March 13, 2012                          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVII No. 7


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Chair would like to recognize a guest in the gallery today, a former MHA in this Assembly, Mr. John Crane, the former Member for the District of Carbonear – Harbour Grace.

Welcome, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of order with regard to the notice of private members' motions. Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 63(3) it states, "On the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's motion is to be debated, the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House the Private Member's motion to be debated on that Wednesday."

I have checked Hansard for Monday and although the Member for St. John's West indicated that he was moving a motion for debate, on Wednesday, the Government House Leader did not give notice as he should have on Monday to confirm that indeed the motion by the Member for St. John's West would be the one debated on Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, although this is a minor point, it is clear that the Government House Leader somehow omitted to follow that proper process of giving notification. In the past, Mr. Speaker, such a lapse has resulted in the government losing an opportunity to debate their motion on Private Member's Day. However, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of our co-operative approach, and our interest in seeing this House operate properly, the members in our Party are willing to overlook this omission and ask that the Government House Leader, if he wishes to rise and ask for leave to proceed with the debate on this motion presented by the Member for St. John's West, and in doing so we will grant him that leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking at Standing Order 63(3), and what you have to look at is on the Monday before the Wednesday the Government House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House. Mr. Speaker, I stood up, I indicated that there would be a Private Member's motion; the Member for St. John's West just read the motion into the record. That is notice, Mr. Speaker.

What you have to look at – when you are dealing with anything here, it is not strictly procedure or process. What you have to look at is the substance. It is not a matter of form over substance, Mr. Speaker. You look at the spirit and the intent of the regulation in the Standing Order of the act and you determine was it complied with. Did the government follow the procedure?

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the Opposition House Leader is trying to establish there today. If she wants to debate rules and procedures with me, we have two or three months to do it and I will be more than eager to debate with her. If you are going to try to pick up on every point like that, then we will be here all day. I gave them a free day yesterday on points of order and on procedure, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps, we have to come back today now to strict compliance.

So, Mr. Speaker, you look at the Standing Order, on the Monday before, the Government House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, I stood up, I said we are going to call the private member's motion; it was then read by the Member for St. John's West. That is the spirit and intent of the Standing Order, Mr. Speaker. What we cannot do in a House like this, or in any Parliament, is try to adhere to strict and rigid compliance with all rules and procedures. There has to be flexibility, Mr. Speaker. There has to be a way to get business done, and that is what we are doing here. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the whole thing is just foolish and stupid, and if that is the way they want to play, we will play.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader might think the parliamentary procedures of our House and the Standing Orders of this House are foolish, but I certainly do not think so, Mr. Speaker. The reason I rise today to point this out – I could have waited until Wednesday, and we could have had a debate in this House on Wednesday as to whether the government's motion was eligible to even be called for a debate, as has happened in previous times in this House of Assembly, I would like to remind the Government House Leader. In times where it has been ruled that because proper notice was not given, the motion was not effectively eligible to be called for debate. I raise it today, Mr. Speaker, in advance of the motion being presented tomorrow, and I ask that proper leave be given for that motion in terms of the debate that is about to occur on Private Members'Day on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comment with respect to the point of order?

Points of order on a procedural issue, technically, need to be raised at the time of the breach. So, in terms of its pure technical interpretation, the appropriate time to raise a technical point of order would have been on the day it had happened, which would have been on Monday, in terms of procedurally. It appears, though, that there is a motion on the floor, and I think the Opposition House Leader has indicated that it is not the party's intent to disrupt the activity of tomorrow and have the government member introduce the private motion as already read into the record on that day. So, there being no point of order, we will proceed with today's session.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on another point of order as well.

It has recently come to my attention that the hon. Member for Humber West has disregarded one of the recommendations of the Green report and the standard of practice for MHAs, which had been established by the previous Premier.

Recommendation 76 of the Green report states, "(1) Members of the House of Assembly should be prohibited from making donations and other gratuitous payments to or on behalf of individuals, charities, community groups or agencies using their constituency allowance or other public money".

I have a copy of a photograph which appeared in the March 3, 2012 edition of The Western Star newspaper. The photo clearly shows the Member for Humber West presenting a government cheque to a community group.

I am seeking some clarification from the House on this practice since the member should know the difference and the Government House Leader or the Premier should have taken the time to reinforce or establish this practice with members on their side of the House.

I am not sure if the practice of not allowing this kind of cheque presentation, as established by the previous Premier, is still in force or if there is a new standard of conduct being established by the current Premier. Given this recommendation on the Green report and the previously established practice, I want to ask for some clarification on the matter from the Government House Leader, or the current Premier, or the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there have been cases where I, myself, have received cheques from government departments to be delivered to my constituents; however, I was of the understanding that I was not permitted to present that in a public fashion. I need to have clarification from the House as to whether that standard in the Green report still stands and if it is still the practice of government, or if the Premier or the House of Assembly has shifted priorities?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the member opposite is talking about. If I could just see a copy of what she is referring to, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding from the Green report, Mr. Speaker, that members cannot make donations from the constituency allowance or personal allowance, but that government cheques or cheques on behalf of government can be presented. Can I see a copy of the –

MS JONES: I gave it to the Page to give to you.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, there is also another issue here: How is this a point of order? The House Management committee deals with the interpretation of Green, and then if there is an amendment that has to be brought to the legislation, there is a way to go about that.

I am a bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the timing of this. We are here today getting ready for the House of Assembly and we are getting these kinds of points being raised by the member opposite. I really question, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: I really question the validity of raising this kind of issue in the House of Assembly when it is one that - as you are well aware - we deal with in the Management Commission on a regular basis.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at this photograph, there is a reference of receiving $40,000 from the provincial government. She just admitted herself, she being the Opposition House Leader, that she has presented government cheques in the past. So I really do not know what she is talking about here.

MS JONES: I did not say that.

MR. KENNEDY: Well, look at Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, what we are having here is a situation where the proceedings of this House are being disrupted by the member opposite with frivolous –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: - where the proceedings of this House are being disrupted by the member opposite trying to play lawyer here today and trying to raise issues that she knows or ought to know, Mr. Speaker, are more properly dealt with in the House Management Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Further to the point of order?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The individual opposite has some room to talk about trying to play lawyer in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a legitimate issue that was written about in the Green report. It is a standard by which all MHAs are supposed to conduct themselves. We have a copy of a newspaper article; it was passed to me late yesterday afternoon. I had an opportunity to look at it. It is of an MHA presenting public money, as was stated in the Green report, on behalf of the government. I am asking for clarification as to how that impacts the regulations in the Green report and if it is a different standard that is being set by the current Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say in this House that I had presented cheques to groups publicly in my district because, Mr. Speaker, what I said was there were cheques that were sent to my office from government departments for charitable organizations in my district. Did I bring those cheques to them and pass it over a desk to them? Yes, I did. Did I go out and make a public donation? No, I did not. Do you know why I did not? It is because of the regulations that were in the report. I am seeking clarification as to the Green report and what that particular standard implies in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and I just ask for that clarification.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has raised a point of order. My ruling suggests that this is not a point of order to be considered by the House, but in my role as the Chair of the Internal Economy Commission I will take the issue under consideration and provide some advice to members who sit in the House with respect to the recommendations of Green and how it applies to members'behaviour and conduct as they carry out their roles in their constituencies.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we have members'statements from the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis, the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South, the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape la Hune, the hon. the Member for the District of Bay Verte – Springdale, the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port, and the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2011 Small Business Award Winners in the Town of Torbay.

On November 29, the third annual Torbay Small Business awards were held at the Kinsmen Community Centre. The awards night has been growing since its inaugural event won the 2010 Marketing Canada Awards in Quebec City as Best Special Event in Canada in its class.

Mr. Speaker, there were three awards handed out and a total of seven nominees. The winners were Mudder's Mobile Kitchen for Best New Business, Bob Newman for Entrepreneur of the Year, and Metal World for Existing Business of the year. This program has been put in place by the economic development of the town to recognize and reward their business community, which has been enjoying incredible growth.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Town of Torbay, the nominees, as well as the award winners in such a great event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the City of Mount Pearl on being awarded the 2011 Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador Torngat Award in the category of Environmental Sustainability. This was presented to the city for the leadership demonstrated in the construction of the Glacier Arena Expansion project, which incorporates a geothermal heating system, grey water and an Eco-Chill waste heat recovery system. It is also my understanding that the city intends to incorporate this new technology into the construction of their new recreational multiplex project.

Mr. Speaker, this project demonstrates the progressive, cutting edge approach to governance which the City of Mount Pearl is so well known for throughout this Province. I would therefore ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl on this significant achievement and commend them on their outstanding commitment to environmental sustainability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Donald Stewart of Harbour Breton for receiving the Herbert D. Brett Lifetime Achievement Award.

It is quite an honour to be recognized for one's outstanding contributions, and Mr. Stewart has indeed been a strong leader within Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune. From his early beginnings founding the South Coast Regional Development Association through to his roles today, he has made a meaningful difference in the lives of many.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Stewart also served in this hon. House as our member from 1979 to 1985, and he served us exceptionally well during that time. He was instrumental in establishing our local newspaper, known today as The Coaster, and has served on numerous local committees and boards, including six years as Mayor of the Town of Harbour Breton.

Since the 1960s, he has been a successful business person, and today he serves as Chair of the Regional Board, Chair of the Harbour Breton Investment Corporation, member of the Central Newfoundland Rural Secretariat, and councillor. He is truly an honourable man who continually gives of his time and skills in a volunteer capacity. He is always looking for and analyzing new opportunities for the region, and is indeed an economic development asset to the Coast of Bays.

It would be impossible to put a dollar figure on the countless hours, weeks, months, and years he has dedicated to making our home a better place – economically stronger and socially stable. We all look forward to many more years of great leadership to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing Mr. Donald Stewart for his outstanding contribution to the betterment of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I count it a privilege to stand in this hon. House today to applaud the outstanding volunteer work that the King's Point-Rattling Brook firefighters provide to the residents of the area. The extraordinary service and commitment that they display is greatly appreciated and respected by the entire community. Whether it is a motor vehicle accident, a burning house, flooding, or some other emergency, the King's Point-Rattling Brook firefighters are there, on call, 24-7.

Mr. Speaker, with strong support from the mayor and council, and in fact, from the whole town, these unsung heroes will continue to serve with passion, with pride, and with courage. Not going unnoticed is their time, energy, and effort expended to keep the fire department running smoothly and efficiently. Today, more than ever before, various emergencies come their way, and in each case, sometimes not knowing what to expect, but with boldness and an unusual courage, they bravely meet the challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in conveying our appreciation and gratitude to King's Point-Rattling Brook firefighters for serving so unselfishly in their capacity as firefighters.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Monsieur le prιsident, je prends la parole aujourd'hui ΰ l'honorable Chambre d'assemblιe afin de reconnaξtre le Centiθme Anniversaire de la Paroisse de Lourdes.

The history of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Mr. Speaker, has made it unique in that it has not only been a place of worship, but it has been a source of strength and guidance to the communities it serves.

There are many activities planned throughout the Centennial year that will celebrate the past, the present, and plan for the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a time to congratulate and say thank you to all the parishioners of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish for their commitment and dedication to making a valuable contribution to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Our Lady of Lourdes Parish on its 100th anniversary.

Merci, monsieur le prιsident.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize and congratulate a dear friend of mine and a very well-known individual in Newfoundland and Labrador, and more specifically, the great District of Lake Melville, Mr. Alton Best.

This past September, Mr. Best was inducted into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador in recognition of being an outstanding individual who has greatly contributed to the preservation of traditional music of Labrador as one of the founding members of the musical group, The Flummies.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows Alton knows that he is certainly no stranger to charity work and that he has given freely of his time and his music for decades whenever he is called upon. I would like to give mention to the warmth and overall presence of this man; whether it is a smile or handshake in passing, a great conversation over a cup of tea, or a boat ride to the Mud Lake Fair, you can be sure when you ran into or visited with Alton you came away feeling as if you had just spent time, even if just a moment, with a truly great man.

I know that Alton right now and his wife Ena are going through some difficult times. I would like to wish them all the best as they fight to overcome this latest challenge.

Mr. Speaker, on October 11 last year, I stood in front of a packed campaign headquarters to give my election victory speech; as I spoke to the support of the different communities in my district, I came across the smile and the look of pride of Mr. Alton Best, and I was humbled once more.

With pride I now ask this all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing a true son of Labrador, Mr. Alton Best.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to acknowledge the passing of Mr. Lanier W. Phillips and to offer condolences to his loved ones and to the many he formed lasting friendships with here in our Province.

In the darkness of the morning of February 18, 1942, as the USS Truxtun and the USS Pollux were being battered by heavy seas in a blinding snowstorm, little did the people of St. Lawrence and Lawn know that they would be called upon to respond to one of the worst sea disasters in US naval history. They answered that call, Mr. Speaker, with courage and unflinching resolve. While approximately 200 men were lost that day, 186 survived due to their heroic actions.

One of those survivors was a young man who was just shy of his nineteenth birthday. Lanier Phillips, as he has so eloquently expressed, was overwhelmingly impacted by the way he was welcomed and cared for following the disaster. Many of the women of St. Lawrence were involved in the care of the sailors as they recuperated. It was Mrs. Violet Pike who undertook to take Mr. Phillips, the only black man to survive, into her home to provide the care and nourishment he needed. Mr. Speaker, I often think of Mrs. Pike and the women of St. Lawrence, who by their simple yet profound gestures, revealed to Mr. Phillips the existence of equality and human kindness, regardless of skin colour. They changed his life and ours, Mr. Speaker. His ability to become all that he could be in the years that followed was rooted firmly in the community and in the people of St. Lawrence. Our lives changed because of Violet Pike and Lanier Phillips. We all have a deeper and richer understanding of the impact and importance of simple acts of kindness and respect for our fellow human beings.

I had the honour of meeting Mr. Phillips when he was inducted into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador last fall. Lanier Phillips embodied the true spirit of the order through his eloquence in promoting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as compassionate, generous, and brave. He holds an important place in the history of this Province and on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I offer my deepest sympathies to his loved ones.

I will close with the words of A.L. Bristol, Rear Admiral in the US Navy at the time of the disaster who expressed in his letter of gratitude to the people of St. Lawrence, "Memories of such acts can never die, and the total of almost two hundred men and officers saved on this occasion will stand as a monument to the people of St. Lawrence and all Newfoundland, in the hearts and minds of all who know the story."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for the advance copy of the statement. Certainly, we offer our condolences to the family, to his loved ones, and to the friendships that were made in our Province

When we think of this young eighteen-year-old who grew up in a time when racism was prevalent in the US at the time, and was part of the marine disaster that claimed the lives of 203 men on February 18, as I thought of this eighteen-year-old young man who was fighting for his life, I am sure he really did not know what to expect if indeed he did make it ashore. What happened on that night changed his life forever and was a new beginning for him. It was an experience that changed, as I said, his outlook on life but also his philosophy on life.

We have to recognize the people of St. Lawrence and Lawn for their heroic efforts, but, in particular Mrs. Violet Pike for the work that she did in nursing him back to health. What it did is when he went back home he began a very successful career and, indeed, led his own and became an activist in his own right.

He had the opportunity, as was said, to return to Newfoundland on a number of occasions, and we are certainly privileged and honoured that he is recognized as a recipient of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, thank the Premier for the advance copy of her statement. I was very sad yesterday to hear of the passing of Lanier Phillips. I express my condolences to his family and his friends on behalf of our caucus.

It was so good that he was able to come for the seventieth anniversary of this disaster. The event on February 18, 1942 was very significant, both for him and certainly for the people of St. Lawrence and Lawn. I know that he will be remembered by them every year as they commemorate the disaster that actually served to prove their mettle as communities.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are home to some well-established co-operatives that have contributed greatly to community and business developments. We are also home to newer co-operatives that hold tremendous promise.

In Southern Labrador, when the Bank of Montreal withdrew its operations, residents stepped up, mobilized their resources, and formed the Eagle River Credit Union. It was a collective effort and ensured that the delivery of financial services would continue, and today it has accumulated more than $79 million in assets.

By pooling valuable resources so that it could better access equipment and expertise, the Newfoundland Independent Filmmakers Co-operative has helped grow the sector to $30 million – up from $2 million just a decade ago.

More recently, Seed to Spoon has emerged as a co-operative that sells locally grown produce to restaurants, residents, and the St. John's Farmers'Market. It is proving to be a positive relationship among co-operatives, local farmers, and community members, directly linking products with consumers.

In January, I accompanied representatives from local co-operatives at the Canadian launch of the International Year of Co-operatives. Just last week, I was pleased to join several local co-operatives in formally proclaiming 2012 as the Year of Co-operatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a government, we view co-operatives as being integral in community and economic developments. Co-operatives serve a key role in developing industry sectors and addressing market demands.

In the coming weeks, the provincial government will be renewing its Memorandum of Understanding with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives. We want to build off the progress made from our 2007 agreement, which positioned this Province as a leader in Canada for our working relationship with the provincial co-operative business association.

Mr. Speaker, the door is open to further strengthen and develop co-operatives. This MOU is one important step in that process. Co-operatives are good for communities, they are good for industry growth, and they are good for the Province. Over the course of 2012, I encourage all members of this hon. House to join in celebrating the value of co-operatives in their own districts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and acknowledge the work that is being done by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives in this Province, but more particularly, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the work that has been done by many prominent co-operatives throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The one that comes to mind that the minister did not mention is the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, which is one of the longest standing co-operatives ever established in this Province. Although he alluded to the Eagle River Credit Union, he should realize it was the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company that actually put up the money to start the second co-operative, which was the banking system in that area. Not only today is the Shrimp Company a co-operative that owns and operates five fish plants on the Coast of Labrador, two offshore vessels, offshore licences, but, Mr. Speaker, they employ over 1,500 people in coastal, rural Labrador. That is a success story in the co-operative movement. The other success story is the Eagle River Credit Union have seen a small banking operation in the community of L'Anse-au-Loup spread out and set up seven branches throughout Northern Newfoundland and throughout Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister and his government when they look for solutions for Marystown and OCI, maybe they should be looking to the success of co-operatives in this Province and what they have done for the fishing industry in employing people as opposed to spending $20 million to bring a couple of dozen jobs to Newfoundland and Labrador at a cost of $360,000 a person. If you want a real success that works, look at the co-operative model.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to conclude her comments, please.

MS JONES: Spend your money at home and create the jobs at home, I say to the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the government allocate some attention to co-operatives. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a sector that the minister in his statement had missed, and that of course is our fisheries. In 1967 the Fogo Island Co-op started operations and today the co-op has sales of over $15 million. When communities come together, such as they do when creating a co-op, we see profound economic, social and cultural benefits. This is a business model governments should encourage and nurture, especially in rural areas of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, at the Department of Justice we recognize that it is important to think of new ways to help inmates and show that they have much to offer for the community from within the correctional walls.

The canine therapy program is a prime example of innovative programs which help both the community and the inmate. Now, Mr. Speaker, corrections have not gone to the dogs. This program was first offered last July at the Bishop's Falls Correctional Centre and the West Coast Correctional Centre in Stephenville and it has grown in leaps and bounds, pardon the pun. It has expanded to the Labrador Correctional Centre in Happy Valley- Goose Bay and the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women in Clarenville with great success.

Mr. Speaker, the program provides dogs with care and attention while giving inmates the opportunity to be responsible for a dog and its training. Some of these animals have had difficult experiences and require special attention in regaining trust. The dogs are assigned to particular inmates, who have to go through a screening process. Inmates are responsible for exercising, walking, grooming, cleaning, feeding and teaching the dogs positive and healthy behavioural habits with the hopes of the dogs being adopted in the community upon completion of the program.

Since the start of the program, Mr. Speaker, over thirty-five dogs have been successfully adopted. This success has been all the more rewarding when you consider the therapeutic benefits of the relationship between the dogs and their trainers. We have seen positive impacts on the individual inmates and in their relationships with correctional officers.

Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the communities of Stephenville, Bishop's Falls, Clarenville, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, who have embraced this initiative wholeheartedly, and have been instrumental in providing dogs for the program. In addition, I want to thank the correctional staff at the facilities, and the inmates for their enthusiasm and dedication. They have made the Canine Therapy Program the success that it is.

Mr. Speaker, since the 2009 release of Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light, the Department of Justice has invested $7 million into revitalizing the Newfoundland and Labrador correctional system. This program is one example of innovative and successful programming that is part of that revitalization.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Canine therapy is indeed a mutually beneficial program for both inmates and dogs. The dogs are employed for therapy in many realms for the physical aid they provide to people with physical disabilities, as well as the unconditional love they provide to those deprived of acceptance and social interaction. Reviews of such programs have certainly shown the benefits to inmates, and certainly shown the benefit to the many groups that take part in this.

These dogs in need of extra training are, in many cases, saved from euthanasia, as shelters simply do not have the space or the funding to take care of them. I would point out that the City of St. John's animal care facility, which is the envy of every other animal shelter in this Province, is actually in far better condition than Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

Innovations in animal sheltering and in corrections are both positives. What we would now like to see from this government is the Animal Health and Protection Act be proclaimed during this sitting of the House. Until the act becomes law, it cannot be implemented by law enforcement and other animal rescue groups. In the meantime, these companion animals sit and languish in neglect and cruelty. So I would like to congratulate those animal activists that have brought this creative program to our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his advance copy of his statement.

I am happy to hear of the success of the Canine Therapy Program in the correctional centres in our Province. The excellent care the dogs are receiving is commendable. However, we know that inmates do not get outside, inmates do not get regular exercise, and they themselves do not have access to training programs and teaching programs. It is unfortunate that the minister does not see that therapy and rehabilitation are as important for our inmates as they are for canine companions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier, when we asked about the looming budget cuts – for the fourth straight time, she provided a different answer. First it was 3 per cent across the board; then it was something less than $100 million; then it was temporary or contract employees, plus the 3 per cent; then yesterday it was about one third of the temporary employees.

So I ask the Premier: Will you finally tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador how many jobs are on the chopping block, and what services will be cut?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in questioning about the Budget and our approach to the Budget and how we are going to manage the current deficit, I provided information to the people of the Province about some expectations they could have. What I have asked my Cabinet to do, Mr. Speaker, is do a complete review of core mandate, in that, to look for 3 per cent savings across the board, with the exception of a number of services that have been ring fenced, such as education, health, policing, and income support, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of that exercise, there will be, we expect, some job losses. We have absolutely capped it at one third. Mr. Speaker, we will make the number, the exact number, known when we announce the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier stated in the media that she was reviewing all temporary employees the same way that you review permanent employees. There was also a comment made that typically, when you review programs, it means cuts.

So I ask the Premier: What do you mean by this statement? Are permanent employees subject to job reviews also?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is going to quote me out of a scrum, that you actually should attend it. Then you will hear that I said nothing about a review of permanent employees. I have stated quite clearly in this House and outside this House that there will be no permanent employees to lose their jobs as a result of this exercise.

In terms of temporary employees and contractual employees, those positions are always under review – and will they be looked at in this exercise? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – and we will be able to clearly say to the people of the Province the number of those jobs that will be affected when we announce the budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comment I was speaking to was actually made to the Leader of the Third Party when we were talking about health reviews.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said that people need to relax while she performs her spending review – to relax while they wonder if they will lose their jobs.

So I ask the Premier: How can you ask people to relax when you have no plan on how you are going to impose these cuts, and how public comments you have made all over the map?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Budget is the plan. Mr. Speaker, anybody in this Province who is under the illusion that a temporary job is a permanent job, or that a contract lasts for a lifetime, is misinformed. By the very definition of a temporary job means it is not permanent; it is there for a certain period of time.

Mr. Speaker, when we did hire the former Auditor General in a contractual position, Mr. Noseworthy – his contract is for one year; one year, not for five years, not for ten years, not for two years. That is the definition of a contractual employee or a temporary employee, Mr. Speaker. We will be able to give the definitive numbers at the Budget, and I think the people of the Province will be very relieved to know that number is going to be very small.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that the Premier has mentioned the former AG, Mr. John Noseworthy, I would ask the Premier: Are you prepared to table the contract and the Terms of Reference, immediately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier had indicated, all departments are asked to review their core mandates. Having a new department of Advanced Education and Skills certainly brings together the post-secondary division of the former Department of Education, as well as some of the components of the former Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

Mr. Speaker, in doing that, we certainly feel that the skills Mr. Noseworthy can bring to that department for a one-year period, to help us review the core mandate and make sure that the programs and services that the new department delivers, are able to assist people in the attachment to the labour market.

