing in our department now is a complete look at the whole child care system that we have today. It is not to say that the other divisions in my department are not important. They are extremely important when it comes to children and protection, and when it comes to youth corrections and adoptions; all of that is critical. Mr. Chair, I would not want to say one is more critical than the other because they are all very much inter-related. Having access to early child care is a preventative measure down the road when it comes to children in protection or youth correction. Having that early child hood care option is certainly preventative down the road.

Mr. Chair, we plan to have future meetings. There are already some future discussions with other organizations throughout the Province where this is critical. We are still conferring with the consultant from PEI; we are doing a lot of work with other provinces, Mr. Chair. As I said, the Budget this year is one piece of that, but we are going to come out with a ten-year strategy that is going to benefit - probably every single person in this House might be impacted in one way or another because we all have children or grandchildren, we all have sisters or brothers; everybody is impacted by child care. If there is one place where government can put an emphasis, it is certainly on child care. Absolutely, we have the commitment from our Premier to do this.

Another interesting consultant that we had come in was a child care development specialist. His name escapes me at the moment, but he talked about how critical it is to have early childhood learning in the early years, not only from an economy perspective and a skilled workforce perspective. What really struck me as interesting was in terms of health down the road, and it shows that if people have access to early child care and education then there is even less heart disease. It is absolutely critical how important it is that in the early years we put this emphasis on child care.

As parents out there know, child care right now is not affordable. We are looking at options throughout the country and beyond. These are the questions that we have to look at. Some provinces have regulated rates. Some provinces have regulated wages for their workers. We have done a tremendous amount when it comes to the workers in terms of the subsidies that we provide, up to $6,600 a year to Level II and up to $3,330 for Level I.

We provide supplements for people who have their forty-hour course done but are committing to continuing in school with their Level I. We have bursaries for students who have to do their work term placement throughout the year of $1,200, Mr. Chair. We have operating grants that go to child care centres and equipment grants that go to child care centres. We have an EQuIP program to improve the quality in child care centres.

When I say child care centres, Mr. Chair, that is one component of child care spaces, but we also have a huge contingent of regulated family home care, too. Mr. Chair, I do not know if there is enough public awareness, but those family home-based centres are just as good as the child care centres because they are regulated and have the programming that the child –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will clue up just by saying, absolutely without a doubt, this is a major priority for our government, it is a major priority for our Premier, and infant care is absolutely critical. I suggest that the Leader of the NDP get more informed and talk to the people out there because infant care is an area that we have to certainly address.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be able to stand this afternoon and speak on Interim Supply, Bill 2, and the $2.7 billion that basically we are debating now in terms of being able to put that forward.

I will go back to the Throne Speech on Monday. I was most interested to hear His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador talk about the government's intention, reading from the Throne Speech, to turn "its attention to chronic diseases", one of them being diabetes. That is what I would like to speak about for the next few minutes that I have here this afternoon.

He went on in the Throne Speech to mention the fact - the increase in diabetes sites throughout the Province, mentioning that they have increased since 2003 I believe it was, from seven to fourteen at present day. The disturbing thing that has resulted from the establishment of these sites is the fact that government seems to have really missed the mark in terms of understanding the needs for those services and in putting them in place. It is obviously great to see them and other ones that are coming on stream in the next year or so; it is absolutely great to see them as well of course. It seems like we have fallen short in terms of ensuring that these sites are properly supported with the necessary resources so that they can be most effective for the people in the places where they serve.

Mr. Chair, one of the sites that was put in place is in St. Anthony, and we are very pleased to have it there. It is operating three days a week and I have to say, it is a great service for the area of the Northern Peninsula and Southern Labrador as well who are able to take advantage of that. Mr. Chair, the problem is that it is falling short in terms of ensuring that the dialysis unit there has the support and the resources that are necessary to properly provide that service to the patients of the area. Quite frankly, I find that somewhat disturbing.

Over the past year I have had calls and I have had letters, I have even visited homes of constituents who are either using dialysis now or will be using it in the very near future, who know that within a certain number of months or within the next year or so they will be in need of dialysis. They have basically been told by the staff at the Curtis Hospital in St. Anthony that essentially what is going to have to happen is they are going to have to move to St. John's for their treatment. I know it is not unique to our area, I realize there are other areas in the Province that are going through the same problem as well. I know I have heard about the Burin Peninsula in the news a couple of times and on Open Line and so on. Yet, it has to be very disheartening for an individual, usually of an older age and so on, to know that within the next while they are going to have to make arrangements to leave their home, to leave their families and so on, and go to St. John's for an undetermined period of time. It is difficult enough for people to have to travel to the capital city from all parts of the Province for specialists appointments that we are required to come to sometimes, but to suggest that patients and families have to uproot their lives and literally move to the capital city for this unknown period of time is just unacceptable.

Mr. Chair, it was interesting, because it was August 24, seven months from today that I wrote the CEO of the Labrador-Grenfell Health Board, Mr. Boyd Rowe, and I also wrote the Minister of Health to express my concern in terms of the situation that was developing in the St. Anthony hospital, and to date I am still waiting for a reply. In those letters I expressed my concern and asked for specific information regarding the board and the department's plan to address the problem, and also if I could have a meeting to sit down and discuss it, just to be certain that all the information was there and so on; any way that you could positively influence the outcome there, we would all want to do that as MHAs. Mr. Chair, the problem continues to grow, and at this point it is not being addressed, at least as far as I know, to the degree where the issue will be solved in the next little while.

On December 27, 2010, a thirty-one-year-old young man with Down syndrome from Anchor Point had to leave his home, leave behind his support workers, leave behind his environment and the support system that was around him and so on, and move to St. John's for dialysis treatment. This young man, named Rocky, was accompanied by his mom and dad. Since December 27, right up to this day, they have been living here in the city, renting an apartment, and at the same time maintaining their home back in Anchor Point. Of course, it is a very unique situation; it is a very special case. Very soon Rocky's dad has to go back to Anchor Point and prepare to go to work for the spring and so on. Also, at the same time, his mom has health issues of her own. The bottom line is, when they have to move back, Rocky is going to have to stay here in St. John's because the dialysis unit in St. Anthony is not able to accommodate his needs at this point in time.

Mr. Chair, this government's Budget of 2010 is entitled: the Right Investments for Our Children and Our Future. I would suggest that when we get into situations where a person, a young man, basically considered a child in a lot of ways, special needs, that certainly investment for his future is not meeting his needs today. All I am saying here today is that it is time for us to realize, it is time for this government to realize that there is a short-sightedness, if you will, in the approach to dialysis. It is probably a misunderstanding of exactly what was needed as these units go in place and so on. There is a gap that needs to be addressed, that is the bottom line that I am saying, and one that we certainly need to address immediately.

I am not a health professional, but in my understanding of what is in place is the dialysis unit is there and it is only able to be used three days a week for different reasons, whether it is because of the human resource piece, whether it is because of some other things that are necessary. For four days a week, this particular unit or these units, whatever you want to call them, will remain idle.

I know that for the three days, the capacity of those machines and these units is at capacity. Essentially, unless someone moves away or someone dies, then the service to those units obviously does not change. There are people there who have been there for years, and some will obviously be there for years to come. It is very unfortunate.

We have an aging population, especially in rural Newfoundland. In places, the demographics are such that our population is aging. We have problems with obesity in our Province and so on, and many other things that affect diabetes. The need for dialysis is not an issue that we will see a decrease on, certainly in the coming years, but it is one that we will see an increase in. We can only expect those numbers to grow.

I know of at least four cases right now of people who are here in St. John's who are receiving dialysis treatment. They are from my district and, as I said, I know that they affect other districts across the Province as well, people who are just as important. I am not suggesting any of that. I know that these people are away from home and there is no immediate end in sight to that issue. I can only imagine how discouraging that would be.

When I talked, first of all, to the support workers for this gentleman, Rocky, in particular – and this young man has a special diet that is required every day. They were such an important and integral part of his life. Every day they would come and spend hours with him, as support workers do. The parents would get their break, if you will, for being able to go and do other things that they need to do as well. Now they have been nearly three months in this situation where they are here in St. John's and there is no end in sight.

All I am saying is that we cannot expect everyone to pack up and move to the city. As quickly as possible, I would call upon this government to see that resources are put in place so that the three days in the unit can be four days or whatever the case, or it can be five days, or it be enough to accommodate the dialysis patients who are in the different districts, and that we can see it going forward and we can plan for it and not have it become a crisis, if you will, as in the case of this young man with special needs.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the time this afternoon to stand and just bring this forward and make government aware, I am sure, of something they were already aware of. I look forward to a resolution coming forward in next year's Budget in days to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The member opposite certainly raises a very valid issue and one that is prevalent unfortunately throughout our Province. Mr. Chair, as I have said on many occasions, health care evokes a very emotional response from all members of the public. It evokes that response, Mr. Chair, because our families are affected. Who could sit here in the House yesterday and listen to the Leader of the Opposition or the Member for Lewisporte and not be affected by what they have gone through on a personal perspective?

Mr. Chair, decisions have to be made knowing that we affect people's lives. Our health budget, Mr. Chair, is currently 37 per cent of the Budget, and that is only because our revenues have risen. Some of our provinces throughout this country are close to 50 per cent of their health care budget, so we have to spend the money as best we can.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about dialysis because it is something that we have really, as a government, invested in significantly. We currently have the second highest numbers of dialysis stations per capita in the country. Mr. Chair, just to put it in perspective how long it takes, and the hon. member opposite is talking about an expansion as opposed to the establishment. The House Leader will tell you that him and I were in correspondence with the people from Port aux Basques, the woman who had to travel, I think it was a couple of hours to get to Corner Brook for dialysis.

Mr. Chair, we announced in last year's Budget two new dialysis sites for Port aux Basques and for Labrador City. The Labrador West one is currently open, Mr. Chair, and I understand that we will open the Port aux Basques unit in the spring of 2011. It takes, Mr. Chair, from the time of the announcement eighteen to twenty-four months for the planning, infrastructure, recruitment and training. It costs approximately $1 million for the infrastructure, $250,000 for the staff, and $250,000 operational.

Mr. Chair, we have opened seven new dialysis sites since 2004. They are in Gander and Carbonear in 2005; Burin and St. Anthony in 2007. Although I appreciate the comments being made by the member opposite, Mr. Chair, we did open that dialysis site in 2007. Happy Valley-Goose Bay in 2008. As I have indicated, Labrador City on March 14, 2011, and Port aux Basques will open soon.

Mr. Chair, we have increased the capacity from 340 patients in 2003-2004 to approximately, it is either 449 or 494, Mr. Chair, at present. We spent $1.5 million to establish these various dialysis units. We have spent, and this number again is startling, especially in light of the issue raised by the member opposite in terms of the prevalence of the need for dialysis, we have spent $150 million as a government since 2003 to deal with this issue. Our annualized spending is $22,660,000 to deal with dialysis.

Now, Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, the member opposite raises a very valid point, but do you know something else, Mr. Chair? I currently have requests from the following communities who do not have dialysis, all of whom have written me, all who, Mr. Chair, have talked about their personal situation, how it affects them. I know, Mr. Chair, again having a very close family member who is on dialysis, as to the effect on elderly people and on families, Mr. Chair. There is no question of that.

Mr. Chair, in recent months, I have heard from Placentia, Whitbourne, Bell Island, Ferryland, Bonavista, Harbour Breton, Baie Verte, Flower's Cove, and Fogo-Twillingate inquiring about dialysis. So, these are communities that do not have dialysis, Mr. Chair, who do not have any choice at all. We currently have twelve people from Burin commuting to St. John's. Again, that would be a three to a three-and-half hour drive on a road that is not a very nice road in the wintertime, Mr. Chair, but we are currently treating fourteen people in Burin; it is at capacity. Carbonear, Mr. Chair, currently has thirty-one people on dialysis with four people commuting to St. John's.

As indicated by the member opposite, there are four people who have unfortunately, from St. Anthony, had to relocate. We are at capacity there at twelve people. Clarenville treats twenty people; Gander, thirty-eight. Mr. Chair, in Stephenville we currently have sixteen people on dialysis with four people commuting to Corner Brook. I understand, the latest statistics, eight people are driving from Port aux Basques to Corner Brook for dialysis.

Each one of those people will tell a tale, Mr. Chair, of how difficult it is on their lives and the effect on their lives. So what we have to do as a government, Mr. Chair, we cannot make decisions based on individual circumstances because that just becomes too difficult. Who am I to be placed in a situation as the Minister of Health, or who are we as a government to choose if an individual deserves treatment? What we have to do, Mr. Chair, we have to take an approach that looks at the amount of money we have. We have to look at, for example, in Harbour Breton – I think the drive would be two, two-and-a-half hours to Grand Falls-Windsor, on a road that is not very nice, especially in the wintertime.

Mr. Chair, it is not a matter that we do not want to do this. I would love, as the Minister of Health, to be able to say to those people in St. Anthony, you do not have to relocate, we are going to make this available to you, but we have to look at it in an overall budgetary request. We have to look at what we can do as a government.

Mr. Chair, as I indicated yesterday, we had the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition. We will hear back from that committee and we will look at what we can do.

Mr. Chair, again, it is the utilization of the money we have, but it is not because as a government we do not care, or it is not because as a government we do not want to do what we can for people; we have to do what we can within the budgetary allotment.

Mr. Chair, the difficulty that becomes, in a case like this, expansion versus communities that do not have anything; communities that will tell that same tale, that will tell of the same effect upon their citizens, will tell upon their elderly parents who have to travel for dialysis. If you are in Placentia, Mr. Chair, you are one-and-a-half hours from St. John's. If you are in Trepassey, you are traveling two hours to get to St. John's.

Mr. Chair, this is a situation that is developing, that we are dealing with and we are trying to address it as we did last year. We have had seven new sites since 2005; there is an annual investment of $22 million with an overall investment of $150 million.

Mr. Chair, if we went to every member in this House I am sure they will say, I have a constituent in my district who needs this. I know, I have dealt with, I have heard from everyone here as to the situations that they have constituents they find themselves in. We certainly feel that empathy and that compassion for them, Mr. Chair. I would love nothing better than to be able to say we will put dialysis sites everywhere in this Province for everyone who needs them, but we have to do it in a way that makes sense from a geographical perspective – that pays attention to our rural needs, Mr. Chair – and very significantly looks at increasing capacity in a logical and organized perspective.

Mr. Chair, as I have indicated, I am aware, having spoken to my colleagues from Burin; I am aware in terms of having spoken to my colleagues on the West Coast; I am aware having spoken to colleagues in various rural parts of the Province. I wish I could say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North that this is a unique situation. It is a situation that we have to deal with, but as a government I am very proud of the way we have dealt with it, Mr. Chair, and we will continue to deal with it. I cannot say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North that in this budget it will happen. I cannot say that because I do not know what is going to happen.

Mr. Chair, we are addressing the issue of dialysis and if you look at – I will just use a couple of more examples. In Placentia we have six people, Mr. Chair, on dialysis. In Trepassey, Ferryland, Southern Shore we have three who commute by ambulance, a lot of times dialysis is three times a week. In Harbour Breton we have six people who commute. In Baie Verte there are four people. In Flower's Cove there are a couple of people who commute to St. Anthony for an hour. Mr. Chair, the needs are real, the stories are real and what we have to do as a government is to address as best we can.

Mr. Chair, on that point, because there is this impression left that this government does not care or we do not do anything for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, over the last two years we have spent $71 million for repairs and renovations. That is just repairs and renovations throughout the Province. Fifty million dollars of that, Mr. Chair, has been invested in health care facilities outside of St. John's. Mr Chair, in the last two years we have invested $100 million in capital equipment purchases in the Province. Over $58 million of that was used to purchase equipment for health centres located outside St. John's, Mr. Chair.

We have invested heavily in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are acutely aware of the effects on our aging population of chronic diseases such as diabetes, arthritis and other such diseases. We are doing our best again, Mr. Chair, within our budgetary allotments to deal with this issue and I can assure the member opposite, as I can assure all members of this House, that dialysis is something that we are acutely aware of and trying to address as best we can.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to take a moment to kind of respond to some of the things that the minister said. I certainly did not desire to give the impression neither I am sure I did not speak the words that would suggest that the government does not care, does not want to do this. This is an important issue from the health perspective of constituents. All of us here, as the minister suggested, know of cases that may be impacted by it, have family members and so on who have diabetes and at some point may need dialysis treatment. I am not going to stand in this House and suggest that the minister does not care or the government does not care. What I am standing to say is that there is not enough being done and that more needs to be done.

I think it is great that our capacity has increased from the 340 to the 494 – whatever the numbers were that he gave out a moment ago. If we keep stretching our budgets far enough, obviously we get into the hundreds of millions of dollars. It was $150 million from 2003. Well, the numbers continue to grow. I do not know that is significant information, to be honest. If it is $22 million a year and if it is not meeting the need, if it is not doing what needs to be done, then the onus is on government to find the extra funds within their resources to be able to offer that service appropriately.

I recognize that there are other communities in this Province that have people, as the minister said, commuting for dialysis. I would suggest there are people in my district who are commuting to St. Anthony for dialysis upwards of an hour to two hours drive, probably from areas on the Northern Peninsula that actually are outside of my own district coming to St. Anthony for that particular service. I understand that.

What is unique in this situation is that if they have to go outside of St. Anthony or outside that region for dialysis services, it means that they do not commute for two and half hours in the morning and come back in the evening. It means that they actually pack their things, they get in their vehicle, they move to the capital city, and they stay for an unknown period of time. It may be months; it may be years.

If we are living in this have Province of ours and we are doing so well, surely goodness there must be a way around being able to offer more time. It is not about putting equipment; the equipment has been put in place. As I said before, I am pleased that St. Anthony was able to be structured to have a dialysis unit put in place and that investment was made. That is a great thing.

The problem is that the equipment is there and you cannot use it. For three days of a week, people can come and get their dialysis treatment. This means you can take twelve patients. It means there are twelve there. It means for the other four days the unit sits idle and those who could use that service, only because there is no one there to do the service, provide that service, those are the people who have to leave the town, leave the district, leave the Northern Peninsula, and travel to St. John's.

Now, Mr. Chair, I am going to suggest that there is definitely something wrong with that. I would suggest that any of us here in this Legislature would understand that is a problem, that is an urgent problem, and that is one that really needs to be dealt with and fixed. We are fortunate in a lot of areas throughout the Province that if there is an overrun in Stephenville, or there is a capacity issue, then you can drive to Corner Brook just an hour-and-a-half away. That is great. It may not be the answer for the people on the Port au Port Peninsula, but the fact that they can do that means they can still live at home. It is still a great inconvenience, but then we cannot always have the best of anything either. I realize that.

When you have to leave your region and drive ten hours, or eleven hours or so to get to another facility that can accommodate you, then obviously that is totally unacceptable. It is a matter of making the appropriate investments, to give the support to the infrastructure that is already in place. There has to be a way, and I call upon the minister again, I call upon the government again, I call upon the Premier to recognize that. As we approach our new Budget for 2011-2012, there are all kinds of challenges in terms of where the funding is going and so on. We have to recognize that this is a unique situation; this is a very special need. We have a disconnect between offering the service, between putting the infrastructure in place, and between putting the resources behind it to make sure that it is successful.

I honestly just do not see the point of doing investments throughout the Province or other places that want it. Yes, Flower's Cove wants a dialysis unit. Why would they not? There is a new hospital going there. Why would not a dialysis unit go into that new hospital as it is put in place? That obviously helps the district as other places that he mentioned throughout the Province.

What is the point of putting more dialysis units in place if we are going to have a similar situation where, again, it is going to be able to look only after a very limited number of people? Then we will have that commuting process continuing, and in this situation we will have the continuing of people having to come to the capital city to get their dialysis treatments. I do not know. It seems to be a human resource issue. I know that we can recruit to St. Anthony; it is not one of the regions of the Province where nurses will not come to work. It is not one of the regions of the Province, if there are any, where people do not want to train, do not want to take on extra responsibilities or whatever the case might be – I know that is not the situation. I know there is a good administration there that wants to be able to offer the best of health care to their people throughout the Province in any place, I am sure.

Yet, the glowing hole in this situation is that you can drop by the dialysis unit three days a week and you will see all kinds of activity. You will see the return of the investment that the taxpayers of this Province have made into health care as you watch people getting their treatments and as you see the whole thing just doing what it is meant to do. But then if you drive-by for the other four days of the week, you will see basically a dark room, you will see equipment that is idle. In contrast to that you will see people who are by road, some thousand kilometres away getting their treatment in the capital city of our fair Province. That is an absolute shame. There is a disconnect and it is something that is as important to such a degree that it needs to be fixed.

There are solutions. It is a matter of a little more money in the budgets to look after extra staffing and other resources that the dialysis units need. I would suggest that if you took it from Peter – as the old saying goes – to pay Paul, then obviously having to bring those people into St. John's; having to put them in hospitals and, at times, pay the cost of doing that – as I believe is the situation with Rocky I mentioned earlier, if I am not mistaken. I believe the cost of accommodations and so on may be provided for by our heath care system. There are employees there that are attending to his need. There is a staff giving him his dialysis three days a week or however often he needs it. So it is a matter of – it is not a matter of finding more money necessarily even, it is a matter of reallocating some of those funds from one health care facility, possibly, to another one. I do not understand. I fail to see where this is such an issue as the minister suggests that we want to do it but we cannot do it, we may not be able to do it and so on; I do not buy that. I do not understand it and quite frankly I feel that there is really no reason for it.

Again, I just want to be able to stand and make those points here in this Chamber this afternoon and realize that the problem is not going to get better if we leave it for another year. Instead of having four individuals or five individuals in St. John's from my district there will be six, there is probably going to be seven. That is just not good enough. That is irresponsible on the part of government and I stand here today to challenge the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, the Premier of our Province to say listen, this is something that has to be done, let us find a way to do it and we can all celebrate it down the road as we see our constituents being able to return home and get the service done at their particular locations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to stand again and speak to this important issue.

CHAIR (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the opportunity to get up today to speak on Bill 2. Before I go any further – it is the first time speaking in this session – I would like to congratulate two of its newest members to the Legislature. From Humber West, congratulations, it is great to have you here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: As well in Conception Bay East & Bell Island, another new member to the House as well. I congratulate him on coming to the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, there has been some discussion earlier in the House in terms of health care. I would like to take my time today to speak to that issue as well and review some of the investments that our government has made. Some in particular as the minister spoke earlier – spoke of some of the investments that have been made.

There have been significant investments made over the past number of years. Just in the last two years over $5.3 billion spent on various investments in Newfoundland and Labrador, in various areas and in the larger urban centres, but more significantly, I think, in outlying regions, rural Newfoundland and Labrador where we get out there, we listen, we recognize what services are required and we do what we can within our fiscal capacity to meet those needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is widespread in terms of what that investment has been in: new infrastructure, capital equipment, repairs, and renovations. I know in my district in particular, in Trepassey – the health care clinic there – we have seen significant investment there: $250,000 looking at new X-ray and laboratory equipment, as well another $100,000 for renovations to the clinic and other work to be done to support the region. Down on the Southern Avalon, great investment there that is needed and listened to the people in the region and what they needed which is so important. Dr. McGarry is there, the great work he does, recognizes the work he does and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland has the floor.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, recognize Dr. McGarry in Trepassey and the great work he does for the whole region. We are there to support him and provide the facility, services and so forth that he needs. We have seen investment in programs, access, and capacity building as well in our health care system. The minister earlier spoke on dialysis, what has been done there and the improvements we have made there and the investment. As we look forward, we do what we can to continue to improve and build on what is there already.

Mental health and addictions is another area, long-term care and community support services. As well, physician recruitment and what we have done in that whole sphere of health services which is so important, and certainly being competitive in Canada and throughout North America in terms of what we need to do and continually need to do in terms of physician recruitment in all aspects of health care. We have also seen investment in cancer care, the Provincial Drug Program, as elected officials. We interact with people all the time in terms of needs and access to appropriate drugs. The drug program allows that access in terms of coverage by the provincial government in the various programs we have. We know full well how important that is.

The Wellness Plan through Health and Community Services is looking at – as we all know, the overall healthy well-being, mental and physical well-being is so important. Initiatives we have in that area for our very young was mentioned in the Throne Speech as well, to seniors, the full gamut of our population, in terms of how we meet them and what we put in place to assist with healthy living is so very important.