Mr. Speaker, the whole labour shortage, looming labour shortage and what we need to do to assist the people of this Province to attach to the labour market, has been the impetus for the development of this new department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House, the Minister of Natural Resources contrived what was really a media stunt by tabling eight boxes of information on Muskrat Falls. This information, as we know, was already available on the Public Utilities Board Web site. Since the House opened –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – we have asked the minister to table any report or studies that have been related to LNG, or natural gas pipeline, from the Grand Banks. We have also asked for five-year cash flow projections from Nalcor, and we have asked for the power purchase agreement between Nalcor and Newfoundland Hydro.

None of these documents that were requested have been tabled, so I ask the minister: Are you prepared to table those?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ed Martin, the President of Nalcor, outlined in great detail the steps that they had taken in terms of looking at the options for Muskrat Falls, Holyrood refurbished. They indicated that at the Decision Gate 2 process, liquefied natural gas was screened out. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Martin indicated, it was a fairly easy decision at that point because the viability of building a 350 to 650 kilometre pipeline from the Grand Banks just did not work. I am not aware of any LNG study.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated on several occasions, I have met with experts, notably Wood MacKenzie in New York, PIRA in New York, and Ziff Energy of Calgary and discussed natural gas. I have indicated that the opinions given to us unanimously are that natural gas is not going to work. There are no studies or reports that I am aware of. If there are, they are in the eight boxes and I suggest that the Opposition go through them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Well, they are not in the boxes. There was a comment made in this House last week, though, that it was kind of conclusive, the impression I had from that.

Mr. Speaker, the government's 2007 Energy Plan clearly states that our Province will receive the full benefit of the Upper Churchill in 2041; however, the Manitoba Hydro report states that Nalcor has not considered sourcing Upper Churchill power because of the uncertainty of what will happen in 2041.

I ask the Premier: Can you explain why Nalcor is uncertain of what will happen with Upper Churchill power after 2041? Are there concerns that we may not gain control of this resource?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite mentioned the Energy Plan. The Energy Plan is the platform in which we lead to 2041 and the return of the Upper Churchill. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we are taking our non-renewable resource monies, our oil money, we are building schools, infrastructure and hospitals leading with Muskrat Falls and Gull Island, hopefully, to the development of a renewable resource economy. What we are always looking for, Mr. Speaker, is looking towards that day for our children and grandchildren when the Upper Churchill will be returned.

There are other issues, yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. CF(L)Co is owned 65 per cent by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and 35 per cent by Hydro-Quebec. It is not simply a matter that there will be free power upon the return of the Upper Churchill in 2041. There are issues that have to be worked out, the CF(L)Co board has fiduciary obligations upon them. Mr. Speaker, we are always looking towards 2041, and Muskrat Falls is an important first step.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, OCI sent a trawler to sea last month crewed by scab labour, displacing the trawlermen who have worked with the company for upwards of forty years.

I ask the Premier: Do you support collective bargaining in the Province or is this your way to crush and destroy the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the role of government, and indeed the role of the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour are to provide conciliation services. In December, Mr. Speaker, in the current labour dispute that the member refers, I was written, I provided the conciliation services. That conciliation service remains. I encourage both parties to come and meet with the conciliator and find that common ground, Mr. Speaker, and to get an agreement.

Thank you.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Government of New Brunswick announced at the Boston Seafood Show that they plan to fly seafood from Moncton to Europe at top dollar for their province.

I ask the Premier: When our Minister of Fisheries gets back from the same show, hopefully enlightened, does she still intend to let OCI barge our fish to China at rock-bottom prices?

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

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot say as to what discussions took place at the Boston Seafood Show, Mr. Speaker, but the minister will be back this afternoon. I will certainly undertake to speak to him about it, and if there is something to be announced, I am sure the minister will announce that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education, and it pertains to the school in my district, in Charlottetown, that has been closed. Mr. Speaker, parents and students are very frustrated over the continuing delays and closure of their school which has reached three weeks now. They are not happy with the fact that air quality testing has been taking so long. In fact, the remediation work that has been done was not adequate and suitable to allow them to go back into the facility, and more air quality testing has been ongoing.

I ask the minister today: When can we expect to see the final air quality test and inspection reports from this school, and can he tell me what the government's plan is for the full replacement of that school in Charlottetown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me be clear right up front. The safety of our students will not be compromised in any way. That comes first and foremost. This is about identifying what exactly the problem, and then putting in place the solution.

Mr. Speaker, the Western School District did bring in an independent consultant, they carried out tests last week, and there were elevated levels of mould found. The second set of testing is being conducted today. When the report comes back, Mr. Speaker, those results will be provided to the school community. I would ask the school community to co-operate with us, and we will find our way through this, and there will be a facility that these students will return to that will be safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem in this community is that there are no suitable temporary accommodations to school the children in. The community centre closed down a year ago. They have an application before the government now for a new community centre in that community for the same reasons. Mr. Speaker, the parents and teachers, it is an understatement when I say they are frustrated because they are beyond that. The school they are in is forty-seven years old. The ceilings have fallen in, there has been numerous oil spills in the school. There have been problems, Mr. Speaker, with circuit breakers tripping and so on.

I ask the minister and the government: Will they consult with the Western School Board and look at making the replacement of this school a priority for the children in the community of Charlottetown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have consulted with the Western School District; as a matter of fact, for about two hours this morning staff were discussing this particular situation with the Western School District.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot determine yet as to what the students will return to, but, Mr. Speaker, we will not play any politics with this at all. The member knows that in the last number of years there have been two new schools that have gone into her district. We will do an assessment of this situation and we will turn this around as quickly as we can in conjunction with the Western School District and the school council and the community. Again, we will not compromise student safety and when these students return to a facility, whatever that facility will be, it will be a safe one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last year we questioned this government on its hiring of their PC friend Roebothan McKay and Marshall to pursue tobacco litigation. Yesterday, the Canadian Press reported that six provinces have retained a national legal team to prosecute Canadian tobacco companies and this Province was not listed among them.

I ask the minister: Why are we not part of this national litigation team?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we are familiar with the court case that the hon. member refers to, it started in Montreal. It has nothing to do whatsoever with our action, Mr. Speaker, in litigation against tobacco companies; that action is ongoing, Mr. Speaker. We have filed our statements of claim. We are into affidavit stage. A case management judge has been appointed. Our case is proceeding, Mr. Speaker, very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development about his program of paying $360,000 for each job created.

Today, I ask the minister: Can you table a breakdown of who received the jobs, where were they created, what were the companies involved, and did employers contribute to those jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, the funding referenced was funded through the former Department of Business and certainly looked at sustaining, attracting and creating new jobs. The total was approximately 348, but outside of that, all of the programs we are doing now through the former INTRD and IBRD now, we are creating hundreds of jobs throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural communities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Seventy-five percent of the funds that are used through my current department go into rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are creating jobs; we are assisting small- and medium-sized businesses. We continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. As we go forward, if we see policy and direction that we need to go in is somewhat different, we will certainly do that, but we will do that with stakeholders and working with the communities to make sure we maximize the benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, will the minister table the documents requested?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will certainly take under advisement what the hon. member has asked for and provide what I can to the House in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there are many other obscene examples of wasteful spending by this government. Can the Premier confirm that this type of waste will be targeted before her 3 per cent Budget cuts are inflicted on our people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest they have a caucus meeting and get their questions straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I have one member of the caucus chastising me for doing any kind of cutting, and then I have another member of the caucus telling me to cut because there is waste. You really should get together and decide what your questions are going to be in Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, we are always mindful of the responsibility we have as a government for good fiscal management. That is what we are doing all the time. That is what we are doing now in a very targeted process of reviewing of core mandates to make sure that we are living up to our responsibility to provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as efficiently and as effectively as we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not clearly communicating government's intentions regarding the review of services and cutbacks and it is causing great anxiety in the public service. The Premier has said that she is asking departments to do a review of their spending, but we have not heard a clear explanation of what her government is planning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What are the criteria that she will be using to determine who will stay and who will go?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the Leader of the Third Party that my plan is a lot clearer than her blanket statement in her orange book, I guess, that she was going to cut 1 per cent right across the board. Mr. Speaker, we are going to look to find 3 per cent savings, and we are going to do that by reviewing core mandates to make sure that the services that are being provided to the people of the Province are first of all relevant and effective, and that we are doing that as efficiently as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I have been absolutely clear, there will be no loss of jobs to permanent employees, but we are going to use attrition; we are going to have a look at attrition to try and manage growth in the public service. We are also, in this process, going to review temporary jobs and contract jobs, but we do not expect any great job loss in that process either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, for clarification from the Premier, I wonder, could I ask what her definition of a temporary employee is, because we are aware through Estimates of people who have been in temporary positions for ten, fifteen and twenty years.

Are they temporary, Mr. Speaker, I ask?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A temporary employee, Mr. Speaker, is somebody who does not have permanent status. Mr. Speaker, the terms and conditions of people's employment are clearly understood by government and by people in the public service.

Yes, we have circumstances in which jobs have been deemed temporary and deemed temporary too long, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker. We are reviewing that also to find if there is a way to bring balance to that situation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the spirit of trying to get some balance, let me try the next one. Over the past eight years, government has hired over 2,100 people.

Is the Premier now telling us that there are 800 jobs among those people that really do not need to be done and that public service does not need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that. I have never said that there are going to be 800 job losses. Do we put a cap – do we put a cap? We certainly did talk about a cap yesterday, that you would not consider going anywhere near a third or above a third of temporary employees.

I was very clear in my statements yesterday in my scrum; in fact, I said three times that the numbers will be nowhere near that. As we do our review, Mr. Speaker, we become more and more comfortable with the fact that there is going to be a very small number associated with any job loss because of this 3 per cent review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I suggest to the Premier that if she had not opened up this topic publicly and put bargaining issues out in the public, she would not be in the trap she is in now, not knowing what to say.

Mr. Speaker, the budgetary process is well known. Departmental budgets are prepared well in advance and are prepared in line with government directives. Mr. Speaker, government kept this House closed for five months; the Premier said at the time her new government needed time to prepare for the opening. Mr. Speaker, knowing government has had departmental budgets for months, I ask the Premier why government waited until the days after the Throne Speech to decide they needed a review of spending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Third Party thinks I am going to engage in an exercise and not be straightforward with the people of the Province about what is happening inside government, I have news for you, I am not going to do that.

The people of the Province have a right to know what their government is engaged in, in terms of determining the services that are required by the people of the Province and how they are going to be delivered. That is all part of the Budget process. With all due respect, the Budget process has been ongoing within this government since we were sworn in, in late October. It is a long, arduous process, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with almost $8 billion – hundreds of millions of dollars in programming. It is a long process and we will have a wonderful product to produce next month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think the Premier needs to insult the intelligence of the people in this Province, but it has been nine months since the House was open. They were re-elected in October, without changing any of their mandates; they could have had a Budget ready by the end of March, which she said in the Throne Speech was going to happen, Mr. Speaker.

Former Auditor General, John Noseworthy, has been hired to review the mandate of the newly-minted Department of Advanced Education and Skills. The Premier tells the media one of his duties will be to look at the role of temporary employees. Mr. Speaker, in his March 31, 2011 report, the Auditor General criticized government for the number of temporary employees now employed in that and other departments across this government.

I ask the Premier: Can temporary employees in all departments expect similar reviews of their roles and positions as Mr. Noseworthy will be doing about the department he is hired by?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Leader of the Third Party come along to the scrums with the Leader of the Opposition. Never have I said anything about Mr. Noseworthy reviewing temporary positions. What we have is a brand new department that is mandated to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are able to take advantage of the opportunities that are abound in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to be here for the next number of years.

We need to make sure that everybody in this Province has an opportunity to benefit from this prosperity, Mr. Speaker. Just in grants alone, there is $82 million that go out of this department on a yearly basis. We need to know that these programs are effective, efficient, responding to the real needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, daily we hear from constituents that they can be on hold for up to an hour waiting for someone in the department, that Mr. Noseworthy will be working with, to answer their call. It is especially true in that department.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How would cutting jobs from that department help the backlog that already exists?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, within the Department of Advanced Education and Skills we want to do a thorough review of our mandate and how we deliver services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if we feel there are needs that we can address to help improve the flow of services, we will certainly do that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to indicate to the hon. House here that we do have some very efficient employees in our department who do their jobs very well, and they are not idiots.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, last week this government said it was still reviewing a proposal to legislate the use of strike breakers in this Province out of existence once and for all. The minister downplayed the use of anti-scab legislation in Canada, saying it was only in existence in British Columbia and Quebec, but he chose to overlook the fact that those two provinces make up over one third of the population of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is this government dragging its feet on bringing in anti-scab legislation to protect our workers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a couple of incidents, but the hon. member has two jobs, as we all know here in the House, and he is an academic in his real job. So, Mr. Speaker, to speak to him being an academic, I would like to challenge him to read some of the work that some of the academics have done throughout this country and throughout the world, and he will quickly discover that there is a great divide on the usefulness of replacement worker legislation.

Just the other night, Mr. Speaker, I was reading from two different academics, like himself, with two different opinions – two very varying opinions. The first academic said, yes, that it increased the likelihood of strike or labour unrest by 50 per cent, but it reduced the number of days that it lasted. Mr. Speaker, the second academic said absolutely there should never be replacement worker legislation because it lengthens (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, last month the Premier said she was absolutely troubled by the arrests of two dozen Newfoundland Lynx trawlermen in Bay Roberts. The Premier went on to say that she believed that negotiated settlements are in the best interests of good labour relations in the Province.

I come from a fishing family in a fishing community, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier does as well. She and I both know how hard these trawlermen have worked over their thirty or forty years of service.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is she sufficiently troubled by this to take some responsibility and appoint a special mediator to meet with the parties and help resolve this labour dispute?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I referenced earlier, Mr. Speaker, as a government and as a Department of Labour, our role is to provide that moderator and provide the conciliation services. Mr. Speaker, in late December one of the parties had written me asking for that service; I think it was early January the conciliator was appointed. The conciliator remains in place. I encourage both parties to work through that conciliator.

These are very, very professional people, Mr. Speaker; they have great success rates in bringing parties together and working out agreements. Unfortunately, there are times when this does not work out, but I certainly encourage both parties to get together and to iron out an agreement. We have the professional people in place, they have been appointed, Mr. Speaker, and I encourage them to use them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one quick question.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, a May 2007 press release from this government announced that the quotas formally held by Fishery Products International were transferred to a holding company owned 49 per cent by the provincial government and 51 per cent by Ocean Choice International.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is she sufficiently troubled with the treatment of the crew of the Newfoundland Lynx to initiate a meeting of the shareholders of the quota holding company and seek resolution to this labour dispute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) to comment, just a quick comment. The time for Question Period has expired, but I will allow you one quick comment.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have people in the gallery today who I am certain would rather be fishing rather than being here. Mr. Speaker, as indicated, the way a solution has to be found here is for both parties to get to the table, and as was already said, and I would encourage and our government would encourage, that the parties get back to the table and find a solution here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, just now in Question Period the Member for Conception Bay South made comments with regard to the Member for St. John's North that I think are quite questionable. The Member for Conception Bay South referred to the profession of the Member for St. John's North, indicating that he had a full job in that profession and implications being that as a member of this House he is not in a full job.

Mr. Speaker, according to our legislation, any Member of the House of Assembly, unless that person is a Minister of the Crown, is able to continue other works besides being a Member of the House of Assembly. The important issue is that the person fulfills his or her job to the full. Mr. Speaker, to make reference, I believe in this –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: To make reference in this House to the profession of another person is something that should not be happening on the floor of this House, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to look at this issue. I do not think it is acceptable, and I really do not want to hear it happening again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, to the point of order.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, if I were an academic, I encourage people to become academic. I think it is a wonderful profession, Mr. Speaker. I salute the hon. member. On his Web site www.dalekirby.com he promotes himself as having two professions, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge it and I congratulate him. I think it is wonderful when a member has the time to work in this House and be an academic besides, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate him and salute him for being able to carry out two jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Conception Bay South knows well that we do not refer to each other by our proper names here in this House. He should not have referred to the Member for St. John's North in the way that he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the way in which the member pointed out that the Member for St. John's North had a full-time job as an academic undermines the issue that he is a full-time MHA in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, doing the work for his constituents day in and day out. I really look for a ruling from the Speaker with regard to these kinds of things happening here on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the words used by the Minister of Environment was that the member opposite had two jobs. That is all he said. He did not say anything more than that. He referred to him being academic. I think he referred to him as having a part-time job. The Green rules are clear that you can have a second job as long as it does not interfere with your primary role as an MHA. Obviously, I do not see where the point of order arises. It is simply a reference to what is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Opposition House Leader said I am lawyer; I am not a lawyer or something. People are referred to all the time by their professions. I do not see the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, to the point of order?

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just to say I do not think it is for either one of us on the floor to decide on the point of order. I leave it to you to make a ruling.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation made an observation in his comment that one of the members of the House is employed in another profession, which is public knowledge. I think many of us in this House would have read that in many forums and heard comments in the public domain to that effect and it has not been denied. I do not see there is a point of order as raised by the Leader of the Third Party.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a real point of order now. Earlier today the Member for St. Barbe referred to the fact that the Minister of Fisheries, when he got back from the Boston Seafood Show he could perhaps answer a question or he would deal with an issue. Mr. Speaker, Bosch and O'Brien are clear at page 614, "Allusions to the presence or absence of a Member or Minister in the Chamber are unacceptable. Speakers have upheld this prohibition on the ground that ‘there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all the obligations that go with their office'."

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that whether advertently or inadvertently the member did breach that rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, to the point of order.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, Bill 11, and I further move, Mr. Speaker, that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Any further notices of motion?

MR. KENNEDY: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Government House Leader to re-enter that motion when we get to the Orders of the Day.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of people in the Province with regard to home care. It says:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their own homes. Home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it very difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the Conservative Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in the 2012-2013 Budget.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been talked about for quite some time in the Province. It is a commitment that the government opposite made actually going back four years now – we are into the fifth year – in which they committed to do a long-term care strategy for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We still have not seen that strategy; however, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the election campaign, the government opposite did go out and make a commitment to the people of the Province that they would look at paying family caregivers. People in the Province are now waiting to be paid for the services that they do in providing home care to their loved ones.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have dozens of e-mails which I could stand up in this House and read from districts all over the Province, not just my own, from people who are now providing care to elderly parents, to adult children, to spouses and so on in their own homes. People have had to give up their jobs to care for those who they love and provide that care, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of no other home care program available to them or no long-term care facilities available to them. There is an expectation that they will be paid for the services that they provide.

We would encourage the government, Mr. Speaker, to bring that program into effect to ensure that family members are paid for the care that they provide to those that they love at home and that, that be done in the Budget that we are hoping to see in the next month or so.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of cost, I will just give you one example. I tried to get a constituent relocated to the hospital in Goose Bay last week only to find out that every bed in the hospital was full, the nursery in the hospital was filled, the emergency was filled, and there were no beds available. Mr. Speaker, nine of those twenty-five beds were taken up with long-term care residents because there is no where in Labrador to put them, yet we have the Paddon Home that is sitting there not being used. We cannot get that opened, we cannot get the family caregiver program activated, but long-term care is continuing to be a serious problem in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. I spoke on this petition twice last week. This is a petition that has been circulated throughout the Province regarding needed changes to the Department of Education school bus transportation policies, and it reads something like the following:

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in the walk to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noontime routes, causing hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student transportation policies have not been reviewed through public consultation since 1996; and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for more flexible policies for student transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of school children;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I took on this petition, Mr. Speaker, for a review of school busing regulations in response to a constituent in my district. I just want to explain, this is a single mom who lives on Thorburn Road, or in the Thorburn Road area, and that is a busy street these days, because we have a lot of people coming in from outside St. John's who are commuting to work. This young woman has two children. She is a single mom; she has one elementary school age child, and she has another child who is a newborn. She said to me, Dale, what am I going to do – I guess I should not say my own name, should I – she said, what am I going to do; I need to get my child to school, but I have a newborn that I have to care for as well. So it is causing her great difficulty. It is because of the 1.6 kilometre rule that has been in place since 1975. Things get more problematic on that street, as I said earlier, this time of the year when sidewalks are covered with snow, and it is slippery out and so on.

So, we started this petition. As we started it, I started to receive calls and e-mails from people from all around the Province. This petition here today has petitioners from the Gander area included, and I just hope that the government will see fit to heed this request from the petitioners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on search and rescue. This is a petition similar to what I have presented in the House already. These are ones that I got yesterday from Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They say:

WHEREAS Labrador is a vast land mass with many isolated communities; and

WHEREAS unfortunately, search and rescue assets were not adequately deployed during the search for Burton Winters; and

WHEREAS it is clear that permanent search and rescue assets are required in Labrador;

WHEREPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to urge government to do a full investigation into the Burton Winters tragedy, and search and rescue in Labrador, and lobby the federal government to establish permanent search and rescue capability at 5 Wing Goose Bay.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – on behalf of people in Labrador. As I said, this petition was sent to me by people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, because this is an issue that not just concerns the people of Northern Labrador or in the Makkovik area, but all of Labrador, and I would say all of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker.

People really believe that more needs to be done with search and rescue services, and there needs to be a stronger commitment by the federal government. They are calling upon the Province, Mr. Speaker, to be the ambassador for that, to be the person who leads this particular initiative with the Government of Canada to ensure that we get improved search and rescue services in Labrador and in the Province as a whole. They are asking, Mr. Speaker, that 5 Wing Goose Bay be looked at as a base for search and rescue for Labrador, and that the equipment that is there be available to service the needs in the case of an emergency.

When the incident happened with Burton Winters in Makkovik, the two Griffon helicopters that were in the hangar in Happy Valley-Goose Bay were broken down. We need to know the answers to that. We need to know why they were not effectively in use and we need to know why the federal government is not making that a first line of call and response for search and rescue in Labrador. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot happen.

That is the reason people are coming to the House of Assembly. They want the government to lead this file; they want them to put pressure on the feds to ensure that is done and that service is provided, but also to ensure that the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's stays open.

I was absolutely astounded yesterday to hear the responses in the House of Commons to the questions that were being posed by the Newfoundland and Labrador Members of Parliament on search and rescue. If that is the kind of response that we are going to continue to get, it is going to require more action than just petitions coming to the House of Assembly, I suggest to the government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

 

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

MR. KENNEDY: Okay, we are now, Mr. Speaker, in Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Exactly.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, and I further move that same bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, Bill 11.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 11, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act", carried. (Bill 11)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read the first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: On the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, if I could call Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, the following resolution:

WHEREAS section 7 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act provides that the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Assembly is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a nomination by the House of Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. William J. Brown be nominated for appointment as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill Brown be nominated for appointment as the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Assembly.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the motion.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the resolution of appointing a new Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Assembly. First, though, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and thank Elizabeth Gallagher who dedicated fourteen years to this role.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Elizabeth has become something of an icon around here. I can remember in the first session of the House I did something I was not supposed to do, and I was asked to apologize. I did not realize if you do not apologize right away, well, Elizabeth comes and gets you. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, I was sitting down there and she was coming toward me, and she had a look in her eyes, so I quickly apologized because I certainly did not want to have to tangle with her.

Ms Gallagher's attention to detail and respect for this Chamber, as well as her deep commitment to the security and the order of the House of Assembly are well known and deeply appreciated, Mr. Speaker, by all those who had the opportunity to sit here. As she moves into a well-deserved retirement, Ms Gallagher can reflect with satisfaction on her service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. People like Ms Gallagher spend so many years of their lives giving to the Province and oftentimes it goes unnoticed, so I think it is very important that as a Chamber today we recognize and say thank you to Elizabeth Gallagher for all the work she has done over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased today that we will welcome another experienced and well-qualified person to fill the position of Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. William Brown brings to the role a wealth of experience and training in law enforcement. I was reflecting, Mr. Speaker, this morning, trying to remember when myself, as a defence lawyer, and Mr. Brown had first encountered each other in the court system. My first memory is around 1990, and I was a bit of a crackie at the time. I always remember being struck by Bill's calmness and how he did not rise to the bait, Mr. Speaker, of the old defence lawyer tricks of trying to get the police officer upset.

Mr. Brown then moved through the ranks of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and was instrumental in guiding the RNC to through that Lamer Inquiry where so many changes were made in the way that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary does business. He moved to that of Deputy Chief of Police where, along with the retired Chief Joe Browne and current Chief Bob Johnson, they certainly brought a high degree of professionalism and integrity, Mr. Speaker, to the leadership at the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

We heard my colleague yesterday, the member for Paradise –

AN HON. MEMBER: Topsail.

MR. KENNEDY: – the Member for Topsail – partly Paradise – talk about the changes that have been made in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary over the years. One of the reasons for that, is when you have individuals like Mr. Brown who start out at street patrol, work in the various duties throughout their careers as policemen and then move to the Deputy Chief of Police, what they bring with them, Mr. Speaker, is the experience that comes with being a policeman on the beat, for lack of a better term, but also it brings out that respect within the other members of our force.

Mr. Brown was there, Mr. Speaker, in that crucial time frame as referred to by the Member for Topsail yesterday when 50 per cent of the new employees coming into the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary are female, whereby we adopted the Memorial University course, and that high level of training, Mr. Speaker, that comes with being a policeman.

While we go back a long ways, Mr. Speaker, it is good to see him here in this role, and again, like Elizabeth, I just hope that some day he does not have to come and get me. I think that now I know the rules well in terms of apologizing, which I had to do yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Brown has extensive knowledge and experience in security, administration and leadership, along with an impressive record of community involvement. Mr. Speaker, I can say, personally, on behalf of the government we are delighted to have such a high quality candidate taking on the role of Sergeant-at-Arms in our House of Assembly.

I invite all members of this House, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating Mr. William Brown on his appointment and wish him many years of productive and enjoyable service to the venerable institution of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to speak to Motion 2. Like my colleague opposite, I want to first of all take the opportunity to recognize Elizabeth Gallagher. Obviously, Elizabeth was working in the precincts of the House of Assembly when I was first elected and one of the first people that I met, and is certainly a lady of tremendous knowledge when it comes to the history of this Province, the history of the Legislature, and everything in and around this particular place.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize her commitment and her loyalty to all of us as MHAs, to the House of Assembly in the work that she did. Even, Mr. Speaker, I think for all of us, as MHAs, she was very valuable when we would bring students in from our district. She would meet them in the foyer of Confederation Building and give them tours of the House of Assembly, of the galleries, and so on and so forth. There was no one I knew that was any more knowledgeable to be able to do that.

I remember going on the first tour with her, myself, as a young MHA, and coming into this House. She started pointing out to us who gave us the chairs when we entered Confederation, and who gave us different signs, and who gave us the Table when we moved into the new House of Assembly and the gifts from all the provinces across Canada. She could just stand there and give you the full story and the full scope of what it was all about. You knew when you brought people to the House of Assembly and set them up with a tour with Elizabeth that they were going to get full insight into what we were all about as a Legislature and as a Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to wish her well in her retirement. She was also a good personal friend to me, having battled breast cancer herself, and continued to work while she did so in the House of Assembly. She was an inspiration to many women like myself, and she was certainly a support and an encouragement on many a day through those particular times. I would be remiss if I did not mention that.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to welcome new people to our House of Assembly, but especially pleased to welcome our new Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Brown, who I might say is very, very good at his job. The first day I came in here I did not have a headset, and within a minute I had two sets.

Mr. Speaker, the day the Member for Humber West got up to speak in the House of Assembly I asked for earplugs. Sure enough, Mr. Speaker, I have my own earplugs now in my drawer; not because I did not want to listen to the member, I say to you, I wanted to listen very attentively. I can still hear every word you say, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments about Mr. Brown, because anyone who has lived in this Province will know him from his years of service to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. He has had a long term of service with them and he was very highly regarded by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary of this Province, by his fellow officers and cadets. From the people I have talked to and the stories I have heard, they have all been very good, I say to him. Mr. Speaker, we also know he worked on very high profile investigations in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, earning him tremendous respect and credibility for his work as an investigator and as a police officer, and certainly giving all of us the feeling of being safe in this Province and knowing that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary was surrounded by good people who were giving it good guidance and good direction.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Brown was very highly thought of by his colleagues in his time of service there, and I am sure it will be no different in this Chamber, in the House of Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I certainly want to welcome him as our new Sergeant-at-Arms. I want to say that he looks really young to be retired and coming to start a new job, but I guess their loss at the RNC is our gain in the House of Assembly. I just hope he never has to exercise his policing responsibilities in the Legislature of the Province. I am sure he will not because we all are very hon. men and women in this Chamber, Sir, so I am pretty sure you will have absolutely no problem, and I wish you all the best as you carry out your new duties and your new service to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am quite delighted to be able to stand today and speak to Motion 2 on our Paper with regard to the appointment of Mr. William Brown as the new Sergeant-at-Arms.

I know he fully understands why we are all starting first in thanking Ms Elizabeth Gallagher for the tremendous work that she did here in the House of Assembly. Indeed, a friend to us all. As the Opposition House Leader has mentioned, we all get to know each other pretty well. We all went through her illness with her when Ms Gallagher was ill, and we are all so delighted she was able to beat the cancer that she suffered and now is enjoying a healthy retirement. We all have our stories, and she was just a delight to be here. She had a knowledge of the history of this place that I do not know if anybody around can equal. I am sure if Mr. Brown ever has a question, she would be there to answer that question for him. I cannot help but think with Mr. Brown in place, with some humour I say this, that his past experience as a keeper of the peace and law and order might stand him in good stead, though I do hope he will never have to use the Mace in the way it was in the very beginning meant to be used, to physically protect the Speaker of the House from the House. Let's hope it will only have to be laying it on the Table and taking it off the Table, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, Mr. Brown is not new to the kind of thing that happens in this room. There is a lot of ceremony. There is a lot of protocol that happens. With the background that he has, he certainly understands and values and honours what it means to have protocol and what it means to behave in certain ways in certain circumstances. I think he must probably be finding himself very comfortable, I hope, here in the House with us. He certainly has shown himself to be that way over the last six days that we have been here together.

I do welcome him, and I actually do have a little problem with my headset today, so I will be seeing him after that and I am sure I will get the same speedy service that the Opposition House Leader has received as well.

Welcome, Mr. Brown, and thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Welcome to our new Sergeant-at-Arms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, under the Orders of the Day, I call Motion 1, Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that we now move to the Committee of Supply and that I now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

We will resume debate in Committee of the Whole on Interim Supply.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak on the Supply Bill.

Before I do, I probably understand that the Opposition House Leader is probably somewhat disappointed and probably somewhat lonely this time around sitting in the House because the seating arrangements have changed somewhat. I guess she misses some of us from where we were last year. Just for her information, in that she does represent Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, I am planning a trip down there this year. I hope to go across on the Apollo, travel down through Southern Labrador, down to Lake Melville, and up to Lab West. I have been down there many a time and I cannot wait to get back to view again the rock cuts in Lodge Bay – always a nice piece of scenery when you are driving Southern Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in the wintertime.

MR. FORSEY: Not in the wintertime.

I remember going down there one time, I think it was around the last of June or the first part of July, and I did not know if I was going to make it to Red Bay or not. I made it to Red Bay, but then I had to make it down to Charlottetown after that, because I had to get through the rock cuts.

Just the same, I will be traveling down there. Maybe I will see her along the way.

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow the trend of some of my colleagues from the past few days in expressing – they have expressed their appreciation to the people of their districts for electing them, and I would like to do the same thing, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the people of the District of Exploits for electing me for a third time –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you – and giving me the opportunity to represent them in this wonderful House of Assembly again, Mr. Chair. It is certainly, indeed, a privilege to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three times lucky.

MR. FORSEY: Good support from the district, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North.

It is greatly appreciated.

Also, Mr. Chair, I would like to welcome all of the new members to the House of Assembly. I think it was one of the members from the Opposition yesterday talking about the backbenchers speaking. Let me say to the general public, Mr. Chair, that last year it was difficult enough trying to get up to speak with forty-odd members, forty-two, forty-three members. This year we have thirty-six, thirty-seven counting the Speaker, so we have thirty-six members sitting over here; so it is almost somewhat as difficult to get the opportunity to speak again. However, we have done fairly well and it is nice to see a lot of our new members getting up and speaking in the House and speaking on the Supply bill, which is so important to the Province and so important to the Minister of Finance to make sure that all of our commitments are met and that is why we are here today.

Mr. Chair, last but not least, congratulations to our Premier for being the first female elected as Premier of this great Province in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Chair, she was also the Minister of Natural Resources. She played an instrumental role, I would say, in negotiating in the developing process of Muskrat Falls.

Also mentioning Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, I would like to say as some of my colleagues said yesterday – I believe the Member for Port de Grave and I do believe the Member for Mount Pearl South – that they were supporting this project, just let me say to the Opposition and the people across the way, I am certainly supporting it as well. Let there be no doubt about the backbenchers and what they are doing and what they are supporting. I can only speak for the ones who have already spoken and I am sure that the rest will follow trend.

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak on some of the benefits of Muskrat Falls, but before I do I would like to go back to a question or a statement that was made by the Member for St. Barbe. I am talking about one of the members from the caucus number two and not the caucus number one, because apparently it was identified today they have two caucuses there. I am actually referring to a statement made by the Member for St. Barbe when basically he said last week that he referred to the expropriation of the Abitibi assets as somewhat of a blunder.

Just let me say, Mr. Chair, for the information of the Member for St. Barbe, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador supported that bill, supported that expropriation. I can guarantee the member that the people in Central Newfoundland supported the expropriation. This was what the people wanted and not only that, but the members opposite also supported it because it was unanimous when that bill was passed, Mr. Chair.

For the information of the Member for St. Barbe – and in fairness he was not here during the time of the Liberal reign prior to 2003, if you want to talk about blunders, and there are many that came up in that particular fifteen years I am sure; I could name a few, but I will just name one. It is to do with the hydro generating station that was allowed to go ahead and be developed on Star Lake, Mr. Chair. At that time, it was the Liberal Administration and they allowed Abitibi and their stakeholders, their partners, to build this particular generating station on Star Lake with zero benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – nothing, no return for the Province, go ahead and build it, and walk away every year with $10 million to $12 million in your arse pocket and bring it back to Quebec, send it back to Quebec again, like they always did. If you want to talk about blunders, Mr. Chair, I would advise, for the information of the Member for St. Barbe, there are many. If wants to go down that road, I am sure we can be kept here all day doing so.

Mr. Chair, I have been involved and privy to a lot of, I do not know about a lot but a number of detailed briefings, especially by Nalcor and other people on Muskrat Falls, as I guess most of colleagues here and including the members opposite. This particular project, which is already supported by Nalcor and supported by – well, actually the project is supported by Nalcor but there were two questions there that we needed answered. Of course, we know what those two questions were: Do we need the power? Is it the lowest cost option?

We have identified that fairly plainly. It is clear. It was clear to Navigant, it was clear to Manitoba Hydro, and it was clear by Mr. Wade Locke. If I am not mistaken, and somebody can correct me, but I think it was supported and said that it was a good project by a potential Liberal Leader. Mr. MacDonald said this was a good project, and the Consumer Advocate as well. There are lots of knowledgeable people with the skills to identify this project as a good project.

Also, Mr. Chair, with Muskrat Falls, we do need to identify the domestic supply requirements. Muskrat Falls'surplus power will be available for domestic use and export sales. The key to this project, Muskrat Falls, is that it will stabilize the rates for customers. I think this is important, rather than getting out there and speculating and trying to put fear in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

I see my time is running out. I had some information for the Member for Torngat Mountains but I will have to leave it for another day. Mr. Chair, I would just like to say, here are another couple of reasons – facts - that we need to support Muskrat Falls. It will provide economic and environmental benefits to the Province, it will provide a reliable service, and will provide sufficient capacity for future industrial development in Labrador, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, this being a money bill, I would like to talk about financial matters and I would like to propose a legacy project for the current government; not Muskrat Falls, because that is not their legacy project, that is somebody else's legacy project.

The tragedy of Muskrat Falls – one tragedy, politically, for this government, is it really does not matter what they do. If they shoulder the heavy lifting and go forward on a deal that somebody scribbled out on the back of a placemat and called it a term sheet, and even if they pull it off, somebody else will say that was my deal, you did not do it, you just finished it off. Meanwhile, if it falls apart or has cost overruns, somebody else will say, I had the deal already done and you could not follow through. So, I am going to suggest that this government needs its own legacy project – which I will get to – and in three and half year's time we will be happy to finish it off, and it will be much easier for the members of the party opposite to find the time to speak.

Now, one of the glaring examples of the doubletalk that we see on Muskrat Falls is that, first of all, it does violence to the English language. Two options are proposed, and we are told one is the lowest option. In fact, it is not the lowest option, it is the lower option. If it were good, better and best, this would be the better option, if in fact it was good. If it were bad, worse and worst - in fact, this would be maybe the worst option, but we do not know that because we have only had two options examined.

The type of legacy project - in fact, the legacy project I would propose that this government should embark upon was examined in the 2003 Blue Book. That project was then costed out but never proceeded with. It is a transportation option and it requires support of a good ferry service across the Strait of Belle Isle to get started. Not a ferry service that alternates between Corner Brook and St. Barbe, but a ferry service that says St. Barbe is the principle place and that Port Saunders is the alternate. Port Saunders is only approximately four hours to sail in a ferry whereas Corner Brook is twelve hours to sail, and then we run into the difficulties in service that we have seen in the past week or so.

The Province of Quebec is going at pretty much full speed building Route 138 up the Quebec North Shore from Quebec City and will link up the Quebec North Shore. There is little doubt that project will be finished in the next three, four or five years. That means that people on the South Coast of Labrador, or in fact, anywhere in Labrador, now can drive to Quebec and drive to Ontario. However, without a proper ferry service or without a fixed-link across the Strait of Belle Isle, the Province will still be surrounded by water. It is celebrated in song that may be a nice thing, but not a very practical thing.

I would propose that this government talk to their colleagues in the Province of Quebec and talk to their federal friends who have already agreed to give them a loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls, and look at the possibility of beginning to work on a fixed-link across the Strait of Belle Isle from somewhere in the St. Barbe or Flowers Cove area to somewhere in Blanc Sablon. Given that the Province of Quebec would benefit at least as much and is a sub-national government, as is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, something that the current government seemed to overlook when they subjected this nation to a NAFTA challenge when they expeditiously expropriated but ineffectively expropriated the Abitibi assets and then the Government of Canada and the people of Canada had to pay for the fine for doing that under the NAFTA challenge. If this government were to team up with the Province of Quebec and also with the federal government, then this government could have its own legacy project, and that legacy project could be, and in my view should be a fixed-link across the Strait of Belle Isle. This government is already familiar with the Strait of Belle Isle because the proposal is to ship power by way of a subsea line across the Strait. Why not go with a fixed link? The proposal that was subsequent to the 2003 Blue Book said for one tunnel with electric trains, that approximate cost – and I may well be inaccurate, but I think that I am correct – of not much more than $1.5 billion, which apparently seems to be chump change nowadays around here, as that is approximately the amount of the first mistake in the estimates for Muskrat Falls, somewhere over $1 billion when the interest got rolled in.

The Trans-Labrador Highway is now part of the national highway system, so why wouldn't the federal government also want to contribute to a subsea link of our Province to its mainland counterpart, being Labrador. If the federal government were to fund it at, say, 50 per cent, and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were to fund it by 25 per cent, and the Province of Quebec were to fund it by 25 per cent, the project would cost relatively small dollars to the economy of the people of this Province.

That subsea link would then be a fabulous boon for tourism. Instead of being a disadvantage for Port aux Basques, in fact, it would be an advantage for Port aux Basques. Instead of people coming from the eastern seaboard and coming as far as Halifax, or maybe even Sydney, and then turning back wondering if they come to the Island when will they get back, in fact it would be a significant bonus for people who – be a significant advantage for tourism, because then there would be a circular route available so that people could drive up the Quebec North Shore, they could cross to the Northern Peninsula area, they could drive back down to the South Coast, and leave again by way of Port aux Basques.

I would encourage any members of this House to examine the link that the United States has created across Chesapeake Bay – approximately twenty-three miles, and in kilometres that would be forty – that involves a causeway and two subsea tunnels. The U.S. navy sails over both of the tunnels.

There is a significant legacy project that this government can embark on, and if they manage to pull off the Muskrat Falls on time and on budget as Nalcor says – and let me be perfectly clear, everybody wants Muskrat Falls to work if it is going to go ahead. There should be no doubt about that. If it does not work then there will be significant financial repercussions for people in this Province who live off fixed incomes. I think it is easy and open for any of us to read the Nalcor materials and there is no doubt that whatever the speaking points are and whatever is the official position, there will be a dramatic and radical increase in the cost of electricity in this Province when Muskrat Falls comes online, if it is on time and if it is on budget. If it is neither on time nor on budget it will cost even more, and I accept that many years down the road, Muskrat Falls will look like likely a great thing. Will any of us be alive, fifty years, sixty years – who knows?

In 1967, I vividly remember watching the debates on the Come by Chance oil refinery, and two members at that time opposed the existing government and said how terrible it was. I think it was the Member for Humber East and the Member for St. John's West, one of whom went on to become Premier and one of whom went on to become Chief Justice of the Province, one who is Lieutenant-Governor right now. Come by Chance was opposed vehemently for many reasons. Come by Chance ultimately failed and then was rescued. Most people would say now that it is a success; however, it is more than forty years later and in the case of Come by Chance, the small consumers and the people on fixed income and small businesses were not sacrificed. It is clear with Nalcor's presentation that even if Nalcor is correct, and even if it is successful, and even if it is on time, there will be a punishing price to pay for the small consumers and the small businesses of this Province.

I would encourage the government to begin the next legacy project, being the fixed link, so that when Muskrat is finished, regardless of the outcome, the financial ability will be here and the trades people will be here and there will be some measure of expertise which we do not currently have; Nalcor has no expertise for a project like this, but given their new-found expertise, that they could do the fixed link across the Strait of Bell Isle.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I take this opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes about Muskrat Falls, especially to address a couple of issues raised by the member opposite. I would encourage the member opposite and members opposite to read the materials that are out there and not to simply promulgate these theories based on non-facts. I say to the member opposite, read the materials. Read the materials.

Now, Mr. Chair, let us look at the first fallacy that he put out there today, that rates are going to go up exponentially with Muskrat Falls. Again, I will try to break this down very simply, Mr. Chair. In terms of our analysis, we broke it into three profiles. We know there are 230,000 ratepayers in the Province. We broke the first one down into ratepayer 1, or profile 1, a customer who does not use electric heat as the primary source. In other words, they use electricity. They burn, on average, 775 kilowatt hours per month, and there are 90,000 of them. Mr. Chair, profile 2 is the customer who uses electric heat as the primary source. In other words, Mr. Chair, they use electric heat and electricity. They burn, on average, 2058 kilowatt hours per month, and there are 140,000 customers. Then, to try to explain to the average person, Mr. Chair, what we are looking at here, we looked at profile 3, the average of all Island customers, being 230,000 customers, they burn, on average, 1517 kilowatt hours per month.

Mr. Chair, we sat down then with the projections based on what we know now. There was extensive effort of a couple of months looking at growth. We know, for example, that 86 per cent of new homes are using electric heat today. We know, Mr. Chair, that are more households and there are 15,000 more ratepayers, despite the fact that our population has not increased that much.

So then we looked at, Mr. Chair, what is going to happen with and without Muskrat Falls. I have used the average Island customer simply because it is the easiest way to try to explain it. We also know that Labrador has the lowest electricity rates in Canada right now, whereas the Island of Newfoundland is the fourth lowest in the country. So, Mr. Chair, what we are looking at –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, I said electricity rates.

What we are looking, Mr. Chair, let us look at the average of all Island customers. That customer, in 2000, spent $135 on electricity. That went up by 43 per cent in 2011 to $193 – brought in the rebate, $179. So it went up $58 or 43 per cent. Now, what happens, Mr. Chair, between 2011 and 2016 is that rates will go up again $38, but this has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls, this has to with the reliance on oil. The members opposite and critics of the project have said, well, Holyrood is not being used at its full capacity – nor is it being used, Mr. Chair, at its full capacity at present. It is used at 15 per cent to 25 per cent. We have, approximately, capacity in this Province of 2,000 megawatts with approximately 488 at Holyrood. What has happened, as a result of the mills closing down, there was extra power available which has been integrated into the grid, and that power has been now used up.

As we move forward, Mr. Chair, and the need for power increases – as indicated by Nalcor and accepted by Manitoba Hydro International – what will happen is that we will need Holyrood used more – 18,000 barrels of oil burnt a day, Mr. Chair, the price of oil is going up. The Minister of Finance and I have met separately with oil forecasting companies. We know the price of oil is going up based on the expert advice given to us because of the volatile situation in the Middle East. It is a question of supply and demand, Mr. Chair, that we do not have enough supply to meet the world's demand. Currently 90 million barrels of oil are burned per day, Mr. Chair, with 20 million in the United States, 10 million in China. China continues to grow at 5 per cent; it will outpace the United States in a number of years as being the biggest oil consuming country in the world.

We also, Mr. Chair, have 80 million people a year who have entered the middle class, primarily in the BRIC countries, in Brazil, Russia, India and China. What we have, Mr. Chair, of all of this growth and what it is leading to is the forecasting companies, based on their expertise, saying that oil is going up. Holyrood will cost more, so the price of electricity will go up.

Mr. Chair, between 2000 and 2016, the average ratepayers'costs have gone up $96. Mr. Chair, between 2016, that person who is paying $217 in 2016 will now pay based on our projections to date – and we will fix up these projections as we move to Decision Gate 3 – will pay $232. Mr. Chair, it is going up $15 a month. Between 2017 and 2030, what we will see is that with Muskrat Falls on-line based on our projections today, rates will go up another $14 per month. Where is the member opposite coming up with these exponential raises and municipalities not being able to afford – it is going up $15 a month.

Without Muskrat Falls, Mr. Chair, our projections are that electricity will go up three times as much. You will pay $57 per month more without Muskrat Falls. What Muskrat Falls does, Mr. Chair, it stabilizes then reduces electricity rates. Mr. Chair, I keep coming back to these two basic questions: Do we need the power? If so, what are we going to do about it? We need the power, Mr. Chair, we have to do something. We either continue to use Holyrood, Mr. Chair, with the small hydro and wind or we develop Muskrat Falls.

I say to the member opposite, as I hear her chirping over there, you have asked about power for Labrador. Go back to the Grimes deal, which you were a part of, and look what power was there for Labrador mining in that one I ask you. Look at it – just look at it and we will come back to that later.

The second point I want to raise today, Mr. Chair, the $1.1 million overrun. I have been waiting for a question from the Opposition Leader on that point. Mr. Chair, Nalcor has been clear that the capital costs are expressed in 2017 in dollars that does not include interest during construction. Hebron, Mr. Chair – again, I think this is a normal way of doing business. What has to be recognized is that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the cost of a Muskrat Falls generating station is $2.9 billion, the cost to the Island, I think, is $2.1 billion. That is a $5 million cost. We have built in a 15 per cent contingency, along with 2 per cent escalation.

Mr. Chair, $1.1 billion are there for overruns, but come back to that crucial time frame, 15 per cent and the 2 per cent escalation; come back to that crucial time frame of 2017, that $232 a month, that includes the $1.1 billion you are talking about in interest, because the $232 is all inclusive. I can remember when I saw that number I said to the President of Nalcor, how can that be? How can rates only go up $15 a month and still pay for the project, pay for the operating costs, pay for the capital costs, pay for the interest, pay for the debt servicing? The answer is simple, Mr. Chair, when you do the math - I will have to find the exact numbers, somewhere in those eight boxes - that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the cost of the electricity we pay today is oil, by 2017. That money will now go towards paying for Muskrat Falls. Should we put $6 million out there in oil companies that take the money out of this Province or should that money go in our Province to meet the needs of our Province? The $1.1 billion in interest, which the Opposition Leader was correct in, is included in the $232 per month.

Mr. Chair, I want to clear that up and –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: I am sorry; what are you saying?

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: You are not allowed to buy shares in anything. Why am I answering her? Anyway, Mr. Chair, I am sorry about that. As I raised a point of order the other day: speak to the Chair. I am sorry, I say to the Opposition House Leader.

Mr. Chair, it is hard to summarize in ten minutes exactly what we are trying to do with Muskrat Falls. Essentially, what Muskrat Falls does, it allows 40 per cent of the power for the Island to meet the Island needs, 20 per cent for the export - 170 megawatts which allows us to then gain access to the markets in the United States, in the Maritimes, but also to develop other hydro and wind sources on the Island, and 40 per cent of the power for Labrador.

Mr. Chair, the Labrador mining projects are crucial. We have indicated - by the way, I checked out the Opposition House Leader's comments. The Premier did state in the House of Assembly last March, I have the exact time frame, that 40 per cent of the power would be available for Labrador mining projects. We are moving ahead on that, Mr. Chair. We are having very good discussions. I really do expect to see, Mr. Chair, the day that we deal with this issue in this House of Assembly for the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair to support this project fully, as I know she will, because it benefits the people of Labrador in so many ways, and I fully expect and seek her support.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Kent): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the member opposite need not worry, I answer to her every day.