Mr. Chair, I mentioned new infrastructure. I think it is worth mentioning, in terms of long-term care and the investments of institutions we have built and facilities in long-term care. I will just mention a few here. I had an opportunity to be a part of long-term care consultations last August to September. I visited a range of towns and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the minister to look at developing a long-term care strategy. We were out there listening, meeting with stakeholders, individuals who are accessing the system, health care providers, community leaders, you name it, we were out and met with them and listened attentively to what they had to say and are now looking forward to moving ahead with a long-term care strategy.

Some of the investments in long-term care facilities; $68.5 million for the completion of a new 236-bed long-term care facility and four protective community residences in Corner Brook; $22 million for the completion of a new forty-four bed long-term care in Clarenville; $20 million for the completion of a fifty-bed long-term care facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; $8 million to start construction of a new long-term care facility in Lewisporte, which upon completion will represent an investment of approximately $30 million. That is significant, Mr. Chair, in terms of meeting the needs of our aging population and our health care overall. We also look at $4 million allocated in the development of a new, 250-bed long-term care facility in Carbonear. All are extremely significant in terms of investments in health care; and $1.7 million for a new protective care community residence in Bonavista. That is dealing with what we are hearing and certainly from Health and Community Services' perspective in terms of providing those services right across the Island, in Labrador, and in our urban and, more importantly, in our rural areas. We can provide that service within regions so people can access it, which is so important.

Mr. Chair, I mentioned long-term care consultations. What we wanted to look at there was enhancing and strengthening our long-term care system. It remains a big priority of this government, certainly of the minister and the department as well. We did about nineteen communities across the Province in long-term care and community support strategies, and we are working on that now.

It was interesting in terms of the dialogue we had and the discussions. We had over 500 people who attended, over 100 presentations, and almost fifty other written submissions that were forwarded to us in that process. In addition, there were round table discussions, I think about six, with various stakeholders; which are very important, as well, that we make sure we hear from all on this very important issue. As I said, we are now in the process of reviewing that information and bringing it forward as we develop the new strategy.

There have been, as I listed off, tremendous enhancements in long-term care and community support services. As we continue as a Province, obviously it is tied to our fiscal capacity over the last number of years, and we will certainly continue to do it, continue to invest as we recognize our demographics and our aging population. Trying to meet the needs is challenging. Those challenges are not alone for us in this Province, but it is right across the country. It is a national issue and we work towards, as we have done, to meeting those needs.

In the last couple of minutes, Mr. Chair, I just want to mention too, the work that has been done in the Provincial Wellness Plan. As I said, that is about physical and mental well-being and making significant strides in terms of insuring our population and doing what we can to encourage healthy living. We all know in the long term what that means in terms of overall well-being, but certainly the return as well back to our health care system. It is a proactive approach in terms of prevention and ensuring we live longer and healthier lives as well.

The provincial government invests about $4.1 million annually in the Provincial Wellness Strategy, which focuses on several areas, a number of areas in terms of healthy living. Healthy eating is so important. This morning I was in Baltimore for breakfast with the students there. I enjoyed that very much and, with the young people there, discussed the importance of healthy eating, kids going to school, the investment that Health and Community Services makes to the breakfast program. It is so important they start off the day with a healthy meal. It exposes them and helps them learn about healthy eating and how important it is. It was a pleasure to be in Baltimore this morning at the school. I thank the volunteers and the many volunteers across the Province who get involved with these programs. They could not function without them. The volunteers who were there this morning, I recognize them and thank them for the work they are doing; as well, Mr. Chair, things like Wellness grants in terms of organizations and groups throughout the Province to help them in a number of healthy activities.

All of that work we are doing, Mr. Chair, this is only a few of them, is directed to the overall well-being of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are challenges there, but I think we are meeting those and we will continue to improve and continue to build on them. I certainly look forward at another time to continue to speak of some of the good work we are doing and the challenges we are meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just listened very attentively to the member talk about long-term care, and I was not going to talk about long-term care but I am going to make a couple of comments because I think it is worthy of noting. He talks about the fact that they have invested in long-term care facilities throughout the Province; very factual actually, Mr. Chair, but their investments have been in replacing long-term care facilities not increasing the number of beds, not increasing the number of people who can actually access the service. We are still under the same restraints today, Mr. Chair, that we were before the investments started. I think it is important to point out that while we have replaced the infrastructure, and a lot of it needed to be replaced, there is no argument with that, we have not been allowing for extra space in many of these facilities to accommodate more people. That is why today in almost every hospital around this Province there are people who need to be in long-term care, Mr. Chair, yet, they are taking up acute care beds in health care facilities.

I have experienced this probably as much as any other member in the House because I am sure there are other MHAs who at some point must get calls from their district, if not, I must be the only one who is getting calls, but I get calls from my district all the time from people who want to get into a long-term care facility but there is no bed available. Some of them today, Mr. Chair, have been months, I do not mean one month or two months or three months, I mean months in acute care beds in hospitals in this Province trying to get into a long-term care facility. Do you know what the sad reality is? The sad reality is that many of them are on a list waiting for some other poor soul to pass on before they can actually get a bed to get into a facility in Newfoundland and Labrador today where they can get the kind of care that they want. Now that is a very sad commentary, but that is the reality of what is happening out there. In fact, Mr. Chair, I have had families call me who have searched, even though they did not want to go outside of their area, even though they did not want to have their loved ones somewhere where they could not drive at least within two or three hours to see them, or they could not access them because of an affordability issue, many of them conceded to start looking anywhere they could find vacancies or beds, and started looking at putting applications into those systems.

If we really had a vision for what we were doing in long-term care, we would not have just gone out and starting replacing facilities, we would have started to increase the capacity as well, knowing that we are an aging population and knowing that the need is indeed there. Not a need that we are forecasting but a need that is actually there today.

So, Mr. Chair, what government needs to start doing on behalf of the people, to give some leadership to this particular issue, is they need to start looking at areas of the Province right now where we need to be expanding long-term care. Where are the areas of population where we are going to have an aging population in the near future, where we need to start increasing capacity, and we need to start investing to do that. That is how we are going to meet the demands, and that is how we are going to be able to provide for our elderly people in our Province, the people who have built this Province for us, who today do not have long-term care facilities that they can go into. In many cases, Mr. Chair, they are unable to be cared for by their families; either because of the seriousness of their condition, or other contributing factors. So, in lots of cases they are not able to be cared for by their families, and they are looking to be able to get into long-term care.

Mr. Chair, I want to speak a little bit about one of the issues I raised in Question Period today, and that was on the forecasted load of electricity that Nalcor and the government is using to sell the project on Muskrat Falls. I think it is very important. It is a key piece to all of this. Do you know something? At the end of the day, I would rather have the real numbers out there as we go forward with a deal than I would have the government trying to pad numbers just to be able to sell the concept to the people of the Province. I think it is wrong, Mr. Chair, I absolutely do.

When you look at the documentation that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has provided, or Nalcor I should say, you will see - and we have questioned them on this today when we had our briefings with Nalcor - that they are forecasting a 50 per cent rise in the use of energy in Newfoundland and Labrador from 2009 to this year in 2011. They are forecasting a 50 per cent increase.

Where is that 50 per cent increase coming from? We all know, Mr. Chair, under their watch, they closed two pulp and paper mills in this Province, two large industrial customers that were employing hundreds of people, contributing for 100 years to the economy of the Province, to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of their tactics in negotiations, they forced these companies to close, forced them out of the Province, Mr. Chair, to the point that today there are two pulp and paper mills that no longer need power for industrial use.

Everyone knows, Mr. Chair, that we would still have the mill today in Grand Falls if this government had shown some leadership and did some proper negotiations with Abitibi; we would still have a mill functioning in Grand Falls-Windsor today, I say to the hon. member. Unfortunately, history will write the chapter and history will write it, Mr. Chair, long after the people who have been affected the most have moved on to a different phase in their life. History will record all sides of the issue and they will show that because of this government's tactic in negotiations, today, we have lost two major industries in this particular Province.

Mr. Chair, here we go now, we have Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Nalcor out there today saying that we have a 50 per cent more demand for power in Newfoundland and Labrador today than we had two years ago, but we have two mills down to start with. We have a surplus of power that we are not using, that we are all aware of. We have the Long Harbour facility that has not yet come on stream. Where are the contributing factors that are driving the power by 50 per cent in this Province in two years? No one can tell us. Nalcor could not tell us the answer to that. They referred us to the information that was presented by the Department of Finance of which apparently, Mr. Chair, is locked up in a safe over in the minister's office somewhere because we cannot get our hands on it. It must have explosives attached to the safe because no one has been able to go in, get the information, and bring it out and say: Here it is; here is where we projected the 50 per cent rise in energy in the last two years.

Now I know, Mr. Chair, the Premier does not know a lot about this when she stood up yesterday and talked about the number of plasma TVs that is going to add to power increases in the Province. Well, Mr. Chair, most of the people today are energy efficient conscious more so than they ever were before. Most of them are buying LCD TVs I would think, not plasma TVs that are using up a lot of energy and costing them to pay more. Obviously, the Premier is still thinking that we are moving into the plasma TV age and that is going to consume a lot of energy in the Province in the past two years. Well, I do not think it has consumed enough. I do not think it is plasma TVs, Mr. Chair, that is going to inflate our projected growth and demand on the service by 50 per cent over the next two years.

Mr. Chair, we would like to have an answer to that. I think it is only fair that the people of the Province get an answer to where the government is coming up with these particular projections. The other projection - and first of all, too, I should say that the other projections which they are looking at goes outward to 2018.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition in regard to her commentary on some of the comments I made when I spoke in terms of long-term care and the investment that we are making. The investments we are making are certainly unprecedented and it does deal with capacity. Obviously, it deals with a component of it, and it does certainly deal with replacement of current infrastructure.

I want to talk to the holistic approach in terms of overall care. We are dealing with, right now in terms of our demographic, obviously, an aging population, and that deals directly with long-term care, personal care homes.

As we move forward as a society right now, we are focused as well on the health and well-being of all our population. That means when they get further on in terms of age that we have programs and services leading up to that which will allow them to live more comfortably in terms of lifestyle, but certainly in terms of health and well being. There are a number of initiatives we have put forward to do that, to continue to work on that, and which is still extremely important.

I want to go back and just touch on, in a couple of years, the kind of investments we are making. I just want to run through some of those. In 2009, there was approximately $35 million spent on long-term care and community support services. I will just go through some of those and what they represent: $16.5 million, which is annualized to about $24.6 million, to increase home support hourly subsidy rates in personal care homes; $8 million to address home support program growth. These are all initiatives to deal with an aging population in terms of health and in terms of community services; $7.5 million to restructure the home support financial assessment process; $1.5 million to increase the personal care home subsidy amount available to individuals who qualify for that assistance. We also raised the liquid asset exemption of $5,000 to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for couples who receive home support, reside in a long-term care home or personal community care home. These are all initiatives we looked at and listened to, and as we move forward what we need to do and adjustments we need to make, and certainly responded to them within our fiscal capacity to do so. The point is we are responding and we are making those efforts to deal with it and moving forward with that.

If we look at 2010, the last fiscal year, approximately $60 million; it was $35 million in 2009; $60 million is allocated in 2010 for long-term care and community support services. We are looking at $8.9 million to increase the home support hourly subsidy rate; again, $3.2 million to increase the personal care home monthly subsidy rate and to expand portable subsidies. We saw the subsidy rate go from $1,644 to $1,717. Again, dealing with the issues in terms of personal care homes, in terms of providing access in various regions of the Province, which is so important.

We saw approximately $1.7 million for a new protective community care residence in Bonavista, which was new, with specialized care and accommodations for individuals with mild to moderate dementia. Certainly, as I spoke before in terms of our consultations, that was very important what we saw when we did our consultations in terms of dementia and secure housing for those who need it. I visited a couple of units in Corner Brook which were well done, with great staff and meeting the needs. Certainly, there is more to be done. I mentioned additional ones in Bonavista, so we are working on that and moving forward.

In 2010, we also invested $1.5 million to support the continued implementation of the new interRAI suite of assessment tools for long-term care for home care clients; just to ensure that when we are doing that rating we know particularly what level of care is needed or is provided, whether it is a personal care home or whether it is long-term care. As well, in our consultations last year we saw some independent living units, a more holistic approach in terms of living, which was very successful. It is a full gamut we are looking at in terms of services, how we provide them, what we need to do to provide them, and that is what we are moving forward with.

Now, as I mentioned before, when you are looking at the overall well-being of individuals or seniors, and as they move through the years, like all of us do in terms of health and well-being, it is about: Can you access programming? Do you have interaction with your peers in your communities? Especially in rural Newfoundland, do you have access to do that? Do you get out and socialize for mental well-being and interaction? As well, from that point of view, are you involved in physical activity? Can you access physical activity?

One of the things in our consultations that we heard from seniors in terms of, in some cases, was having access to physical activities, transportation, and those sorts of things. Those are the things we recognize. Certainly, through the grants programs and what we are setting up, we are looking to move forward and we are seeing seniors having access to physical activity and getting involved in activities which support that. The Provincial Wellness Plan is part of that and it is part of that holistic approach I talked to, which is so important.

As I said, again, $4.1 million is invested in the wellness strategy which focuses on a whole range of healthy initiatives that is part of everybody's life, day in and day out. That is for all of us. It is not just for one sector or population. It is certainly for all of us and it is so important. Healthy eating, we all need to be physically active, tobacco control, mental health promotion, child and youth development, all of those are significant and reaches out to the full population, which is so important.

The Provincial Wellness Grants, in 2009-2010 we had twenty-three organizations and groups receive a total of $325,000. In 2010-2011, we had another thirty-five community groups throughout the Province receive a total of $600,000. Those are grants that can help in a whole range of issues. It could be an after school program, it could be a program for seniors; any and all array of different programs, initiatives, again as I say the holistic approach of physical and mental well-being. That is what we are doing and getting out there, being proactive in terms of doing that.

In 2010, there was also approximately $247,000 that was provided to seven community-based organizations to support projects designed to address food and security. Once again, there are important issues that are out there. They are important to what we are doing in the overall development of good health policy. What we heard in our consultations last year was directed to that. As we move forward with a long-term care strategy, that will be part of that as we move forward.

Mr. Chair, there are huge investments being made. In health care, we all know what the figure is; approximately 38 per cent of every dollar is moved into Health and Community Services. It is a huge portfolio, an aging population. We have the full gamut of our population that is affected by health care. All of us can share experience about health care. This government has made tremendous investments, huge investments in all aspects of health care. Like I said whether it is promoting healthy living, whether it is bricks and mortar in terms of hospitals, long-term care, you name it, we have made that investment. We will continue to make the investment within our fiscal capacity.

As I said, we are up to almost an $8 billion Budget now overall in terms of the Province, $2.7 directed to health. Within that envelope, we have to make sure that we are doing things the best possible way we can. No doubt, we are always evaluating to see what we can do better in terms of meeting those needs. It is a huge envelope, investment has continued in the past number of years. We will continue to do within our capacity to meet all our needs. It is a challenge, and it is a challenge right throughout the country in all the jurisdictions in terms of health care, rising costs. How do we do it best? Are there other things we can do differently? That is part of the overall evaluation. Reviewing health policy, continuing to review it, continuing to evolve to make sure we are on the leading edge; and we can do what we need to do to meet the needs of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, no matter where they live, that in their region, within a reasonable amount of time, they can get access to the care they need. In some cases, as I have said, there are challenges, but we do that and do it the best we can. We will continue to improve to make sure that we continue to build our health care system.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will thank you for the time and I will take my seat.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to pick up where I left off; I was talking about the demand loads that the government is forecasting in order to justify the economics around the Muskrat Falls Project. I talked already about their projections between 2009 and what we will use this year, and the fact that it will rise by 50 per cent. However, we have not been given anything to account for that rise in electricity; in the demand for electricity. We have not received an explanation from the government on that.

The other piece in this was the piece that showed 2018 projections and onward. You have to remember, 2018 is when Muskrat Falls would be connected to the Island grid so we would be moving into a different power source. Mr. Chairman, if you are looking at 2018 projections and onward, the Premier is claiming that energy usage on the Island is going to more than double in the next two decades.

We asked what was going to account for that particular doubling up of the amount of power that we are going to use in Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, you have to be able to base this on something. If it means we are going to build five pulp and paper mills we know how much power we are going to need for five pulp and paper mills over the next twenty years. If it means that we are going to see in Newfoundland, or on the Island portion of the Province, four or five new mines come on stream we can start projecting right now what the power consumption is going to be, just like we are trying to do in Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, without those kinds of industrial development projects on the books or being forecasted, we want to know where the power consumption is going to be in the Province. They are saying that it is going to double. However, the projections which we look at tell us that we would have to see the population double in the Province. However, the Department of Finance's own statistics tell us that the population growth is going to max out by 2035 at about 530,000 people. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, where are they getting that particular piece in terms of the projections?

The other thing is: will it mean that we will have double the number of mines that are going to start up on the Island portion of the Province? Now we know we have Duck Pond Mine, but we also know that Duck Pond Mine is only forecast to produce until 2013. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, where is the other capacity going?

Then we talk about refineries; are we going to see more refineries coming up? That certainly does not seem to be the case right now. I am not saying that will not happen. That might be the only one I have seen here that might be a possibility. However, Mr. Chairman, without the doubling up of all of these users we have today, how do you forecast that the amount of power we are going to use over two decades is going to double? A very good question and only you can answer it because they are your numbers – only you can answer it.

When we asked Nalcor those questions, this is what Nalcor had to say: Nalcor says that right now their assumptions are based on a single newsprint mill – the one in Corner Brook – which already has power today; which will have that power as long as they operate, for now and eternity. That is available.

They said we have a single oil refinery. Not a problem, Mr. Chairman, we are powering the oil refinery. It is not like a new one. It is not like a projected two or three that are going to come on stream; that already has power.

They talked about the nickel processing facility in Long Harbour. First of all you need to realize that when the processing facility for Long Harbour was identified so was the power supply for that operation. This is not something where they said, we are going to put a smelter and refinery in Long Harbour but we are going to figure out how we are going to put the power to it when it is almost built. Come on, that was not the case. Power was identified for that facility in advance.

In addition to that, when the mill closed down in Grand Falls, there was excess power from the Exploits River, over forty megawatts, I think it was – I stand to be corrected on that number because I do not remember if it was exactly forty megawatts, but it was somewhere in that vicinity – that particular power went into the grid. That particular power is still being spilled over the dam in Bay d'Espoir. It is not being used. When Abitibi closed down in Stephenville, another forty-odd megawatts of power went into the grid. That is not being used. This particular power today is not even being utilized in the Province. Long Harbour requires about eighty-four megawatts of power in order to operate.

Mr. Chairman, when we questioned Nalcor on this, they could not deny the fact that there is available power there today. In terms of the Duck Pond Mine, which was another one they gave us, Duck Pond Mine is scheduled to cease production in 2013. They are looking at the production in that mine for the next two years; that is what is being predicted, unless there is something different that we are not aware of. Those are the predictions and the projections that we have been made aware of in terms of their operation and how long they will require power consumption.

The other one was Hebron development; we are going to require some power for Hebron development. When we asked Nalcor about this particular piece they said it is so insignificant, it is so small. Basically, what they have said is that it has to do with the gravity base that will be constructed at Bull Arm and some work that will be done in Marystown. It is not unlike work that has been done before for the offshore. They do not expect the power consumption to be abundant. They do not expect it to be an issue. They do not expect it to put demands on the system. Mr. Chairman, in actual fact, they said it was minimal. The other thing they said is that it is for a short-term period – four or five years or something – just through the construction phase and then there will be no further power requirement associated with Hebron.

That left only one indicator in the Province that would show us where the doubling up of power consumption is going to come from over two decades; that is directly from the Department of Finance and the government itself. The Department of Finance, the government, and the Premier are saying that their economic forecast – taking out all of these big projects that I just talked about, taking out that industrial component that is being looked at – that based on their projections on population and housing starts and, as the Premier says, plasma TVs, that they are expecting to see a doubling up of power in the next two decades. Well all we are saying is show us where it is. Show us where that doubling up is. Show us where you are getting your numbers and where it is, Mr. Chairman.

We have been unable to get it. Not only us but the environmental assessment panel actually wrote Nalcor this week and asked for similar information because they were not provided with that information either.

So why is it that the government is not putting out the information to support the projections that you have in your documents? If there is nothing to hide, it is all justified, and you can show that we are going to double up the power consumption in this Province over that period of time, show us how you are getting the numbers. It is a very clear question, a very simple question. I do not have any idea why someone would not want to stand up today, eagerly, on the government side, put their hand up, stretch their neck right out and tell us exactly where the power consumption is going to be used. I do not understand why it is such a secret, why it is locked down inside of Confederation Building, why it has been under lock and key over in the Minister of Finance's office. If you stand by the numbers that you are putting out there, well give us the information to support it and then we have nothing to discuss. We have the information, so if you can justify it, I challenge you stand up and justify it. Stand up and tell the people of the Province where the power consumption is going to come from.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, again, I thank you for the opportunity to stand and to have a few words. We have been talking about the granting of interim supply to Her Majesty, and as people, I would assume, in this House and people who are watching in TV land would recognize we have a fair degree of latitude and a fair degree of flexibility in terms of what we can talk about here and speak about here. So, I am going to exercise some of that latitude and I am going to have a few comments and a few remarks in response to some of what of the members opposite have been saying.

I am going to start off, Mr. Chair, by talking about the Muskrat Falls Project and the Lower Churchill development. I am going to start off by reiterating what the Premier said today. She said it before and I think it bears repeating. I think it is important that we say it. We have seen, I believe, from the Opposition side in the few days that this House has been open that they do not have sense of hope about this Province. They do not have any sense of vision about what can happen in this Province. They do not see any growth happening in this Province. They have not put forward any plan about what they think can happen in this Province. They have been looking for information, they have asked repeatedly for information that we have given them. As a matter of fact, the former Minister of Natural Resources, who is the current Premier, today, went through the trouble of tabling, for the second time, a generation study that she tabled for them back in December of last year, which they stood in the House yesterday and said they had not gotten and could not find.

Mr. Chair, if they are not going to look at the documents that we give them, if they are not going to read the documentation that we give them, if they are not going to go to the Web site of the Department of Natural Resources, or the Lower Churchill panel hearings, or Nalcor, or the Public Utilities Board, I am not doing the research for them. They have researchers, they were at the briefing this morning, we gave them the information. A good Opposition should be able to inform themselves, and they are not able to do it. They are treading water over there is what they are doing. They are lucky to be able to keep their heads above the water because the information was given to them back in December. We laid it on the table again today, so I hope, between now and Monday, when the House opens up again, they have an opportunity to read it. Then maybe they will come in and we can engage in some productive and meaningful debate. If your view is no hope, no vision and no growth, then I guess that is all we can expect because is what I hear coming from the Opposition benches: No vision for this Province, no growth for this Province, no hope for this Province. That is the kind of attitude that got them over there now and will probably keep them there, would be my guess, for a long time if they do not get any better with that. That is the thing.

From our perspective, Mr. Chair, I will talk about some of the hope that we see for the Province, some of the vision we have for the Province. We are very optimistic about the future of this Province. We think this Province has a great future. As a matter of fact, I have said before, when I stood on my feet here, to the people of the Province: Judge us by our track record. Go back to 2003 when you took a chance on this government and said we did not like what was happening with the other guys, we are going to try somebody different. Judge us by our record and see how we have done.

Well, they judged us all right. They judged us again in 2007. They did a great job in 2007. They put us back here, the people of the Province did. The people of the Province recognized, in 2007, the work that this government had done, the work that every man and woman sitting here with me in this House, on this side and on that side over there, had done. The people recognized it and they put us back in with a bigger number of seats than we had before, by the way.

Now, the people of the Province are saying: We want you to continue on doing that good work. One of the things we want to do is we want to make sure that we provide an opportunity for people on the Island portion of the Province to continue to grow and expand and for people in the Labrador portion of the Province to grow and expand. That is what we are hoping -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the speaker.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It is always amusing to me in the House when you are on your feet and you are making some points that the Opposition feels a little bit sensitive about, you will have the Opposition House Leader or some of his colleagues start to rattle on over there a little bit. The fact that they are chirping away at me indicates to me that I must have hit a little bit of a sensitive nerve, so I will continue on that. I will continue to press on that nerve. Hopefully, I will get them a little bit more animated and a little more agitated. We will see where that goes.

So, Mr. Chair, I will try not to get distracted by the people who are over there chirping away at me. I will try to direct my comments directly to you and to the people out in TV land who are listening to us. It would be appreciated, Mr. Chair, if they would listen to us about it.

So what we are doing here, Mr. Chair, is trying to develop a source of electricity for the people of the Province so that we will meet the needs of the people today, we will build into the electrical supply that we will have, future growth, future expansion, future hope, future business development, future economic development, and future jobs. Those are the kinds of things we want to see happen in this Province, Mr. Chair. What we also want to do is make sure that we have other people outside the Province who are looking to come into the Province to do kinds of things like maybe open up some industrial type of developments that will provide jobs for our people. We will have a ready source of electricity for them.

Even if there are people out there, Mr. Chair, in other parts of the world who are not looking to come here right now – and there are some – but even if there are not those out there who want to come here right now, there are some currently operating in the Province who want to expand. There are some people, some companies, and some organizations currently operating in the Province who want to expand what it is they are doing. To do that, they are going to need an electrical supply. They are going to need more power.

In my three months in the department, I have had meetings with three groups, three companies that have indicated to me they need more power. They are waiting for Muskrat Falls to come on stream so they can continue on with their expansion plans. If we do not do Muskrat Falls, those expansion plans will not be able to go ahead. What does it mean if those expansion plans do not happen for those companies? It means hundreds of millions of dollars of investment will not happen in the Province. It means companies will not be able to service that investment. It means people will not be able to become employed because they will not do the expansion. Those are the kinds of things it means.

Rather than get into the issue of how much power, megawatts, terawatts, and all those kinds of things, I want to relate it to what the businesspeople are saying to me, Mr. Chair. What they are saying to me is that they want an opportunity to expand, but they are being held back by the fact that we do not have enough power to be able to do it for them. That is why we are looking at - one of the reasons why, not the only reason why - at the development of Muskrat Falls.

With the development of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, there are things that we know are going to happen. There is tremendous housing growth happening in the Province by the way, all over the Province. We have had some of the highest housing numbers in this Province in the last couple of years than we have had in the last twenty years, people building new houses. All of those houses go onto the electrical grid and draw more energy. That is where some of our demand is coming from, Mr. Chair.

We also have some businesses, like Vale, that are going to be down in Argentia looking for more power; fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty megawatts. We also know that they are looking at going underground up in Labrador in the mine that they have. There is an opportunity there. There are other mining companies that have spoken to me, as minister, that have indicated they want to expand and they need more supply of electricity in Labrador. It is important that we have that source of electricity available for that. It is important that we have that source of electricity for companies that are out there, that have money they want to invest in this Province, that see a future in this Province, that see hope in this Province, it is important that we give them that opportunity. We, as a government, also believe, as do the companies that are looking at bringing the investment in, we also believe there is hope here for them. We also believe there is an opportunity for them to invest their money. To do that, we want to make sure they have the electricity to do it.

While my colleagues across the way might say that there is not any opportunity, might say that there is not going to be any future growth in the Province, might say that there is not any business out there that want to do anything in this Province, I can understand why they may feel that because that is what they keep saying amongst themselves. They have talked themselves into a desperate situation over there where they see no hope.

It is important for us to understand on this side of the House and it is important for us on this side of the House to say to the people of the Province that there is hope in this Province, there is economic opportunity, and there is growth potential. We are going to make sure that we stimulate that by making sure we have the power supply necessary to be able to meet the demands of the companies that are looking to come here, to continue doing business here and to expand their business here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

I just want to continue on where I left off earlier, going through some of the items that I noticed that was in the Throne Speech. Hopefully, we are going to get a greater clarification on Budget day. I think I was finishing up with regard to the long-term care facilities, long-term plan. I have to say I was very interested in the article that the Minister of Health had in our local paper recently about the long-term care facility for Carbonear that is going to be in construction, the tenders are going out now for the site preparation. I have to say that is one of the major plans that we see in our area and we are looking forward to that. Hopefully, we will see another announcement with the continuation of that project in this year's Budget.

Also, Mr. Chair, just to touch briefly on education in the Throne Speech, I know there was quite a bit of focus on infrastructure and that is all wonderful. Many of us are looking forward to that. I am hoping that I will hear an announcement for the Coley's Point Primary school to be replaced this year. I brought in many petitions on that. Hopefully, there will be some form of announcement. I know it is not going to be built this year but, hopefully, there will be some plans that will give us an indication that this is high priority. I know it is high priority with the Eastern School District, the staff, and the principal in that facility. Hopefully, government will make an announcement this year.

There is also very little, I noticed, with regard to business. I know we have a new minister. Hopefully, he will bring forward some more initiatives rather than continue on with Red Tape Reduction that was mentioned again in this year's plan.

Child, Youth and Family Services, this is a new department. We are looking forward, with great anticipation, to what we are going to see in the Budget for this year. I know it was mentioned quite a bit in the Throne Speech. We know they are still in transition, much work has to be done, but this is a very serious concern with many people in this Province when it comes to child care, at all levels. We hear so much about it in the media from time to time and we are looking forward to great things in the Budget.

Mr. Chair, I noticed, with great interest, several items that were not mentioned. I think it was in the last session that we brought forward a private member's motion with regard to the situation and the major concerns with the moose problems that we have in this Province. I know the people involved with that organization were in the gallery. One minister after the other, who is involved, got up in their places, and rightly so, and made amendments to that private member's motion on what they were going to do. Still today, we hear from those people that a lot of things they were promised at that time they do not think that they are progressing to the point that they thought they would be.

Another one, Mr. Chair, and I know there is a couple of ministers have been dealing with this one, the ATV regulations and policy review. That is an issue that many people in this Province had hoped that this legislation would be brought forward with regard to the ATVs, the various sizes, whether one or two people can ride on them. I know the minister at the time, the former minister, said that they were going through this and, hopefully, they would be able to bring something forward.

Another issue that people were anticipating they would see something, and maybe there is something in the Budget about this, but I doubt it very much. I do not think it was mentioned in the Throne Speech, and that is the Outdoor Bill of Rights. Many people have concerns about that. It is not only how we enjoy the countryside, it also takes in the forestry, the full piece, and people were really looking forward to it.

One of the things I noticed, with great interest, were the comments that the Premier made in her reply on the Throne Speech day when she said that we have to turn and fully have the respect of the people, we have to listen to the people. She went on to say that it is not only to listen to them, but we have to demonstrate that we have heard what individuals in this Province are saying. She went on to say the importance of having a government that connects with the people it serves cannot be underestimated.

Mr. Chair, I hope that that is how this government is going forward, because that has not been the way of the past. I will go through several issues why I think I can honestly stand here today and say that. I go back to the debate that we had here in this hon. House about FPI. We all know how FPI was formed many years ago and why it was formed. We all remember the debate that took place in this hon. House of Assembly and the ordinary people - let me assure you - were not listened to at that time.

The galleries were full here from people from various plants throughout this Province, and the government brought in this piece of legislation about FPI, and when the time came for the vote, the former Premier stood in his place and looked in the galleries at the people and said I cannot vote for this. I cannot proceed with this; but lo and behold, the government voted for it. We know what happened, and I guess there are situations that have been unfolding in this Province ever since that vote was taken in this hon. House.

Mr. Chair, we also, through the FPI issue, and we hear so much about it, I think it came out in the MOU, one of the initiatives that the minister or the Premier, or I think it was in the Throne Speech we may look at, and that was the marketing arm. Lo and behold, when the FPI issue was voted down in this hon. House that was one of the main things that was debated here in this House, and people all throughout the industry were talking about the marketing arm with FPI that was involved there; however, it fell by the wayside. It was one of the greatest things that we ever had in this Province, was the marketing arm. Well, Mr. Chair, we cannot say that today, but hopefully something else will come forward.

Mr. Chair, the people were not listened to. I know when this new Premier took over there were a couple of strikes that were settled. The one I think about is on the Burin Peninsula. Another one was with the doctors. I think the one on the Burin Peninsula was the longest running strike in our Province, and I can assure you those people were not listened to. It took a long time for them to be listened to and finally, they came to a resolution, and hopefully that will not take place the way it did anymore.

Mr. Chair, all too often we hear talk of our seniors in this Province. I know there are different tax breaks that have been given to them, and all that is good, but you always hear talk of the seniors coming out and saying when they have their convention each and every year, that there are many things they would like to bring forward but they do not think their views are being listened to. Hopefully, we will see something in the Budget which will be of interest to those individuals.

Mr. Chair, we will go back to touch a little more on some of the issues that I have mentioned, and we go back to the Muskrat Falls issue. Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, many people are asking questions throughout our Province, and I am sure my district is no different than any other. We have to ask questions, because we all know what happened with the Upper Churchill deal. People say there were no questions asked. When it was brought forth this hon. House of Assembly at the time, everybody voted in favour of it, nobody asked any questions about it. I do not think we should be ridiculed because we are bringing questions forward that people in this Province of ours want to know and get more information on the Muskrat Falls deal. We will not have it said that that will ever happen again.

I remember in this hon. House when our side was in government, and the Opposition of the day and the former Premier, how they wanted everything brought forward on the Voisey Bay deal: Do not let anything go; we have to put it all out to the public; it all has to be out in the open. We did not hear that about Muskrat Falls. Still, the Opposition are meeting with different groups and organizations and we cannot get the information that we look forward to finding out.

Some of the very simple questions that people are asking, Mr. Chair, are: How much will my light bill be when this is all settled? How much revenue will come back to the Provincial Treasury by investing this amount of money? They are wondering why a transmission line is being built as it is, rather than built to the specifications that it could take the other falls. Mr. Chair, we know – and this was mentioned in the Throne Speech – that some employment, 8,600 direct person years of employment, 5,400 of them being in Labrador. I hope, as others have said, that we are not hanging our hat on that because we all know how many person years of work was created at the Upper Churchill Falls when that project went through. Hundreds of people from here on this Island and throughout Labrador found work there and made good money. Then again, we are here today and in the past talking about such a bad deal that was. Hopefully, in years to come, the Muskrat Falls deal will not be looked at in the same light.

Mr. Chair, I know my time is just about finished, but the other thing, we are still waiting a response back from the federal government with regard to the loan guarantee or what have you. Hopefully, we will hear word on that; there is a federal election on the go. It probably is a good time to have an announcement and I would not be one bit surprised that we will hear something in the days ahead.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will take my place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am certainly pleased to be able to speak in the House of Assembly this afternoon to address some issues with regard to education and to highlight some of the strides that we have made since 2003 in education and feel that we have the ability, as we move forward, to continue on the path that we have been with education.

I want to talk a little bit today about our infrastructure and what we have done with regard to our schools and how far we have come since 2003. In 2003, when we formed government, we certainly inherited a mess from the present Opposition. They left schools; there was no priority for the students, for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not invest in our schools or in the future of the students of Newfoundland and Labrador. It seems to be a common theme for the Opposition. Even when they talk about Muskrat Falls and they talk about how they feel that that deal is not positive for the Province, and how they talk about such a negative outlook for this Province. You never hear any optimism. That is very much reflected in how they spent money when they were government.

One thing they neglected, Mr. Chair, was the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess back in the 1990s and early 2000s, at that time they probably felt there was no future for Newfoundland and Labrador either, so why invest in our schools and why would we invest in our children. Mr. Chair, this government felt differently about that. We felt there was a future and there is a future for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we have plans like Muskrat Falls to develop the Lower Churchill, because we do believe in this Province and we believe that we will move ahead and we will do it to the best of our ability. In doing that, we have also made investments that they neglected in the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, and one has been in our schools.

Since 2004, Mr. Chair, we have invested $465 million in new schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. Those new schools are in Labrador, one being in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, being the French school. We also have a new school in Torbay, another one in Placentia, Port Saunders, L'Anse au Loup, and two in Paradise. The schools in Paradise, well one was obviously based on the expansion of that town and the number of students, but one was the fact that there was a school built there a few years back that was left in a deplorable condition, the issue was never addressed and we had to build a new one. Not only that, we have also announced or in the process of planning a number of new schools, other than those seven I just addressed.

Baie Verte will be having a new school, as will Port Hope Simpson, St. Anthony. We have also announced a high school for the West End of St. John's because the Opposition saw fit to close a high school for the West End students. We will also have a new school to replace St. Teresa's, and a new school to replace Virginia Park. Not only, Mr. Chair, did we invest $465 million in new schools, we have also had, in addition to that, 1,400 infrastructure projects in our schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is absolutely amazing when you consider there are 272 schools in this Province. Obviously, we have been doing significant work in the area of ensuring that our buildings are well maintained and that the children have a safe and healthy environment when they go to school each and every day.

Mr. Chair, we have also done a number of other initiatives to show that we do care about the children of Newfoundland and Labrador and we do invest in our children. One thing we had to look at was the teacher allocation formula. We were handed a formula that quite frankly saw nothing but teachers bleeding from our schools. They were coming out year over year, there was no assessment of the needs or the programming of any particular school; it was number-based only. To give an example of why that is a problem is we have many schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, where we have a declining enrolment. We may have a school that goes from 300 students down to 280 to 270 to 260 to 240. If that is a K-12 school, regardless of the enrolment, each and every grade has to have their academics, their courses, their curriculum taught. So by just taking out based on numbers, gave no indication of the needs of that school. We did a significant piece of work to address the teacher allocation.

We have often heard, what is our student to teacher ratio? What are we, and how are we implementing our allocation? Mr. Chair, when we look at our allocation, it is 11.8 educators to each student. It is 11.8 to 1, and I was not satisfied with that number because that included some staff within the school boards who may not have direct, day-to-day contact with the students, so I wanted all of the staff taken out who would not be directly involved with the students on a day-to-day basis.

Based on the numbers, we looked at the classroom teachers and we looked at the special education teachers who were in the classroom – we took out all the board staff, all the administrators – and our ratio in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am very proud as the Minister of Education to say this, is 13.9 to 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I think we have an excellent teacher allocation model. When we look at numbers like that it certainly gives us the information we need to know that we have the appropriate number of teachers in our schools.

The other thing we did, Mr. Chair, was look at the size of our classrooms. An allocation can sometimes be misleading if you say you have numbers of 13.9 to 1; that by no means indicates that there is one teacher for every fourteen students in our schools, because some schools are bigger and some schools are smaller.

What we did, Mr. Chair, was we brought in a cap on our classroom sizes, so our classes from Grade 1 to Grade 6 have a cap of twenty-five and our junior high have a cap of twenty-seven. That is to ensure that the teachers are able to do their jobs, and do their jobs effectively, and that we get the results that we need as a Province, academically, from our students and that they can reach their potential.

Mr. Chair, the days of thinking that Newfoundland and Labrador cannot progress and that we cannot compete and that our children will not succeed, those days are gone. That level of negativity and how we view ourselves is gone. I think we turned a corner in this Province since 2003.

One of the things we did was invest heavily in our children. What we have done with our teacher allocation model, and what we have done with classroom sizes, and the money we have invested into our infrastructure projects, and, Mr. Chair, the number of new schools that we have built, shows that we do feel that there is a future for Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not afraid to foster it; we are not afraid to say to our children that they will succeed and they have the potential to succeed.

Some of our bigger projects, Mr. Chair, also speak to that – like Muskrat Falls. We know we are building a future for this Province and for our children. They will not have to grow up and feel that there is nothing attached to being somebody from Newfoundland and Labrador, other than negativity. We need to make sure that we continue on that road. We are a very prosperous Province and we need to be able to invest wisely. One thing that we have done is invest in our children and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Chair, I anticipate that I will have another opportunity to speak, and not just focus on the K-12 system but be able to focus on some of the initiatives we have had for our young people and, in particular, in student debt and how we are supporting our young people so that they have every opportunity they should have to contribute to Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to stand again in this debate and to continue speaking about issues that are of concern to me and of concern to people in the Province.

It is interesting to hear the Minister of Education talking about issues around education. I will be taking up some of those points at a later moment because I do want to take up a couple of the points that she put out there just now. For the moment, I am going to concentrate on long-term care and home care. I will come back to education at another point though, because we will have many times when we will have an opportunity to stand here under the Interim Supply debate and raise the issues of concern.

There are so many issues in the Province that are issues of concern that we could keep going for an awfully long time here in this House talking about them, today, tomorrow and after tomorrow.

I am getting – continually – phone calls from families, and e-mails from families in the Province who have concerns about the elderly members of their family; elderly members who are in hospital for months waiting for care, waiting for surgery; there because they cannot get into a long-term care facility, there because they cannot go home because they cannot get home care. The calls continue and the e-mails continue. I can honestly say to this House that there is not a week when I do not get a couple of calls and e-mails of concern from families about elderly members in their family. Sometimes it is the partner, sometimes it is the daughter, sometimes it is the son-in-law, but it is continual, it goes on and it goes on.

We have elderly people who are being warehoused in hospital beds waiting for a space in a long-term care facility. We have people who are warehoused in beds waiting for home-care. We have people who start off in hospital and who, if they were able to go home from hospital with home care, would probably manage fine, but as they wait in hospital beds they are deteriorating and they get to a point where they no longer are able to go home, even if home care were available, because they have deteriorated both physically and mentally. As I said, sometimes they are waiting in order to leave to have a place to go, and sometimes they are waiting because of the fact that they are waiting on surgery but they are too sick to be sent home so they are kept in hospital waiting for surgery, and surgeries get delayed and surgeries get delayed. Sometimes these people are in hospital in St. John's, or in hospital in Corner Brook, or one of the other centres, with their family members hours away, not able to be there to visit them, not able to be there to make sure that they are being taken care of. It goes on and on.

We have areas in the Province like the Burin-Marystown area where there is no long-term care facility for people needing the highest level of care. We recently had the Marystown Mayor Sam Synard and FFAW President Allan Moulton present publicly to the media their concern because the large community they live in – that whole Burin-Marystown area – has no long-term care facility for the higher level of care that is required. If people cannot get into the Grand Bank facility, and that facility is limited, they have to go to St. John's or Corner Brook or other places. That is not good enough.

We all know how hard it is if you live on the Burin Peninsula to get to Corner Brook or even to go to Clarenville – Clarenville would actually be the shortest place for them to get to. It is not easy to get from the boot of that peninsula to other parts of the Province. When somebody has to leave their home, their families are put in a terrible situation of concern for their loved one who is in a facility so far away from home.

What is really bothering me is that we have been promised, for almost two years now, that this government is going to come up with a long-term care strategy and plan. We are still waiting for that strategy and plan. I would hope during this debate here in the House, in this Interim Supply debate that we are having, that I may get more information from the Minister of Health and Community Services with regard to the home care plan. What kind of a vision are they going to come up with? The consultations on long-term care ended, in August I think they ended, and we still do not have a plan; we have no vision. I did not get a sense from the Throne Speech on Monday that there is a finished plan yet. I am really concerned because there is urgency around this issue. It is actually life and death urgency around this issue. I do know Muskrat Falls is very important to the government, we know that. The Throne Speech was headed off with Muskrat Falls, and that is fine and dandy, but I am really concerned about the here and now and the people who are not being serviced in this Province; people who are sick, people who are elderly, and people who are getting sicker because they are not being taken care of. I want to know what the plan for those people is.

For example, if you look at a province like Manitoba, who already had a good long-term care plan which includes home care as part of their plan, they are into revision. They are continually revising their plans and continually improving what they have. It has recently renewed its long-term care plan with $16 million new dollars over two years to add more home care and they have a good home care program, and a new $295 per month allowance to make supportive housing more affordable for lower-income seniors. This is being piloted this spring, and I guess they will be looking at it to see how much this monthly allowance is going to help lower-income seniors. They are looking at seniors who might otherwise go into a personal care home, but if they have more money can actually stay out of a personal care home. They are going to look at their plan, give it a try, pilot it, and see how it works.

In supportive housing, which they really have a lot of in Manitoba, residents have their own apartment within a group community setting with access to meals, housekeeping services, personal care, and twenty-four hour on-site support. Now, we have those kinds of facilities here in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they are in the private sector where they are run for profit by private owners. An awful lot of people cannot afford those kinds of supportive home settings. It is quite possible that the allowance that the Manitoba government is looking at might allow people to move into a private type setting, but they also have public settings where people can get this supportive housing which is so important. We have some of that in the Province but we do not have it in any kind of a big way.

This past week, the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy developed a planning tool to help authorities decide who should be receiving care in supportive housing or in a personal care home. The long-term care modifications also include a new program of intensive rehabilitation support for elderly patients who have had a recent injury or decline in health. They have so much for the elderly, for people who have disabilities because of illness or because of injuries; they have so much they make us look like we are in the Dark Ages here in this Province. It is very, very concerning. I just do not understand how this government moves so slowly when we have the resources to start putting things in place. The snail's pace at which we are moving around the issues around health care and around long-term care and home care is really driving me crazy and it is really tormenting people out there. The people I hear from just do not understand it either. When are things going to improve, they ask me? When are things going to improve?

I had somebody say to me that his experience of being here in Newfoundland, in one of these areas, is that we are about twenty years behind the times from where he came from in Canada. That is how I feel when I read what is happening in a place like Manitoba. When I see that things are going on in Manitoba and Ontario around care for the elderly I feel we are twenty years behind, and when are we going to catch up? We have the resources to do it now, why aren't we using the resources to take care of people?

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Chair, the minister can stand there when he has his own time and tell me what he has to say. He does not have to shout at me while I am presenting.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I do not like the way I was just spoken to right now and the minister was not recognized.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: I am very happy to sit down when I am asked by the Chair to do so, not when I am shouted at by somebody else from across the room.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, over the last period of years we have made significant investments in long-term care and personal care home facilities in this Province. We have made significant investments in home care. Mr. Chair, we even made significant investments in the health care system as a whole. I do not know whether to be disappointed or offended when I hear the kinds of comments come out of the mouth of the Leader of the New Democratic Party this afternoon. To say that this Province is twenty years behind the times and to say it two days in a row shows the attitude or reflects the attitude of this particular member and or her party.

Mr. Chair, just let me take you through a number of the things that we have done in this Province in the last number of years. I heard the Member for Port de Grave speak earlier and he spoke about the facility that is being built in our area for long-term care. Mr. Chair, in 2003 we inherited as a government, a very significant financial deficit and a very significant debt situation. We had to determine priorities and look at the priorities that we could identify.

These are some of the things that we have done in terms of long-term care, Mr. Chair. I will just talk about long-term care for a second. We have spent over $256 million in long-term care and home care over the last seven years; $68.5 million for the completion of a new 236-bed long-term care facility and four protective community residences in Corner Brook. I say to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is that doing nothing?

MR. MARSHALL: No, Sir.

MR. KENNEDY: Twenty-two million dollars for the completion of a new forty-four bed long-term care home in Clarenville. I say to my colleague, the Minister of Environment, is that doing nothing? Is that not addressing the needs of the people of this Province? Twenty million dollars for the completion of a fifty bed long-term care facility in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Tell the Minister of Labrador Affairs we are not doing anything for the people in his area. We have already started construction on a $90 million, twenty-eight bed facility in Labrador West; fourteen long-term care beds. Again, that sounds like we are doing nothing.

A new regional hospital was started in Corner Brook, but I will stick with long-term care; $8 million to start construction of a new long-term care facility in Lewisporte; $4 million to begin the development of a new 250-bed long-term care facility in Carbonear, that will be $108 million it will cost. I say to the Member for Harbour Main, is that doing nothing? One-point-seven million dollars for a new protective care community residence in Bonavista. Mr. Chair, we have spent $103 million in home support personal care homes and homes. The personal care subsidies, Mr. Chair, we have increased from $1,112 in 2004 to $1,717; $20 million increased to personal care home subsidies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is that doing nothing? Mr. Chair, nursing homes and long-term care, we have spent $122.6 million. Home support, which we are in the Dark Ages according to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi we are in the Dark Ages with home support; $90.85 million I say to you we have spent. Money does not grow on trees, I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Chair, when we look at base funding to run all of these facilities, everything we are doing, $131 million; one-time funding, $125 million; $256 million in long-term care, personal care homes and home care. That is doing nothing.

Now, Mr. Chair, let's just look at what we are doing in the rural areas of the Province because in Burin - I see that the Minister of Fisheries is over there. Are we doing nothing on the Burin Peninsula, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, when it comes to health facilities and everything else? There is an announcement there tomorrow.