First of all, before I respond to some of the comments that have been made, I just wanted to mention some of the comments that were made yesterday about public sector employees and some of the anxiety that has been created. Even today, we have heard yet another iteration of what those so-called reductions are going to be. We understand now it is two reviews; two streams in the review. One could mean a 3 per cent reduction, and then an attrition plan over a two-year period. So, it is a bit confusing for public sector workers. It is really, when we ask the questions, it is really for – on our behalf, we want to clarify it for our public sector employees because they do a great job day in and day out. Those recently announced reductions are certainly, as I said, creating anxiety on our workers. It is important, no matter what we do, that we plan for these announcements. They affect people and they have a tremendous impact on the day-to-day lives of those people.

Planning is important, and I want to speak a little bit about that. Many of us in our own day-to-day activities, we make our plans, some of us use checklists, some of us will just use to-do lists. I see people going around day in and day out with little pieces of papers, or if it is through their BlackBerries or whatever. So, it is important that we continue to plan and keep ourselves organized.

I even heard Nalcor executives just recently say in a media interview, talk about how important it is to plan for, in this particular case, Muskrat Falls. The comment was made that the more preliminary type planning that we do the better the project would be, and I agree with that comment. That is no different than any megaproject we do. Even if it is in our day-to-day lives, even if we are just constructing a house or something, preplanning is always important. It is important for a number of reasons. What it does is it keeps the project on time and it keeps it on budget. Unfortunately, right now we are in a situation where we are not really in control of the time. We found out yesterday in one of the questions in this House that the federal government is waiting on a loan guarantee simply because they are waiting on information from Emera. We understand right now that the Public Utilities Board version in Nova Scotia right now have not even started discussions on the Muskrat Falls project yet, and no really scheduled date to do so.

When I mention planning, if we do not plan properly there is always consequence and we run the risk of making mistakes. We have often heard in the last few months that this project has been studied for years and years and years. There is no doubt there has been quite a bit of study that has been done on the Lower Churchill Project. We can use that, as we should use it as we make this decision today. I have heard members in their comments discuss this and say that even twenty-five or thirty-years ago, people supported Muskrat Falls, or there was a proposal that was on the table for Muskrat Falls. That has been the case, but usually it has not been about bringing Muskrat Falls power to the Island. It is more about combining the project between Muskrat Falls and Gull Island and that, typically, put in place for export power.

When we look the Manitoba Hydro International, when they did their report, it was fairly clear they had some serious gaps. As a matter of fact, they used words like significant, major, major issues in some of the issues in their study. They referred to the budget – I will remind the minister that it was typically around a feasibility study, so it could be 30 per cent lower, or it could be 50 per cent higher. That concerns me, that when we are willing to commit $6.2 billion of money – and I know this is in partnership with Emera, that when we are willing to commit such big money for a project of this size, we need to be at a budget that is much tighter than that. As a matter of fact, Manitoba Hydro themselves even said that this budget was really typically something that you would see for feasibility. With that said, I realize before we get to Decision Gate 3 we will need a much more specific type and tighter budget, so I am looking forward to seeing those numbers.

Some of the other gaps that they have mentioned in this project were simply around the transmission line and the impact that could have in terms of the reliability. It is important, and I am looking forward to seeing this information.

We see three or four areas in this proposal right now that we really need some extra work done on, and I fully expect that before we get to Decision Gate 3, we will see this.

One of the things about Lower Churchill developments is there has always been – I remember too, as I heard this announcement on Muskrat Falls, the Lower Churchill has been very emotional in the hearts and minds of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is important to recognize that we cannot make decisions on emotions. We really have to make sure that we do the due diligence, because it is important that we get this right.

Back in June, 2011, we were promised a very thorough and rigorous review of this project. So far I think we have seen a lot of reviews on the two options that have been presented, the Isolated Island Option and the Infeed Option, or Muskrat Falls. I agree with the minister, we have seen enough review on that, but what I am a little concerned about is that we have not seen reviews of some potential other options.

Right now it is important, because in my opinion at least, we do have time; we do not yet have a deal with Emera and we do not have the information on the loan guarantee. We understood yesterday that this is really out of our control, and I do not agree that we should dismiss this project without the loan guarantee; that would be, I think, a very serious decision to make, even though we have said many times in the past that we could actually do this alone and not require a federal loan guarantee. I think it is important that we have that in place. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake because of that loan guarantee. I realize that Nova Scotia in this particular case plays an important role and that we should encourage them to get whatever information we need for this. If they are indeed going to be active players, this loan guarantee should be very important.

Given the fact that we do have time, I do believe that we have some time to consider some other options. As I said, this is important; now I just want to go through some of the things that we have seen south of the border. I asked the question today about LNG, in natural gas. I really would like to see the reports on that, because I do not really believe that we have actually done enough consideration for that.

South of the border right now we are seeing some major shifts in terms of energy, in the energy needs, and how the energy is actually supplied in the US. Just as a for instance, we have seen electricity rates in some US states cut by 50 per cent, and all of this relates to the availability of natural gas. Right now in many parts of the US, we know with a degree of certainty that natural gas is by far and away the cheapest option for power generation right now. Even in the fourth quarter of 2011, we have seen wholesale electricity rates drop in the US by 10 per cent; that is a significant drop when you look at that in just one quarter.

The reason why I raise this is that things have changed since this term sheet was initially put in place. It is important for us when we consider our options that we look at all our options. I have looked at the Energy Plan many times since 2007 and it keeps referring to what we have as a warehouse and a warehouse full of energy options.

One of the options in that is certainly natural gas, but I am not suggesting that we have to go out right now and natural gas would be the solution instead of Muskrat Falls. I do not believe that – I do not believe that. I do believe that we have time on our side, and considering all the options that we have available, it is something that we should do. The reason why we should do that is because there is a generation that is going to come behind this that will eventually end up paying for some of this and they will be impacted.

One of the other things that the minister pointed out, and I did raise this last week about the interest during construction, is that – I know back in 2005 with the Atlantic Accord with the amendment – we always looked at the value of reducing long-term debt and the $2 billion that we put towards long-term debt. That gave us tremendous value, hundreds of millions of dollars per year in savings. Those same opportunities are still available to us when you look at the $2 billion that we have currently available.

I think it is important right now that we consider all the options that we have available to us. One other note here before I finish is that just as late as February of this year we saw the lowest settlement price in electricity prices in the US since 2002. It is important, as I say, that all those options be considered and I would love to see those reports tabled, if indeed they are done as it relates to LNG or natural gas as an option to Muskrat Falls.

I will finish up now by saying that considering all the options is important for us, it affects our financing. Mr. Chair, I realize now my time is up, but I look forward to more discussion on this in the near future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Interim Supply. Officially, this is my first time to speak since the House has opened. I would just like to take a moment to thank the people in Ferryland district for again returning me to this hon. House for the third time. I thank them for their support and as well all those people, as all of the hon. colleagues here know, who have helped us out in terms of getting here, all our volunteers and support from our families. I would just like to say thank you to all those people out there who helped me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, it is special to be elected to come here in this hon. House. There are only forty-eight at any particular time. Historically, whenever you are here, there are decisions made and you are part of it that directs our Province, and we are all part of that. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here, and we should always remember that as hon. members of the House, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to reference a couple of things as I go through, because it is Interim Supply and you are free to speak on any items of importance to you, your district, or the Province. I was pleased to see in the Speech from the Throne that we looked at various issues of diversification. Mr. Chair, from my Department of IBRD and certainly from a provincial perspective, we always look at diversification and sustainability. We have our traditional industries, no doubt, in terms of our fishing industry, which is still vital to all of Newfoundland and Labrador, with production value of over $1 billion. It is very important and continues to be robust. As we move forward, it is certainly very important to our economy in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, we move forward and we look at diversifying our economy, we have to sustain economic growth and continue to do the kinds of things that are going to allow our Province, our towns, our communities to continue to grow and to continue to flourish. We have seen some challenges in the Province over the past number of years in terms of the paper industry, but we have also seen some great opportunities and towns that are sort of coming back – Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor and the work that has been done there. Those towns and areas are seeing an increase in residential development, commercial development. For the first time in twenty-five years, Mr. Chair, we are seeing an increase in our population, which is indicative of what is happening in this Province in terms of economic growth, in terms of our government, in terms of expenditures in social programs. Using the revenues we are getting from our non-renewable resources to reinvest in all those important things that make our communities sustainable, whether that is municipal infrastructure, hospitals, schools, all of those things that allow our communities and our regions the services they need and our people to have the services they need to continue to prosper, Mr. Chair.

The other part in my department that I cover and it is important to all of us here in this House is youth and the importance of youth in terms of as we move forward. Youth certainly are our future and leaders today in terms of what they do in their perspective. We have made tremendous inroads in terms of post-secondary. Our investment in our post-secondary institutions is certainly renowned, not just here but around the country and around the world. The Marine Institute is a state-of-the-art facility in terms of marine and other professions in terms of the simulators and various other investments we have made up there. It is a fantastic institution that is used by many different industries. The College of the North Atlantic, again well recognized. Memorial University, in terms of all the faculties we have there, is certainly well renowned. We are investing in our youth to make sure that they can play a role today and tomorrow in our economy as we continue to grow and our Province continues to grow.

Having said that, it is important, too, as we move forward, to expose our youth to innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, because they can take full advantage of what lies ahead for them. It is long term for the Province – that is about sustainability and diversifying our economy as well, Mr. Chair – that youth are exposed to entrepreneurism, the benefits of that to our education institutions, so they get the type of training they need.

Mr. Chair, we have done, through the department, various initiatives to look at youth in terms of exposing them to these things I speak of. Certainly, look at the Young Entrepreneurs and Innovators Program; we have Youth Innovation, Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy – all of those are moving forward to identify for youth what they need and ensuring that we can provide that for them so they can fully participate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I had an opportunity just speaking to – I was at the Angus Bruneau Centre a couple of months ago in terms of the innovation youth awards; those are some of the most talented, I would think, people, in terms of the university, in terms of doing research. We had people there who got awards that were doing their masters, doing their Ph.D. In terms of the scope and breadth of where our university is to, I met a young man who was from Pakistan; he had done an undergraduate degree in Pakistan, and I asked him how did he come to Newfoundland, to Memorial University? He talked about some research he had done and the work that was done here, specifically in the area of ocean technology; what was being done certainly interested him. He came here and is now, if I remember correctly, completing his Ph.D. So it just gives the scope, Mr. Chair, of what we have to offer, certainly for our own people, and certainly for people outside.

Then, as they come and we share ideas, that is all part of innovation, too, Mr. Chair. Sharing ideas, sharing thoughts, sharing on how we do things, it is all part of that as well. So, we need to make sure that our youth are fully engaged, have those opportunities, and continue to grow.

I also had an opportunity a little while back to be in Clarenville. An ocean technology company was there. A young man of twenty-seven years old – as an example of what is happening out there – he had developed new technology in terms of camera imagery for ROVs. At twenty-seven years old, he was going to market, exporting out of this Province a new technology that was developed here and was part of sustainability, but more importantly, a part of diversifying our economy.

Mr. Chair, the ocean technology sector now in Newfoundland and Labrador has about over fifty companies. They are exporting about $500 million – half a billion dollars – outside, in terms of work they are doing outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lot of that is around the world – Brazil, China, other countries around the world. The technology is being created here and is doing quite well. We predict, and we are working with the industry, to have that industry grow to $1 billion by 2015. Those in the industry will tell me we will surpass that. It is great to see, and that is all part of diversification and supporting our post-secondary institutions, supporting different areas, different industries like ocean technology.

This morning, Mr. Chair, I had a chance to speak to, and met with, the aerospace and defence industry, a number of companies from that industry – again, doing great things in terms of developing technology here and exporting it, using it domestically and in Canada, but also around the world. A number of companies as well here operating the aerospace and defence – again, they are talking to me, estimating over $400 million in terms of what is generated through their work. They continue to grow, continue to diversify and as such, it is certainly an industry we are going to work with, continue to recognize the good things they are doing, and continue to diversify our economy.

The thing about these two, Mr. Chair, is that these are not needed or required in urban centres. This work is being done – these entrepreneurs, this research and development can be done anywhere and it is being done, not just in bigger centres, but certainly throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we will continue to support, Mr. Chair.

As I said, research is certainly a huge part of innovation. We have invested, through the Research and Development Corporation, $50 million in terms of various programs, working with post-secondary, working with various industries – the oil and gas industry, mining industry. We will continue to grow that. That investment has leveraged over an additional $30 million, so that is $80 million gone into the research and developments from there. It is an incubator of ideas. We have moved forward in terms of developing those ideas, moving along the business continuum to commercialization, to new companies, to new development. We are certainly there to support those companies with development as we continue to diversify our economy.

Mr. Chair, my time is winding up here, but I would just like to emphasize the fact that as a government, as a department, we are committed to our youth, certainly innovation, and diversifying our economy. We are going to continue to do that. It is important.

I look forward to speaking again on the many items in the department and the great initiatives of this government. Thank you again to the people of Ferryland, to have the opportunity to represent them for the next four years.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits – White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a great opportunity to speak to the Interim Supply Bill. I want to say that community, economic and small business development is pillar to any community, any region. As much as the government talks about diversification and talks about the oil and gas, and the mining sector, it is wonderful that these sectors are doing extremely well.

One area which I see this government needs to go in and develop further is in advanced telecommunications and transportation networks. We are really falling down behind this and for the last, quite a while actually, since last March and beyond I have been writing and calling for telecommunications to be addressed.

In my districts and other rural districts there is poor cell coverage and broadband Internet, it is quite commonplace. I have contacted mobility providers, I have written the media about this, and I have also written the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development. I did receive a response and I thank you for that response. The government has invested $27 million in broadband Internet initiatives across the Province, this is wonderful and it leveraged over $115 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: This is great, and now 470 communities have broadband Internet access.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: This was done in piecemeal fashion without a plan. It is not an advanced telecommunications plan; it is done in piecemeal fashion, so we are leaving out communities. There are rural broadband initiative guidelines that were submitted by the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development and now communities in my district, like Pine Cove, Eddie's Cove, Bide Arm, North Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carol's, Goose Cove, Grandsway, St. Anthony Bight, these are all left out.

When you look at developing cellphone coverage, when we look at the importance of this aspect of providing public safety, there are a number of communities all across Newfoundland and Labrador that does not have broadband and cellphone coverage. When we look at the cellphone coverage that is needed –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MITCHELMORE: Unfortunately, it is not as good as British Columbia which currently has 93 per cent coverage and advancing to 97 per cent.

Mr. Chair, when we look at cellphone coverage in the Province and just in my district alone, from the St. Anthony Airport to St. Anthony there is no coverage. There is no coverage in many of the towns going to Cook's Harbour, to Wild Bight. When we look at going to many areas across country, to Roddickton, Bide Arm, Main Brook, Plum Point, there is no access, very limited access in places. When we look at the Town of Conche, there is no cellphone coverage. These are absolutely critical.

If you are working in the health care field, for the people who hope to maintain their jobs, these casual workers or temporary workers, some of these people live in Conche and they have to wait by the telephone at their home because they need work. They cannot go out in the community because there is no cellphone coverage. That is completely unacceptable. It is twenty-six kilometres of gravel road, imagine going off the highway and needing emergency services. That is not going to be deployed. I do not think this is funny, this is serious business. When it comes to looking at a telecommunication strategy, it includes broadband Internet, it includes cell coverage. It looks at telecommunication centres for advanced learning. We could save money by looking at putting in telecommunications centres in key areas.

Mr. Chair, if we look at areas, we have Colleges of the North Atlantic across Newfoundland and Labrador, we could be developing in rural areas telecommunication centres where we look at providing teleconferencing, telelearning. If we look at providing meetings, we could cut down on some travel that is needed by volunteers, by government employees, where you could have significant cost savings by looking at using technology. People could look at getting an education from a distance. These are great opportunities and they are being practiced in other provinces, such as British Columbia. It is not being done in this Province. It is being done in very piecemeal fashion and we need a plan. We need a plan to look at how we are going to have better savings in this Province and better delivery for all areas and better diversification.

When we look at transportation networks, we have some various things when we look at the telecommunications piece there as well. If we look at the airport, or we look at the ferry terminal in St. Barbe, it does not currently have broadband Internet. I worked in community economic development, small business development, and the office did not have broadband Internet. It is quite a disadvantage when we look at how we are going to advance rural economies. We do not have to look that far to look at how we need to partner, and we do need to partner with federal counterparts and federal counterparts have said we need to have broadband Internet at 1.5 megabytes; at least that speed by 2015. Well, 2015 is far too long for the 200-plus communities in Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have that broadband Internet access. If we are going to look at providing provincial 911 and developing that strategy, we do have to have a plan to look at addressing cellphone coverage. People drive the highway, and it is the Trans-Canada Highway in places, it is secondary roads and it is the wilderness, and we do need to look at putting in investment in that area.

I want to talk about communities coming together, looking at co-operation and how we can really achieve success. We only have to look at St. Anthony Basin Resources Incorporated, SABRI. In 1997, when the fisheries management plan was released, that group – sixteen communities from across the Northern Peninsula, in the St. Anthony Basin region – lobbied for a 3,000-tonne quota of shrimp and they received that. When they received that, they actually took over FPI assets and started St. Anthony Seafoods Limited. With that they took on an ownership role. With the profits that were taken from this quota, they were able to give back to the communities.

They had an investment where they gave $10,000 back to each community to do community economic development. What they found was many of the smaller communities were not organized. They did not have towns. They did not have development associations and the way to look at spending that money and leveraging to get additional funds. With the volunteer board made up of fishers, made up of plant workers, made up of community representatives, and made up of development associations, they collaborated; they came together and they found the common good. They said, let us find the best approach that we can do for the whole region. They found that the best approach was to look at doing a trail system for the region. By doing that, they were able to take that $160,000 and lever to get $1.6 million. This is one community that has come together. They are able to get the maximum benefit for the people. That is the whole point of a co-operative, and other economic models; let us get the maximum benefit for the people of the Province here, of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Since their existence, they have been able to employ hundreds of people. They have put millions of dollars back in the St. Anthony Basin region and they only have a very small offshore quota there of 3,000 metric tonnes of shrimp.

With that, they were able to look at doing other economic models as well and other investments. They have put docking facilities to develop cruise ship investments coming into L'Anse aux Meadows, which is a world UNESCO Heritage Site – absolutely critical to advance and diversify economies, but this would not be possible without that type of community control over the resource and working with key stakeholders. They have made smaller investments in terms of scholarships, Mr. Chair. They have also put in kiosks which could be put into other communities when they are doing community events.

These types of investments are critical to small rural communities. They help us advance; they help us thrive. This is something that maybe the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should consider looking at, looking at that type of model, looking at that approach and seeing if it is applicable in other areas across Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can really accelerate growth, not only in our fishery, these types of models. Being this the International Year of the Co-operative, we could have different co-operative models, looking at the forestry, looking at craft production.

Since the days of Dr. Grenfell, there have been co-operatives on the Great Northern Peninsula. He brought medicine and education, and he always believed that starting and developing employment was a key area of advancing our health system and looking at putting in things like a sawmill in Roddickton. These are great investments and these things are still here. They are different than what they were in the past. Looking at the co-operative and the economic model, this is something that really should be taking precedence when we look at new programs that are going to be coming out from the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I listened to the hon. member, attentively to his comments, and I wanted a few minutes to speak to some of what he talked about, especially some of the issues related to some of the work we have done as a government since coming into power in 2003.

Mr. Chair, when we came to power in 2003, there were approximately 114 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador that had access to high-speed. Mr. Chair, back in December, prior to the announcement I made on behalf of our government, that was up to 450.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: After making that announcement, Mr. Chair, we expect to be up to around 475 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. In discussions with my officials, with the private service providers, they indicate once they go into an area, depending on the infrastructure and how they invest that, it could be expanded out further. We are still working with the service providers and encouraging them as we should and as we all should to go into these areas and upgrade or provide service where it does not exist.

The caveat to all of this, Mr. Chair, is that this is a federally regulated industry by the CRTC, by the federal government. We are basically stepping in as a Province and as a government to use taxpayers'money to try and encourage these private service providers to go into those areas that they say there is not a business case to be made. We stepped up through a number of initiatives over the past number of years. We are up to investing approximately $27 million; now that has leveraged approximately another $112 million. That is quite a significant investment since we have come in power in 2003.

As I said, it is a federally regulated industry, but having said that, we are working with the service providers, encouraging them to step up. We will partner with them when we can, within our fiscal framework. Money for telecommunications is there. It is the one envelope in terms of schools, infrastructure, and roads. It is a priority for us. We have identified that again when we went to the people of the Province in October. In our Blue Book we recognize, over the next four years, that we will do what we can to continue to improve high-speed Internet for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Having said that, we are fully cognizant of the fact of how important it is for education, for youth, for overall development, for economic development as mentioned by the hon. member, certainly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and what it means and how important it is. I am sure all hon. members speak to people in various areas in terms of how important it is and what we can do to move it along. There is a role here to be played by the federal government; hon. colleagues lobby the MPs, lobby the federal government in terms of their role and them stepping in and doing what they need to do.

Recently, I was in Ottawa for trade meetings with provincial, territorial and federal Trade Ministers. I took an opportunity at that time to meet with Minister Valcourt. The President of ACOA at that time made the case on a number of items that are important to our Province, as well as high-speed. I had an opportunity to set up a meeting with Minister Paradis, the Industry Minister, as well who is responsible for telecommunications. I certainly made to him the Province's position that we expect to have additional investments in terms of RBI, in terms of assisting us, in terms of Internet and telecommunications. I made that quite clear.

We will continue our efforts. We have made a commitment to it. We have made huge strides since 2003. The increase, since us coming to power, is over 300 per cent in terms of access – significant, Mr. Chair, 300 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Chair, we will continue to work with the private service providers and encourage them, as we all should, to engage. As fiscally as we can, we will continue over the next four years to look at building the infrastructure. The last program looked at through the RBI program that we had a call for proposals, we provided up to 75 per cent of funding for the infrastructure for service providers to go into particular areas. We would service it up to 75 per cent in terms of their cost for setup and they would put the service in and then, based on them being able to maintain it, maintenance, it was cost effective for the consumer. Obviously, it is no good of investing in infrastructure when it comes to price per household. If it is not reachable by the resident, it is no point in putting it in.

Those are some of the factors we looked at when we went through the process. Again, we are going into another fiscal year, we will see what that holds. As I said, we are committed. Our indication and our history over the past, certainly indicates our commitment to it. We know the importance of it, as all members here certainly do, and we are continually going to work with service providers and advocate to the federal government that they step up and play their role as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to rise today and have a few words with regard to Interim Supply. There is no shortage of issues to discuss in the House of Assembly; that is for certain, Mr. Chair.

I want to address one of the issues, and that is with regard to the proposed cuts that the Premier has alluded to in many of her public comments over the last little while. Some of them are around cuts within the temporary and contractual positions of the public service. Now, Mr. Chair, although they are out talking about making some cuts in temporary workers and contractual workers, it certainly did not change the fact that they were prepared to go out and appoint the former Auditor General to a temporary position in the last few days and pay him $140,000 a year under a contract to be able to do that.

Mr. Chair, today in the House of Assembly when the Premier was up responding to some of the questions, she said that temporary means just that and that contracts do not last forever. Well, the government opposite has a very short memory, because it is only a few weeks ago that the Auditor General tabled his report to the House of Assembly, and in that he showed us where temporary positions had been extended for up to eleven years – extended for up to eleven years within the public service, nearly nine of those years of which the government opposite and the Premier have been in power. So, Mr. Chair, temporary may not be forever and contractual may not be forever, but we know that it can run up to eleven years within the public service. That was pointed out to us in the Auditor General's report.

There was another employee, Mr. Chair, who was with government for over twenty-one years before they were appointed –

AN HON. MEMBER: How long?

MS JONES: Twenty-one years before they were appointed to a position through a job competition – twenty-one years. So, Mr. Chair, although when the Premier rose today and said temporary is just that, temporary, but Webster's is very important in terms of defining the context of a word. That is, that in the case of the government, when they look at temporary, it could range from one year to eleven years, to twenty-one years, in terms of a job within the public service. I wanted to point that out, Mr. Chair, in my few comments today.

The other thing I wanted to point out on temporary employees is that many of them were hired without any job competition. While the government today is being forced to look at cutting some of those positions, they are also the same government that added a lot of those positions and they added them without going through any public competition. These people were hand-picked by politicians in departments and placed in positions, Mr. Chair. They did not go through a competition in the public service, there was no job ad in the paper, and nobody had to submit an application. They just walked in the door and whoever were the powers that be at the end of the day said, here is your job. That is how a lot of those temporary jobs were appointed within the public service –

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did it?

MS JONES: The government opposite did it. That is how a lot of those positions were appointed within the public service, Mr. Chair. In fact, in the last Auditor General's report tabled only a few months ago, I recommend that every member in the House read it; it is beautiful reading I say to you, absolutely beautiful. Mr. Chair, he also indicated that there was $130 million spent on temporary employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MS JONES: One hundred and thirty million dollars last year spent on temporary employees from 2011-2012. That is how much he indicated that was spent. What a huge whopping sum of money for people, Mr. Chair, who got a job without even having to apply for it. It is absolutely amazing, Mr. Chair.

Those are the points I wanted to make around the temporary employee piece. I tell you it is worth having a look at it, there are a lot of documents here on that within the Auditor General's report. He gets into a fair amount of detail of where the breakdown is of all these temporary jobs. He actually gets into how many of them were hired without any public competition at all. We have never, ever seen a resumι for these temporary employees, so we do not even know if they are qualified, Mr. Chair. All we know is they are in the job, they did not have to apply, they got appointed, it is costing us $130 million a year, Mr. Chair, and we know some of them are extended year over year, over year, over year for the last nine years by the current Administration. Those things we just cannot ignore.

The other thing I wanted to speak about today, Mr. Chair, is an issue that I raised in Question Period, a very important issue on a school in my district. I have to say, over the last couple of weeks I have had a number of meetings with the Minister of Education. He has been very co-operative in sharing with me the information around this particular case and this particular school, but it is a serious issue and it is affecting the children in that community. It is unfortunate, and I know we cannot do a whole lot about the fact that we have a lot of schools in this Province that are still old and aging facilities. In many cases, they need to be replaced. This is one such school, Mr. Chair, the school is forty-seven years old. It was built in pieces. It was built in sections. Every time the population of the community grew and the student body grew we did what you do in most outport communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, we built a piece on. We built a piece on, Mr. Chair, to accommodate the larger class sizes and the larger number of students. While the student enrolment has dropped in the last few years, as they have throughout most rural areas across the Province, it does not change the fact that the school is still an older facility that has had a number of problems and complications in the past few years. In fact, Mr. Chair, there have been several times when we have seen oil spills in the school that were cleaned up. There have been cases where we have seen a tremendous amount of leaks and damages, all of which there was remediation work done over the years.

I will be honest with you, if you go back and look at the Budgets, I would say probably in the last ten, fifteen years, almost every other year there has been money allocated to do some work with the school in that community. It is not that it did not have regular maintenance. It is not that it was not being looked after. It is just that it is old. Like a lot of buildings that are old, they adapt to a lot of different problems. This is a school where the air quality testing has not been sufficient in terms of what the acceptable levels are. We know the ceilings fell out of the building because of all the dampness that was in the classrooms. We know the school board went in and did remediation work on the school and still the air quality testing is not up to the standards that are acceptable. This is a serious problem. It is very significant.

Right now the Western School Board, Mr. Chair, has not moved the replacement of this school to the top of its priority list, which really upsets me in light of the situation; nevertheless, it is number six on the list. What I am encouraging the government to do and the government has done this before where they have intervened and stepped in where there were schools that were not recommended to be replaced by the school board.

I remember in the District of Exploits, Mr. Chair, in the middle of a by-election where that just happened. Do you know what? The member got elected out there. So, there you go, Mr. Chair, the government can do it. They have done it before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: They did it before, Mr. Chair. They did it in the District of Exploits; in the middle of a provincial election, when the school had to be replaced and the school board was not making it a priority, the government went out and they made it a priority, because they knew that they had to put the safety of the children first. What I am saying to them today, and while I am encouraging the school board to move this school to the top of the list because it should be a priority, the children in this community have no where else to go to be educated. The shortest distance to any other school, Mr. Chair, is nearly fifty-nine kilometres over gravel road, and it is not good gravel road; in fact, the section of gravel road that we are talking about was just voted by the CAA as the fifth-worst piece of road in Canada, let me tell you, the fifth-worst piece of road in Atlantic Canada – I will correct that, in Atlantic Canada, Mr. Chair. I actually had an e-mail, as did the Minister of Transportation yesterday, asking us if anything else has been done to make that road more acceptable. Bussing is not an option in this school, but we have to ensure that the children here are given a proper education, and I cannot stress enough, Mr. Chair, the significance of the government getting involved and making the allocations necessary to replace the school in this community in the current Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just say to my colleagues, I appreciate very much their support.

Mr. Chair, I am going to speak a little bit today about Muskrat Falls, but let me begin by responding to some of the remarks made by the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Chair, we are going through an exercise that is looking for efficiencies in governance and the provision of services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, as I referenced in Question Period, over $82 million in grants alone go out of the Department of Advanced Education and Skills to support particularly young people who are transitioning from high school into other learning institutions and into the workforce, Mr. Chair. Some of the programs that administer those grants are twenty and twenty-five years old. We need to know that those programs are meeting the needs of young people today, people entering the workforce today. There is no one any better qualified in this Province to do it and to do it in a timely way than the former Auditor General, Mr. Noseworthy. That is a piece of work that really needs to get done.

In terms of that, Mr. Chair, you do have to look at employment. We have made a commitment to the permanent employees of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that there are not going to be job losses as far as they are concerned. In the 3 per cent exercise, we do have to look at some of our temporary positions.

The Opposition House Leader refers to the fact that we spent $130 million in temporary positions last year. I can only suggest from her remarks that was money well spent – that was money well spent, because she certainly does not want any of the positions cut. They must be really great people and not be idiots and slackers that some members of her party were referring to in days recently. Mr. Chair, what we are doing here is making sure that we are providing effective, efficient service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – no less than they deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Today, Mr. Chair, I wanted to talk about Muskrat Falls particularly – a project that is fundamental to the people of this Province, the growth that we are going to see in this Province, and the maintenance of electricity rates that are affordable for all of the people in the Province.

Mr. Chair, not only does Muskrat Falls provide the necessary power – there were two fundamental questions that were raised in this House on a daily basis by members opposite, primarily by the Leader of the Opposition at the time, who is now the Opposition House Leader. The question she raised day after day in this House of Assembly was: do we need the power – do we need the power? The second question was: is Muskrat Falls the lowest-cost alternative? Mr. Chair, we have had a resounding yes to both those questions by experts in the field, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was already convinced of that position. Nalcor, through their own research and the methodologies that they use to determine what was the best alternative to Seal Cove, had already determined yes to both those questions, Mr. Chair. Then we went to Navigant, who did an audit for Nalcor and who looked at the methodology they used, best practices used by companies all over this world who do this kind of work, and were told that the methodologies and the assumptions used by Nalcor in the planning of this project were in line with best practices and methodologies used all over the world. Mr. Chair, Navigant said that the information was correct. Then we referred those two fundamental questions because they were the two questions that the Leader of the Opposition at the time wanted answered, so they were the two questions referred to the PUB. I only have to refer people of Newfoundland and Labrador to Hansard, from the last sitting of the House, and day after day after day after day they were the two questions that were asked. They were the only two questions she wanted an answer to.

Mr. Chair, MHI has come back and said: Absolutely, we need the power. Not only do we need the power that Nalcor has said we need, they think they have underestimated the amount of power that is going to be required. Is Muskrat Falls the least cost alternative? Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

Members of the Opposition keep referring to the fact that they cannot get information. Every time that they have requested a briefing from Nalcor, it has been provided. Mr. Chair, over fifty information sessions in Labrador alone to the people of Labrador about the project planning around Muskrat Falls; briefings to the members of the Opposition whenever they have requested it; briefings by private individuals or groups from Nalcor whenever it was requested. A number of public meetings across the Province in which we asked for evaluations from the people who attended on the quality of the information that was being provided and were all their questions satisfactorily answered – a resounding yes to all of them. Even in the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, almost unanimously, everybody who left the meeting that was held by Nalcor said they absolutely had all their questions answered and were satisfied with the quality of the information that was provided and were in support of the project.

Mr. Chair, they are the facts.

MS JONES: (Inaudible) six people.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: It does not matter; if there were only six people at the meeting, then all I can say that the people of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair do not have a concern about Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That is all I can tell you.

I am going to tell you something, if there was a meeting in Charlottetown tonight about the school and what was happening in the school, there would be more than six people there. Why would there be more than six people there? There would be more than six people there because they have a concern about what is happening. When people do not show up to ask questions, they are not very perturbed I would say to the Opposition House Leader -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - and they are not disturbed because of the quality of the information that has been provided and because of the quality of the work that has been done by Nalcor. Nalcor is only advancing work that was started by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro thirty years ago; what an opportunity for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 2007, we released our Energy Plan. We have been to an election twice on that Energy Plan, and that Energy Plan is the foundation of our platform – the transition from a non-renewal economy to a renewal economy. Mr. Chair, we have an opportunity here not only to provide for the electricity needs of people on the Island, but we have an opportunity to satisfy the need for industrial power in Labrador, and the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Where are we going to get the power for the new mining operations that she talks about constantly in Labrador if we do not develop Muskrat Falls? The recall power will not do it. We have 40 per cent of the power that we need here on the Island, we have 20 per cent of the power we have sold to Emera, and there is 40 per cent of the power left over, hopefully for industrial development in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chair, we had an interesting time here in the House of Assembly last week, because she kept trying to tell us that the 40 per cent was not available because we were going to sell it on the spot market. Well, the spot market means you are selling it day, by day, by day, and you can pull it back anytime that you want; hour by hour in some instances. You are not doing long-term purchase agreements for the power, so if there is an opportunity – and we believe there are going to be a number of opportunities to use that power in Labrador – then we have it available to us. We have it available to us if we develop Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Chair, the expertise that we have available here in Newfoundland and Labrador has served us well. It has served us well over the last fifty years in terms of the Upper Churchill, and it will serve us well for the next 100 years as we develop Muskrat and Gull Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand to have a few words on Muskrat Falls. I just could hang on to my seat when I was sitting there listening to the Premier, because if you think she might have changed her tune on the Budget four times in five days, she has changed her tune on Muskrat Falls as it relates to Labrador far superior more times than that; I can tell you that, Mr. Chair.

I can tell you right now that when the terms of reference on Muskrat Falls were signed and the deal with Emera Energy, there was no mention of Labrador, and the Premier knows that. She was the very woman, Mr. Chair, who stood on the stage and passed all the papers over to all the premiers and all the ministers to get the documentation signed. In the only context that Labrador is mentioned in that agreement is when it says Newfoundland and Labrador. There is nothing in that agreement that says 40 per cent of this power is going to be reserved for industrial power in Labrador or for the mining industry, nothing of the sorts I would say to hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I cannot hear myself speak.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I am glad the Premier raised that today because it is a very significant point, it is a very important point, especially when her government is about to enter into a contractual agreement with Emera Energy of Nova Scotia. A company, a private corporation, Mr. Chair, in which they are going to give away power from Muskrat Falls for the next thirty-five years, as opposed to developing that power and the transmission capacity in Labrador to support the industry that is going to need it. Mr. Chair, that is the real context in which you need to look at this.

I have heard all the sayings before: Oh, we are going to sell it on the spot market and if we need it we are going to haul it back and we are going to use it in Labrador. Well, how are you going to get it to the customers? What are you going to put the power on? There is no transmission capacity to be able to transport the power, Mr. Chair, in Labrador, and we know that because we have talked to the mining companies. We have talked to the people who distribute power in Labrador and we know what the capacity exists on the lines that are there right now today and there is absolutely no way that you can transport that 40 per cent power. They can sit there, Mr. Chair, they can smirk and look as if you do not know what you are talking about but I know full well what I am talking about. If the Member for Labrador West and the Member for Lake Melville, Mr. Chair, could get to their feet, they know what I am talking about. They know very well what I am talking about.

This is the situation, Mr. Chair, right now it is just playing with words. It is playing with words and it is trying to leave the message out there that you think the people in Labrador would like to hear. You think it is going to perk up the ears of everybody in Labrador when you say: Oh, if you need power for industry we are going to make sure you get that power. Well, it is not that simple.

Today, your government is giving out permits to mining companies that are going to be producing new ore for export over the next two, three, four, five years. Every one of those companies, Mr. Chair, are going to need power when they start up. We are not looking at power five years down the road, ten years down the road, or fifteen, we are looking at power that is going to need to be supplied to these companies within the next twenty-four, thirty-six, forty-eight months, and the Premier knows that. Why are we building a line to Nova Scotia? Why are we bringing any power to Nova Scotia at all? Why are we even negotiating with Nova Scotia? Why are we not just throwing out the contract with Emera of which we are giving away the power? Why are we not developing it and leaving it here at home for the industry that requires it? Now that is a very good question, Mr. Chair. It is a very good question and it is a question the government has only turned their attention to in the last few months. They have turned their attention to it only because they know that public pressure is going to come to bear the question why they are not supplying power to the mining companies in Labrador.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Quebec has not only made plans to supply power to the mining industry but they have also set a price for industrial power. In fact, Mr. Chair, they have not only set a price for industrial power but they are prepared to sign the power purchase agreement with companies that want to access that power. Why are we not doing the same? Why are we all wrapped up in the terms and conditions of a deal with Emera Energy out of Nova Scotia when we can be doing just that with companies in our own Province? Why are we going to give power away down on the Eastern Seaboard for three and four cents a kilowatt hour? Because that is what power is going for in the United States right now, that is what you are getting for power there now. Why are we going to give it away to the cottagers in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States as opposed to developing it and giving it to the industry in our own Province? They would like for you to believe that it is going to be there if you need it, but power is like any other commodity, it has to have a vehicle to move and that vehicle is a transmission line. In order for that to happen there has to be transmission capacity. That capacity does not exist today. That capacity does not exist today, Mr. Chair, and has not existed for quite some time, I would say to the Premier. Mr. Chair, if the capacity is not there, how do you bring the power there?

We have a situation in Happy Valley-Goose Bay today where the entire town is not able to access enough power out of the Churchill project. I ask the question: Why? Why are they not getting enough power? Why do they have to look at other power sources in Lake Melville as opposed to getting all of their power from the Lower Churchill Project? When you stand up, you might want to answer that question for me. I know the answer to the question, but it is a very important question. Why are they not able to do that?

Why is it, Mr. Chair, that even with the expansion that is ongoing at IOC – and although we know that they have to negotiate a new power purchase agreement with the Province on power because theirs expires in 2014, also we know they are going to need additional power to be able to operate their expansion. I ask the Premier: What is the capacity to transport the power that they are going to need when they go to 50 million tons of ore being extracted? Tell me that. The answer is that the transmission capacity does not exist for this to happen.

Mr. Chair, the Premier likes to talk about all the consultations that happened in Labrador. Let me tell you what the consultations are. Every now and then someone starts to whine, Gil Bennett gets on a plane, paid for by the taxpayers of the Province – we do not know how much. He goes up to Labrador, does a circuit in and out, two or three communities, calls a few people, they come, they sit in a room, he gives them an update on what is going on. It has been the same information for the last year. It has been the same information that is being put out at those meetings.

They go in and they ask questions. What is going to happen in the Strait of Belle Isle when that line goes across the Straits and fishing zones have to be closed? Because that is what the environmental assessment tells us. That whole area of the Strait of Belle Isle would be closed to draggers and fishing activity. What happens when they ask people like Gil Bennett those questions? They do not get answers – they do not get answers. This is what the problem is. It is easy for Nalcor to walk into every room and give the message that they want to give and leave them with the few notes, pamphlets, and handouts that they want to bring to the meetings because they are propagating their own message. The problem is when they need to get questions answered and they cannot get them answered.

Let's talk about little things, Mr. Chair, not just big things like closing down the whole fishery in the Strait of Belle Isle and what the impact is going to be on the economy there. Let's talk about things like where the service contracts are going to be. The government likes to talk about jobs on Muskrat Falls. We cannot even get a commitment out of Nalcor to get rock out of Labrador. They are looking at the West Coast of Newfoundland to get rock. That is how bad it is I say to you, Premier. So, do not tell me about the meetings that are going on in my district or any other district around the Province around Nalcor. Those meetings are propagated messages by the government and Nalcor. They come in, they give out their flyers and their handout, they do not have the answers to the comprehensive questions that people are asking, and that is why people are not interested in attending.

Mr. Chair, are the people in my district interested in Muskrat Falls? Absolutely they are, and they are not interested in paying nearly twenty cents a kilowatt hour for commercial power, four times what they pay in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and double what they pay in the rest of the Province. If there is any action that you want to take from government for power and people in Labrador, that is what you should be doing: bringing their rates in line with everybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Verge): The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest to you that the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair has a selective memory. Since we first began talking about his project, we talked about opportunities in Labrador. Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, when mining companies want to talk to people, the Opposition are not the first door that they knock on. Mining companies are interested in what this government can provide to them in return for their investment in this Province. The minister just recently returned from PDAC, which is the biggest mining conference in the country and one of the biggest mining conferences in the world.

MS JONES: I have been there many times.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: You have been there many times you say, well then you would have heard these mining companies tell you, as they tell us every time we go, that Newfoundland and Labrador is the best place in the country to do business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: It is the best government in the country with which to do business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Chair, mining companies come and talk to us all the time from the very moment that they start exploration until they move into development plans. When they get bankable feasibility studies, and there is a whole process that one has to go through, but when we finally get to a place where a mining company says we are going to invest X number of millions of dollars to develop a project, then we sit down and we start to talk the details, Mr. Chair. Vale Inco has been operating in this Province for some time, started under the Opposition's time in government, and we have not yet arrived at a place when we are able to say that we are going to run a transmission line from the Churchill River up to Voisey's Bay. Why haven't we done that? We have not done that because Vale Inco has yet to commit to underground mining.

Mr. Chair, it is a process where the government does not get out ahead of the company. The company has to have its development plans in place and a commitment to that investment before we start running transmission lines.

We have a number of companies that have interesting developments in Labrador. Are they going to get them to the bankable feasibility stage? Are they going to get them to a place where the company is going to commit to investing hundreds of millions of dollars? We do not know yet. That is a process they are working on; it is one we are helping with.

Are we going to start running transmission lines all over Labrador before that happens – not likely. We have to have something to build a transmission line to. You are just not going to pick a half-dozen spots on a map of Labrador and say, just in case that development works out, let's spend a couple of hundred million now and run a transmission line up there. That is what you are suggesting.

In terms of purchase power agreements that are at work in Labrador at the moment, we have Voisey's Bay, which is not hooked to a transmission line; we have power purchase agreements with IOC and with Wabush Mines. A quarter cent they are paying – a quarter cent for power, $2.50 a kilowatt hour. Just imagine. Nowhere in the world, I suggest to you, does anybody have rates like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: There is still a time, yes, the time is coming to renegotiate. I am saying to you that nobody in this Province is going to get free power, but people are going to pay fair rates and the industrial rates that mining companies, or any other industrial company that comes to set up business in Newfoundland and Labrador, will have some of the most advantageous rates anywhere in the country, and that is the fact of it, Mr. Chair.

We do not go building transmission lines and putting hundreds of millions of dollars at risk without knowing what we are doing, any more than they suggested last year that we should have bought up transmission capacity all through Atlantic Canada into the United States, even though we would not need it until 2016, paying hundreds of millions of dollars for something we did not need for years. That is the kind of planning that happens on the other side.

Mr. Chair, 40 per cent of that power is going to come down to the Island; 20 per cent is going to be sold to Emera for $1.2 billion. I still do not have the math of the Liberals that says $1.2 billion gives them free power. I still have not been able to work that one out. Never mind the $1.2 billion that will go into building the Maritime Link, but over 60 per cent of the capacity on that link belongs to us. If we put the power from the 40 per cent –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – on the spot market through there –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, when that power gets called back, and I believe it is going to get called back to Labrador, there is no reason in the world – it is every reason to think that it is going to be called back and that is wonderful for every one of us; we can fill that line up with other capacity in small hydro and wind. It is no problem to fill the other 60 per cent, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Chair, we do need to do Emera, because there are distinct disadvantages to being an isolated system. Not only is there power to develop in Labrador, we have water; we have the best wind regimes in North America, not only in Labrador, but on the Island. We can transport power off this Island as well, no longer being isolated; I would suggest to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, no longer being hostage to Quebec either as the only route out of this Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: You like to talk about Plan Nord. Plan Nord is there for a reason and the reason is, 2041 is coming – 2041 is coming. We own the substantial part of the power of the Upper Churchill. We either get a fair deal on the Upper Churchill or, as far as I am concerned, and I am going to stay alive one way or the other until 2041, I will guarantee you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I am going to advocate on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that if we do not get a fair price for the power coming from the Upper Churchill, that it run to the water, because the days of people taking us for everything we have are done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Chair, there are all kinds of advantages. The advantages in the development of the Lower Churchill –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – are opportunities for industrial development in Labrador, is stabilization of rates here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: It is creating an opportunity for regional co-operation in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Chair, it gives us –

MS JONES: I withdraw that, Mr. Chair. You can finish if you want.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you very much. It is good of you, I must say, to let me speak when I have time on the floor.

Mr. Chair, it also gives us the opportunity through our contract with Emera that if we need transmission capacity into the United States for the 40 per cent of power on the spot market we have it because of our relationship with Emera and cheaper than we can get it anywhere else. Mr. Chair, when we draw back the power to Labrador for industrial use, we still have the capacity through Emera to develop small hydro and wind here in the Province or in Labrador and feed it through that pipeline into the United States markets in the United States. Mr. Chair, the expertise is within Nalcor to do this. I have to say, it rankles a little bit when I hear people run down Nalcor and the former Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They built the Upper Churchill. For fifty years they have provided a significant amount of power to Canada through the Upper Churchill. Has anybody ever heard a complaint from their customer about how they do it? They built it, they operate it, and they have the expertise. When I hear people run down the expertise that is here in Newfoundland and Labrador, I have to tell you, it gets my back up. Nalcor stands up there shoulder to shoulder with any other company of its type anywhere in the world, let alone anywhere else in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I am going to tell you something else too, I do not care what you think of the PUB but I resent it when somebody from outside this place criticizes the PUB. I am not of that school. I came from a time in my life when I saw everybody criticizing Newfoundland and Labrador and saying we were less than, well you can pull it back if you are talking to me, and that applies to Nalcor and the PUB.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the Interim Supply Bill. I am very happy to have heard that Newfoundland and Labrador is a very, very good place to do business but I am not so sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is a very, very good place to live if you are a senior living in poverty. If you are a senior living in poverty it is a very, very difficult situation. As a candidate going throughout my district I had many opportunities to meet a lot of seniors, many who are finding life very, very difficult in the whole issue of affordability.

There are a number of apartment buildings in my district and as I went door-to-door, I met a lot of seniors; many who talked about the difficulty in making ends meet. We know that in Newfoundland and Labrador about 65 per cent of our seniors, their only income is Old Age Security or Guaranteed Income Supplement. They are living, many, below the poverty line. It is an odd thing to see, particularly when you see that we are in a time of prosperity in our Province. If this is happening, if we see the huge gaps and the huge inequality in income, if this is what we see in a time of prosperity, for God's sake what is it going to look like when we are not in a time of prosperity?

So many people were fooled into thinking that RRSPs would be their saviour, and we know that is not happening. Some of the people who I met - I met a gentleman who was an LPN for many years and he said, I took care of the Province's children, I held them in my arms when they were dying, I held them when they were so sick. He said for the last seven years that he worked he did not have an increase in his wage. It was at a time when there was a freeze on wages in the Province. Then, he has been retired for ten years and he has not had an increase in his income. For seventeen years this man, who has held our children in his arms when they were sick or even when they were dying is living near on the brink of poverty.

I spoke to a nurse who works in a long-term care facility. She is fifty-seven years old and she said every time I go to work – because she is working in a long-term facility with seniors – I see my future. This is what the future looks like for me as a senior. Seniors who cannot afford a bit of money to get their hair done, seniors who cannot afford to take a grandchild to lunch. We are one of the few provinces where there is a means test that is applied to our seniors in order to have access to a long-term care facility. We are one of a few provinces in the country where seniors have to pay for their personal care services in our long-term facilities. We are one of the few provinces that do not have case managers handling and co-ordinating the care and the issues of seniors in our Province.

I also met an older gentleman, a senior in my district, who had nowhere to live because the rent where he was living had been jacked up so much he could no longer afford to live there. One of the things I did not realize, and perhaps many of us sitting here today do not realize, once you hit sixty-five years of age you are no longer eligible for the emergency shelters all over the Province. You cannot go to the Wiseman Centre; you cannot go to any of the emergency shelters, because once you hit sixty-five-years of age there is no longer a per diem paid for you. Hence, we have so many seniors who are couch surfing because they are not eligible for emergency shelter.

There was a senior I met who was at home for a cup of tea. She was a diabetic and she had to live in a personal care home because she could not get home care. So, her daughter would bring her home to her home for a cup of tea and so that she could visit her cat.

The whole situation of home care is in a crisis situation right now in our Province. We know that over 30 per cent of emergency beds in hospitals are taken up by seniors who have been mixed up with their medication, who, if they had adequate support at home, they would not be in emergency they would be able to stay in their homes. Consequently, like other provinces, if we have home care that came under our health care system, then we would have a better situation for our seniors.