Now, let's look at some of the things that we have done in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The last summer alone, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North: $1.28 million for the hospital for repairs and renovations in St. Anthony; $568,000 for the Notre Dame Memorial Health Centre; $502,000 for the Blue Crest Nursing Home in Grand Bank. I say to the member opposite: Is that doing nothing? Mr. Chair, $450,000 for the Bay St. George Long Term Care Centre; $300,000 for the New World Island health care facility; $260,000 for repairs on the roof at the Connaigre Peninsula Health Centre.

The list goes on and on, Mr. Chair, quite to the point where - and I know that earlier today the Opposition House Leader talked about some of these smaller areas in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We went into the Connaigre Peninsula, Mr. Chair; $190,000 to renovate clinics in Gaultois, Hermitage and Mose Ambrose. Mr. Chair, we went into Lourdes $150,000 to repair the clinic in Lourdes. We went to Jeffrey's; we were going to spend $300,000 to improve a clinic but when we looked at it we spent another $150,000 and we decided to build a new clinic. Is this giving up on our rural areas? Is this, Mr. Chair, not investing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Chair, we went to Trepassey, there was a full room and we announced $100,000 for Nurse Abernathy Health Centre. Mr. Chair, the people there were so happy because it was not the amount of money. What we were saying to the people of Trepassey is we know you need health care; we respect the fact that you need health care, we recognize your needs, and that is why we are here.

We went to Buchans, Mr. Chair, and in Buchans again it was not the amount of money that we were investing, it was the message to the people of Buchans. We are not closing you down; we would not be putting money into this system if we were closing you down.

Mr. Chair, I can continue to go on. The Member for The Straits & White Bay North, $1.5 million for a new CT scanner - excuse me, to replace the existing CT scanner. Mr. Chair, X-ray units for Port Saunders, Burgeo, St. Anthony, Forteau, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

So, Mr. Chair, what we are doing is looking at rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are looking at the health care needs of our seniors. We are looking at the health care needs of our people. We recognize, Mr. Chair, that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is the basis of our society and we have to provide our seniors with the health care services that they need and require.

Do you know something else, Mr. Chair? The Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector will tell you this: The groups out there that are doing the most to help themselves are our seniors. What we are doing, Mr. Chair, as a group, as a Province, as a government, is we are saying: Here, help yourselves, be healthy. Get out there and walk. Eat properly.

Recently we were out – it is unbelievable – to a gathering, Mr. Chair, with the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group, a phenomenal group in terms of the activities they do. Mr. Chair, $1,000 to one of these seniors groups and what they can do with it in terms of contributing to their own health is absolutely amazing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: This is a government that, according to the Leader of the NDP, is doing nothing. This is a government, Mr. Chair, that lives in a Province, according to the NDP, that is twenty years behind the times, that we are in the Dark Ages, Mr. Chair. Those are shameful and offensive comments and it speaks loudly to the people of this Province how she views our people.

What we do as a government, Mr. Chair, as the Minister of Education said earlier today, is look at a positive approach. This Province is growing, this Province is a happening place, Mr. Chair, and our seniors are a happening group of people. They are contributing to their own health.

So, Mr. Chair, what we are doing is we are investing in our children and we are investing in our future, but one of the things you have to have is infrastructure. What we have done – and again, I will give you some of these numbers. To the member who thinks we are living in the Dark Ages, listen to some of these numbers: In Budget 2010, $2.7 billion, an increase of over $1 billion ten years ago. Does that sound like the Dark Ages, I say to the Leader of the NDP? Mr. Chair, $5.3 billion over the past two years.

Now, I will just summarize some of these numbers. Mr. Chair, again, if you live on the Burin Peninsula - I am assuming, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, that people who live on the Burin Peninsula live there because they want to live there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: I say to the members in rural areas of this Province, why do people live there? They want to live there. They love the areas in which they live and they grew up. It is the peace, the happiness.

Mr. Chairman, what they ask for in these areas are the basic necessities, but we go over and above that, Mr. Chairman, I say to you. Of the $1 billion in the ongoing infrastructure projects, $800 million is allocated for projects outside St. John's, $71 million in the last two years for repairs and renovations, more than $50 million invested in health care facilities outside of St. John's. Does this sound like a government that is doing nothing for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I talked about it earlier today: dialysis services, $140 million spent in dialysis services. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Leader of the Third Party, you go to any province in this country and you find these kinds of numbers spent on a per capita basis, and come back to me and then tell us we are living in the dark ages. Mr. Chairman, we have CT machines outside this Province that are the equivalent of the ones that we are using in St. John's. We have long-term care facilities that are as modern, Mr. Chairman, as what you will find anywhere in this country. We have new hospitals being built: Labrador West, a new health centre in Flowers Cove, a new hospital in Corner Brook, a replacement, at some point, Mr. Chairman, new hospitals in St. John's, $30 million renovation in Grand Falls, James Paton. Mr. Chairman, the list goes on and on.

When I hear these kinds of comments today, Mr. Chairman, it makes me mad, it makes me mad as a Newfoundlander and Labradorian that the Leader of the NDP does not have the confidence in our people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - does not have the confidence in our people to say that we are moving forward and we will continue to move forward, that as a people, we are a strong people and we will survive. To say that we live in the dark ages, Mr. Chairman, is something – in three years, with all of the bantering back and forth, and with all of the tough questions being asked, I have to say that is the single most offensive comment that I have heard yet. For members who have been here longer than me, I am sure that they have not heard many comments as disparaging as that. It is disparaging on our culture, Mr. Chairman, it is disparaging on us as a people because we have, as a government, fought strongly for our people. We believe – whether we are on that side of the House, or on this side of the House – in what we can do as a people.

Mr. Chairman, what we have – when you look at the numbers – is a government that believes in our people. Do you know something, Mr. Chairman? It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said about the Leader of the NDP.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Assistant Deputy Speaker.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Later today.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, report received and adopted.

Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it being close to 5:30 p.m., and the fact that we will sit this evening, I move that the House recess from 5:30 p.m. until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House is now recessed until 7:00 p.m.


March 24, 2011                     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLVI  No. 4A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will return to Order 1, Committee of Supply, resolution and Bill 2, respecting the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House enter into a Committee of Supply, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few more words with regard to Interim Supply. I guess a lot of people in the general public tonight are wondering, maybe, what is the House of Assembly doing open at night. Usually when we have been here in the evenings, it has been as a result of maybe some emergency debate or some major piece of legislation that we have dealt with in the past. Of course, it also involves having enough time to properly debate the bills that are before the House.

The bill that is before the House of Assembly right now is the bill that deals with Interim Supply. That is, of course, where the government is requesting, in advance of March 31, a certain amount of funding to get them through until the official Budget is dropped and actually passed in the House. Normally, that is about one-third, roughly, of what the annual Budget will be. It allows all parties in the House to have an opportunity to discuss the Interim bill itself, because when you are dealing with Interim Supply, you are dealing with money bills - money, the taxpayers' dollar. That, of course, hits every single person in this Province when it comes to how is this government using their money, what are they doing with it, is it properly being spent. You have very, very, wide latitude as to what you can question, pose to the government, ask them about, and so on. It is important because people like to know.

A lot of people listen to open lines. A lot of people watch TV, listen to the news in the evenings, and get their source of information from the media. This is the upfront, personal opportunity for the public to see what their members are saying, what they are asking about, and to get some idea as to how it might impact them. It is great, of course. In the evening, a lot of people do not get that opportunity. A lot of people are working by day so they do not get an opportunity to see the House of Assembly and its members in action and what they do or do not talk about.

As I say, you can touch just about any topic because every topic in a person's life in this Province, pretty well, is impacted by what a government does. Whether it is a law that impacts your driving or the age that you have to be to drink, what the occupational health and safety rules might be, or the different programs that the government has to assist people, this is where it all gets made. This is where it all gets talked about and discussed the merits of it, whether it is good or whether it is bad. So that allows the public that opportunity.

We each get a very brief time. We only get about ten minutes and then it usually switches back and forth. You get as many opportunities as you like to do that, of course, back and forth. The first issue I would like to address tonight is the comments being made by the government with respect to what the Opposition's role is when it comes to major initiatives in this Province, such as the Muskrat Falls deal.

Now, everybody in this Province has heard, no doubt, in the last four or five months about Muskrat Falls. Certainly, every member of the government has heard about it and every member of the Opposition. We have had briefings from Nalcor, which is the government-owned energy corporation which is doing the logistics, we say, the engineering piece, the financing piece, and putting the proposal together. Of course, that is one arm of it. That is the deliverer, the implementer, of what the government's policy is going to be with respect to energy projects in this Province in the future. They are funded, of course, by government.

The role of an Opposition is not just to criticize and say that something is good or bad just because you are in Opposition. The major responsibility of someone in Opposition is to ask legitimate questions of the government so that the public can determine, not me as just an Opposition member but so that the government members even can be made aware. I am sure there are facts that I do not know about Muskrat Falls yet, and I am sure there are facts that government members do not know about Muskrat Falls yet. I am sure there are people in the public who do not know many of the details about Muskrat Falls yet. This is an opportunity to put some of that information out there, to flesh it out, to ask the government what you mean by such-and-such. What impact will this have for the public in the future? What impact will this have for business people in this Province in the future? What will it mean in terms of energy capacity? What will it mean in terms of your light bill? What will it mean for projects, mining projects in the future and so on? What is this all about?

At the end of the day, you cannot ram this stuff down people's throats. People need to understand what the deal is about so they can make an informed decision and say we either know what it is about or we do not. That is our role here, hopefully, a responsible role, to ask government to explain themselves when it comes to Muskrat, to provide some information that has not been provided, or we feel is missing. If there is nothing missing, sure the government is going to explain why it is not missing, but if it is missing, the people need to know why they aren't being told about that particular detail or that piece of information.

I have heard the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier in the last couple of days in this House in Question Period saying: You have no vision over there. You have no vision in the Opposition because you dare to ask questions. You do not understand it, they say, and you do not want to understand it. That is a pretty easy defensive tactic to take when you slough off your responsibility to explain to the public of this Province what such a major deal is. That is a pretty defensive attitude and people look at that first and foremost and say: Why are they saying these people should not be asking these questions? Particularly if it is legitimate questions, because most of us here, all of us here I would think, were born before 1968 or 1969 and probably one of the greatest tragedies we have had in this Province is what happened back in 1968 and 1969 and I am referring, of course, to the Upper Churchill deal.

Now, the Muskrat Falls piece was part of the Lower Churchill deal, or what was anticipated to be the Lower Churchill, and we all know what happened in 1969. The Premier of the day cut a deal, the parties involved cut a deal to flood the Upper Churchill, made a power contract with Quebec, and the people of this Province are living with the terms and conditions of that contract to this day and will continue to live with that contract until 2042. Guess what, folks? Not a single person, not a single Member of the House of Assembly, rose when that matter came before the House of Assembly, when that was up for debate back then, and asked a single question about it. Not a one. Not one person asked a question. So do not, for God's sake, anybody start suggesting that we should not ask the questions. Do not say we should not ask the questions. We have been down that path once before.

Now if, at the end of the day, the government - it is not about convincing me that this is a good deal, I am only one person of this 500,000-plus in this Province who needs to be convinced. There are some people who are going to like this deal. There are some people who are going to dislike this deal, but in order to come to that conclusion of whether you like it or you do not like it, you need to know the details. That is all we are asking at this time.

You cannot get those details just in a Question Period. You pose a question to the Premier, a legitimate question, about whatever information did you have to make an assumption that the energy needs of this Province are going to double in five years. The Premier looks up, in response, and says: You have no vision. Now, that is a pretty good answer to a pretty logical question, I would think: You have no vision. Shut your trap and do not ask; you have no vision, basically.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to get an opportunity throughout this evening, hopefully, to expound a bit more upon the Muskrat Falls situation, and where I think this government wants to take this Province, and why I think there are lots of questions to be asked. I will pose some of those questions, and we will see if the government of the day, whether tonight or over the course of this session in the spring, can provide that information.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is good to be back on my feet and have an opportunity to speak to the Interim Supply bill. As I indicated earlier, we do have some latitude and, obviously, we just saw that with the speaker who preceded me.

He was very defensive, I thought, very defensive and a little bit testy. He was saying things like we did not want to hear any questions being asked. It is quite the contrary, we welcome the questions. We are looking for all kinds of questions. As a matter of fact, we are answering all those questions. We are on our feet here in Question Period doing it. We did an Opposition briefing this morning. I went back to my office over the supper break –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKINNER: There was an Opposition briefing done this morning, Mr. Chair. I am not sure if they heard me correctly. I never said I was in attendance. There was an Opposition briefing done. Yes, I consider this to be a government project. I do not know if the rest of you do not, but I do.

It is interesting that they are very defensive about it. They talk about wanting to have information, Mr. Chair, and when you try to give it to them they try to shout you down from the other side. I do not know if the people at home can hear it. Maybe the microphones are not picking it up, but the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, and their two colleagues seem to be a little bit, as I said, testy tonight. Anyway, I will carry on and I will do my best to answer their questions. Whether they want to hear the answers or not, it is fine and dandy, but I will do my best.

As I said, there have been many questions answered on the floor of the House of Assembly, there have been briefings that have been done, there is information that has been posted on the Web site of the department, information posted at the environmental assessment hearings, information that has been posted on Nalcor's Web site, and information that has been tabled in the House of Assembly. Not once but twice, Mr. Chair, information has been tabled in the House of Assembly. So, to try to stand and say that government is not providing information is at best, I would say to you –

AN HON. MEMBER: Stretch.

MR. SKINNER: Stretch, thank you. I was trying to be parliamentary but stretch will cover it. It is a bit of stretch, yes. It is a bit of a stretch. So, we have provided information and we will continue to provide information.

One thing we are not trying to do, or certainly I am not trying to do as minister, is to try to convince people. What I am trying to do is inform people. I believe my job is to inform people, not to convince people. I have enough respect for the people on the opposite side of the House and for the rest of the people in this Province that once they have the information, they will make up their own minds as to what it is they believe should or should not happen. I am not here to try to convince people; I am not here to try to sell people. I am here to try to inform people and we have done that. We have put a lot of information out there.

Now, some of it they may not have read yet, which was evidenced by what was tabled in the House again today for the second time. They asked for something yesterday that they said they did not get. The Premier said she tabled it. They said: No, she had not. She went back and checked and she had. She gave the date today, back in December of last year, when it was tabled. As a courtesy to the Opposition, she tabled it again today. So, they did get the information. As a matter of fact, they have gotten it twice now. When they have an opportunity to review it, I am sure they will come back with some questions and we will do our best to answer those questions, no doubt about that.

I am not sure how many sessions we have had in total, but there have been many sessions that have been held in terms of the environmental assessment hearing. It started at the beginning of March, where there have been lots of questions being asked and lots of information being brought forward. As more information is asked for, we will provide that information.

The Public Utilities Board, there had to be a submission done by Hydro and Nalcor to the Public Utilities Board to make sure that there was information presented to support the case as to why we felt we needed to develop Muskrat Falls. There have been Open Line call-in shows; there have been lots of questions asked there. There have been lots of questions that have been answered through that. I have been on a number of them myself. I think I have been on all three of them, certainly once, if not more than once. A couple of them, I know I have been on more than once.

So, we have certainly tried to get the information out there. It is not a matter of trying to withhold information; it is not a matter of not wanting people to ask questions, we have done our best to get the information out there. As I said earlier tonight, during the supper break I went back to my office and I had some e-mails that I responded to from people. Not just on the Muskrat Falls issue, but we get, as MHAs, all MHAs in the House get e-mails from people on all kinds of issues, and we respond to those.

I believe we are being very open in terms of the information that we are putting out there. It is, I would suggest to you, a very complicated process, a lot of detail related to it. For somebody who may not have been involved in a process like this before, it takes some time to be able to understand it all. I would put my hand up if I were asked that question; it takes time for me as well. I have been in the department now since December, and it takes a while to understand all of the information that you are dealing with. One of the things you do is you continue to read, you continue to ask questions, you continue to look at the information that is being presented, and you come up then with your own conclusions as to what that information means for you.

In my case, Mr. Chair, I think it is something that we need to be doing. We have all the studies, as I said, that have been done. Those studies indicate that this is the least cost, reliable supply of electricity, of power that we can provide to the people of the Province. We have looked at other studies, we have looked at other generation projects that we could do, and they would either not supply the amount of power that you would need, or it would be too costly or it would not have the environmental benefits or would maybe flood and have too much environmental damage. So, there are a whole host of reasons why the other ones were not chosen. All of that was packaged up in the information that was submitted to the Public Utilities Board and to the environmental assessment hearings that are ongoing now.

That is why we have these public processes, so that people can ask their questions, people can see what the information is, people get an opportunity to look at the information themselves, to inform themselves, to become educated on what it is the legislators of the Province are doing, and to decide for themselves whether or not they think it is the right thing or the wrong thing for government to be doing, or to give feedback to government to suggest to them there may be other ways that they may want to move forward. I think it has been a very good process that we have gone through. I think it has been a very open process and there is still more of the process before this event will be concluded. There are still more hearings being held. We will continue to attend those hearings, we will continue to make sure that we provide the information that people are looking for, and we will continue to make sure that if there are any questions that people have about the information, we will do our best to answer them.

When people look at what it is we are doing, I think people would understand that it is important for the Province to be able to move forward into the future, that we have a development like Muskrat Falls. What Muskrat Falls is doing, number one, is making sure that we have a stable supply of electricity for the people of the Province. The Province's electricity needs are continuing to increase and they are continuing to increase for a whole bunch of reasons. Because of that increase, we want to make sure that we have enough electrical generation to be able to meet the needs, including the peak needs because there are peak times of the day when we are looking for information, make sure that we have enough electricity generation so that the peak needs are being met.

There is something called a loss of load, and I will try not to get too technical here, Mr. Chair. Basically, you generate more electricity than you need because you want to have a surplus; you want to have a bit extra. It is like a cushion or like a bit of an insurance policy, so that if something goes wrong, for instance, if had a generation station, say, catch on fire and you had to shut down that generation station, if you had a line maybe that went down, if you had to shut down for routine maintenance, sometimes you have to shut down your generation stations for routine maintenance. If something like that happens, you have to be able to have a cushion of electricity, or a bit of excess electricity that you can feed into the system and move around. You always have more being produced than what it is you need to use on a regular basis, but you do that because, as I said, it is like a bit of an insurance policy. It is just making sure that you have enough electricity to be able to meet, should anything happen.

With Muskrat Falls, we will have some excess capacity. We will make sure that we will meet the needs, first of all, of the people of the Province. We will have some excess capacity because of the creation of the generation station at Muskrat Falls. That extra generation capacity can be used to do industrial development in Labrador. It can be used to do industrial development here on the Island portion, or it can be used as a surplus that we would sell through our agreement with Emera out into Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or even into the Northeastern United States, then that revenue would come back to the Province.

All in all, it meets a number of needs. I have not even touched on the fact that it will allow us to wind down the Holyrood station. We will not need to invest in Holyrood. We will not need to invest the multi-millions of dollars that we are going to need to invest in it if we decide to keep it in terms of cleaning it up, refurbishing it, the scrubbers, and all those kinds of things.

Muskrat Falls, in a very broad sense, Mr Chair, will satisfy the needs that we currently have, will allow for increasing needs, increasing demand that will come from the customers already on the system and will allow for expansion to the system for people who may want to go on to it, be they industrial, or commercial, or residential customers. To make sure that we have enough excess capacity that we are able to meet the needs of people who are looking to come here, to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador, to continue to see Newfoundland and Labrador grow and to continue to see the people of the Province find themselves with economic development opportunities because of the fact that we have the excess power that will be generated by Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, I am mindful of the time. I recognize that my time is going short, so I will stop there for now and will hopefully get an opportunity a little bit later to get up and speak in a little bit more detail about some of the activity in relation to generation of Muskrat Falls.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just to continue where I left off here on the responsibility of not only Opposition members but government members to question what the Muskrat Falls deal is all about. This is a unique situation because it is not the type of situation that is going to get voted on here in the House. It is not a piece of legislation here which says: Do we or do we not agree with Muskrat Falls and forty-eight Members of the House of Assembly are the only people who get to vote on it. This is something that will probably find its way into the ballot box come October. It is probably going to be one of the major items. People are going to want to know. I would think that it is going to play a fairly major role and people are going to say: Is this a good deal or a bad deal? They probably will cast their ballot depending upon that. It is going to play a major role.

We have had elections like that in the past. I remember back to the Peckford days when he was into the sold the shop argument. The Premier of the day, Premier Peckford, went around this Province and that was the election issue. People believed in what he told them at the time and said: Yes, if we want to support a government that is not going to let Ottawa kick us around and take advantage of us when it comes to our natural resources, we are going to vote for the member who is going to be on that side of the government and is going to see that Premier carry through with what he is saying about how Ottawa is treating us with regard to our resources. It will find its way, it is not only important here.

I, for one, do not particularly care what the members of the government think of the deal because it is not the members of the government, the forty-four of them, who have to just live with this. There are the hundreds of thousands of people in the Province who have to live with it, not just amongst us forty-eight bit players here in the House of Assembly. It is going to be everybody in this Province who has to live with the consequences of this.

MS JONES: For fifty years.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: For fifty years, not a year. It is not something we are going to be able to say next year: Oh, we made a little mistake; we can step back from that and withdraw. It is a major, huge decision.

The minister talks about being open, telling people what it is. I do not think he mentioned the word Muskrat once in that session, and I am looking forward to the level of detail that he is going to be able to provide us as this debate goes on.

I will give you a few examples where this government, when they were in Opposition back in 2002 – I remember being the Minister of Justice of the day. We brought in a Statement of Principles here on Voisey's Bay. The Premier who just left, Premier Williams, I remember he was sitting over here as Leader of the Opposition. That was not dealt with at Rotary Clubs and Boards of Trade and in Question Periods. That was not left to the spin of government bureaucrats or speech writers to crank out speeches as to what is good about this. The Statement of Principles on Voisey's Bay was brought to the floor of this House in a special session. It was a major mining project for this Province. The government of the day said: This is so important that we should take the Statement of Principles, go to the House of Assembly, and let everybody in this Province, through their MHAs, have an opportunity to find out what this deal is about.

The Premier, who just left, Premier Williams, was the Leader of the Opposition at the time. He and I were back and forth on what was good or what was bad about Voisey's Bay. He went out and he used that in 2003 in the election and said: Terrible deal; giveaway. They are giving away the resources in that Voisey's Bay deal. He maintained that position for about seven years until one day I see in The Telegram and in a CBC report, he actually has a pair of work boots on up in Voisey's Bay and he finally proclaimed this was great for the Province. This was good for the Province. It actually creates employment up in Labrador. It actually puts a lot of money into the coffers of this Province in terms of royalties. We are on the verge of seeing, in the latter part of this year, 2011, the smelter start up down in Long Harbour.

That was one deal that was dealt with openly and put out there. Nobody had any questions then or problems with getting information. You asked, information was provided, and it was debated openly, not by company officials, engineers, accountants, economists, or analysts who could bamboozle you with fancy words and whatever else. It was dealt with in good, plain, common sense language. That is how it was dealt with.

This government did not choose to deal with this in this fashion. What we get is a fancy photo op down at the local hotel with the Premier bringing in and saying: We got a big deal on Muskrat Falls. That is how this was announced. This was not debated. To this day, there has been nothing talked about in this House unless the Opposition raised it by way of a question. That is the only way it gets raised by this government.

I will give you another example of a major thing that happened in this Province and how this government dealt with it. That is Fisheries Products International, the flagship of the fishing industry in this Province. We sat here three or four years ago. They had to come into the House on that thing because they could not dismantle it. They could not tear it apart unless they got rid of the legislation that made FPI exist.

They came into the House of Assembly here and the Premier of the day – and by the way, he is the boss. Nothing comes onto the floor of this House that the Premier of that government does not want on the floor of this House. Make no mistake about it, he is the boss. It was not the Government House Leader and it was not the Minister of Fisheries who decided if FPI was debated in here or not; the final call was made by Premier Williams.

Guess what, folks? We came in here with a piece of legislation to destroy, dismantle, and eradicate FPI. Members on the government side got up and debated for days and days about why we needed to pass that bill. Guess what? The last person to speak was the Premier, or the second last, I do believe. He got up from his chair and he said: I cannot vote for this bill. Imagine, the Premier of the Province who decides what comes on the floor of this House, brought the bill to destroy FPI here, and did not himself even support it. He told who else to vote for it, and sure enough they did.

I think there were a couple members who did not. One member who was the former Member for Baie Verte-Springdale, he was not voting for it. Nobody was going to tell him that it was good. He was a former Minister of Fisheries. Nobody pushed him around and said you are going to vote for this, and he did not vote for it. The Premier himself never voted for the FPI bill, but everybody else on the government side passed it.