Seniors living in poverty is expensive. Poverty is expensive to our Province. Mediating the negative effects of poverty is very, very expensive. Our seniors are not totally victims and not totally weak, our seniors contribute to our society; they have all their lives. They are consumers, they are taxpayers, and they create jobs. We cannot afford to not support our seniors so that they can actively participate in our community.

Affordable and decent housing is central to good health, we all know that. Yes, the present government has taken initiatives to try to assist in the development of affordable housing for seniors, but we know that in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Corner Brook, in St. John's, in St. Anthony, in Clarenville, wherever there are new housing developments for seniors, before the ground is even broken the waiting lists are tenfold of what these projects can accommodate for our seniors.

We have a severe problem of homelessness for our seniors. We have seniors who know that they cannot afford their next rent increase. We have seniors who have to decide whether or not they will pay for their heat, or whether they will buy food, or whether they will buy their medications. There are a number of seniors who will buy their medications only week by week, which is more expensive for them but because they do not have the money to do it in a less costly manner.

Home care work and home care services is one of the underpinnings –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would like to ask all members for their co-operation.

MS ROGERS: – making it possible for seniors to stay in their homes and making it possible for families to get on with their lives. I met a home care worker who had gone to school and had a student loan by going to school to become a home care worker and who could not afford to work because she could not have access to affordable daycare so that she could go and work as a home care worker. So, she is on social assistance and unable to pay for her student loan. If this is what prosperity looks like, we are in trouble.

Pharmacare; I would urge this government to work with other provinces and the federal government, because we know if we work together to develop pharmacare, it will result in a savings across the country of $11 billion – not $11 million, but $11 billion that can be reinvested in supportive programs to assist seniors.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I had not planned to speak this afternoon, but having heard the last speaker, I really felt compelled to get up and make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that this government is looking after seniors in this Province, that this government also understands the plight of those in poverty and that we are doing as much as we possibly can in that area as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: There seems to be, Mr. Chair, a sentiment that we are doing nothing over there, and so I felt the need to get up here this afternoon and point out the differences in all of that and talk about our Poverty Reduction Strategy first of all, Mr. Chair. I would suggest to the member opposite that she might want to inform her constituents, who are having all of these issues, of the programs and the services that we do offer – Mr. Chair, annually, $140 million in poverty reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MS SULLIVAN: One hundred and forty million dollars annually over the last seven or eight years, Mr. Chair, somewhere in the vicinity of – close to, at least – $1 billion in Poverty Reduction Strategy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – in programs and services to help the people of this Province who are the most vulnerable, to help the people of the Province who are the most in need, to help the people of the Province that this government cares about. Obviously the people of the Province have noted it; they have returned us to this place in the House of Assembly in great numbers, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, I will check Hansard and I will defer until I get a chance to do that, but I thought I heard some comment that said that home care is not part of Health and Community Services, it

is not part of what we do as a government. Mr. Chair, in home support services, $140 million annually is spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Apart from that, Mr. Chair, since 2006, we have also added another $104 million in those supports, the access in terms of hourly supports to the workers that we have raised by $2 above the minimum the wage at a cost of $57 million, Mr. Chair. The introduction of the income testing and the increases in the monthly financial ceilings – all of those investments, Mr. Chair, have made such a significant difference to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need home support, who have told us that when they needed it, it was there for them, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, just due to the improvements that we have made in the last five years alone, since 2006, 1,500 more individuals are now receiving home support in this Province, Mr. Chair – 1,500 more. Our numbers now who are receiving home support in this Province, Mr. Chair, are 6,600-plus individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, if we see a need, we address the need. We were told that home support was needed; we addressed that need, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am going to need some help here from my colleagues in terms of doing the math. Let's talk about long-term care – $440 million, Mr. Chair, on an annual basis, invested in long-term care. I want you to add to that what we have done in the last five years in terms of long-term care, and that is $386.3 million, Mr. Chair. I am hoping somebody is taking a count. I see a few of my colleagues have picked up their pens. That is long-term care; now add to that the $140 million annually for home support, and I want you to add to that the other $104 million in extra incentives, including the $57 million, Mr. Chair, in terms of supports to the home care workers – over $1 billion a year, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Over $1 billion a year, Mr. Chair, in terms of helping the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need long-term care, who need home support in this Province, and over $1 billion in the last seven or eight years for people in terms of our Poverty Reduction Strategy.

Mr. Chair, how can anybody say that we are not paying attention?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: How can anybody out there look to us and say that we are not doing enough for the most vulnerable in our Province? Because those numbers speak for themselves, and I would stand here any day and defend those numbers.

Mr. Chair, there are other areas as well where we are looking to support seniors. I have three or four pages here of programs that we have and programs that we offer to the seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. We have our Provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework, $7.5 million in Budget 2011 to further programs and initiatives under this particular framework. Since 2010, $400,000 has been provided to the Age-Friendly Newfoundland and Labrador Grants Program. We launched the Ageless public awareness campaign as well. We invested $200,000 –

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Mr. Chair, I would just ask the minister to table her documents because when you read from it in the House of Assembly, it is my understanding that you are supposed to table those documents.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you very much.

I just want to continue on, what I am doing is reading the list and, Mr. Chair, I am proud to share this with the member opposite if she would like to have it – proud to share it with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: It will not be an issue. Mr. Chair, I will walk it over as soon as I am done because these are initiatives that we are very, very proud of.

Two hundred thousand in the Healthy Aging Seniors Wellness Grants Program – and I do apologize for having to read some of these, Mr. Chair, but we have so many of them that to keep all of those numbers in my head is a little bit more than I wanted to do today.

We have established the Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors. Mr. Chair, I want to talk to you about that particular advisory council. They provide advice to me on a regular basis. I have consulted with them in the four or five months that I have been in this ministry on a number of occasions. We have had them in, my parliamentary assistant and I have sat with them, and they provide us with all kinds of wonderful advice in terms of dealing with the problems of seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I cannot thank them enough for the help that they give to us. Mr. Chair, a wonderful, wonderful organization.

We also have over $540,000 that has been awarded under the Healthy Aging Research Program – another wonderful piece of work that we are doing for aging and seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our government provided funds to the seniors resource centres Caregivers Out of Isolation Program as well. We have partnered with the federal government and stakeholders to develop the Affordable Housing Program, which has seen 584 new units constructed or converted in thirty communities around this Province, and 355 units have been specifically for seniors, ninety-five units are fully accessible for persons with disabilities. I will have to talk about those numbers again at another time because they are significant, Mr. Chair, there is no question.

We have also spent $11.6 million which was allocated through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for partner-managed housing. In that particular program, Mr. Chair, we upgraded housing projects that served more than 1,400 households, and of those households 80 per cent are seniors.

Mr. Chair, I can go on and on with all of these particular initiatives that we have here. We are very, very proud of what we are doing and we are very proud of our seniors who have provided us with so much in this Province, Mr. Chair. The one other thing that I did want to address, because the member opposite mentioned it, was pharmacare. We have encouraged the federal government's involvement time and time again. Until such time as they are willing to come to the table, we have continued to take up the fight on our own. In our NLPDP, Mr. Chair, the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, we spent over $148 million yearly to support people in need of drugs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the comments that the member opposite has made, let us keep in mind that this government has not ignored, that this government does have a social conscience, that this government too works on behalf of the aged, of the seniors, and of the disadvantaged in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just stand and add a few comments on behalf of the people of the Bay of Islands, Corner Brook, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I hear all the good things that the minister – I have always said that when you do good things with taxpayers'money, why do you have to go shouting that we are doing our job.

I ask the question – and, Minister, I am being very serious about this – if you are spending so much money, why are there no respite beds in Corner Brook for people? Why do I have to go fight for that again? Why is the wing in the long-term care facility still not opened? The monies were committed a year-and-a-half ago. There is still a wing in the long-term care facility not opened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: It is easy to spend the money, Mr. Chair, go out and saying all – but how are you spending the money? That is the big question: How are you spending the money? There is absolutely no doubt, Mr. Chair, I would not go out and say there have not been good things happening; I would not do it. I just would not do it, Mr. Chair. There are good things, but it is how you are spending the money, the priorities, the things that are affecting people's daily lives. That is what it is, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I ask for a bit of co-operation from the Minister of Health, because we gave you the courtesy, I say to the minister. We gave you the courtesy.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I request the same privilege that I just gave you.

One of the big issues is cell phone coverage in the Bay of Islands. I know the minister – it is tough all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to come up with the cell phone coverage. I admit there is. I will be the first to admit rural Newfoundland is very rugged; there are a lot discrepancies, there are a lot of roads to travel, but we have to try to find some way to get cell phone coverage into all of it.

It is an issue that affects all of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Bay of Islands also, but we have to try to come up with some strategy to help all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador, because without it, it is an impediment on business. I know down my way it is an impediment on tourism. Tourism is big down in York Harbour and Lark Harbour. A lot of people cannot have the business, I say, Mr. Chair. The business cannot expand, because of cell phone coverage and broadband. Minister, I am just saying that is a tough issue, but I think we have to work together somehow.

To the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, we heard a lot this week about some fiscal arrangement with all municipalities. If you go back to 2008, in their plan, they are supposed to have it developed by 2011. It is not done, Mr. Chair; it is not done. Now, we are seeing that the municipalities are speaking out and saying that we need some kind of fiscal arrangement.

I heard the minister. I will say to the minister, and I heard the minister saying, look at all of the money we spent in Newfoundland and Labrador through Capital Works. There is no doubt there was a lot of money spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: No doubt, I will be the first to admit, Mr. Chair. I will be the first to admit, but I can tell you, it is no good to give, on a ninety-ten basis, some municipality an infrastructure like a water infiltration system if you cannot have the money to keep the system operating. Why are you going to put all of this money into infrastructure, put all of these big projects into communities and towns, Mr. Chair, and you do not give them the funds that they can operate. I know, Mr. Chair, we are all run into debt; we all have municipalities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are running into the lack of ability to keep the infrastructure up. The roads are up to a certain standard and people want – that is just human nature.

That is why we need the fiscal arrangement; that is why. There is absolutely no doubt that when you put in projects, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to give them the means to make sure that they can maintain the infrastructure. This is what this fight is all about with MNL; it is maintaining the infrastructure and making sure that if you put something there that you will be able to use it, all the people can use it. We all can use it, Mr. Chair. Then, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs – Mr. Chair, through you – that instead of chirping at me, why does he not go meet with MNL? Why does he not go meet with the Town of St. John's and have some meaningful discussion? It is easy to sit there – Mr. Chair, through you, it is easy for him to be here chirping at me now because I am trying to ask for a fiscal arrangement. When the St. John's City Council had a meeting, had a press conference, and we heard the Premier here and the members here opposite say that they were not invited. The Member for St. John's North even phoned back and confirmed that he was going to be there. The Member for Kilbride was down there earlier, so it is easy to stand here and chirp. It is easy to stand here and chirp, but I say, sit down, have some meaningful discussion with MNL, have some meaningful discussion with the City of St. John's, all the municipalities across the Province.

Mr. Chair, I will just give you a good example of the meeting; why doesn't the Premier go down and meet with the workers in Marystown? It is easy to stand here now and just chirp at me because you do not want to be listening to what I have say. The people in Marystown are asking the Premier to go down and have a meeting with them. During the election she committed to stand shoulder to shoulder with them, Mr. Chair. You should go and have meaningful discussions. Like MNL just said, we are up there, but we do not think we are being heard; we are not having meaningful discussions –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member speaking that at 5:30 we do have to rise the Committee and report progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, then we go around and we hear of all the things happening. I had to bring this up, Mr. Chair, the Premier talking about Nalcor, and why are we questioning Nalcor. I ask, who remembers the $30 million that was spent on two holes up in Parsons Pond, the wasted money? That is why we can ask questions. That is why you get a good debate, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is my understanding –

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: We have to rise now until 7:00 o'clock. According to Standing Order 9, "If at 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon except on Wednesday, the business of the House is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 7 o'clock."

There is no choice in that. The way I read this, we have to now come back at 7:00 o'clock.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The Government House Leader – one moment please.

Order, please!

It is my understanding, in response to what the Government House Leader has said there, that the business of the House would have to conclude at 5:30 p.m., it does not have to conclude at 5:30 but the Committee must rise at 5:30 p.m.

What we will do now, we will rise and report progress. If the Government House Leader would want the House to continue on, then after the motion to adjournment the motion can be defeated but then we would not be coming back at 7:00 o'clock; we would actually be staying here because the House would not be adjourned.

The Committee will now rise and report progress.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The Chair of Committees, the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It being 5:30 of the day, the Committee has risen and we are now reporting 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?

Tomorrow?

MR. KENNEDY: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Later today.

On motion, Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: If I could get some clarification, Mr. Speaker, on Standing Order 9. My understanding is that – I am reading the rule here: "If at 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon except on Wednesday, the business of the House is not concluded, the Speaker shall leave the Chair until 7 o'clock."

The Chair of the Committee has indicated to the Member for the Bay of Islands, who was speaking, as is his right, that it was 5:29 and we hit 5:30. My reading of this Standing Order, Mr. Speaker, is that we now continue with the Committee and you will come back at 7:00 o'clock, or that we adjourn until 7:00 o'clock. I do not know if there is any other reading to that particular Standing Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we do need to get clarification, because under the Standing Orders as well for the House, it does say the Government House Leader has to move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 on Monday, Tuesday or Thursday afternoons in order for us to sit beyond the day, and notice has to be given the previous day. Of course, no notice had been given that we would sit beyond 5:30 today, so I think there needs to be clarification around it, definitely.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, at 5:30 p.m., in the Committee of the Whole, the Chair of the Committee will stand and report back to the House. While that report is being given, had the report been accepted today we would have gone through the process of hearing the motions and we would have passed the resolution and the bill because that would have been hearing the report of the Committee. The Committee stood and reported progress. Now it is 5:30 p.m. and the House stands adjourned until 7:00 p.m.

MS JONES: Can you tell us what (inaudible) in Committee or…?

MR. SPEAKER: When we return to the House at 7:00 p.m., we are still in Orders of the Day so the agenda will be dictated by the Government House Leader. The option is to call a bill or the option is to sit in Committee again, call Committee of the Whole, and then we can continue the debate on this or any other bill that the member would want to call; and that will be at 7:00 p.m.

We stand adjourned until 7:00 p.m.


March 13, 2012                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVII No. 7A


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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 1, Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 2.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

We will now resume debate in Committee of Supply. I will go back to the Member for Bay of Islands to finish his remarks.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Member for Mount Pearl North said: Thank you, Eddie. I just want to let the people know out in the Bay of Islands what happened here. I had statements to make today. Of course, it is always hard to get along. We were supposed to close at 5:30 p.m. So I said I had things to say. I told the people in the Bay of Islands when I got elected that if I have something to say in this House, I am going to say it. If I have to use a procedural matter to stay in this House, this is what I am going to do. Whatever I have to say, I am going to say, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I can tell you, Mr. Chair, people across the way can try to shut me down and they can try to keep me quiet, but if I have to stay here until 10:00 o'clock tonight to say what I am going to say, I am going to stay here.

So I just want to let the people from the Bay of Islands know that there was a procedural matter here today because I never had the opportunity to speak up when I was going to. I just want to ensure, I tell all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not apologize for keeping this House open because I do have things to say. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to hear what I have to say, Mr. Chair. So I just want to say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I apologize to the staff here, but I just have things to say and things I want to bring up.

Well, I am going to speak on one good thing here. I am going to speak on the lack of addictions in Newfoundland and Labrador – that is one thing – and the lack of services in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair. That is one thing I am going to bring up tonight, among other things I am going to bring up.

I will get back to MNL and Municipal Affairs and the fiscal arrangement that we need with the municipalities because this is a very important thing. I wrote the minister's office back in November or December about a town, the Town of York Harbour wanted a review then, because it is a major issue. Again, I heard the minister saying about the money that they spent, and there is no doubt there has been money spent in the Bay of Islands from Municipal Affairs. I will give you a good example. The fire truck for Meadows, I say to the minister, it was well needed, well deserved. I think in three or four months it is going to be delivered, and I hope the minister will find it in his schedule to come out when they hand the keys over to the town and to the fire chief, that the minister will find it in his schedule to come out because it is well deserved, well needed. Minister, there are a lot of good things happening around.

Like I said before, it is no good to put infrastructure in place, Mr. Chair, unless you give the municipalities the funds to be able to operate these facilities. It is just no good. This is what MNL are talking about, Mr. Chair.

I see my time has expired, so I will sit down. I will have a lot of opportunity to speak tonight. Again, I do not apologize to anybody for keeping this House open tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am really happy to have an opportunity to stand here again in the House this evening. It is so good to be back in the House, and I know my colleagues and I am sure the colleagues across the other side feel the same way. It is great to be back here in the House and have opportunity to debate the issues in Newfoundland and Labrador and to have the opportunity again to put forward our positions.

When we ended up this afternoon having ten minutes to talk about some of what we were doing for seniors, obviously I did not get through all of the initiatives that we have invested in, in terms of seniors particularly, in terms of our long-term care, in terms of home care and so on. There are other issues that I wanted to get to as well. Some of that had to do with the Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Chair, because that was mentioned here this afternoon, and I would just like to follow up on that particular strategy. It is $144 million annually. It is a great strategy, Mr. Chair. It is one that has been acclaimed right across this country.

I know that when I was in the Ministry of Human Resources, Labour and Employment that we were in maybe the third or fourth year of the strategy at that point in time and I had all I could do, Mr. Chair, to keep my staff in the office. The reason for that was that all over this country people were looking to our Poverty Reduction Strategy as the model for the country. Time after time letters came in and requests came in for our staff to go to other provinces in this country to discuss initiatives that we had underway, to talk about how it was that we had established such a sound and such a reputable Poverty Reduction Strategy in this Province, Mr. Chair.

As well, from the stakeholders right across this Province we often had commentary that said: This shows real leadership in this Province, Mr. Chair. This is showing us that we have a government that cares, that we have people who know how to get started, and that we are clearly leading in the right direction. So, it was about leadership, but it was about leadership that was built on the strong foundation, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Leadership that was built on that strong foundation of having listened to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and having heard their concerns and having worked so furiously towards meeting those needs, Mr. Chair. I think, though we all acknowledge that there is still work to do, there are none of us saying that we have accomplished all that there is to accomplish, we would never say that and I doubt that at any time we are ever going to be able to say that we have accomplished all, but we certainly have a sound footing there, we have the respect of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they certainly told us that again in October of this year that the leadership that we are showing is the kind of leadership –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – and it is the kind of direction that they want to see and that they were willing to stand up for.

Now, Mr. Chair, the Member for the Bay of Islands raised a question this afternoon around long-term care as it relates to Corner Brook, and I understand his concern but he seemed to think that we had reneged on a promise out there in Corner Brook. I had hoped to have an opportunity to address that, and I really happy to be able to stand here in the House this evening to address that particular concern.

There was a commitment made to further the long-term care initiatives that had already started out in Corner Brook, and that commitment, I am happy to report, has been met. We, in fact, did more than we had committed to doing at the time. There are fifteen additional long-term care beds that are provided in Corner Brook as a result of the announcement made by my predecessor, the former Minister of Health and Community Services, and there were another ten beds made available by the opening of the forth dementia care bungalow in Corner Brook.

So, Mr. Chair, not the eight or ten beds that were promised, not just the fifteen that we opened in the long-term care facility, but the additional ten makes twenty-five beds that we opened in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, I would just like to make sure the Member for the Bay of Islands gets that information, he was asking about it earlier. I was really happy to be able to provide him with that information.

Mr. Chair, since I have come to this department, and I have been around here now for four, I am into my fifth year, and had opportunity to be the Minister of Health and Community Services, a position that I take with great pride, I see the tremendous work that has been done and the tremendous work that still we continue to work on. It is amazing to me how big this department is and how much work is happening. Mr. Chair, we are now spending 40 per cent of the Province's budget on health and community services in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We, in the last two years, Mr. Chair, have spent $5.6 billion in health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, we have spent more than any other province in this country. Per capita we are spending $4,752 on health care in this Province. I hear comments every now and then about how we are doing things piecemeal, how we do not have a clear vision, how we do not have a plan. Well, Mr. Chair, I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would soundly agree that $5.6 billion is not piecemeal; $5.6 billion represents a significant investment in health care in this Province and we are doing $5.6 billion of good work in this Province, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Chair, I ended this afternoon rather hurriedly by talking about pharmacare, again in response to the member opposite, and pointed out that although the federal government had not come on board we did not sit back, we did not fold our arms, we did not say we were doing nothing in terms of pharmacare or providing drugs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need those prescription drugs. We stepped up to the plate with what I consider to be one of the most robust programs anywhere in this country with the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program. As I said, we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

The question was asked, or someone had posed earlier in the week something about seniors' drug coverage. I just want to point out that we cover approximately - not approximately, this is the actual number - 53,192 seniors under our various plans under the NLPDP, Mr. Chair, at a cost of $68.4 million. That is seniors' drug coverage alone in this Province, Mr. Chair. Again, when people are talking about: What is it that we are doing? Are we paying any attention? Well, under that 65Plus program of the NLPDP, that is how many people we are serving in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the cost. That is something our people tell us all the time they are exceptionally happy with.

Recently, Mr. Chair, I had the honour of announcing some of the additions to the Adult Dental Program here in Newfoundland and Labrador, an example again of how we listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We were told through our Poverty Reduction consultations and so on that we needed to do a little more in terms of provision of services under the Adult Dental Program. Mr. Chair, we did so. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have responded in kind and have told us how much they appreciate that particular program.

Mr. Chair, just today I happened to notice on one of our local radio stations a commentary, unsolicited by anybody, from Dr. Steve Browne, who happens to be the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Denturist Association. He says they are seeing more patients as a result of this new program, just in the last few weeks, Mr. Chair.

Again, the accolades come in from the Newfoundland & Labrador Dental Association as well. We are hearing accolades on the great program that we have brought into place for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am looking up and I am seeing again that we are running out of time. There is so much that I can talk about.

The other is the Medical Transportation Assistance Program. Mr. Chair, this has been touted as perhaps one of the most robust programs of its kind right across this country. I know from listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and talking to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as we went about doing our campaigning this summer that this is a program that is very much appreciated by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, we have added to it and once again we have beefed up a program that was already good, but now continues to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in an even more substantial way.

Mr. Chair, I see that my time is short but there will be more opportunities this evening, I am sure. I would be happy to get up and talk again about some of the other programs we are doing as a result of listening to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, hearing their concerns, and responding in a fiscally responsible and caring way, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is an honour to rise here on behalf of my constituents in St. John's North for the forth time, I believe, on Interim Supply bill. I have to give thanks to my college from the District of Bay of Islands for keeping the House open so we can continue to debate the issues that are important to the people of this Province. I am glad that we are making up for the lost time that we have had.

The last time I had an opportunity to speak to this particular bill, I mentioned that I had made a trip to the West Coast recently and, of course, I want to explain to the folks who are watching at home that those of us on this side of the House, in addition to the various constituency responsibilities that we have that are very similar to those who sit on the back benches of the other side of the House, we are also responsible for critiquing government in a variety of different areas.

Myself, I am the critic for Education; I shadow the Minister of Education in that regard. I am the critic for Advanced Education and Skills; I have to follow the activities of that department. I am the critic for the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and I follow policy developments and a variety of things in those areas. I am also the critic for Youth Engagement, so I pay a lot of attention to the youth agenda of this government. I am the critic for Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, so I have to pay some attention of ongoing review of policies in that area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Chair, I know there is a lot of hooting and hollering from the other side of the House, and I just say to this government, you can move every one of those desks down here in the heckling gallery and it does not bother me at all, you are not going to silence me. You are going to have to get a far bigger silencer if you are going to silence me. You can move every one of those desks down in the heckling gallery, it does not bother me at all, Mr. Chair. If that is what you want to do, if that is how you want to spend your time in here just hooting and hollering, trying to yell down the people on this side of the House that is absolutely fine. I got elected just the same as all of you and I will get up and say my piece when it is my opportunity. So I just wanted to say that, Mr. Chair, if anybody is interested in that.

I just want to finalize by saying that I am also the critic for the Labour Relations Agency, and I pay some attention to the labour relations in this Province and the deteriorating state of labour relations in this Province, Mr. Chair, and comment on that and follow along with what is going on.