Now come on, let's not kid ourselves. The people of this Province are not so gullible that they do not see through that kind of charade. This man is leading the Province. He is destroying FPI, which impacted thousands of lives, and he stands up and says: I cannot vote for this because I am not sure if it is the right thing to do. I am not sure if that is the right thing to do. Now, that is what Premier Williams did at the time.

I will give you another example of why we need to get into Muskrat Falls and what the people need to know about it. I am not going to get to finish it in the time I have remaining now, but I will get back to it, and that is Abitibi. I am referring, of course, to the pulp and paper mill that used to be in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I have told you about 1969 and why we need to ask questions. I have told you about how we dealt with Voisey's Bay. I have told you here about what happened to FPI and how it was not handled properly and who could not support it, even though they destroyed it. When I come back in the next session, I will tell you again why this very government and most of the members in here, if they are going to do proper due diligence to Muskrat Falls, should at least take the time and raise the questions. You do not just need us to ask them, the Opposition members, but for the sake of their own conscience and the conscience and the well protection and well-being of their constituents, they have an obligation and a responsibility to ask the questions themselves because your constituents are going to ask you.

When I come back after, I will tell you what happened in Abitibi and why it is so important; about why we should delve into Muskrat Falls as much as we possibly can.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Twice, Mr. Chair, he has been on his feet, I still have not heard him talk about Muskrat Falls. I have heard him talk about past elections. I have heard him talk about back in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. I have heard him go back to former Premiers. I have heard him chattering away over there about all the other things that he says are important, but the one thing that I think is really important is Muskrat Falls but I do not hear him talk about that very much. He is all around it -

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible) give me time.

MR. SKINNER: - but he is not there. He will get there eventually he tells me. I trust he will. I hope he does. We would like to have the debate, we want to have the debate, but he is not there yet. He keeps getting up on his feet telling us how important it is that we ask questions and that we talk about it, and then he gets on his feet and he talks about everything but. Deflection; why, I do not know, but that is what he is doing, he is deflecting.

He talks about issues becoming ballot box issues. Well, we have had a couple of ballot box issues. We had a ballot box issue in 2003 and we had another ballot box issue in 2007. We did okay with those. I am looking forward to the one in 2011. I am very optimistic that we will do very well with those. We have had a number of other ballot box issues called by-elections. We have done very, very well with those and I am sure we will continue to do so. If that is where we are going, I am comfortable that it is where he is taking us. I am happy to hear that is where he is going to take us. It is nice to know that he wants to go there. I think we will be fine when we get there.

We just had some stuff come out on the current Premier, some polling, the people of the Province giving their opinions on what they think is happening in the Legislature of the Province, the people of the Province giving their opinions on what they think is happening with their government and with their Opposition. I think the results of that speak for themselves. The results of that, I think, would show you where we are. Things are going very, very well I would suggest. The people of the Province, I think, are very, very happy with how things are going with this government because this government, I will go to it again, this government believes in the Province. This government believes in the people of the Province. This government believes there are opportunities here for the people of this Province. This government believes that we can be successful, we can create enterprise, and we can create all kinds of economic opportunities.

We have all kinds of reasons for wanting to be here and for doing things. There is more investment happening in this Province now than has ever happened in our past. There are companies out there wanting to come to this Province to invest, more people moving back into the Province than ever moved back before. We have reversed the out-migration that was happening and now we are seeing people move back into the Province. We are seeing the population of the Province increase for the first time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: We have seen the population of the Province increase for the first time in many, many years, Mr. Chair. It has all happened because of the fact that the people of the Province and the people who are interested in the Province share the same vision and the same confidence and the same optimism that the government members share. They are not over there with the Opposition. They are not back talking about the past. They are not living that negativity. They are not listening to that negativity. They are thinking about where they want to be tomorrow. Because it is where they are going to be tomorrow that is important to the people of this Province and they want somebody who is going to help them plan for their tomorrow. They want somebody who is going to help them plan for tomorrow because they know it is going to be better tomorrow.

We have shown them that we can do it better. We have shown them since 2003 to 2011 that we can do the job and we can do it very, very well. When we have been challenged on that, challenged in the sense of somebody marking their X, where they wanted to see this government go, they decided to keep us in these seats over here because they believe we are doing a good job.

Very shortly, we will be coming out with a new Budget. Budgets are always very interesting because lots of people comment on Budgets. I suspect that when the Finance Minister comes down again with another one of his great Budgets that he has been coming down with, the people of the Province will speak again about how good we are, about how good it is to be in this Province. About how good it is to be here creating economic opportunities, creating jobs for people, creating jobs for their children and their grandchildren, not having them get an airplane ticket and have to go away, as they used to do when the Opposition party were the government.

The favourite thing that people wanted when they graduated was a place ticket out of here, those days are long gone. The plane tickets now are saying destination: St. John's, not destination: somewhere else. Destination: Corner Brook; destination: Happy Valley-Goose Bay; destination: Stephenville. That is where they are landing to, Mr. Chair. They are not landing in Toronto or Fort McMurray or anywhere else like that, they are landing here. People are coming back here because they want to be in this Province, because they know this Province is a province that is moving forward very, very positively.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SKINNER: I know they do not like to hear it. I can hear them over there. Again, I am not sure if the microphones are picking it up. There is a lot of chattering going on over there, and you always know when you are getting to them, they go chattering. You can hear it going over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: There they go. You can hear it, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for striking a nerve again, Mr. Chair. I know they do not like to hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: My apologies, Mr. Chair, I am sorry that I am striking a nerve, but I need to say it, it needs to be said. People need to hear it, and I know they do not like it, and that is why they do not want me to continue to say what I am saying, but they will have an opportunity to get up when they want to get up. When they want to get to Muskrat Falls and start talking about it, we will be happy to engage with them on it, but if they are going to stay in the ballot boxes and they are going to stay in the 1960s, and they are going to stay in the former Premiers, they are going to talk about the past, if they want to do that, they can do that as well. That is fine, we are okay with that, but we would rather talk about where we are today and where we are going to be tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

We want to make sure that we keep moving forward, Mr. Chair. That is what this government has been doing. So, it is very important for us that we continue to move forward. It is important that people understand that the generation of electricity is going to be beneficial to the Province. It is going to beneficial for industrial customers. It is going to be beneficial for commercial and residential customers. I believe the number is 86 per cent of the new homes being constructed in this Province right now are using electricity as their source of heat, Mr. Chair. They are doing it because they do not want to be tied to oil. They know that we are going to have Muskrat Falls online. They know that we are going to have a ready, reliable source of electricity, a steady supply of electricity, and people are converting to that form of electricity. People are building their homes using that form of heat, Mr. Chair. It is important for the people that they know there will be a reliable, consistent, low-cost alternative, and that is what we are providing to them by building Muskrat Falls. That is why it is important that we be up on our feet and we be out talking to people about the benefits that Muskrat Falls is going to bring to the people of this Province.

Mr. Chair, not only will we meet the needs of the residential people in the Province, but I mentioned earlier when I was on my feet today about the commercial customers that we have, the commercial entities that want to expand in this Province. Whether it be commercial in terms of business parks, whether it be in terms of shopping areas that are being built throughout the Province, whether it be the mines that I mentioned in terms of the mine expansion that is going on, underground mining that will be happening in Labrador in the not-too-distant future, all of these things are going to draw power from the power grid. The best way for us to make sure that we have that stable, ready supply of electricity, least cost power, environmentally friendly, GHG reductions will occur because of it, that is why we need to do Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair.

The bonus to it is we are also going to have some excess power that while we are not using it here in the Province, we will be able to export it out and generate some revenue from that. So, it will not be just spilled water, it will actually bring you more revenue to the people of the Province.

All in all, Mr. Chair, I think it is a good project. It is very good that the people of the Province, I think, are asking the questions that they are asking. It is important that they ask the questions and I think it is important that we stand on our feet and tell the people of the Province why we believe the deal is a good deal and why we believe the project that we are proposing is a good project. The questions that are coming in are being responded to. The information is available, as I said, in a number of sources. We are more than prepared on this side to talk about that any time the Opposition or anyone else would like to stand on their feet and talk about that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I will go back to the issue of why we need to ask the questions. Now, the minister may be a bit perturbed that I have not asked him any specific questions yet, but I am just laying out the groundwork and the background as to why we need to ask questions. Most of it has to do with how this government treats people who ask the questions. I am just trying to make it clear tonight to anyone who is watching on TV that this government treats you with contempt in most cases if you dare ask a question. That is the sad part. The most secretive government we have had since 1949, bar none. We members of the Opposition over here, we have as much rights as any other member of this House. We have a right to ask questions and we ask them because the people of this Province have a right to know.

Now, I have outlined why we needed to ask and wish we had asked in 1969. I told about how the former Administration was open and accountable on how they dealt with Voisey's Bay, and how this government was not open when it came to FPI. I said I would mention Abitibi.

Folks, everybody in this Province in the last three years certainly know what this government did with respect to Abitibi. Everybody in this Province knows. By the way, that is not the first paper mill that we lost on the watch of this government. It was the second one. We lost the first one in Stephenville and then a short time later we lost the only other AbitibiBowater in this Province in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Folks, do you want to know how that happened? Members of the Opposition got a call about 12:00 o'clock one day in December 2008. We were told there is an urgent matter. You have to come up to the Premier's office. There is something very urgent. We were taken to the Premier's office and he says: I have to bring in a bill to expropriate the property of Abitibi, and I have to do it because I think they are about to declare bankruptcy and it needs to be done. So, we said: Why the urgency? He said: I think the reason is because they are going to declare bankruptcy and we are afraid they will make off with the assets and we will not be able to protect the workers, the town, and the government's assets and resources, the forest resources, and so on.

The Premier, with some officials there, gave us a briefing. Then he said: I will arrange a briefing as well. Guess who was gearing there as well. Guess who were the experts involved behind the scenes there. The same Nalcor with the same CEO.

Now, Mr. Martin, who is the CEO of Nalcor, is a very smart man. This person will be the first to acknowledge it. Guess what, folks? We all make mistakes. We made a mistake in Abitibi. Mr. Martin knows we made a mistake. The Premier knows we made a mistake. The government acknowledged after the fact we made a mistake. We made a mistake in one sense, in one regard, because we expropriated a paper mill accidentally. It was never intended that they take the paper mill. Yes, we wanted to take the forest resources. Yes, we wanted the energy pieces up on the Exploits. We did not want a filthy paper mill that had all kinds of environmental problems with it, but we took it anyway. What happened because we took it? Of course, it is still in the hopper now. Who is stuck with the environmental liabilities on it?

We have been paying for security costs on it ever since. We have been trying to get something to do with it and sell it. We even had the current Premier, who was formerly the Minister of Natural Resources, who had a German company lined up to take it over, who we find out they were not exactly top-shelf credible people. That was the first thing we were going to do, talking about stretches.

Let's not talk about people capable of making mistakes. We were told, as Opposition members, you have to do it, because if you do not, you do not have the best interests of the Province at heart. We took the Premier at his word, absolutely. Took the Premier at his word and came into this House and in an afternoon –

MR. WISEMAN: You did not do due diligence.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Environment who is over there saying we did not do due diligence. The reason we did not do due diligence, Mr. Minister, was as I just explained. Your boss, your Premier, told us that this has to be done, or it is not in the best interests of the Province. That is why, Mr. Minister, you will not get the same break when it comes to Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You will not get the same courtesies, I say, Mr. Chair. When it comes to Muskrat Falls, we will ask the questions because the people deserve to have it questioned. We do not need another Abitibi situation. We took the government at face value then. We took the Premier of the day at his word, and I am sure he did not deliberately mislead anybody. That is not what we are saying here. All we are saying is that everyone is capable of making a mistake, and a mistake was made at that time when we took the mill, ended up with the environmental concerns.

I am sure it does not concern the government members here. The government members are not too concerned, but the taxpayers of Canada, of which we are a part, subsequently had to pay $130 million to Abitibi. That is a little bit of a mistake. The fact that you did not have to take it out of your pocket directly, as a government, does not get rid of the fact that because of what you did you lost $130 million of Canadian taxpayers' money.

When the Leader of the Official Opposition asked questions about it, and she asked numerous questions about it in this House, what was she called when she asked questions? She was called a traitor. That is written in the records of this House. She was called, by the government, a traitor because she dared to ask questions about Abitibi. What are we on the hook for when it comes to environmental liabilities? Do not ask those questions, it does not concern you, we are not on the hook, we are not wrong. We did the right thing, you are not smart enough to understand, you do not need to ask that, and there is no need to know that. That is what happens when you do not ask the questions. That is why they need to be asked this time.

It is the same thing that happened - I will give you another example, and I am trying to show the people of this Province who are watching this that you have to ask the questions of the government because if you do not ask there is one thing for sure and certain, they are never going to tell you voluntarily. If you do ask, they will tell you are stupid for asking and you should not ask. If they do feel that they are in the corner where they have to give you an answer, they will spin it any which way they can and have to, to make themselves look good. It is not about looking good, it is about doing what is decent and proper.

The lady who is the Premier today of this Province was the Minister of Natural Resources about three years ago and I stood in this House as a member here and I questioned her for four days in a row about something that happened at Bull Arm where the President of Bull Arm, the CEO of Bull Arm, gave an untendered contract. I asked her for four days in a row. I said: It is not right. We have laws here which say you cannot do that. She was appointed by the government, it is not right. She stood up here for four days and said nothing is wrong, nothing is amiss, stop asking these questions. You are slandering that lady. I was not slandering the lady; I am asking a simple question. If the law of this Province says that you have to go to public tender, it does not matter who you are, you have to follow the law.

What happened on the fourth day? The fourth day the Minister of Natural Resources came in and said the CEO and lady in question is gone. That is how it should have been handled, but you should not have to dig and dig and dig because then it gets to the point where it is embarrassing to the government, when you are finally forced to admit that something is not right.

Now, we will get back to Muskrat Falls, but I think I have laid the foundation now as to why you need to keep the feet of this government to the fire. If you do not, they will turn the fire on you sooner rather than later.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I started this debate on Interim Supply - it seems like six months ago - I started with some commentary about the fiscal position and the financial position of the Province. The debate quickly veered towards another range to a lot of discussion on what is obviously a very important project for the people of this Province, namely the Muskrat Falls Project.

It is important to note that the Leader of the Opposition, when she spoke on the Address in Reply, talked about our spending, she talked about debt and the need to pay down the debt. She talked about the rate of spending, in particular, about health care. She felt that we were not necessarily getting enough bang from our buck in terms of our spending on health care.

The fact that we spend, in this Province on health care, more than any other province or territory in the country on a per capita basis, we lead the country. It is an amazing, amazing figure. A lot of it has to do with the fact that our population is spread around our coast. Unlike some places that have one major health facility servicing millions of people compacted into the same area, we have our people spread right around the Province and right around the Island and Labrador. For example, we have a hospital in Grand Falls and then an hour away we have a hospital in Gander. We have a hospital in Corner Brook and about an hour and fifteen minutes away we have another hospital in Stephenville. These certainly add to the cost, but that is where our people live. There is an obligation on us to bring services to the people where they live rather than forcing everybody to come in to one central site.

I just said that I heard somebody say it took an hour and fifteen minutes to drive from Corner Brook to Stephenville. I usually say an hour, but I am seeing Paul Davis, a former RNC member, and maybe it was an hour and fifteen minutes after all.

The Leader of the Opposition, in continuing with her remarks, said that spending was unsustainable. The level of spending was unsustainable. The rate of growth in spending is unsustainable. The key thing is that we have to spend within our means. That is one thing this government has, in fact, been doing. We have now had five surpluses out of the last six years. That means that of the money coming in, we do not spend it all. We are running surpluses; we do not spend it all, we keep some.

We are not a business. We are not trying to make a profit. We are not trying to earn a profit off the people of the Province. I always said that in a normal year I would expect that whatever comes in, we would spend it. I also said that when times were bad and when we had a depression or we had a great recession like we did in 2008-2009, that good economic policy in that time when the economy was not growing - the economy, in fact, was doing the exact opposite, it was contracting by 10 per cent in that year. Business slows down, they do not expand, and they lay people off because no one is buying their products. In that case, government has to step in and do the spending. Government has to create jobs and opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador families and businesses, and I believe in that. So, you run a deficit.

The federal government in Ottawa is also stimulating. They are lowering interest rates, they are doing things like quantitative easing, which is a fancy word for saying they are trying to put money into the system so that people get money in their hands so they have money to spend. Down here in the provinces, we have control over fiscal policy. What we do there is we spent more than we were taking in. We deliberated planned to have a deficit. It was a deliberate policy decision. Spend money to create jobs and opportunities because the private sector was unable to do it.

We were fortunate our economy has come back. We are running these surpluses. Having surpluses, we can use the money to pay down debt and we have brought our debt down from about $12 billion to about $8.2 billion this year. We have gone from having the highest per capita debt in the country, now we are the second highest in the country, but I think we are headed in the right direction. We also use the money to lower our taxes, to make our taxes more competitive, to put money in people's pockets so they can pay their bills, so that we can attract skilled professionals, especially medical professionals to come to the country. Also, if people had some money, they would go and invest, create new businesses and create new jobs.

The Leader of the Opposition, what she said and she nailed the problem, said: What are we going to do when the oil is gone? We are spending all of this money and some day the oil will be gone; therefore, we will not have the money to spend. What are we going to do then? That is the problem. That is the issue. The answer is to leverage the non-renewable resources that we have coming from the oil and that we have coming from the minerals and use that money to create a renewable source of revenue, one that will run forever, diversify the economy so you have a renewable resources.

I think of Aquaculture. When I went down to St. Alban's as part of the pre-Budget consultations with the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune and I saw what was happening there in aquaculture, it was fascinating. Instead of hunting the fish, you were growing the fish. I think I heard the Minister of Fisheries refer to it as farming on the sea.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would know, the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. MARSHALL: He certainly did know.

It is a fascinating industry where they have a hatchery and where they hatch the eggs into the fingerlings. Then they take the fingerlings and they put them into a land-based nursery. They put them in a cage in a lake. They grow the fingerlings into smolt, and then they take the smolt and put them in cages into the sea. It is just phenomenal. Then they harvest the crop and they have their own fishing plant down there, providing jobs and not just jobs for a few weeks of work, jobs for the whole year.

Hopefully, that aquaculture will expand around the Province, and there are certainly good signs. I understand there is a hatchery in Port Saunders and they are building a hatchery as well in the Stephenville area. So, this is good if we can spread this wealth around the country and provide jobs and opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador families.

That is a relatively small part of the economy. The key thing is the Lower Churchill deal, Muskrat Falls and ultimately Gull Island, because that will provide a project – and forget the Maritime Link for the moment. That project will generate enough income and enough revenue, first of all, that it will keep the rates lower than if we went with the alternative, which is if we just did it on the Island. That is the first benefit. So, lower hydro rates than they otherwise would have been. That is why you would do it. There is no other reason to do it than that, to meet your electricity needs in the future, and to do it at rates the people of the Province have to pay that are less than the alternative. So, that is the first thing.

There will be jobs for the people of Labrador. There is a priority going to be given to the Innu. The next priority will go to the other residents of Labrador, including the Metis, then everybody else.

There will be business opportunities for businesses in Labrador and on the Island from this major, massive project – a $6.2 billion project – consisting of a generation facility in Muskrat Falls and then a transmission line. One goes to the west. It goes from Gull Island to Churchill Falls. The other one comes to the east, down to Newfoundland and Labrador. That will provide business opportunities for businesses in Labrador and on the Island.

They will provide hydro to attract industry to Labrador. That to me is the most exciting part of the whole project that this hydro could be there to attract industry, which is now attracted to the emerging nations of the world because of low-cost labour. Now, we will have stable rates of hydro to match that. I think that it certainly augers well for the future of Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

MR. MARSHALL: How many jobs, Mr. Minister?

MR. SKINNER: Thousands.

MR. MARSHALL: Thousands of jobs, thousands of jobs.

Hydro for new industry in Labrador. It will also help us meet our green emissions reduction target.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: It will generate profits that will be spent on programs and infrastructure for the people of the Province. It will replace the oil and gas. It will eliminate our reliance on high cost oil from the Holyrood facility.

I know there is an argument about how much our system relies on Holyrood, but whatever does, does on rely electricity. We know what is going on in the world that oil prices are going to be higher, so the costs are going to go up. Most of all, it will pay for itself, it will pay the bills, it will pay the operating costs, it will pay the interest on the loan, it will pay the loan off and provide us with profits that will, on average - annual profits of about half a billion dollars a year, as long as that river flows to the sea. That money will be used to replace what the oil is spending. It will provide programs, it will provide infrastructure that will benefit Labradorians firstly –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: – and then the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is a great project; that is why we want to do it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Exactly for the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I listened to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chair, and it reminds me of a saying that we have back home up north, and that is: If you are any good at all, you can sell ice to the Eskimo. Well, that is what the minister reminded me of when he was up talking, because he was trying to colour-coat it every way that he can, in terms of saying to the people in the north, this is exactly the way it is going to be and all the positive aspects here are for you.

Let me tell you something, Minister, I do not know how many rooms you have sat in, in Labrador, as they were going through the environmental assessment panel. I did not have the opportunity to be in any of them, but I certainly had the opportunity to follow it in the news. I had the opportunity to listen to what the people of Labrador have been saying, and I can tell you that they are not all jumping up and down because there is going to be thousands of jobs. In fact, I am quite shocked that no one on the other side could tell you, while you were on your feet, exactly how many jobs that are going to be created by project.

Mr. Chair, I will just speak to this for a minute. One thing that the people in Labrador do look to gain from all of this, and what they are absolutely looking for besides the industrial power piece, because that is a huge concern for people in Labrador, the other piece of this is that they have affordable electricity throughout Labrador. That does not exist today. It does not exist today, and there is no plan by the government, and there is commitment by the government, to deal with it. Even, Mr. Chair, on the heels of this announcement being signed, the very minimum that could have been done was the commercial electrical rates on the North and South Coast of Labrador should have been brought in line with other customers in Labrador. That was not even done. Not even that little consideration, that little tiny piece that would have cost minimal dollars for the Province, not even that commitment exists there from the government.

I thought that was shameful. I thought it was so disrespectful that you could do a deal, and you could do it in the homeland of these people – the homeland where we all live – you could do that deal and you could talk about all the power that you are going to give to Nova Scotia, and all the power that you are going to bring down to the Island, and all the power that you are going to try and sell into New England, but all you could do was look at the very people who live alongside of this resource and say to them: We have nothing to offer you only jobs for four or five years. I think that is absolutely shameful.

When that businessman, who is just out there in Cartwright, is paying 19 cents a kilowatt hour today for power – double what anyone on the island is paying commercially; triple what anyone in Happy Valley-Goose Bay is paying for commercially – and you wonder why they are not jumping up and down and saying: Oh, what a great deal this is that the government has done for the people of Labrador. You wonder why they are not out in the streets parading, raising the flags, Mr. Chair. They are not doing it simply because they are getting nothing out of it. Do you know something? They are smart enough to realize it. They are smart enough to realize it, and that is what makes me so proud.

So, I say to the minister, and I say to his colleagues and the Premier as well, if you want to do something respectful for the people of Labrador, first of all, subsidize their power until you can give them affordable, cleaner energy in their communities and full accessibility. I have heard the people on the North Coast. I have heard the head of the Nunatsiavut Government talk about how they want to get transmission lines on the North Coast of Labrador. No wonder they do, Mr. Chair. There are mines in Labrador being run on diesel power today. Being run on diesel power right now, as we speak. Then you wonder why we are not jumping up and down. Voisey's Bay is up there being run on diesel motors. They want to do underground mining.

You want to talk about vision; where is the vision to bring the transmission line down to the North Coast of Labrador? Where is the vision to make power available for underground mining in Voisey's Bay? You want to talk about vision, I would like see that part of the plan. I would like to see the industrial power price that is going to be there for the industrial development in Labrador.

I do not even know why you, as a government, wanted to do a deal with Emera. I do not know why you want to give power to a Nova Scotian private company, Mr. Chair, so they can give it to the customers in Nova Scotia, while we can use that power ourselves right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why aren't we doing a deal that keeps all the power here, I say to the minister? We are going to pay for it. It is your government that is making sure that every customer in this Province is going to pay for this deal and pay dearly for it. You are already telling us you are at fourteen and a half cents per kilowatt hour now for your light bill. You are already telling us that we are going to shoot up, that we are going to have to dig into our pocketbooks, we are going to have to break our bank accounts, and we are going to have to pay for this deal. So, if we are going to pay for it, why are we giving any of it to Nova Scotia? Why is any of that power leaving Newfoundland and Labrador? Why isn't it staying here for industrial development? Why isn't it staying in Labrador where we know it is going to be used?

The Premier plays cute on words. Today she got up in the House and she said: There are 500 megawatts of recall power there for Labrador. Come on, we know the difference. We know the difference; do the math. Three hundred megawatts of recall power that is there now on the Upper Churchill, at least, I would say, at least; there might be 130 megawatts left there that you can use. There might be. The rest of it, Mr. Chair, is being used. It is being recalled every year, annually being recalled. It is being used to feed the mining development in Western Labrador. The rest of it is being sold back to Emera, which we are losing money on, by the way. We used to make a lot more money on it when we were selling it directly to Quebec, but for some reason, this government is attached at the hip with Emera and cannot give them sweet enough deals. So, instead of feeding it directly into the grid, like we have been doing for ten years, and taking the highest price on the commodity, we are now going through a middle man. We are going through Emera again in Nova Scotia where we are losing millions of dollars on that power every year. That is another story; that is another issue. Why you are joined at the hip with Emera I have no idea.

To play cute with words today, she is up saying we have 500 megawatts of recall. Three hundred megawatts of that recall – we are already using at least 170 megawatts of it, which leaves us with about 130 that we are feeding back in and reselling. Then if you look at this new deal that they are doing, four-hundred megawatts is going to come to the Island of Newfoundland. No problem, Mr. Chair. One hundred and seventy megawatts is going to Emera Energy to give to the people of Nova Scotia. We are going to pay fourteen and a half cents for it; they are going to pay a whole lot less for the same power. Do not forget, a whole lot less, Mr. Chair. Therefore, that is 570 megawatts. So, what does that leave us, Mr. Chair?

They are talking about transporting 300 megawatts at least over the line. They are looking at the sale somewhere. We do not know where because there are no contracts. We do not know where they are going to sell the power; they have been unable to tell us that. We listened to the Minister of Natural Resources get up and pat his chest tonight for twenty minutes and talk about how wonderful he is and how he is the centre of the government, Mr. Chair. How they can sweep the Province and convince them of anything that they want, and we are all this and more and all the rest of it, but he never once told us any details of this deal.

He talked about informing the people of the Province. For eight minutes – I timed him – for eight minutes he talked about informing the people of the Province and never once said one detail about Muskrat Falls, not one detail. What kind of information you want to give them I do not know. Mr. Chair, if you want to talk about how you are on the Open Line and how you are so great and how you are wonderful, well I guess that is the information that you wanted to put out there.

The issue is this: why are we dealing with Emera? If Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to have to dig deep into their pockets and their bank accounts for the next five decades to pay for this project. If we are the people who are going to pay every month when light and power sits a bill in my mailbox, why is it that I have to concede to give that power to Emera Energy or to give it to the people of Nova Scotia? Why is it not going to be used in Labrador for industrial development where we know it can be used, where we know that there is a take up?

Mr. Chair, it is all going to depend upon the rate, and the minister knows that. It is going to depend upon how much we can offer up that power to the industrial market for. That is really what it is all going to boil down to. I think the thing that galls me the most about this entire deal, and it galls me to the fact that no one will get up and talk about it over there, not one person will get up and talk about the fact that every other customer who will use this power, outside of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, will get it for anywhere between three cents and twelve cents a kilowatt; whereas we are going to pay fourteen-and-a-half cents starting out. Why won't you get up and tell the people of the Province that? Why don't you tell the people of the Province that if you do get a market, if you actually sign a contract, you are going to have to sign it to give that customer the power probably for half of what we are going to pay for it? Stand up and tell us about it.

CHAIR (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate the opportunity to get on my feet and to address the issue. I do want to clarify for the people who are watching tonight that this is about the issue that we are talking about here tonight, which is Muskrat Falls. It is not about, as the Opposition want to do, tearing down the character of the current Premier, Premier Dunderdale, or making remarks about the former Premier, Premier Williams, or dragging Mr. Ed Martin's reputation onto the floor of the House of Assembly and talking about him, or saying that people are stupid. They are using the word stupid, saying that people are stupid, or saying that people are being cute, or saying that people are patting themselves on the chest and building up themselves. That is not what this is about, Mr. Chair. Those are the words that are coming from that side of the House.

When they cannot talk about the issue at hand, they go after the individuals, that is what they have been doing, Mr. Chair. I am not going to do that. I am not going to follow down that track. I am not going to follow down that road that they go down. If they want to do that, I will let them do that. That is not what I want to do.

I do want to talk about the issue. I do want to talk about the fact that we can have industrial development in Labrador, and it is important for us that we have power available to do industrial development in Labrador. I find it confusing when the Leader of the Opposition gets up on one hand and says we should not be doing Muskrat Falls, we should not be developing any extra power sources because we do not need it. Then she says: Well, you should be doing it, and when you are doing it, you should be having the excess power kept in Labrador so we can do industrial development in Labrador. Well, that is what we want to do. That is exactly what we want to do.

We want to have power available for industrial development in Labrador. We want to have power available for the people on the Island portion of the Province. We want to have power available for the residential customers in Labrador. If we have extra power available after that, we would like to be able to ship it out through the partnership - the fair partnership we have done with Emera - to people in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, or the Northeastern United States.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is the thing we should be doing. We should be looking at trying to maximize our resources. They should benefit the people of the Province first, and then they should, if we can, bring it elsewhere to share with our Atlantic neighbours. What is wrong with that?

We have talked about maximizing the benefits. We have talked about the fact that we are going to use the power for our own needs first. When we talk about the people in Labrador, we have said that the jobs available in Labrador will be given to the people of Labrador first – to the Innu, actually, of Labrador first. Then the second in the list of priority for jobs would be the people of Labrador. Thirdly, would be the other people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then the people who may be in the rest of Atlantic Canada or in Canada for that matter.

So, we have already said that, Mr. Chair. That is the approach we are taking. We are trying to do this so that the maximum benefit of this particular project is felt in Labrador, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and benefits the people of the Province. That is what we are trying to do.

She talks about the recall power for Quebec and that we are now not getting the highest rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the speaker.

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chair, again, I apologize. It seems like every time I get on my feet, the Opposition gets all chatty over there and want to start shouting at me from across the floor. That is fine. If that is what they are at tonight, we will let them continue to do that. It is my third time being up in the hour that we have been here –

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources does indeed have the floor.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that protection. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I will try to get back on track as to where I was heading. Let me just find something here for one quick second. They talk about rates, Mr. Chair, where the rates are, and where they are going to be into the future. I have said before there are financial models used by all the electrical utilities in the world to determine what future electricity demand and future electricity prices may be. They are models. It depends on a whole bunch of variables.

Today, I can tell you what our rates are, Mr. Chair. When I look at our rates today, this is actually for January 1, 2011, when I look at the four Atlantic Provinces, guess which province has the lowest electricity rates of the four Atlantic Provinces? The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest electricity rates of all of the Atlantic Provinces. When we look at it, we are at 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour, taxes in. That is how we are doing today, Mr. Chair.

Into the future, when you put those rates and all of the expenses that are built in to running an electrical utility into these modeling exercises, all of the four Atlantic Provinces would end up with some figure down the road, into the future, depending on the assumptions that are used, depending on the variables that are put into it.

So, you can project out, but nobody knows in 2017 exactly what the rate will be, or in 2020, or 2031. You get a financial model that you input information into, and based upon a bunch of assumptions, you get a number coming out the back. Most electrical utilities do that kind of an exercise. The fact is that the rates we have today, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are the lowest rates in Atlantic Canada. That is the best thing that I can tell you tonight, Mr. Chair; 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour, taxes in.

As we move forward, there will be growth in those rates, there will be increases in those rates. Those rates will increase because of things like – and I talked again about variables – the cost of labour for those electrical utilities, the cost of capital refurbishment, the cost of maintenance, the cost of fuel – we buy fuel to put into Holyrood. There are a whole bunch of factors that go into determining what your rates are going to be. You have to get a return, the Public Utilities Board will allow you a legislated return. So, all of those kinds of things go into determining what the rates are going to be. We strive to make sure that we have the least cost, lowest rates available to us. That is why we want to do Muskrat Falls.

When we looked at the other options that were out there, in terms of generating power for the people of the Province, one of the things that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Nalcor have to do is make sure that they come up with the least cost alternative. The least cost alternative, as I have said before, is the Muskrat Falls option. The Muskrat Falls option is the best option of all the options we looked at. It gives us the power we need, it gives us room for growth to meet the growth that is occurring naturally anyway. It gives us room for power, it gives us enough power so that we can have extra industrial capacity that will come on to the system. We will be able to accommodate that, we will be able to meet that. It allows us to keep that cushion I talked about, or that insurance policy of power that we need, in case there is any breakdown, in case there is a disaster, in case we have to take a generating station off the system for maintenance or for some other reason. Muskrat Falls will give us all of that.

It will also give us surplus. That surplus is something that we can use to run into the Atlantic Provinces or into the Northeastern United States. The main reason for doing Muskrat Falls is to look after our own needs. Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, is the solution for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not the problem. Muskrat Falls is the solution. It solves a coming problem – that is what Muskrat Falls does.

Between now and 2017, rates are expected to increase without a Muskrat Falls by about 35 per cent. The rates in the Province through normal growth because of things like collective agreements, maintenance, capital refurbishment, and all of those things that I talked about are expected to increase between now and 2017 by 35 per cent. That is going to happen anyway and that rate of increase is expected to continue to occur into the future. The price of oil impacts that as well. I forgot to mention the price of buying fuel. Those are some of the things that will impact that.

If we do nothing, if we stop today and do nothing – sit on our hands and wait – the price of electricity will continue to increase. If we do not sit on our hands and start, which is what we have started to do, look for some solutions to the coming problem, like a Muskrat Falls, when we get out to 2017, when the rates are starting to increase right up and we put Muskrat Falls online the rates instead of going straight up like this, now start to go on a much more even keel, estimated to be about 0.7 per cent per year. That is how much of an increase as opposed to potentially 4 per cent to 6 per cent per year. There is a big difference, Mr. Chair, and those are just some of the reasons why we believe on this side of the House that the people of the Province understand why we need to do Muskrat Falls.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand again to finish the remarks that I started.

Mr. Chair, the minister is awful testy over there. He gets up and he makes a sermon and then when you challenge him on it he gets awful testy for sure.

He was talking about calling people out and I would like to get into the Elizabeth Matthews piece if you want to talk about calling people out, but I cannot right now because I want to stay on this issue of Muskrat Falls. I have to continue with this piece of the debate first, but you never know, before we get out of here tonight we might get down to all of the circumstances and the communications issues and how the Order in Council was sent out from up in the Cabinet room and everything else around the Elizabeth Matthews appointment. We might actually get to that in just a few minutes.

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I want to speak a few minutes more on the Muskrat Falls piece because I think my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, who spoke a little earlier, was exactly right – we need a full debate on this particular deal here in the House of Assembly and that is the appropriate way to do it. Not like we are doing it, ‘ad hocly' bringing in questions every day, trying to field information out of the government, walking back and forth to boardrooms with Nalcor trying to get information. It is like pulling teeth, Mr. Chair. It is like all of the documents have been locked down and no one wants to justify anything, they just want to make the statements and move on.

Mr. Chair, let us look at it this way. The minister says that Muskrat Falls is the solution and no doubt Muskrat Falls would provide for the long-term power needs in this Province. No one is disputing that, no one whatsoever. Do we want to see the project developed? We wanted to see a Lower Churchill development in its entirety for a long time. I have been a strong proponent of it for many years. The issue that we are drilling down to here is the economics of the deal that is on the table, whether this is the best deal or whether it is not for the people of the Province.

My colleague talked about when the Upper Churchill deal was done. No one in the Province asked questions and there was no debate. We have spent the last thirty years as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians going around, Mr. Chair, with a sad face talking about the Upper Churchill and how we were ripped off. Yet, there is a deal today on Muskrat Falls and you come into the House of Assembly, you ask questions like I did in the last two or three days and received nothing only insults hurled back at me, Mr. Chair, from the Premier. Nothing only insults from her. No answers to the questions that I was asking. No information, Mr. Chair, to back up what they have been saying. Just insults every day being thrown back and forth because you are asking a few questions.

Mr. Chair, we have many more questions to ask. Mr. Chair, first of all we want to look at the economics behind this and we want to look at where Emera Energy falls in the midst of all this. Why is this government so tied to a private energy company in Nova Scotia? This is the real question – so tied to a private energy company in Nova Scotia that they have even opted to do the deal on the winter availability and recall power on the Upper Churchill with Emera, right; with Emera. So they become the middle person, they now get a cut of what we used to get in full profit. Now we are losing money because we are doing a deal, or you are as a government with Emera. I do not really know why you as a government want to be propping up this private corporation in Nova Scotia. Now maybe we will get to the bottom of this one day. Maybe one day people in Newfoundland and Labrador will find out, but right now we are not really sure.

The other piece that is given to Emera: 29 per cent ownership on our lines. That is what Emera is going to get – 29 per cent ownership for the $600 million that they are going to invest. Well, Mr. Chair, I remember back in 1989 in this Province there were riots all across the Province because there were talks of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I was not in politics then, but I remember it very well. I remember the debates that went on. I remember people rallying all over the city and in all areas of the Province. I remember in my own district, Mr. Chair, at that time, as I said, I was not involved in politics, but I was one of the people who organized and led a rally against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Indeed I did, because I did not think it was the right thing to do.

Yet, today we are giving 29 per cent ownership of the transmission capacity that is owned by our Crown utility to a private company in Nova Scotia, the same private company that has become the middle broker for our power on that excess power in the Upper Churchill where they are making millions of dollars – millions – that we used to collect here up until two years ago or a year and a half ago. Now they are getting it.

So, Mr. Chair, why are we giving this private company ownership of transmission capacity in Newfoundland and Labrador? Was it offered to any of our own investors? Was it offered to people like Fortis Energy? I do not think so, Mr. Chair. I do not think it was offered to anyone other than Emera, to give them 29 per cent. Now, is that not a form of privatization? Of course it is.

Any assets that belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through that Crown corporation, any time that they are given out to any other private corporation means that we are privatizing, it means that we are giving a portion of it away. I would like to know why that is again. Why is it again that Emera is coming in to this Province and walking away with ownership in the transmission capabilities of our Crown corporation? It is a very good question, I think, and one that deserves an answer.

Mr. Chair, the answer is going to be because they are giving us $600 million. That is what the answer is going to be. They are investing $600 million into that transmission so now they are going to own 29 per cent of it.

Well, Mr. Chair, why is it they get to be the investor? Why is it they get to be the owner? Why is it a company in Nova Scotia is going to own utility transmission in this Province?

Now, Mr. Chair, let us talk about the free power. Let us talk about the free power for thirty-five years that Emera is going to get, because they are building the Maritime Link, because they are putting $1.2 billion in to build the Maritime Link they are going to get 170 megawatts of power free in exchange for that. They are getting 170 megawatts of power that they can provide to their customers, Mr. Chair, at a stabilized rate far less than what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to pay.

Now, where is the fairness in that? Where is the fairness in a deal that is done on a resource in Labrador that gives nothing to the people of Labrador, on a resource that is coming to the Island of Newfoundland where Newfoundlanders are going to pay more for it than Nova Scotians are going to pay? Now where is the fairness in that deal? It is a very simple question. Very logical question, it deserves an answer. People want to have an answer. They want to have an answer.

They also want to know and the Minister of Finance was starting to get to this but he never finished the answer, he never gave the answer, but they also want to know: Why is it that Nalcor and the government are prepared to sell energy into the US market for half the price of what they will have to pay in Newfoundland and Labrador? There is something not fair about that picture.

Now you can stand up every five minutes and say: This is the lowest cost energy that we can provide to the people of the Province. The reality is they are still going to pay more for it than Nova Scotians, they are going to pay more for it than the Americans, Mr. Chair, and in doing so, in doing the deal they are also going to allow a private corporation to own nearly 30 per cent of the transmission capacity that should be owned by a Crown corporation.

Mr. Chair, the speeches are good but those are three very simple, very logical questions laid out right there on the floor of the House that I hope that we are going to get an answer to.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, where to start? Let us start with the recall power, Mr. Chair. The recall power that she referenced earlier – she being the Opposition House Leader – the recall power arrangement that we had with Quebec was expiring. It was being sold at a fixed price into Quebec and we received a fixed amount of money back. Whether the price was high, the price was low it did not matter; we just received what we received. We knew that Quebec was selling that power into the market at times when it was worth a lot more than what we were receiving for.

When the contract was expiring we spoke to the Quebec government, to the Quebec hydro company about being able to have an agreement whereby when the market price went high we would be able to receive the benefit of that price. The Quebec government was not interested in doing that with us. We wanted that kind of a deal, we wanted to be able to fluctuate with the market forces so that if the price was low we received a lower price but if the price was high we received a higher price. At the time in the previous years, the price was very, very good, the price was very, very high and Quebec was reaping the lion's share of the profits from that. When Quebec said no we decided to look elsewhere and Emera was a group that said yes, they would be willing to do that with us.

The reason we are using Emera is because they have access into the US market. There are licences that are required to be able to bring power into the US market and they have that access, that infrastructure and those agreements in place. As the price goes higher and Emera sells the power for more, we get more of a return from it. That is why we are doing that deal. We wanted to maximize the benefit to the people of the Province. As electricity prices rose – and on spot markets you get an even higher price because there are certain peak times and peak hours when you can really get a good premium on your electricity and so we wanted to see the benefit of that. We are not looking at a one-year deal or a two-year deal, we are looking long-term.

The trend in the marketplace is that you will be much better off by going with the spot market – by going with the variable rate – than you would if you went with a fixed rate. We looked back historically over that and historically it was shown. We looked back over the deal we had with Quebec when I say historically. We looked back historically with the arrangement we had with Quebec for so many years before that and had we gone with the spot market over that period of time we would have been much better off, many millions of dollars more. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in our opinion, lost out on those millions of dollars by accepting a fixed price contract. We wanted to have that variable price contract moving forward. In the long-term we will do better by having a variable rate contract.

That is why we did it – to maximize the benefit to the people of the Province. We make no excuses for that, we make no excuses for making that arrangement. That is why it was done, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the power being sold into Nova Scotia, the Leader of the Opposition indicated that we are going to sell, I think she used the term for half of what it would be sold in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, what is going to happen is that we have two choices.

When Muskrat Falls is built and we have a generation station and we have a reservoir, we are going to supply our own needs. We have already indicated that of the amount of power that we could take, we do not need 100 per cent of it right now to supply the needs of the people of the Province. In actual fact we said we are going to use about 40 per cent of it. We also said that in terms of some of the transmission and access into other markets Emera is getting 20 per cent. So there is 40 per cent of that power that we will not need.

Now here is what we could do, and I do not know if this is what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing we do, but here is what we could do: We could do what is known as spill the water. You know how much money we get for spilling water? Nothing – zero cents. You would have all that water going out of the reservoir, nothing for it. We said: Maybe we should look around to see is there somebody who would be willing to buy this power from us and see if we can get some return on it. Instead of spilling it over the reservoir we have a market in Nova Scotia that could buy it for seven cents or eight cents or ten cents or two cents or whatever the number is, but it is going to be more than zero. It is going to be more than zero.

Why are we selling power into Nova Scotia? Why are we selling the excess power into Nova Scotia? Because we are getting something more than nothing, that is the bottom line. Whatever amount of money that is, it is a surplus, it is extra, and it is gravy to the people of the Province. It does not cost us any more to do it. We will end up making money off of that as opposed to spilling the water. Why would you not do it? It only makes sense to maximize the benefit to the people of the Province.

We have decided since we have excess capacity, since we do not need the generation of power that we can generate, we do not need 100 per cent of it, because we have 40 per cent of it that we do not need, we can flick it over the edge, let it go and get nothing for it or we can go to people next door to us in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, maybe PEI, maybe Northeastern United States and say: Would you like to buy some of this excess power? Every nickel we take back from that is an extra nickel in the pocket of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we would not have had otherwise.

That is why we are doing that. That is why we are going to sell that power and it may be less – it may be less – it may be more. We will know when we go to do that. In some cases, not in some cases, in all cases it will be something that will be variable because we will be selling it at different times and depending on when you sell it determines how much you will get for it on the spot market. In times of high demand and peak requirement you get a premium; you get a really high price. It may be two o'clock in the morning, when there is not as much demand, and you would not get a very high price. Whatever price it is you are getting, it is a price that is benefiting the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we would be crazy not to do that. That is why we are doing it.

Mr. Chair, in terms of some of the benefits, we estimate that 75 per cent of the work related to the Muskrat Falls generation station is going to be completed in Labrador – 75 per cent of that work. That is $2.1 billion to build that generation facility. We expect that there will be 75 per cent of that work happen in Labrador. We estimate that $450 million in income will be earned solely by people in Labrador, in Labrador-based businesses. Almost a half a billion dollars of income from this project will be earned by Labradorians and Labrador-based businesses. That is our estimate. We estimate that, on average, 1,150 people will be employed in Labrador from the generation and the transmission components of this project. That is an estimate, 1,150 people, on average, will be employed in Labrador from both the generation and the transmission components. So, 75 per cent of the work will be done in Labrador on a $2.1 billion project, $450 million in income will be earned by Labrador-based businesses and people living in Labrador, residents of Labrador, and, on average, about 1,150 people per year will be employed in Labrador from both the generation and transmission components.

The last point I want to make about benefits to Labrador, Mr. Chair – the last one for this time on my feet, by the way, there are many more that I will talk about as I get the opportunity a bit later on, but I am mindful of the time – is that first consideration for employment will be provided to the Labrador Innu. First consideration for employment on the project will be provided to the Labrador Innu. That will be because of the New Dawn Agreement that we have. Then, after the Labrador Innu, will be the people of Labrador, and then after that will be the people of the Province. So, the focus is on the Labrador Innu getting first priority and crack at the jobs. They have adjacency to it, let's give them the work. Then we will do it for the people of Labrador, and then we will step back and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will then be in line, if they want to do any work there, if they want to get any jobs.

We have told this story to the people of Labrador. There have been over fifty information sessions. We have talked about it, we have tried to get the information out, we are going to continue to try to put the information, and it is information that we think people will understand, people will support, and people will believe in. That is why we believe the project of Muskrat Falls is the solution, Mr. Chair, and not the problem.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a privilege this evening to be able to stand and speak to Interim Supply for a few moments. I am particularly interested in speaking to the numbers overall in terms of the government revenues and expenditures. I always sit with interest as the Minister of Finance stands and talks about the different incomes of the government and the expenditures and so on. It is something that has always intrigued me in terms of the numbers that we have to work with.

I have a lot of information that I have been looking at that has basically come from the government's own Web site in terms of breakdowns of the incomes. What is interesting to note is that the revenues, as we know in recent years basically from a resource revenue perspective especially, have hit historic highs. Yet, at the same time, the base revenues have basically remained the same. If we look at the numbers back from about 2003-2004, we would see that the base revenues of the Province were just under $4 billion. If we look at the estimates from 2010 and the actuals for 2009, we would see that the numbers were generally in the same range of about $3.9 billion to $4 billion. From a Province looking at the base revenue sources that we have to work with, they have essentially remained unchanged for the past seven or eight years.

I think that is significant to note because, as one of the newer members to the House of Assembly, one of the things I have become used to is government members standing and boasting about all of the good things that they are doing. I would acknowledge that there are good things happening in this Province, by all means. Yet, at times, it seems as though it is all because of the great things we have done more so than the conditions of the Province, and even items and things that have happened by our predecessors and so on.

I think it is important to note that what we have as base revenue for the Province really has not changed. There has been no significant impact in that over the past seven years. What has been changed, and what has fluctuated, and what is concerning for us going forward, as the Minister of Finance mentioned tonight, is the fact that our resource revenues have fluctuated. We have seen three or four good years. When we look at 2008, in particular, our revenues peaked in total at about $8 billion, then it went back down some in 2009, and in 2010 it is estimated to be about the same. The greater portion of that increase basically comes from the oil and gas revenues and business that we, as a Province, are so pleased to be experiencing in these past numbers of years.