I just want to talk again about my trip to the West Coast that I took in my capacity as critic for these areas to talk to people about areas that are consistent with my critic responsibilities. As the Member for Humber West kindly pointed out last week, I had an opportunity to chat with mill workers while I was there about what they need, what they want, about the future of the mill, and the long-term viability, sustainability of Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

Mr. Chair, we have invested $50 million in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. This government has invested $50 million – it is time to start thumping on the desk, folks. This government has invested $50 million of public money in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and I think we should not walk away from that investment; we should not walk away from the investment in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the good people of Corner Brook any time soon. The government really needs to sit down with the mill management and with the union and work out a solution that everybody can live with, and see if there are incentives that can be put in place that are countered to killing off jobs. We know that there is close to fifty, if not more than fifty jobs that have already been lost just in recent months.

I know that the ministers and the Member for Humber West have actually met with mill works, but I also know that mill workers over there, they want something more than vague assurances and promises of something that may be done sometime down the road. The workers have good ideas, Mr. Chair, there is no question about that, like investments in infrastructure and upgrades to mill equipment.

I point out that just yesterday Statistics Canada had a report that said that investments in physical capital, in infrastructure, in something like the mill at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is one of the most important factors in the growth of Canadian labour productivity. That is how to make the mill more productive and ensure its long-terms viability is to invest in infrastructure; investment in physical plant; investment in machinery; investment in equipment. That is the direction to go. We need assets that will be there for the long term to ensure the long-term viability of the mill; mill modernization that will ensure the long-term viability. I do not need to say over again, I think.

We need there to be accountability for dollars spent too, Mr. Chair, because we should not be taking the hard-working taxpayers' dollars and just forking that cash over to the mill owner and for there to be no accountability for those dollars spent, and then seeing jobs axed after all of that money has been put in.

I would like to point out that the size of the management complement at that mill has not changed at all. In fact, the last time they axed jobs over there, most recently when they axed jobs over there at that mill there were bonuses all around for mill management, Mr. Chair. I do not think that is appropriate and I do not think public money should be going towards that. I hope the government realizes that and sees that further funds should come with strings attached; they should not be just thrown at the problem. That is what workers want to see and that is what members on this side of the House want to see.

I also had the opportunity to go to a rally that I was invited to with Corner Brook firefighters while I was over there in Corner Brook, and I was happy to join the International Association of Firefighter Local 1222 who put out a call for support. They had a Facebook group, they sent it out on Twitter, they sent out a media release, they had it on the radio, and they asked for everyone who cared to come –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Yes, on Twitter; that is right. They wanted everyone who cared about their particular situation, those jobs being lost, to come out and support them. So I went out to that rally. I was there for about one hour and forty-five minutes. Now, unfortunately I did not get a chance to run into the Member for Humber West while I was there; I did not see him there. I did hear afterwards, though, that the Member for Bay of Islands actually did show up. He was kind enough to come to another rally that those firefighters had. I hope the Member for Humber West had fifteen minutes to spare to come out for a public rally with IAFF 1222, and I had no problem giving up my time to come out and support them either, Mr. Chair.

I also met with students while I was over in Corner Brook and I have to say they expressed some concerns about problems over there. Inability to find child care spaces, we hear that all the time. There is a shortage of child care wherever you go in this Province. It is too expensive where it does exist, where people are able to find it. I think that is a significant problem; I hear that wherever I go. Also, in Corner Brook students were telling me that, especially those who had relocated there, those who had not grown up in the City of Corner Brook, they had a lot of problems trying to find family doctors; to try to find a general practitioner that they could go to on a regular basis just to deal with routine medical issues. So that is something else the government might want to look into.

I should also say that I did get to go to the grand opening of winter carnival in Corner Brook, which is an excellent event. I have to agree with the Member for Humber West that it is certainly something that is the heart of winter in Corner Brook. Now, I know that the Member for Humber West entered his chili into the chili contest there, Mr. Chair. I did try it, and I have to say that it was the best chili of the seven chilies that I did try, but the only problem was I could not vote for the Member for Humber West's chili. Now, it was not partisan at all, it had nothing to do with it, it is just I could not eat fourteen different kinds of chili that day. So, I say to the Member for Humber West that I had to spoil my ballot; I apologize for that. You did not get my vote, but you still did win. You had the best chili in Corner Brook that day, so good for you.

I also had an opportunity to go to Stephenville while I was there. I was over for the winter carnival opening over there too, Mr. Chair. I think I was in the District of the Member for St. George's – Stephenville East. I did not see her there at the grand opening, but I did see the Member for Port au Port. He did manage to make it out to the grand opening of the winter carnival in the district that is currently occupied by the member opposite for St. George's – Stephenville East, so that was great I have to say. Again, another great community event, I think it is really important for members to get out to those sorts of events in their districts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Again, Mr. Chair, there is a lot of hooting and hollering and shouting across the way. Like I said, you can take all of those desks, you can stack them all up directly across from me in the heckling gallery, not going to silence me one single bit, it does not phase me at all. If you want to silence me, you crowd better get a bigger silencer is all I have to say.

Anyway, thank you very much. When I get up again, I will have a little bit more to say about my visit to Stephenville and some of the issues that I uncovered over there. Also, a number of trips that I have taken down to Marystown to talk to displaced workers at the Ocean Choice International plant.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your undivided attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Chair, while there is certainly room for jocularity in the House and while there has to be a degree of levity, I certainly do not find anything funny in the comments by the member opposite which could lead to the shutdown of the Corner Brook mill.

The Corner Brook mill is a crucial economic driver for the West Coast industry. It is not just in Corner Brook, Mr. Chair, it is all of the Western Newfoundland and Labrador area and also into Central Newfoundland.

Mr. Chair, while the member opposite says he is not going to be shut up, but there are times that fools should not rush in where angels fear to tread and he is getting –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The use of the word fools in this context I would rule to be unparliamentarily.

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, I withdraw that.

Mr. Chair, there is time where people, inexperienced people, certain people, should not interject themselves. There are very sensitive negotiations going on right now around Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. This individual, what I heard was he said to the government: Do not support Joseph Kruger in keeping that mill open. Do not give Joseph Kruger any more money. Is that what he just said? Is that what he said?

Mr. Chair, do you know what he is saying? He is saying shut the mill down. Is that the message that this member, in his jocular mood, trying to prove how smart he is, is that the kind of message that he wants to give to the people of Western Newfoundland and Labrador: we do not care about you? Well, Mr. Chair, as a government, we do. This is what he said, and I am just going to review what he said and why he should be very careful. Maybe it is his inexperience; maybe it is his ego. Maybe he just does not know any better, or maybe, Mr. Chair, he does not care. We care about the people of this mill. We have had to meet with them on a number of occasions.

Joseph Kruger, or the Kruger company, has put $800 million back into that mill over the years since Mr. Kruger took it over in 1984. There are people out there who have been working there for years. We currently have retirees whose pensions, Mr. Chair, are around 62 per cent to 65 per cent funded. We currently have 250 to 300 employees. The layoffs that have just happened are due more to attrition.

Myself and the Minister of Finance went out, Mr. Chair, and met with the unions. The message we sent to the unions was simple: If you work out a deal with the owner of the company in terms of the long-term sustainability or viability of this mill, then we as a government will be there to help. Where the Member for St. John's North treads, Mr. Chair, and where he should not tread is into that very sensitive area of what we do for the company.

Mr. Chair, the reality is the newsprint industry is in trouble. I have met with Mr. Kruger twice myself. The Minister of Finance was with me at the last meeting in Montreal a couple of weeks ago. They are very sensitive negotiations. I met with the union members again when I was in Corner Brook recently. Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance met with them again last week. People in Corner Brook are worried. People in Western Newfoundland are worried. We have retirees who have been working there all their lives who are concerned about their pensions. The only way their pensions get looked after is if that mill stays open and the opportunity is there to fund the pension. These people who are working there and have worked there forever, the only way they maintain their jobs is if that mill stays open.

So what we have, and what essentially this member opposite just did, ladies and gentlemen, in this House, is ring the death knell for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, if we were to follow his advice. Is that what we want to see in this House of Assembly? He did it, Mr. Chair, and he thought it was funny. You heard him laughing over there. He thought it was funny. We will close down the mill. It is funny. There is nothing funny about it, Mr. Chair.

Let me tell you what happened when this member went to a meeting with the unions, Mr. Chair. He went in and being the Labour Critic, being the new kid on the block, he is going to show everyone, boy. He is going to hold that government to account. He is the Labour Critic. Here I come, riding in on my horse or whatever he rode in on. Now, he gets in the meeting. They look at him and say: What are you doing here? How long did the meeting last, Mr. Chair? The meeting lasted fifteen to twenty minutes. He was not welcome. The words that were passed on said: If we had followed your leader, this mill would have been shut down long ago.

Do you deny, Sir, those comments were made to you? That is what was said to him. He was basically kicked out of the meeting, Mr. Chair. They told him –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Chair, the Member for Carbonear has been standing up; what he is saying is not unparliamentary, but I would put to you that the jabbing of a finger in the air towards both the Member for St. John's North and myself is unparliamentary.

CHAIR: Do you want to speak to the point of order or do you want to continue?

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible) jabbing my fingers at anyone.

CHAIR: Did you want to speak to the point of order, I ask the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: No, I do not need to speak to the point of order.

CHAIR: A few days ago – I cannot remember, but it was earlier in this session – I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we had a point of order raised about the pointing of fingers. I went back and reviewed the Hansard and reviewed the video. I talked about it with staff and we could not find anything which says that the actual pointing of fingers is unparliamentary; however, the overriding principle is whether or not the actions of the speaker lead to disorder in the House. Sometimes that is a little bit of a judgement that the Chair must follow, so I will rule that there is no point of order right now, and I would go back to the Government House Leader to continue.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, that is what happened at that meeting. Now what do we have here tonight, the Member for St. John's North, and we have the Minister of Finance, we have the Member for Humber West; they can look after Corner Brook in consultation. Yes, we put money into that mill, Mr. Chair, but what are we supposed to do as a government, let it die – let the West Coast die? Is that what the townie Member for St. John's North would have happen here? Is that what he would have happen?

What he is suggesting is that government should not provide any help. Well, that is not the way this government works, Mr. Chair. We are out there, we are meeting, we are discussing. The Minister of Finance was in the other day – sorry, did not mean to point at you minister – the Minister of Finance was there, Mr. Chair, the other day. He met with the retirees. He had a good discussion. They are concerned and we are concerned for them.

What I say to the people of Corner Brook, if you are listening tonight: Do not waste your time talking to the MHA for St. John's North. He cannot do anything for you but cause trouble like he is doing tonight. That is what he is saying: Close the mill down. That is the message, members, we are hearing: Close the mill down. Do not help Joseph Kruger keep that mill open; do not do anything like that. Well, what does he think is going to happen?

In an industry that is in trouble, what does he think? How does he think the mill is going to stay open? Is it just magically the NDP money tree is going to show up in Corner Brook and we are going to pluck some dollars off it and give it to everyone? That is not the way it works, Mr. Chair.

We are in sensitive negotiations. We met with Mr. Kruger a couple of weeks ago. Joseph Kruger reiterated his commitment to the mill. We met with the unions, Mr. Chair, they have reiterated their commitment to work with Joseph Kruger to reach a deal, and as a government we have reiterated our commitment. If there is a long-term sustainability plan, we are there. We will be there to help.

The form of that agreement, Mr. Chair, again, all I can say is very sensitive and one that we are working on, but what we are committed to is the people. Mr. Chair, again, I say that sometimes things are better off left alone and whether through inexperience or ego, sometimes people are better off keeping their mouths shut as opposed to trying to make themselves look like heroes.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would say to the Government House Leader, saying that someone should keep their mouth shut is unparliamentary and I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. KENNEDY: That is fine, Mr. Chair, I withdraw.

CHAIR: The Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Chair, what we are doing here, in conclusion, is that there are meetings going on. We are working with the unions, we are working closely with them, and we are hearing what they are saying. We are concerned for them, and we know they are concerned. We will do what we have to do, Mr. Chair, to help keep that mill open within the realm of reasonableness, but it is all based on a plan being put together by the union and the owner. Then when they come to us, we will be there to help in any way we can as long as it does not involve subsidies.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the hon. Government House Leader for this opportunity to make up some lost time. I look forward to Thursday.

Mr. Chair, I would like to talk a little bit about search and rescue. First of all, I would like to commend the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Fire and Emergecy Services for the announcement on the thermal imagining equipment. As a ground searcher, I look forward to testing this equipment, Mr. Chair, and finding out what it can do, especially in the range of what it can do.

Having said that, I would like to talk a bit about the need for improvement in search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, I would like to use two examples that I am familiar with, one that shows how the search and rescue system did work, and one that shows how it did not work.

In late June of last spring, Mr. Chair, there were three sealers who left Makkovik. Upon their return, they developed motor trouble and drove ashore on the tip of Cape Harrison. Mr. Chair, they drove ashore on a ledge. I went up there that night in a speedboat and, Mr. Chair, had they gone three metres either side of that ledge, the outcome would have been different. Furthermore, Mr. Chair, during my campaign I travelled by speedboat. At one point I passed right along by the very spot where these men went to shore and the ledge was twelve feet above the watermark. So they were lucky, Mr. Chair, very lucky.

One thing I would like to point out in this situation, Mr. Chair, is that by the time the call came from Cape Harrison via satellite telephone, these boys were plucked off Cape Harrison in exactly five-and-one-half hours. This was thanks to the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre in St. John's that co-ordinated this distress call. This proves, Mr. Chair, that lives can be saved due to search and rescue, especially due to the courageous efforts of search and rescue technicians and ground search and rescue.

Mr. Chair, in the case of young Burton Winters, unfortunately the system failed. Being presumptuous, Mr. Chair, and to look at my own comments and my own conclusions, this system failed due to a lack of communication. I have to stress the point that the call for search and rescue went out from Makkovik Sunday the twenty-ninth, the very day that young Burton went missing, keeping in mind that DND maintains they never received a call for assistance until twenty hours later.

Mr. Chair, the call was not received at Fire and Emergency Services until 8:30 Monday morning. So the question arises: What happened in the eight hours that passed between the time the call was made from Makkovik and when Fire and Emergency Services responded at 8:30 that morning? The minimum time that passed was eight hours. In my earlier comments just then, Mr. Chair, I talked about a success where lives were saved in five-and-one-half hours. I would just like to stress again, Mr. Chair, that had there been a better communication effort, would young Burton have been saved? It is a question we will always wonder.

Mr. Chair, I have to talk about the reality of search and rescue implementation. In Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chair, search and rescue action is needed on a moment's notice. We do not have the luxury of days in the cold North Atlantic. We do not have the luxury of hours on the sea ice in Northern Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I was very proud last week to watch this whole House of Assembly support a motion to look at lobbying for search and rescue efforts in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, I urge this government to adopt that same approach, act immediately for change before lives are lost or jeopardized because of downsizing.

Mr. Chair, rescue does not wait until we are ready. I call upon this government to be out in full force, fighting for the lives of the people of this Province. It is the people of this Province that are looking for improvements in search and rescue services. Mr. Chair, they are looking for increases in search and rescue infrastructure, not decreases.

Mr. Chair, this issue of search and rescue is not going to go away. I would not wait for it to go away, not until we have a level of comfort that we can live with for those of us that live off the water and off the land. The sorry thing that I see is that there are forty-eight members in this House of Assembly, and the thing that scares me, being one of us, is that it could happen to any one of our loved ones at any given time. We do not have the luxury of being available and ready when we want to be. We have to be ready, Mr. Chair, to go on a moment's notice, and we do not have that.

I am calling upon this House again, Mr. Chair, to lobby for search and rescue infrastructure, to lobby on behalf of a search and rescue centre at 5 Wing Goose Bay, and to lobby on behalf of Maritime sub-centre rescue in St. John's. As has been pointed out in this hon. House, Mr. Chair, they get over 500 calls a year and many, many lives are saved because of this.

Mr. Chair, there are times that the Maritime sub-centre in St. John's has had to argue with JRCC Coordination Centre in Halifax for resources. If the Maritime sub-centre in St. John's closes, Mr. Chair, we lose that argument. The end result is that we are putting the lives of people in this Province in more jeopardy. Newfoundland and Labrador has a tradition of making a living from the land and from the sea. We have done this since ever we can remember.

Mr. Chair, we look forward to this government taking a fast and direct approach in lobbying on behalf of its people. I think it is the people of this Province that make a government; I think we owe them that.

Mr. Chair, on another note, and I will be brief, I was going through Interim Supply, Mr. Chair, in the Budget, and I looked at it very closely and I failed to see anything in the Budget that would accommodate Aboriginal people in our Province. I urge the Member for Labrador West, who is also the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that maybe he could shed some light on this reason, Mr. Chair, because if there is any reason that this government thinks that everything is well and fine in the Aboriginal community of this Province, I can enlighten you.

Mr. Chair, with that, if I get an opportunity, I hope to speak on this again.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to thank the Chair again for recognizing me, and the opportunity to stand here again and speak again. As the members opposite are shouting at me because I kept the House open – I will keep it open as long as I can, just to make sure whatever I have to say I am going to say.

I just want to say, Mr. Chair, I will be keeping it open again Thursday night if I have to, if I do not get what I have to say. If they try to shut me down, I will be keeping it open Thursday night – not much to me.

I heard the Minister of Health speaking and I just say to the Minister of Health: We know there is a lot of money spent. There is no doubt. I acknowledge that. What I find sometimes is distasteful, Mr. Chair – it is just like the Premier says: If you have something to say, just say it and see if we can work together, but every time we make a comment or make some suggestion, it is almost like we are attacking them. It is almost like we have to be shot down for it.

I say to the Minister of Health, as a prime example: There is no doubt that there is a lot of money spent on health in this Province – absolutely none. I would be the first to agree with you. There are a lot of improvements in health. I would be the first to agree. Back when the long-term care facility – and I know you were not around, I agree you were not around, Minister, when it was done. I know the minister from Humber West was around – the Member for Humber West was not; the Member for Humber East was, the Member for Humber West was not. It was supposed to be 279 beds.

So first the design for the long-term care in Corner Brook was 279 beds. When it was actually designed and opened, it was down to 225 beds. What happened then, and the Minister of Finance will confirm this, is that probably about a year and a half ago, we realized, after a few complaints – and there was one person in particular. I will not say his name, although it was in the media. It was in the Corner Brook area. He had to be taken out and moved down to Port au Choix – Port Saunders, I think – because there were no beds available in Corner Brook. I know it was brought to the minister's attention and I know it was made public.

When we realized, after a bit of probing, that there were twenty-five beds there that were supposed to be used by Memorial University for aging – I think it was, Minister, for aging?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen.

MR. JOYCE: Fifteen beds for aging were never opened. They were not open at the time. They might be open now, but they were not open at the time. They were not because if they were open, I say to the Minister –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: They are now. That is good. The minister committed $3 million last year to open the beds. There are 225 beds. Even if they are at full capacity, which I do not think they are, because I still think there is one wing not open – a protective wing that is not open with ten beds; I do not think that is open yet because I do not think they can get the staff for it. It might be ready to go, but I do not think they can get the staff for it. You can check that out, Minister.

This is not criticism. This is factual. I am up around there and I know people in there, and I know family members who are in there. When you say that the capacity is there, the original ask in Corner Brook was 279. It was put down to 225 and only up until recently it came up to 225. That is the fact of it. I know you were not around at the time, Minister, back in 2003, 2004, and 2005, but those are the facts of it.

Another concern, Minister, in the long-term care facility – and again, this is not by any means a criticism, but it is just facts. This is not trying to criticize anybody, but this is just to highlight the issues at the long-term. I know the Member for Humber West and the Member for Humber East are familiar with it; it is the staffing. There are major concerns. What can be done? I do not know; I am not a health professional. I do not know. We all hear the staffing concern at the long-term care facility in Corner Brook.

I know, because I have visited patients at the long-term care facility, the staff there does a great job – absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind that the staff does a great job. The problem with it – somehow, when you get in the long-term care facility, we need the extra staff because there are seniors who need help to get out in the morning for a shower. There are some who get a shower every week – one a week, which most of us would agree is not acceptable; it is just not acceptable. It is not the staff's fault. It is just the ratio of staff at the long-term care facility.

I say to the minister, and I visited many times, Minister, so I do know what I am talking about: Except for family members – and God bless them, I know they are doing it out of their own heart – there are seniors at the long-term care facility in Corner Brook who, without family members, would have to wait an hour or two hours for their meal. Now, Minister, I am serious. What we can do about it I do not know. I can tell you, if there is not a family member there to feed them, a lot of them do need help eating their meals. I know the Minister of Finance heard it in Corner Brook because we had the public meetings in Corner Brook.

I do not know what we can do. We need to do something, I can tell you that. What, I do not know. I can tell the minister, and I can tell everybody in this hon. House, and everybody out there who is listening: With the long-term care facility, most family members usually try to go in for lunch or supper to help out because there is not enough staff there to help during that time. It is a very serious issue, I say to the minister.

It is so severe in the long-term care facility, and I know the Minister of Finance is aware of it, that the staff turnover at the long-term care facility is much higher than usual than in any other place in the health care in Western Newfoundland. It is because of the stress – and it is a stressful job anyway. For anybody who works in the long-term care facility, God bless them. Some people just cannot do it. I am probably one of the ones who would not be able to do it. They have the ability to do it; they have the expertise. I just think we need extra staff at the long-term care facility in Corner Brook, minister. If there is anything, with all the funding and all the money that is being spent in the Department of Health, I ask the minister: Is there any way, minister, that you can do some kind of review for the long-term care facility in Corner Brook, because it is well needed.

I will say to the minister, if you want to go out, I would even go and sit down and have the meetings with the minister, with the Member for Humber West, the Member for Humber East, because this is an issue which faces us all. We all have family members in there; we all have people we know who are living there. I would sit down, minister, with you if need be, with the board and the CEO of Western Health, both members, to try and work this out, because I know the Member for Humber West – we are after dealing with a few issues ourselves, privately trying to work things out for people, and that is the way it should be. Sure, we are going to stand up here and have our difference of opinions, but when it comes down to trying to help someone or to help some group, we have worked together already. We always do that, minister.

What I am saying here is: On behalf of the residents in Corner Brook, on behalf of the family members who have people in the long-term care facility in Corner Brook, I ask the minister to do a review of the long-term care facility in Corner Brook and the services that are being provided. I also ask the minister to look at the staff ratio. I am sure there are members here from all over who have senior citizen homes in their own district, who have family members; we know that a senior citizen home, a long-term care facility, in my opinion, needs extra staff, needs extra help during lunch time, supper time, just to help to feed the residents. We all know that. We have all been part of it. We all have family members, we all have relatives, we all visit them, we all know.

God bless the workers that work there, Mr. Chair, because the workers are the ones that keep it going. Our parents – I know my mother lived in the long-term care facility and I know she was treated with great care; I know she was greeted with great professionalism by all members. No matter which parent it is, across the way, they all deserve whatever dignity we can give them in their later years.

Minister, this is not a criticism of government. This is not trying to say government should do this or that. This is just a plea from the people that I have been listening to out in Corner Brook, the Bay of Islands area: Would you please look at the staff ratio in the long-term care facility in Corner Brook and also look at what improvements we can make to the long-term care facility, so that we can give the seniors in Corner Brook from Western Newfoundland who are in the long-term care facility dignity for the last bit of life they may have, so that we can all feel proud in the House of Assembly and so we can all say, yes, we are all working together to try to do something.

Mr. Chair, I know my time is up, but I will say to the minister again: If you want to have a meeting out there –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I say to the Minister of Education, this is a very serious issue for me –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – because I am up there and I have seen it first hand. So, Minister, if you ever have a meeting out there and you want to get all the people involved –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I know the Member for Humber East and the Member for Humber West –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure for me to be able to be here this evening and to take part in this Interim Supply debate. Again, I know the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile talked about having the opportunity to get up and speak on a number of occasions, and how this type of debate is good for new members to come in. It gives them the chance to get up and speak. As somebody said, of course, it is easier on that side, because we over here have to wait our turn. So we are also very happy when our turn comes and we get a chance to say a few words as well.

There are a number of things I would like to speak to tonight, and we only have ten minutes each, each time. So what I am going to do is I am going to speak later on tonight if I get the opportunity, or maybe Thursday, and have a chance to address the long-term care issue that the Member for Bay of Islands has raised.

The forestry industry is so important. The newsprint industry is so important, not only to Western Newfoundland, but indeed, the whole Province of Newfoundland. It is under a lot of pressure right now. We have newsprint mills and paper mills closing all over the world. Here in our own Province we have seen the mill in Stephenville go down and we saw the mill in Grand Falls go down.

On the other side, we have seen in Cape Breton, the NewPage mill has gone down. There is a new buyer, I understand, a potential buyer, and they are presently negotiating with the government. Down further south, near Liverpool, we have the Bowater Mersey mill also shut down. The company announced that it was being shut down. So the whole industry is under pressure.