What is significant for us, as an Opposition, to note is that, again, as we have tried to indicate and it is important to us that the information is out there, much of that revenue is coming from deals that this government really has not had anything to do with. While they have been stewards of the income from one point and that is good, it is not something that has been their initiatives. The income has not come from projects that they have put in place and so on, but really, they have been projects that they have inherited as a government. They have been a government, fortunate in that sense, in that coming into their time in office, they came at a time when the revenues were really increasing, and we have seen years where we went from just under $4 billion in total revenues to $8 billion and in 2009 back down to around the $6 billion mark. The estimates for 2010 are somewhere in the same range, but according to the Minister of Finance in recent media conversations we would expect it to be a little more as the year finishes out.

What is also important too and significant to note is that while the base incomes in the Province has remained stable and the resource revenues have given us that ability to do some extra spending, if you will, that we have certainly seen a lot of spending in terms of these past number of years by this government. If we look at our expenditures back in 2003, we see that we were at about $4.5 billion and in 2010 we were anticipated to be just under $7.5 billion. It is significant to note, in terms of a government, that much of that money is being spent on program and operations. Back in 2003, we spent just a little over $4 billion a year on program and operations, and in 2010, the estimates are just over $6 billion. It is significant.

There has been a lot of boasting about the spending and a lot of things that have been done and so on, but it is significant to note that irregardless of who would be in government if your revenues would double because of your windfalls then, really, that is good fortune and certainly something that you can be, I guess, excited about in terms of being able to spend that money. The question then comes back to: Are we spending it wisely, and are we getting the best bang for our buck, so to speak, basically in terms of where the money is going?

Some of the things that I noted in just looking at the numbers were - one of the departments that really was of interest to me, one of the ones that I am a critic for, is the Department of Education. We note that basically if we go back just three or four or seven years or so, again kind of tracking this government, if you will, from that perspective, we would see that the education indicators when we look back in 1998, really we can go back to then or back in 2003, we kind of see that the same - we have seen a decline for the past twelve, thirteen years or so in terms of our K-12 students whom we all know that, of course, we went from just under 95,000 students; in 2009 we were just around the 67,000, 68,000 number in terms of the number of students who are in school. Our numbers are in sharp decline, but what is interesting to look at is the budget that we see in the Department of Education. When we are looking at the dollar per student, if you will, education budget per student from K-12, in 2001 the numbers reflect roughly about $5,500 per student being spent on education in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Then, in 2003, we see that number come in at just under $6,500 roughly. It went in the last couple of years, in 2001, 2003, just roughly about $1,000 per student.

What we see in 2009 is that number has gone from $6,500 or just less than $6,500 per student to over $10,500 per student. To deliver the same programs basically in this Province, we have increased our spending on education by about 70 per cent. Now, I am not saying in and of itself that is good or that is bad, all I am saying is that is the amount of money that we put into the Department of Education per student in 2010 compared to what we put in back in 2001. We have gone from $5,500 to $10,500. Within a ten-year span, we have basically increased by nearly 100 per cent the spending in the Department of Education.

I guess the question that we ask ourselves is: How effective are we in the delivery of our programs and in the education of our students, and what are the benchmarks that we are looking for? What are we seeing in terms of graduation? Are we seeing better graduation numbers? Are we seeing higher percentages and so on? Are we getting back the return that we are putting out there in terms of our investment? It certainly is important for us to note those numbers. As a government, it is one thing again, as I said, to be able to spend that money, but the responsibility that comes with it, when we look at just that one department alone, to realize that we have doubled our spending and at the time, of course, the graduation numbers or the enrolment numbers have declined dramatically, yet we are spending such large numbers of money.

It is just one of the departments that I have interest in as I look at that. Mr. Chair, it is good to be able to stand tonight and just speak to that for a moment, and I look forward to the response from the Minister of Education in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess due course is here because I would like to respond to some of the comments by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

Education, we see education as the key to our future. Having an educated population will certainly assist Newfoundland and Labrador as we move into the future. We believe that investing in our young people is key. It is key for this Province so we can build the potential that we have, that exists in this Province, so that the Province of Newfoundland can also reach its potential.

There were some questions about the fact that because we have increased our spending, despite the fact that there has been an increase –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would like to be able to speak.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because we have increased our spending while there is a decrease in student enrolment needs to be addressed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would remind people in this hon. House that the hon. Minister of Education and the Government House Leader does indeed have the floor.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, there seems to be an indication from the Opposition that they feel that investment in our young people is not appropriate, or for some reason we have wasted our money by investing in our schools. So, I would like to outline what the difference is and why our spending per student has increased so much.

Mr. Chair, in 2003 we spent approximately $851 million in education and, today, we are spending approximately $1.3 billion because we believe our students are worth it. We talk about the increase in spending and wonder is it worth it, and should we be putting it into our children? That is what I am hearing from the Opposition. I want to say we should be investing in our children and in the education system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: The member opposite seems to feel that we put all this money in and we are not getting the results. One thing we have in this Province, Mr. Chair, is a 92 per cent graduation rate. It has also been noted in recent reports that we have made the most significant gains in graduation rates, and the most significant gains in ensuring that students do not drop out of high school.

In saying that, Mr. Chair, there is also a statistic that tells us that there is a 90 per cent pass rate on all the public exams that are written in Newfoundland and Labrador. That shows that we are progressing, but, Mr. Chair, what it also shows is that we believe in our students, we know they have the potential, and we will continue to invest in education so we can help them reach their potential.

Our total spending in education has increased from 2003 of $7,400 per student to $12,000 per student in Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a difference.

MS BURKE: What a difference is right. That is despite the fact that we do have declining enrolment. I think I need to outline where we have spent our money and what we think is important for our students in Newfoundland and Labrador. One thing we did, Mr. Chair, that the Opposition never did, is we provided free textbooks to all our students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: The other thing we did that the Opposition never did either, Mr. Chair, is we eliminated school fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: The parents of the students in Newfoundland and Labrador can now send their children to school, they do not have to pay for their textbooks nor do they have to pay for what we call consumables, or materials that they need in order to do the curriculum at school. Mr. Chair, that is extremely important. So, if you question our investment in students, it is because we feel that parents and students need to have access to an educational system that is affordable.

Mr. Chair, we also invested in a number of other areas, in Cultural Connections which builds on the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly introduces a curriculum that is so important to this Province. Mr. Chair, investment is also into musical instruments to allow our children to explore the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador and be able to express that through music.

Mr. Chair, another thing we have invested in with millions of dollars is new phys. ed. equipment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: We have also set up in our new schools what is known as fitness suites or fitness centres, because not all students have the ability or want to play in team sports, but everyone needs to be active and have a healthy lifestyle, and our schools certainly support that. The other thing we have invested in, Mr. Chair, is repairs and upgrades to our laboratories in high schools, because they were left in deplorable condition by the Opposition.

The other thing we have also done is we have invested, over five years, approximately –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: We have invested, over five years, approximately –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have difficulty hearing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Government House Leader as the speaker, and I would certainly appreciate the co-operation of other hon. members in this House while the Minister of Education is speaking.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have also invested, as I was saying, over five years, $13 million in the Skilled Trades and Technology Program. That is so important because we certainly see skilled trades as a future in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it ties into what we are doing with Muskrat Falls as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we encourage our high school students and, in particular, our female students to be able to access the skilled trades program, because they certainly need to prepare for the future. These programs are very necessary in our schools, and something that is beneficial. We have invested as well in the Jump Start with the junior high students from 7-9 to encourage them to look at the skilled trades program as they enter Level I in high school.

The other thing, as I had mentioned as well, is that we have invested heavily in new schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in repairs and maintenance to our schools. With the 272 schools we have in Newfoundland and Labrador – and I had said this earlier, Mr. Chair, as well – we have done over 1,400 projects, repairs and maintenance in our schools, and over $465 million in developing our new schools. So, when the Opposition questions why we invest in our students, why we invest, and feel that we are not getting the rates that we need, and feeling and expressing here publicly in the House of Assembly that our young people do not have the potential and we should not be investing there, it is absolutely shameful. Mr. Chair, this government will continue to invest in our young people and in the education system, despite what the Opposition thinks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. DEAN: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: You can get up afterwards, Marshall.

MR. DEAN: What?

MS MICHAEL: You can get up afterwards. It is not going to go away.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, this week, I have been in the House bringing up issues of safety in the offshore –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair may not wish to rise the Committee and report to the Speaker, but if I am forced to I will.

The Chair does now recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

During this week I have, on a number of occasions, stood and brought up questions of safety with regard to the offshore. I am very happy now that we are in Interim Supply discussion that I have time to come back to the issues that I have been talking about.

One of the issues that I raised was the issue of the helicopter that is used to travel offshore to bring our workers back and forth, the Sikorsky helicopter S-92 that is used by Cougar Helicopters. I would like to take a few moments of my time to give some background on why I am concerned and where we might be able to go in this Province with regard to the helicopters that we use in the offshore –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I, again, remind all hon. members that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has the floor.

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

I think it is important that I take the time to give some of the history because unfortunately information about what is going on with the Sikorsky helicopter S-92 is not being shared here in Canada in the media, it is certainly not something that I have found or find it very visible. Through our research in our office, and most of that through the Internet, we do know that information about what is going on with the Sikorsky helicopter is information that is available. A lot of it is found in the magazine Aviation Now and it is information that in the UK is very readily known.

After the crash two years ago of the Cougar helicopter, the S-92, we know that one of the reasons for that crash was the loss of the titanium mounting bolts - the cracking of the titanium mounting bolts. It was thought that changing the bolts from titanium to steel was going to take care of problems with the main gearbox because that is where the problem was, in the main gearbox.

After the Sikorsky went ahead and did change the mounting bolts from titanium to steel in the main gearbox, they notified the regulators that cracks had reportedly been found in the main gearbox assembly mounting feet pad and foot ribs during regular inspections of the main gearbox feet and mounting bolts. Because of that, Sikorsky then notified the regulators that because of these cracks they were recommending that the S-92 should be checked after every ten hours in the air.

That is what is going on, Mr. Chair, right now at this moment. The S-92 has to be checked every ten hours, after every ten hours in the air, to make sure that there are no cracks found in the main gearbox. Sikorsky has also said they are developing a new main gearbox to replace this one, putting them into a phase three of the main gearbox in the S-92, but that main gearbox will not be ready for a couple of years.

So, we have a helicopter in the air that has to be checked after every ten hours in the air to make sure that it is safe to carry our workers back and forth. That is what is going on. A lot of people here in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada, I do not think that we are aware of the fact that Sikorsky was not satisfied with the phase two main gearbox and that we are in the process of developing a phase three main gearbox. That phase three main gearbox will not be ready for another couple of years.

The other issue, which has been made public that we do not seem to know here in Canada, but it has been made public by Sikorsky, is they are not able, even with the phase three main gearbox, to guarantee that main gearbox is going to be able to run thirty minutes dry if there were a loss of oil from the main gearbox. I think anybody listening will remember from the reviews that have gone on about the 2009 Cougar crash that the inability to run dry for thirty minutes was one of the factors in the Cougar crash.

So why am I giving all of that history, Mr. Chair? I am giving it, number one, to point out that there is a lot of information out there that we do not hear about. One has to go looking for it. I am hoping that our regulator here in Newfoundland and Labrador and our government are getting this information and finding out why people are upset about the S-92 still being in the air. I have raised it here in the House. We know that a widow of one of the men who died in the Cougar crash is now raising it; people are raising the issue everywhere. It is becoming so important that in places like Norway and the UK, they are actually dropping the S-92 from their list, not using S-92s anymore. They found alternative helicopters to replace the S-92.

I am not going to go into a lesson about all of the helicopters that are out there, but I am going to speak about one. There is a helicopter which is called the EC225. It is sort of explained as a super, super, Super Puma helicopter. Now a lot of us know the Puma helicopter, we have heard about it, it is quite a wonderful helicopter. Apparently, the EC225 is very, very powerful and has a tremendous safety record and operations record. It is now being used offshore in the UK and in Norway, and is seen as a very viable alternative to the S-92. It is now preferred by some operators to the S-92 because of the problems that the S-92 has with the main gearbox.

The question is: Why would any operator continue to use the S-92 knowing that it now has to be checked after ten hours in the air? Why would you continue using it knowing that there is a potential for cracking in the main gearbox? When the main gearbox is literally the heart of the helicopter, it cannot stay up in the air without the main gearbox, why would we continue using it?

This helicopter, the Eurocopter EC225 is a long-range passenger transport helicopter. It was developed by the Eurocopter as the next generation in the Super Puma family. It is a twin-engined aircraft and can carry up to twenty-four passengers, along with two crew and a cabin attendant. It is definitely something that will really work in our offshore, just like it does up in the North Sea. It is marketed specifically for offshore support. We have a helicopter that is out there, we have a helicopter that works, we have a helicopter that is safe, and we have a helicopter that other operators are now using. It is part of the Super Puma family but it is also part of the Cougar family. Why wouldn't Cougar Helicopters be looking at this?

I put all of this information out there, Mr. Chair, because I really think it is important for people in the Province to know that there are alternatives. It was said in this House at one point, I think back in December, that there are no alternatives out there. There definitely are. There are at least four. I have chosen to speak about one in particular because this one in particular is now being used by operators going to the offshore in both the UK and Norway.

I pass this information on to the Minister of Natural Resources. I hope that if he is not already informed about this helicopter, he will make sure that he will start asking questions about this helicopter and start asking the C-NLOPB to start asking questions from the operators, from Cougar Helicopters, and the oil companies themselves. Number one, are they looking at the EC225? If they are not looking at it, why are they not looking at it?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am glad to be able to stand again and to continue some of the conversation I was having earlier about the Budget as it relates to the revenues of the Province.

It is amazing how the minister was willing to take the comments that I made regarding the spending in the Department of Education and make it into a statement whereby there is no interest in investing in our children, there is no potential. I am not sure where those words came from. I know they will not be in Hansard when Hansard is done tomorrow.

I want to say, I am sure most members in this House of Assembly, like myself, have children who have come up through the education system, who have gone to MUN, who have their degrees, who are working in this Province and so on. I am quite proud of that fact, in terms of my own children. I have served as a volunteer on school boards, I have chaired school boards, and I have a great interest in education.

I just say that, Mr. Chair, to establish the fact that I do believe that our children are important. I do believe that we should invest in their futures. At the same time, I do believe as a government that we should be responsible for the way we are spending our money. When we have increased our Budget from $5,500 per student to $10,500 per student over a seven or eight year course, then as an Opposition I will stand in the House of Assembly when I have opportunity and say: Are we doing the best that we can do with that money? I am not saying cut the spending back. What I am saying is let's make sure we are getting the best bang for our buck, so to speak, in terms of the delivery of education.

I have studied the indicators that this department and this government have put out that show us how children are doing in our Province. While we want to make things look rosy, while we want to make things look as though everything is great, I want to suggest to you that all is not well. If we are making improvements, that is great, but there are plenty of places where we can continue to make improvements in terms of the delivery of education in our Province.

Some of the challenges are unique to certain geographic areas; some of the challenges are unique to certain groups of students and so on. Yet, there are certainly great challenges out there. From an educational perspective and from the budget that we have to do that piece of the government's business, I would suggest it is important that we are giving the best that we can give.

I realize and we all realize, I am sure, that effective education in this Province is critical to the economic growth of our Province. If we do not educate our people properly, then how can we expect our economy to grow properly? It is important that the money we are spending, we are spending it as best we can. Again, I realize this government does not like to be questioned. They do not like to be challenged in terms of what they are doing in the delivery of their programs, everything is fine. Well, I want to suggest to you that everything may not be fine.

One of the education indicators by numbers, in terms of what is taking place when I look at the high school diploma graph or numbers throughout the Province – and these are figures that are on a 2006 Census reference. It shows that in our Province approximately 75 per cent of our children graduate with a high school diploma. Would I like to see it at 100 per cent? Yes, absolutely, just as much as any person in this Province.

Then, when I look at it throughout the Province and look at it regionally as it is broken down by the department and look at the indicators, the saddest thing I see, number one, is that my district, the Northern Peninsula, has the lowest percentage of high school diplomas. I am not suggesting that is because our students cannot learn, but I am suggesting it is because there are unique challenges to those students. There are unique challenges to the educators in that part of the Province. I am saying to this government and to the Minister of Education, are we looking at it closely? Is there a way to make it better?

The Northern Peninsula had 62 per cent in 2006 who graduated with their high school diploma. Let's compare that to the Avalon Peninsula who graduated 82 per cent with a high school diploma. If that is satisfactory, if that is okay, if we do not need to talk about that, then I suggest, Mr. Chair, we have a major problem.

It is one thing to boast about the money we spend. It is one thing to boast about the programs we have. It is one thing to boast about free text books, and we agree with all that. If I was in government and won the lottery like this government won it back in 2003, I would suggest a lot of things as well. I would be all there for equipment, I would be there for free text books, I would be there for plenty of program changes, I would be there for getting rid of school fees, and other things that had helped to run the education system through the years. No problems with that at all.

I also want to make sure that I am looking throughout the Province and realizing there are some very, very unique challenges out there. That is the point that I want to make. As I look at the department again that I am critic for, it is one of the departments that I watch, see how it is doing, and try to have some positive influence into from a critic point of view. It is important that the information I am trying to put forward in the House of Assembly is not misrepresented and misconstrued because that is what the government likes to do. They like to take the information that you are putting out there, the dialogue that you are having, turn it around, and make it all something that it really is not.

We have the lowest rates of literacy in our country, math skills are challenging, ‘high school diplomacy', and so on. The list goes on and on of the challenges in our Province in terms of education. So it is one thing to throw money at it and so on, but it is another thing to be getting the greatest return for your investment. As a government, as department heads, and as ministers that is where the responsibility falls on them to ensure that the programs they are offering and the programs they are delivering are the best they can be.

It is easy to look back at the mistakes of others, but it is time to look inward and say: Is that the best we can do with the resources that we have available to us?

So, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to come back to that for a few minutes, clear the air, if you will, and put it forward straight that I am not suggesting by any means that we should not invest in education. If we have more money to invest, let's do it, but let's make sure we are getting the best bang for our buck, that the investment we are making is giving us the best return, and more importantly that it is giving our children the education they deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Chair, I have been told to tone down my – when you see the Clerk come running, you know there is something wrong. No boy, that is not mine. Everybody is on high volume here this evening.

Mr. Chair, I was told by somebody watching it to not get too hyped up because my blood pressure might go up. I promised her I would calm it down. It is not my wife, it was my mother. Mother knows best and you always listen to what your mother says.

This evening I would just like to take the few minutes that I have to speak to – and as someone said they are just going to hear it on the fisheries and indeed you are. Mr. Chair, I think this is one of the best portfolios I have had. I say that because I thoroughly, thoroughly do enjoy it. The challenge of it, there is no doubt about it, there is challenge within this portfolio. It is so important to this entire Province, Mr. Chair, that I have been privileged to have served time in it and hope to serve in it a bit longer.

Anybody and everybody in this Province knows that our songs, our art, our literature; so much evolves around the fishery, the coastal part of our heritage and I can go on and on with that. This is precisely why this government has invested in the fisheries in this Province. There is no one – sometimes we seemingly think that the fishery is just a coastal rural sector within our population. I can tell you that anybody who frequents Leo's, Ches's or Scampers knows the importance of the fish to their diet. I do not think there is anybody in St. John's who somewhere along the way has not experienced a bit of salt fish, or fish, or any other type of product whether it be turrs or anything else that comes from the water. It is no trouble to see the line up for seal flippers and you will see that within the next coming month or so.

Mr. Chair, let's take a look at some of the things that we have done in the fishery. There is one thing I have always contended, that the future of the fishery for the youth in this Province is a good one. Sometimes I think they are deterred because of all the crises that seem to go on in the fishery annually. There is always something that comes up, and the open line shows become filled with it, the Fisheries Broadcast becomes filled with, the entire media becomes filled with it, and there is a negative attitude that permeates within the fishing community, which unfortunately sometimes negatively impacts – and probably some people will not go into the fishery who normally would.

So, we as a government have taken on the responsibility of ensuring that there is a future in this Province. We hope that we can partner with the industry to ensure that future is bright. Just take a look at some of the investments that we have made. Anyone and everyone in the Province I would hope knows what the Celtic Explorer is by now. It is a sixty-eight metre vessel that we leased from Ireland – and hopefully down the road we will have our own vessel – that went to sea – and we had it leased for twenty-eight days – they went to sea, many of our own scientists under the capable direction of Dr. George Rose. That investment we invested in the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystem Science. At that time we invested $11.75 million because we often do not trust the research that other people do for us – that being DFO. The second part is that we wanted to be able to get to the research doing some of our own research.

Again, going back to the crises that happen from time to time, managing the resource, and getting to that so that we can collectively, as a Province, go forward in seeing how we can get them to work with us, to better manage our resources, gets lost. It is often the last thing that is talked about sometimes, and indeed, probably should be the number one thing that is talked about. We have not gotten to a point in this Province yet, it seems, where we all become unified to deal with those types of things.

We have invested millions of dollars in the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. We have invested, last year, $200,000 to finish the Gecho II – that is a research vessel – for the inshore. So, we are doing offshore research and we are doing inshore research. I still hold out hope for the MOU, I truly do. We put $800,000 into that, and we arrived at a product that we have to take it to the next step, and will. To the sealing industry, we committed $500,0000.

Mr. Chair, I have to speak about the aquaculture industry. Anyone who has been to Bay d'Espoir and the Coast of Bays region – and the Minister of Finance was up there on Budget consultations. He walked away from it with a feeling that, boy, there is something good happening here. The people were very upbeat. For the most part, the people were upbeat about what is happening up there. I know there is impatience sometimes, but as we move forward with these things people have to have patience because we have industry and we have business people involved. These people take time and they carefully make their decisions.

We are going to be opening up there this spring an $8.8 million aquatic aquaculture health centre. All you have to do to see where the young people are coming into this industry, go and look over in the Petten Building. I am willing to bet you that the staff in the Petten Building has a younger population per ratio than any other department in government. If you go the Coast of Bays region and look at the number of young people who are coming into this industry, and the number of people who have moved away and are moving back to work in this industry, it just points to the success of that program.

We have put $10 million into biosecure wharves. The one in Hermitage is near completion, the one in Pool's Cove is near completion, and we will be putting one in the Harbour Breton area, we hope, and another one in Belleoram. Those two are in the process of being worked on right now.

So, Mr. Chair, between the aquaculture industry – I went astray there for a minute. I was going to say "quack", but we must be getting late at the hour. Between the aquaculture industry and the wild fishery, Mr. Chair, the future of the fishing industry in this Province is extremely bright. It truly is. Will it sustain rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Yes, it will sustain coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. Will there be changes? Yes, and we have to manage those changes together, that being industry and government. We have to get away from moving from crisis to crisis such that the image around the fishery is a positive one, one that young people will want to get into.

I will conclude on this: Yesterday evening, I spoke to a young person who is looking to buy a second licence. This young person is about thirty-four or thirty-five. I asked him what he thought. He thinks this year in the crab it is going to be a good season. He has the hope that if he can get another licence, then that will lead him to a more viable operation. There is no point in us talking – this young fellow sees it as a business venture. He is investing; he wants return for that investment.

This generation, there are many who are in the present generation of harvesters, and I will say those in the fifty to fifty-five-year-old and plus who have truly made their way and continue to make their way. There is that younger generation, Mr. Chair, who are going to come behind these people. These are the ones who will dictate the future in this fishery, and I contend that it will be a bright one, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (T. Osborne): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be able to stand again at this time to speak in response to the Minister of Fisheries and his comments. Sincerely, I want to say first of all to the Minister of Fisheries that as you attempt to restructure this all-important industry to coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, I wish you all the best. I say that sincerely. I also want to say that coastal Newfoundland and Labrador is waiting, has been waiting and continues to wait to understand what its future will be. As it waits and tries to understand what its future will be, it looks to this government to give that leadership.

It is good that we have investments in innovation, it is great. It is good that we are investing in fishery research. It is good that we are investing in aquaculture, and the minister mentioned the $8.8 million new facility that will be going up, and that is great. My concern is that in the midst of all that, we see that as the way forward for the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. While it is an important piece, while it is a new piece, while it is something that can be managed properly, invested in properly and it can employ people and it can have a return, surely we do not see that as the way of the future for the fishery.

When we consider the aquaculture fishery versus the wild fishery, if you want to call it that, then that is where the challenges are. That is where the lifeline and that is where the future for the coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador is, into a wild fishery, so to speak. One of the concerns that I have is that there is not much conversation about fisheries renewal, about renewing the stocks, whether it is the cod fishery that failed nearly twenty years ago, whether it is the shrimp fishery, or whether it is the crab fishery. Just ensuring that we have a sustainable resource and ensuring that we have species that are healthy, there is not a lot of dialogue about that, Mr. Chair.

That is a concern because someone speaking here this evening – I am not sure who it was and it does not really matter, but we recognize that the oil is not a renewable resource. I believe it was the Minister of Finance talked about needing to diversify our economy and so on. That is absolutely correct, but one of the greatest things we can do for this Province is to ensure that for decades and generations to come that we have a sustainable fishery.

We recognize there is no one in this Province who will not agree that there has to be rationalization, that there is overcapacity in the fishery, and so on. All of these things are well understood and accepted today. Also, at the same time they are looking to this government and to the Minister of Fisheries as he represents the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to the people, to say: Where is it that we are going to go?

The disappointment with this MOU process, to come back to that again for a moment, is the fact that the MOU has become confusion. Whether we want to use that word or use another word, it is not intentional I am sure, but people have thrown up their arms in defeat and confusion, saying: Where is it that this thing is going? It has created a lack of confidence even, I believe, in the whole process and a lack of trust in the government that they would take the industry to a place where there would be a bright future.

When the three parties, government being one, signed on to this process twenty months ago, fisherpeople, plant workers, and I am sure the processors as well and all who work in that industry, were really hoping that this was going to take the industry somewhere, that this would take the Province somewhere, that this would give us something to hold onto, something to really sink our teeth into, so to speak, and that would give us direction.

The information in the report is good information. There is nothing wrong with the information. The chair of the report, Mr. Tom Clift, as the minister has stated in the House in the past few days, did a great job in terms of preparing the report, in terms of putting the information forward and so on, and in the Throne Speech basically the government stated that it would be receptive to proposals for structural change. They said they would be receptive to proposals for rationalization. What we are trying to understand is where the limits are in terms of government. Where is that they are willing to go? In terms of investment, it is one thing to say that we are not ready to invest $500 million into rationalizing the fishing industry. No one is saying that is what we should do, but we are asking as an Opposition on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who work in the fishery, we are asking: Well, what is it that you are prepared to invest? The answer for that is not coming forth and I believe that is one of the things that is important to us.

Today as I was driving home for supper after the House recessed at 5:30, I turned on the radio, the Fishermen's Broadcast on CBC. I was listening to John Furlong and he was interviewing the federal Minister of Fisheries, Gail Shea. I only caught a part of it, the interview was partly done when I turned it on, but I was interested. When John questioned her about the MOU her response was that the federal government were not involved. We have stated over the past year and a half in particular that this was one of the mistakes with the MOU process; that the federal government was not a fourth partner. Instead of having three partners into this renewal process being the provincial government, the ASP, the FFAW, the fourth partner should have been there, a partner that is so necessary to taking us to where we need to go and that being the federal government of Canada. She acknowledged today that they are not involved and while we have sent her a copy of the report of the MOU, I do not believe that it has much acknowledgement in that circle from the federal government perspective because it is not something that they are part of. Until we as a Province then get to a point where we come to an agreement with the three parties as to where we see the fishery going in the future, then I do not believe that we can expect too much from the federal government. That is one of the shortfalls that I see in that whole process is that they were not there and their valuable input is not there at this point in time and I believe obviously that it is important and it has to be there for this process to be successful.

The other thing that we have said on occasion, time and time again is that I really believe the voice of the community – the community has been speaking out. They have been asking to be involved in this process and they have not. Again, I would say to the minister and to this government that is a mistake in terms of fishery renewal. Their voice is important. They have the experience; they have worked in the industry for generations. They understand things that you and I do not understand. They understand things that the processors may not necessarily understand. They have a different perspective, even from the union itself. Somewhere along the way we have to incorporate the stakeholders, as we call them, those that are important, and those that can have positive input into the renewing of this industry.

It is just so important and I know that a lot of the members in this House live in rural Newfoundland, a lot of people live out in the coastal communities and they certainly understand what I am saying in terms of seeing the impact of a successful fishery versus an unsuccessful fishery. I can show you that in my district all too well. As we drive down through the Straits of Belle Isle and look at communities that run from Cook's Harbour down through Anchor Point into my district and down into the Member for

St. Barbe's district, we go on down through that part of the coast and if there is not a sustainable fishery, a long that part of our Province, Mr. Chair, I do not know how that part of the Province survives quite frankly. We can talk about diversification but I am not sure what we can do in some of those communities that can be meaningful if there is not a viable fishery. It is important and it is not something to play politics with. It is one thing to shout across the House and say: Would you agree with 80 per cent cuts? No, no one agrees with 80 per cent cuts.

What is it that we can agree with? What works? What will give us a sustainable fishery that number one will not deplete our stocks and number two will not evacuate our coastal communities? I believe that is where we need to be going here in this whole process. Again, I urge the minister to keep the thing moving. I realize he has written the other two groups in recent days; I thank him for a copy of the letter that he sent to them. I have read it with interest and I would encourage him to keep going and I would again impress upon this government the importance of the fishery. The government is seen as not being strong in terms of its commitment in the past eight years to the fishery and it is time that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador knew exactly what its plan is.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have listened with interest tonight to the debate, especially as it relates to the pros. I see the pros of the Muskrat deal but also we have heard the Opposition refer to what they say are the cons.

Mr. Chair, one basic principle that I rely upon in everyday life and also in political life is the importance of learning from our past. Thucydides was an ancient Greek historian – it is the first time I remember the term of history repeating itself and if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past then we are bound to repeat them. Now, Mr. Chair, we have one great mistake to learn from as we engage in these major natural resource deals and that is the mistake of the Upper Churchill. Mr. Chair, we welcome debate, we welcome the questions. We have heard the Premier for three days in this hon. House answer, what I would suggest, candidly and honestly and with her experience as the former Minister of Natural Resources answer the questions. We have heard the current Minister of Natural Resources tonight, Mr Chair, calmly and rationally answer the questions put to him. There is and this House is a forum for open debate. The hon. members opposite are right in that it is their job to ask questions, to prod, to poke and we welcome that because, Mr. Chair, if the Muskrat Falls deal will withstand the scrutiny of time then we have to be able to stand up for this deal in this House and before our people and that is what we are willing to do, Mr. Chair.

We cannot, we will not and we, Mr. Chair, will not tolerate making the same mistakes of the Upper Churchill. Do you know what one of the biggest mistakes of the Upper Churchill deal was? The secrecy, the secrecy of the deal. The Opposition House Leader has referred to our secrecy as a government. Mr. Chair, Nalcor are briefing the Opposition today. That does not sound to me like secrecy. They are entitled to ask whatever questions they want to ask. They can ask whatever questions they want in this House and we will put forward our answers. Ultimately the people of this Province will decide, but when you listen to the Minister of Natural Resources tonight outline, Mr. Chair, we have water flowing down a river that is not benefiting anyone at present, with thousands of jobs, millions and billions of dollars being injected into the economy and benefiting especially the people of Labrador, Mr Chair, we certainly feel that this deal will withstand the scrutiny of the people of this Province at present and in the future.

One of the ways we do this, Mr. Chair, is by looking at what has happened in the past. I am hoping, Mr. Chair, at some point we will have an opportunity to talk about the deal that was put forward by the former Liberal government and comparing it to the present Muskrat deal. I see that at least a couple of members opposite were members of that government in terms of the Lower Churchill deal that was proposed. We will look at that deal at some point and we will say: This is what they were going to do; this is what we are doing.

Now, Mr. Chair, one of the things they were going to do, they were going to go through Quebec. What is one of the lessons of the Upper Churchill? Deals with Quebec do not work. That being the case, Mr. Chair, we look for alternate ways to develop Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, in the 1960s the Upper Churchill was the biggest hydro project in the world. It is absolutely an amazing project, and anyone who has gone through the facility can just imagine what was taking place in the wilderness of Labrador in the 1960s. Mr. Chair, there was a mistake made, though, a major mistake. We had a private company in Brinco that was negotiating the deal.

The hon. member opposite, the Opposition House Leader, refers to secrecy. Now, I know there was discussion after the deal was entered and Premier Smallwood at the time was very proud of the fact that he had not seen the deal. I think that is Hansard around 1968. I remember reading it. I am not sure if there was debate in the House, Mr. Chair, because Brinco and CF(L)Co were negotiating the deal.

Again, it is my understanding - there are a number of scholarly articles written on this by Jason Churchill, the two professors at Memorial, the Philip Smith book on the story of Brinco, where they talk about leading up to the signing of the Upper Churchill deal. Mr. Chair, what happened is that CF(L)Co was essentially over a barrel. It was in either 1967 or 1968 – I am doing this by memory and I could be wrong on this – they were almost bankrupt. That is when the infamous recall or renewal clause was put in where the deal went from being for twenty-five or forty years up to another twenty-five years at the time.

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding the government at the time, and the Premier at the time, were very proud that they were not involved in the negotiation of this deal. Well, Mr. Chair, this government is involved. The former Premier and our present Premier have stood up before this House and said this is the deal. Our present Premier has stood up this week and defended it. So the secrecy, Mr. Chair, was in the Liberal government of the day, and that is one of the major mistakes that we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Chair, another mistake of the Upper Churchill was the fact that there was a short-term gain for very long-term pain. This government, Mr. Chair, prides ourselves on looking thirty years out, decades out, with a vision of providing a secure future for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That is what we have done since 2003, and that is what we will continue to do.

Mr. Chair, politicians must take chances. So what you do is you engage in the cost-benefit analysis. There is no such thing as the perfect deal. What we look at is: Is this a good and fair deal for the people of our Province? Mr. Chair, this process is open, and I am sure we will continue over a period of a couple of months to engage in debate on the Muskrat Falls deal. As politicians, as government, we can do one of two things. We can say: Well, we cannot take a chance because what will happen, how will the history books look at us? Or we can say: Using our best efforts, the knowledge of Nalcor, the knowledge of our Premier and her Minister of Natural Resources, the advice that everyone has given, the scrutiny of the public and the scrutiny of the Opposition, has resulted in a deal that benefits the people of this Province. That is what I suggest our job is. So, quite correctly, the Opposition will prod, will poke, and will ask questions.

Mr. Chair, what we have to do is look at what took place in 1967, 1968, look at what took place in 1999 or 2001, whenever the Liberals were going to do the Lower Churchill. I am sure we will have some questions, we will have some comments on that deal. Let's do a comparison of the Upper Churchill to Muskrat Falls. Let's look at the mistakes of that deal and how we have corrected it. Let's look at what the Liberals were going to do with the Lower Churchill and let's see how we are doing with it, Mr. Chair. I would suggest to you that at the end of the day the people of this Province will say this government has given due and careful consideration. They have looked at all aspects of this deal.

Mr. Chair, one of the purposes of having debate in this House is that if there are weaknesses, if there are improvements that can be made, then this is a process which allows for that, but as a government we cannot be afraid of that. We cannot be afraid of the facts. We cannot be afraid of what may come of open debate, because that is what we are all elected for.

Now, we have heard discussion of revenues and we have heard discussion of spending, but, Mr. Chair, we inherited a basically bankrupt Province in 2003. If you look at what is taking place right now, what we are doing as a government, we are putting infrastructure in place in health and education that will benefit our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. Mr. Chair, that is what it is all about.

I think it was the Minister of Natural Resources who said earlier tonight, what we are giving our children is a choice, a choice to remain in this Province, a choice to live in this Province and to grow up in a prosperous province, because as a government we take that job very seriously. No longer will they have to go to Alberta or Toronto. Mr. Chair, it is deals like Muskrat Falls that allows us to do that. It is deals like Hibernia, Hebron, and these other deals that allow us the revenues and the funds to be able to achieve that most important goal. Mr. Chair, we will continue on that road, and we will continue to debate what is a very significant project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The words of the Minister of Health about what transpired and how this government is dealing with it, one thing the people in the public have to understand, it is a little bit different what we are doing here now. This government is not doing now what they said they would do when they first became a government.

The former Premier who led this Province, who recently retired, stood in this House and demanded that if there is ever going to be a major, what we call megaproject in this Province, it ought to be brought to the floor of the House of Assembly for debate before it is done. That was the commitment. When this Administration was campaigning to become the government, that was the undertaking, that was the commitment of Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams is the man who signed off on this deal of Muskrat Falls. Mr. Williams was the man who signed off on the Hebron deal. In neither of those cases were those megaprojects brought to this House for consideration before they were announced.

Now that is not exactly, number one, keeping your commitment about how you are going to deal with the natural resources of this Province. That is not keeping your commitment about being open and accountable, above board, give you all the facts, and let the people make an informed decision. Let's be realistic here. We have a Hebron deal that was done in this Province that nobody knew a single thing about - a term, a whisper of what was in that deal - until it was announced down here downtown. Nobody had an opportunity to question the wherewithal of that deal, whether it was good, whether it was bad, whether we could have gotten a better deal, what it was about for the people of this Province. It was announced and sold as a good deal, done and over with. It never got debated in this House.

We are going through the same exercise today. Let's be realistic about it. Muskrat Falls is never going to get voted on in this House. The most we are going to do here is flesh things out. The most we are going to try to do in terms of the debate in this House is inform the public as to what the terms are in the term sheet and what the deal is about. The term sheet is done.

We were not asked: Do you think this is a good deal? Do you think we should do this? Do you think there are alternatives, or these are the alternatives and we feel Muskrat is the best one? Nobody in this Province had that opportunity to do due diligence on this deal until it was done. That is the big difference here.

We are not talking about a government that is upfront with the people and says: What do you think? We are dealing with a government that on the two major initiatives of this Province in the last number of years on both occasions have done the deal, cut the deal, signed off, and said this is what you got. That is not good enough. That is not the openness that the people expected when this Administration took office. That is not what this Administration committed to the people of this Province when they were running and asking for their support back in 2003 and again in 2007.

The person who led this Province for the eight years he was here, that was his commitment and he never kept that commitment, folks. That is not a shot at him; he did a lot of good things for this Province, and I will be the first one to say it, including the Atlantic Accord. He did not keep that commitment. Hebron was not discussed here. Muskrat Falls was never discussed here or in the public in any forum, any manner, shape, or form until it was done. That is not keeping your word. People question you when that happens that. Once you have done a deal, it is pretty difficult to go back then anyway. We can talk, as he at one time said in another environment, until the cows come home.

There is no way now, based on the term sheet being done, being signed off, that we can change it with input from the people, whether it is in this House or whether it is in this Province. That is what smells about this. That is what sour about this, from day one, is the approach this Administration takes when it deals with the resources of this Province. Do not give your input into what you think might be helpful, useful, or beneficial to us. We have done it. There it is. Take it or leave it. That is not good enough.

We appreciate the briefing from Nalcor. We had a briefing this morning with Nalcor; the second one actually, we had one back after they announced it. We will tell you what the deal is, very glossy terms back at that time; very top-of-the-trees discussion I would call it. I had one of them before with the officials of Nalcor on Abitibi as I said. You take these people, they are experts, you take them at their face value, and they are smart people. You take what they tell you because you have to rely upon these informed people who deal with this stuff. They make mistakes like the rest of us. They make the wrong assumptions sometimes. We asked them this morning about the assumptions and the Leader of the Opposition was trying to question the Premier about it today: What is the validity of some of the assumptions you are relying on, for example, about the power consumption we are going to need in the five years, ten years out? What are they? He listed them. Five out of the six things that he based his assumption on are projects that are currently ongoing in this Province. The sixth one about what our population is going to be, we said: Where did you get your information? The Department of Finance gave it to us. Could we have it? Well, we do not have that with us.

We asked the Premier for it, we have not got it. We asked Nalcor for it, we have not got it. That is openness, when we ask a simple question? Our information we are getting from this government's department of statistics when it comes to populations and stuff is not matching what Nalcor is saying. Why shouldn't people ask questions?

The people have a right to know. One thing, for example, like it or lump it, justification or not, everybody in this Province, one fact we do know, incontrovertible fact that we know right from this Premier's lips when she was Minister of Natural Resources, everybody in this Province, when Muskrat Falls is done is going to pay at least double what their light bill is now - at least. That is a fact. We cannot change that.

Now the question is: Why are people going to pay double on their light bills? Is it justified? Is it necessary? Is that the only alternative we have as a Province is to do Muskrat which automatically gives us that doubling of light bills? Maybe the people who are going to profit from this in the business world do not care about that. Maybe the people who are going to have short-term gains from the employment do not really think about that, but the person who lives in Ramea and who lives in Burgeo or lives in the Codroy Valley that is a very real question to them when they hear that. You are telling me right now when we do Muskrat Falls, my light bill which I am looking at now from Newfoundland Power, is going to double. What is that all about? That is a pretty serious thing, particularly if you live on a fixed income in this Province.

What we are saying as an Opposition – and we are not the only ones out questioning this - tell us why that is necessary. You do not have to fudge it. Tell us why it is absolutely necessary to take the route we are taking when that is an automatic consequence of it. If those are the kinds of things that cause people to look across at you when we ask those questions and say you have no vision, it is not about vision; it is about understanding what is going to hit everybody in this Province in the pocketbook. Everybody in this Province has a right to know what the answer to that question is and why this government is trying to tell them that and insist upon that. Do not talk about vision; talk about people's pocketbooks.

Yes, there are lots of good things I see in this deal. Nobody is saying that Muskrat Falls should not be done – nobody. Anything we can do to get the most maximum benefits out of our resources for the people of this Province, we need to do. We need to do it in such a way that we are not losers at the same time we do it. We cannot be charging the people of Newfoundland and Labrador double on their light bills, yet we are giving power to Nova Scotia and the people over there are getting it for half the cost. Now, if that is the fact, we need to know that. That is a pocketbook issue and that is why we will continue to ask these questions, because we have no choice. The deal was done before anyone in this Province had an opportunity to see it. We darn well will be asking questions now so they know what lies beneath it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we met again on Monday after being apart for awhile. We had the Speech from the Throne. Then on Tuesday it was my duty as the Finance Minister to introduce the debate on Interim Supply, to ask for money to pay the bills of the government for a three-month period until such time as we have the debate on the Budget.

It is now my duty tonight to close the debate. I want to thank all members for taking time to participate in the debate. I think after a couple of months of being out of this House, we are now back, and this debate has given us a chance to have a few words, to get back at it so to speak, and I think that is a good thing.

I opened with a discussion of the financial situation here in the Province, the financial position of the Province, but the debate then went in other directions: a discussion on the fishery, a discussion on Muskrat Falls, in particular, and I am sure we will be debating those things again in the future.

There was a lot of discussion about the success that our Province is presently having and who was responsible for that success. I know the Opposition talk about projects that they took care of when they were in government, and how we are now benefiting from some of those, and we talk about the projects that we put through when we are in government. The good news is, and the good news for all the people of the Province is, that we are in pretty good shape right now.

The federal Budget came down yesterday. They were concerned about their deficit, and that they were going to take three or four years to try to get back to surplus. They were concerned about the risk out there in the world economy, the uncertainty that was out there. New Brunswick came down with their Budget, Quebec has come down with their Budget, and they said the same thing. They are still running deficits but their pledge - they are working on plans to get back to surplus.

The federal Finance Minister said that given the risk that is out there in the Middle East and in Africa; given the fact that the third largest economy in the world, in Japan, is in trouble; given the fact that Europe is going through austerity measures; given the fact that Americans are heavily in debt, they have high unemployment, they are stimulating the economy; given all of these uncertainties and given all the risk out in the world, we have to get back to surplus. The good news is that we are there. For the people of this Province, we are now running a surplus. We are living within our means. We have recorded four consecutive surpluses from 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 totalling $4 billion. As I said when I opened this debate, we are going to have another surplus. I announced that back at mid-year. We are going to have another surplus this year and it is going to be substantially more than the $12 billion that we thought it would be at mid-year.

Even the Auditor General, a man who we all respect, said in his most recent report that he acknowledged the significant surpluses, the reduction in net debt, and the substantial improvements in this Province's financial position and its fiscal capacity from 2006 to 2009. We also talked about the fact that the credit rating agencies of the world have given us upgrades. Just this month, Standard & Poor's had looked at our financial situation and can give the people a lot of comfort in the fact that they raised our credit rating from A to A+, the highest they have ever given us in history. Their words were that the upgrade reflects their view of Newfoundland's "much improved economic standing, declining debt burden, solid budgetary performance, and strong liquidity position." They also mentioned that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has achieved solid operating surpluses in recent years, allowing it to stockpile liquidity, to repay debt, and deliver tax relief thanks to tight cost management and the emergence of our offshore oil royalties. They said that Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong liquidity position, reflecting its past operating surpluses and prudent spending practices. That is what the outside agencies think about us, Mr. Chair.

In addition to that, our Province, after years of being a poor cousin in Confederation, has become a "have" Province under the equalization formula. We have lowered our taxes, we have taken our hands out of people's pockets so they have more money to spend as they see fit, to the tune of $460 million a year that they are paying less in taxes than they were four years ago – $460 million.

In addition, Mr. Chair, we have managed to use the surpluses that we have incurred to put forward a massive infrastructure strategy of $5 billion to provide new schools and new long-term care facilities, and new hospitals, new water bombers and air ambulances, and what have you. People have seen the improvements. Everybody sees the improvements, and everybody is happy about it. We can debate in this House who is responsible for it, but the people can see over the last eight years what improvements we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, in terms of the Lower Churchill, we all agree I think, in spite of a lot of the debate that went on here, that what this is about is ensuring in the future that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in particular, have the lowest hydro rates, the lowest heating rates that they can have. I think we all want that. The question is, what is the best way to accomplish it?

The Minister of Natural Resources talked about the fact that if we do nothing the electricity rates are going up. He said in the next five years they are going up because of inflation, they are going up because of raises that will be paid to the employees. They are going up because the costs go up over time. We all know that. We all know what the costs were ten years ago; we know they are going to be a lot higher ten years from now.

The question is: What do we do, given there is going to be need for additional capacity? We have two options. One option is to do what is called the Island Piece, which would be to develop three hydro projects on the Island. I think Island Pond, Round Pond, and Portland Creek, and do a bit of wind and totally refurbish Holyrood. Holyrood will be expensive to refurbish and rebuild. Holyrood relies on oil, and we all know the shortage of oil in the world. We see the prices of oil going up, and we want to get off that. It also will help us to be a greener economy because we will be able to meet our greenhouse gas emission reduction standards by eliminating Holyrood, and that is so important.

As I said, it will also mean opportunity with power to attract industry to Labrador, to attract industry to Newfoundland. If we cannot use the power for that purpose, then we will have the opportunity now, through the Maritime Link, to export that electricity so that it will be purchased by our cousins in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and even down to the US.

I know the Leader of the Opposition talked about, why are we letting Emera in on this deal? Why are they in on the transmission? We know why they are in on the Maritime Link, because they are building the Maritime Link. It is going to cost them $1.2 billion to build it. We are going to own it after thirty-five years in exchange for one terawatt of power for the thirty-five years.

Also, they are in on their transmission because they are giving us something in return. They are giving us the right to transport any extra power through Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick, down something called the pipeline into Maine. Because of those transmission rights, in return they will be given transmission rights to what we have in this Province.

Mr. Chair, we are now going through the next step. We will bring down the Budget in early April. We will bring forward legislation and we will have the debate, and we will do what we are all here to do, is to try to make this a better place for the people who elected us.

Thank you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK: The schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the schedule carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, schedule carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: WHEREAS it appears that the sums mentioned are required to defray certain expenses of the Public Service of Newfoundland and Labrador for the financial year ending March 31, 2012 and for other purposes relating to the public service.

CHAIR: Shall the preamble carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, preamble carried.

CLERK: An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 2 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report the resolution and Bill 2 carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed them to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance that the resolution be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2012 the sum of $2,669,600,600.

On motion, resolution read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance, that the resolution be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 2012 the sum of $2,669,600,600.

On motion, resolution read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce the Interim Supply, Bill 2, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 2, the Interim Supply Bill, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", carried. (Bill 2)

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

On motion, Bill 2 read a first time.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the Interim Supply Bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 2 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2).

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", read a second time. (Bill 2)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance that the Interim Supply Bill be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 2, the Interim Supply Bill, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 2 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 2 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 2)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Monday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1: 30 p.m.