It is not just the newsprint mill. If the Corner Brook mill, God forbid, were to close, there are a lot of sawmills as well; they are all interconnected. The newsprint mill will buy the pulp logs from the sawmills and the sawmills will buy the saw logs from the newsprint companies, so they are all interconnected. If the mill goes down, that whole forestry industry affects not only Western Newfoundland and Central Newfoundland but many parts of Newfoundland, including the Great Northern Peninsula will go down as well.

Mr. Chair, what is happening in the world is no one's fault. It is not the fault of the company owners, it is not the fault of the union and the employees, and it is not the fault of government. There are macroeconomic forces that are happening in the world, particularly falling demand. We all know that people are not reading newspapers the way they used to. We know that we have cities throughout the world that used to have five, six, seven newspapers and now may only have one, if they have one at all. People are getting their information and getting their news from other sources. People are getting their news from their computers and from their –

AN HON. MEMBER: Twitter.

MR. MARSHALL: Twitter and their phones even. As a result of that, less people buy newspapers, advertisers do not advertise in newspapers any more, the advertising revenue will fall and newspapers as a result will get smaller, they will get thinner and they will get smaller, and we are seeing that throughout the world.

That is the first thing, falling demand, less newspapers, smaller newspapers, less demand for newsprint, and that affects the mills. We are also seeing strong competition from low-cost producers in countries that do not have our labour laws that protect the workers that do not have our environmental laws that protect the environment from operations of certain companies. Therefore, their costs can be a lot cheaper, a lot lower than the cost that mills in North America have to pay. We are seeing the result of it is that mills are closing right across the country, right across North America as well.

Mr. Chair, as the Minister Responsible for Forestry, the Minister of Natural Resources, said before me, this is a very sensitive issue right now. Discussions have been taking place, a number of discussions. The minister and I, as he indicated, have met on a number of occasions with the unions. I have met on two occasions with the pensioners who obviously are retirees or older people who are worried about their pensions, and we also met with the company. As the minister said, if the company and its employees can come up with a plan, a long-term, viable plan that can make this work, then the government will be there to offer its full support.

It is important that we not talk with abandonment about what is happening here. Sensitive negotiations are in fact going on. I can say, without trying to be overly optimistic, I think there is some reason for optimism. I have met with the unions and they understand the situation perfectly. I met with the Minister of Natural Resources. We met with the company. I spent my whole life living in Corner Brook and I met Mr. Kruger, the owner of Kruger, on three occasions now: the first one is when he took over the Bowater mill many years ago, and I just happened to meet him in the lobby of the Glynmill Inn; I met him when he was down here meeting with Finance officials; and I met him again with the Minister of Natural Resources recently in Montreal. He indicates his support for this mill. He indicated belief that this mill could be one of the mills that survives.

There are mills right across the country; they all have different costs. The price of newsprint is set in the world market. It is not controlled by any mill. So the price is set in the world market and anybody producing paper is going to have to produce a ton of newsprint at a price less than the world price and be able to deliver it to their customer at a price that is below the world price or they do not make any money. If they do not make any money, nobody is going to stay in business. Eventually, you will go out of business.

This mill has an advantage. It has its own power plant in Deer Lake, which is paid for. One thing about a power plant is that once it is built, if it is built well, it can operate for the longest time. I understand there is one in Petty Harbour. The first hydro power plant built in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is still operating. I am told that it was built in the late 1800s or the 1890s. It is still operating and it is still sending money into the grid. That is one advantage that mill has that many mills in the world do not have because they have to buy their power. They have to buy their electricity from the grid and pay top dollar for it. The second advantage they have is they have a workforce that has been making paper there since the 1920s. They know how to make paper and they know how to do it very, very well.

The other advantage is where the markets are going. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper has maintained its market. It has retained its share of the US market, but of course the US market has gotten a lot smaller than it was. They have sought, successfully, new markets in emerging nations. They have orders now from Brazil, they have orders from India, and that is where the future is. You have millions of people living in India who will not be able to afford computers, but I am told that the circulation for the India Times is unbelievable. That is where the markets are. We were told by the owner of the company that Corner Brook is ideally situated to serve those markets. So there is reason for optimism.

Mr. Kruger talked about, he would really love to see the third machine come back. Now maybe some of his senior officials thought that might be a little "pie in the sky", but I can tell you that he said it, he said it over and over again; he would like to see the third machine come back and he would like to keep it as a newsprint mill.

It is very important; it has to be viable. I think there are thirty mills across the country that have different cost structures, and the ones that are going to last are the ones that are going to be what are called the first quartile – the ones with the lowest costs. The company is convinced that this mill can be one of those mills, one of those low-cost mills, but it means cutting costs. It means getting all costs down. It means getting production costs down, it means getting labour costs down, it means getting all costs down. There has to be investments in the mill. There has to be capital expenditures; there is no question about that. The mill has to become more productive, but I think if they work together – and from what I can see, from talking to the unions and talking to the company, I think there is a willingness to do that; there is a willingness to try to work together, but it is very important that the company listen to what the workers have to say, because the workers have been there for many years. They know what they are doing, and the company also has to listen to what they have to say. It cannot be just a one-way ticket. I think there is reason to be cautiously optimistic, and I hope that if we do the negotiations right, and we have to be sensitive to what is going on, then hopefully we can be optimistic about seeing that mill operate for the benefit of the entire Province for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is good to have the opportunity to stand again on Interim Supply to speak to issues that are important both to my own constituents as well as to other people in the Province, constituents of all of the rest of my colleagues here. It is good for them to see that we do stand here in this House, and we even do it at night, to be able to bring the issues of their concern forward to the public itself, but also to ourselves, to remind ourselves of what the reality is out there for so many people in our Province.

I find it very discouraging when somebody on this side of the House brings the reality of people to the floor and the government members, Mr. Chair, mock it. The government members stand up and throw money out, talking about how much money the government is spending, and they refuse to listen to the reality of the issues that are being brought forward.

Today, for example, this afternoon, I heard the Member for St. John's Centre bring some very real situations to the floor of this House, situations that are affecting individuals in her constituency, and, I know, reflect the situations of people in my own constituency and many of the constituencies represented, probably all the constituencies represented here. She talked about the living situations of some seniors; she talked about what they are trying to deal with as they live in poverty. All I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services do was stand and throw money out, talking about all the money that is being spent.

Well, it is really nice, I am pretty sure, to be part of the decision-making around an almost $8 billion Budget. I hear it is going to be over $8 billion for the next coming year. It must be great; it must feel really good. We all know what it is like to have some money in our pockets and be able to spend without thinking. We all know that, but this government seems to think that just because they can throw out figures – $200 million, a billion, $300 million – people are supposed to forget that money is not helping them. They have themselves convinced that everybody is being helped when everybody is not being helped. That is what really bothers me.

The situations that we bring here to the floor are real situations. We have things going on in our Province today that should not be going on in the year 2012. There are so many things we could pick, but one thing that I wanted to bring tonight was something I heard on the radio at 6:00 o'clock, going home to get a bite to eat. People in Placentia today could not have food delivered to one of the large stores in Placentia because the bridge could not accommodate the truck, and the dirt road that people now have to use, the large vehicles have to use to go into Placentia, is in such a bad state because it has not been maintained over the years. The truck could not even use the dirt road.

Here they are in Placentia, in the year 2012, in a Province with a Budget of over $7 billion, and a government that prides itself on all the money that it is spending – people in Placentia not being able to have food brought in to them. Mr. Chair, there is something with that picture. There is something very, very wrong with that picture.

We have people up on the North Coast of Labrador, and I will not take it from my colleague for the North Coast of Labrador he can speak to it himself, but I am sure he will not mind if I remind all of us what it means for people up there in the winter trying to get food brought in to them, what has happened to the cost of their food up on that coast, Mr. Chair, because of changes that have been made with regard to subsidy for delivery of food. In the year 2012, what does it mean to the families who are standing in food lines when the minister talks about the billions of dollars? What does it mean to the families standing in food lines, I ask? I ask my colleagues: What does it mean to them? The billions of dollars mean nothing, Mr. Chair. The billions of dollars mean nothing.

What does it mean, Mr. Chair, as well to adults with disabilities, some of them are physical disabilities, some of them are mental disabilities, who are trying to exist on less than $800 a month, who are living in rooming houses, if they are lucky, living in one room in a boarding house, if they are lucky, trying to survive on less than $800 while dealing with an illness? Sometimes the illness is a long-term illness. Sometimes it is chronic, sometimes it is physical, sometimes it is mental, yet the disability assistance is less than $800. I mean stop and think about it. What does the billion dollars mean to them? It does not mean a thing to them.

What we have to be asking of the government and what the government has to be asking itself is: What are we getting for the $7 billion? Is everybody being helped by that $7 billion? Are we putting programs in place that are programs that are well planned, or are we doing things in a piecemeal way? I have heard some of my colleagues over the last couple of days refer to the fact that they do not like the idea that we talk about their planning being piecemeal, well it is piecemeal. Whether we are talking about child care where we do not have a full child care program, we do not have a publicly administered child care program. We have bits and pieces. We are told that is the way it has to be because this is Newfoundland and Labrador and we are different here. Well no, we are not, we require a program, we require planning, and we require that so that money is being spent wisely.

When I hear about the money that is being spent in health care, one of the big reasons we have such a per capita amount of money spent in health care is because of the geography of our Province. That is one of the reasons, but it gets thrown out so people are supposed to believe, oh, everything is perfect in our health care system when they know that it is not, or they feel guilty because if they speak out the government just throws back in their face how much money is being spent. That is not the way to deal with people – that is not the way to deal with people.

Mr. Chair, be honest and acknowledge. When people speak about what their needs are, listen to them. When seniors' organizations talk about their reality, listen to them. We are still waiting, for example, for a long-term care and home care strategy that we have been promised now for almost three years. The government prides itself on holding hearings. They say they listen. No, they do not listen. You may hold hearings. You may have people come into rooms. I was at, for example, one of the huge hearings that were held around long-term care and home care two years ago. What did this government do? Yes, you may have been there, people may have come and spoke, but if you had heard what I heard and if you read what I read from all the people who were at just that one hearing alone, then we would have a strategy by now and we would have a real plan for long-term care.

There is something wrong with the picture when we have a long-term care facility just a two-minute drive away from this building where workers are out demonstrating. I am glad to see that they are unionized workers, but we should not have long-term care facilities that do not have guidelines for how they are being run. This is what is wrong when you do not have a publicly administered program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: A publicly administered program has the option to also have facilities that are part of the program, which may not be owned by the government but are still regulated and administered publicly. That is what this government does not understand. It is the same with the child care program. If we put a real child care program in place, then we will bring into that program the private operators, but they would be brought in such a way that we make sure we still have a publicly administered child care program. It has been done other places; it can be done here.

This government keeps saying with regard to so many issues: Oh, it is different here. We are different here. We have to do our own program. We have to make it fit us. Well, yes, I agree with that, but we are not so different from every part of this country that we cannot have similar programs.

I really get sick and tired of the money being thrown at us, the money being thrown at people, and people thinking everything is okay because the Province is rich. Well, every individual in the Province is not rich, and we have a responsibility to make sure that everybody is taken care of.

So that is my ten minutes for this moment, Mr. Chair, and I will be back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I felt compelled to speak this evening because obviously, there has been some discussion and some debate here this evening about the paper mills in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chair, no one knows more than I know as an MHA what happens when a community loses its paper mill. A community is devastated after that happens, Mr. Chair.

Unfortunately, I had to experience it as an MHA, as did my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, and the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South. Mr. Chair, it is not a very nice situation when it happens, and it happened in Stephenville in 2005. At that time, our colleague in the House from Port au Port worked with me in the constituency office. He knows as well what happens.

Mr. Chair, when something like that happens, when you live in the area, you soon realize that some very close friends, your neighbours, and the people who live on your street have their lives turned upside down. Many of them had worked at the paper mill for over twenty years. The mill was actually just finished its twenty-fifth anniversary. They had put many, many years into working at that mill. Many of them had children who were in high school or university. All of the stability that they felt they had established in their lives, all of a sudden the rug was pulled from under them.

At the same time, unfortunately, for the Town of Stephenville – during, actually, the day of the municipal elections in September 2005 – we also experienced a flood. At the time, we knew that the negotiations at the mill were extremely volatile. Everyone felt vulnerable. At the same time, one morning, without any warning whatsoever, we lost 150 homes in Stephenville. Mr. Chair, that meant 150 families had no place to go that evening.

It was really not until the next day when the water had drained from that area and people thought they could go back; people thought that their homes, because they were still standing, they would be able to go into those homes. They did not realize at that time that the municipal infrastructure was all ripped to pieces as well, that the homes were wet, and they would never be able to go back into these homes again.

At that point in time – and I have heard the Member for Torngat Mountains speak so eloquently a number of times since we have been in the House about search and rescue; that was a day when search and rescue and volunteers came to the need of the people in Stephenville. They were there and they did a stellar job. It is hard to believe that all of that water rushed through the community at that time and there was no loss of life and no one was hurt that day. The volunteers and some of the paid staff with the Town of Stephenville were there and helped and did what they could. It was remarkable how we came out of that experience unscathed.

Mr. Chair, I want to go back to the paper mill and what happened. In December 2005, the mill closed. At that time leading into that there were some very difficult negotiations with government regarding a deal on hydro and a deal had been reached. There was a sigh of relief at that time, that we thought that everything would be okay, but it was not; as soon as the deal on hydro was reached, Abitibi Bowater turned their sights on the union at that time. They made demands on the union that the union could not accept. That was not an easy process either, Mr. Chair, because they knew by not accepting what was on the table what it would mean for their future.

Negotiations can be very delicate. That is why it is very disturbing this evening to hear the Member for St. John's North talking about being in Corner Brook, and the meetings, and then standing here and telling everyone what they should and should not do. Until you live that experience and until you see what can happen to a community, you just cannot just stand up and be very flippant and tell the government: Do not give anymore money to that paper mill. Tell the union what to do. Tell the company what to do. It is a very delicate balance and it needs to be walked very carefully.

In saying that, I have great respect for our Members from Humber West, Humber East, for our Minister of Natural Resources, and the Premier; they understand these issues. They also understand that they need to work with all of the parties concerned, and that everyone needs to work together, but no one can tell anyone what to do. You certainly cannot go in and try to upset the balance of any negotiations, Mr. Chair, and that is extremely important. To hear that cavalier attitude this evening, to stand up because you had a fifteen-minute meeting with the union – that all of a sudden, you have all of the answers; you can stand and tell government what to do.

Well, Mr. Chair, there are a lot of lives, a lot of livelihoods, wages, and families in the balance out there. You cannot come in and do it that way. You need to make sure that you have respect for all of the parties involved and everyone needs to be encouraged to work together, and do what they can, and be creative, and find solutions.

The paper industry is in a very difficult time worldwide. This is not just isolated to Newfoundland and Labrador. If we are not careful, if we do not make the right moves and we do not work together, Corner Brook can experience the same loss that Grand Falls - Windsor and Stephenville experienced, Mr. Chair and that is not very nice.

I want to also say that when we went through that in Stephenville, when we lost our mill - and I am sure the members from Central Newfoundland can speak to this as well. What happened was the community pulled together, and it was because we had very positive leadership. We had mayors; we had Mayor O'Brien in Stephenville, who became the mayor the week after the flood because we had to cancel the vote the day of the flood. We had Mayor Alexander in St. George's. We had a new mayor in Stephenville Crossing, Mayor Brian Joy, who happened to be somebody who lost his job in December. He worked in the paper mill. Now we have Mayor Leona Webb and Deputy Mayor Joy. Those people pulled together as positive leaders. They saw a future for Bay St. George. They worked with government and they worked with all involved to make sure that we had success, and government was there every step of the way after the fact to make sure the economy in Stephenville and Bay St. George was rebuilt.

Mr. Chair, one thing they say is five years after a community loses its main industry you will know if the community is going to survive or not. We passed the five-year anniversary in Bay St. George and Stephenville in December of 2010, and I would like to tell every member in this House of Assembly that Stephenville and Bay St. George is alive and well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Government stepped in. Any initiatives, any new jobs, any new offices, anything we were opening at that time we made sure went to Stephenville. The program development unit of the College of the North Atlantic, the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug office, the training unit for Child, Youth and Family Services, and now a new fish hatchery in aquaculture is in Stephenville. That is the way we operated, because we knew we had to go in and do what we could to co-operate with the community leaders and make sure that Stephenville and Bay St. George remained a viable and vibrant part of this Province, Mr. Chair.

If nothing else, what I would like for the members of this House - especially the Member for St. John's North, who seemed to be able to have all the answers after his fifteen minute meeting - to understand is that these are real issues. They affected people, and the MHAs who represent these areas are thoroughly engaged with the individuals who are affected and negotiations are extremely delicate. At no point can you come into the House of Assembly and start telling people what they can and cannot do. To tell government never to give another cent to the Corner Brook mill is such a cavalier and such a cold way to say: As long as government is not putting money in, we do not care about the rest. Well, Mr. Chair, we do care. This government does care. We will be there and we will do whatever we can to make sure that we do not have to experience another closure of a paper mill in this Province.

Mr. Chair, I would like to conclude by saying that in order to truly understand, you need to be able to work with the people, you need to be there, and you need to be engaged for a long time. It is not just swooping into a community, enjoying your chili, and visiting all the winter carnivals that makes you an expert in what we need in our paper mills in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Kent): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Chair, maybe the members opposite should spend more time listening rather than yelling when members on this side are speaking. When I spoke, I did not say: Do not give any further funding to the Corner Brook mill. If you listened, I said invest in long-term infrastructure –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: – sustainability, and work with the partners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: I did not say what the minister just said. I just wanted to clarify that for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Burgeo - La Poile.

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

Thank you, everybody, for being here tonight. Certainly, I am looking forward to this. It is our first night session. It is like a night ball game. I always like a night ball game.

Again, the people who put us all here on October 11 - it is funny, I went around pleading for the opportunity to get here. To get here now and to get this chance to speak again, I am not going to waste this opportunity. I am glad to be here.

One of the things I have been talking about, and certainly we are all aware of it, is the Harper C-10 crime bill which was just passed last night up in Ottawa. Again, this is not something that always gets the fanfare that it should, but it certainly is going to have a dramatic impact on this Province.

Now, some of you may or may not know. Her Majesty's Penitentiary, we are the only Province that it serves as a federal and a provincial penitentiary. We have to take all the prisoners. What is going to happen with this new crime bill – and there is nothing we can do here, this affects all of us, but we did not have a vote on it – is that we are going to see a significant increase in the number of inmates. This is coming from the fact that they are putting higher penalties on more crimes. Some of them we can all agree with. Crimes against child predators, nobody has an issue with that.

However, there are some other offences that they are putting jail time on that again. I think they are taking away from the judge's ability to speak to that specific set of facts, and that is what I do not like. When we put a judge on a bench, when we appoint a judge, we are putting our trust in that person that they are going to be able to apply the law to the specifics of the facts, that they are going to make a decision, and that we are going to be comfortable with that. However, we are going to be taking that right away from the judges.

Another way that we are doing that is through these mandatory minimums. A mandatory minimum is the fact that if you are guilty, there is a certain level; you have to get that, and there is no going below that. The problem as a defence counsel is if there is a mandatory minimum, you are not going to plea to that. I know that there are three counsels on the other side that I am aware of; we all know that, again, you are not going to enter into plea negotiations with Crown Counsel if the fact is that even by pleading guilty you are going to get this specific punishment, which usually includes jail time.

Again, mandatory minimums are going to lead into an increased backlog in the court system. It is going to mean more resources tied up, and it is going to mean significantly more funds that need to be spent, both on the court process – and then when we get into the fact that there are more people incarcerated, which means a lot more funding is going to be used to pay for this.

Now, we have two problems here on that. One problem with that is the fact that we have to invest more money into the penal system. Here we are in a time when we all know that we have to look – there are two ways you can put it; you can talk about reductions, or you can talk about looking for efficiencies. Either way, there is going to be more money that needs to be put into this system. We cannot put our heads in the sand and think that it is not going to happen. That is the first thing; it is now at a time when we are trying to be fiscally prudent, we have to go spend more money because of this crime bill.

The second part is the actual fact that there is no space to put these people. There is no space to put these people. Again, what I would suggest there is that we need to have a very serious conversation again with our friends up in Ottawa about what they are going to do about this problem. We are accepting their decision here, but we are the ones that are going to pay the bill. We are the ones that have to pay for their decision.

Again, we can all sit here and ignore it. The fact is, this problem is on our doorstep now, after this bill was voted in last night. It is here. I hope we are all prepared for that. We do not want to talk about the fact that once you actually get into the system – and again, after having viewed Her Majesty's and gone there and having represented a number of people, when they talk about growing up in the system, it is amazing. It is amazing when you talk about growing up in the system, because these are people, that if they make a mistake a very young age, and they ended up being incarcerated, they are using their intelligence on stuff that – instead of going to university, they are going to a different university; it is on the inside. They are learning a lot of different stuff.

It is mind-blowing when you go on a tour and you see the different things that people can make weapons from and the different ways they can apply their intelligence inside. They become institutionalized. Once they become institutionalized, then it is too hard to break that cycle. One of the things that the whole justice system and the principles of sentencing are framed around is rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is not always taking place on the inside.

I am going to put that out there. I have talked about it. I am going to continue talking about it, because this is an issue we are all going to face in every one of our districts, especially the people living here in the city. There are plenty of members across and members behind – this is a huge issue.

Another thing that I wanted to move towards is something I heard a lot about in the lead up to the election and certainly I have heard it now. It is the issue of tourism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hockeyville.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Hockeyville is great, but I do not hear about that anymore.

Tourism – the great Minister for Tourism, Minister, you guys are doing a great job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: Listen, I am going to blow your heads up and then I am going to take it down.

How can anybody argue against the Find Yourself campaign? That is a great campaign. Anybody who watches that who is not here in this Province wants to be here in this Province. It is a great thing.

Like I said the first time I got up, I am not going to criticize for the sake of criticizing. I am going to say what needs to be said. If it is good, it is good. What you are doing is good, but I am hoping that the minister, when he gets ready now for this upcoming tourism summer season, that you are going to make sure your department takes a look at the Southwest Coast. Not just the Southwest Coast, but it applies right up to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills' district. She has the Codroy Valley in her district, which is one of the greatest secrets in this Province. It is absolutely spectacular.

When we talk about my district, when we talk about Cape Ray and the Dorset archaeological site, and then we talk about Port aux Basques, my home town – again, this is something the minister is aware of, being a former Port aux Basques Mariner and playing some senior hockey out my way. The mighty Mariners are much better than the CeeBees, I would say; anyway, that is a topic for another day.

Port aux Basques, with our lighthouse and the fact that we are the main area, we have that ferry coming in and out every day, and all of those tourists coming in and out. We are the main point; the first thing they see is beautiful Port aux Basques.

Then we are going to go down into Fox Roost-Margaree, another beautiful, beautiful area. It is actually an area that is expanding. They are having some difficulty with their municipal infrastructure. That is an issue I will discuss with the minister at another time. Again, a great area, lots of people, lots of young people, actually, moving into that area.

Then we are going to move down into Isle aux Morts. Isle aux Morts has the Ann Harvey Days festival every summer. Ann Harvey, the grace darling of Newfoundland and Labrador – if anybody does not know that story, I suggest you start reading up. I do not know the exact dates, but certainly there was a shipwreck; our entire coastline is known for the shipwrecks over time, over history. Back in the 1800s and even in the 1900s, we had shipwrecks. Once, I cannot remember the name of the ship, but it was wrecked off Isle aux Morts, and the Harvey family and their dog rescued hundreds of people out of the water. It is funny, it ties in – we talk about search and rescue. Search and rescue back then was the Harvey family. They rescued –

AN HON. MEMBER: Seamus and Ann.

MR. A. PARSONS: Seamus and Ann, you got it.

We talk about their Newfoundland Dog; the dog's name was actually Hairyman. This is what they are trying to set up there, the Newfoundland Dog – it is a whole interpretation centre based around that. They have a huge consultation project put together. They are going to be putting it on your desk soon, so I am looking forward to your favourable glance upon that. I am looking forward to that favourable glance upon that, because again, we are the main point of entry to this Province – the main point of entry.

Then we go further down the coast, we go into Burnt Islands. They have the Hook and Line Interpretation Centre. Very proud people, they do a great job, but they had trouble last year with their JCPs. The JCP projects were a mess last year; it was a shambles. Now I am hoping this year that it is going to be better. I know last year it was downloaded from the federal government. We have half the funding to work with; of course, all of the decision making has been taken out of the hands of the local people and even the Western region and placed in St. John's, so St. John's is going to make all the decisions for back this way. I do not agree with it, but I am going to be optimistic and say that the right thing is going to be done this year and that we are going to get the JCPs we need. We are going to invest in tourism on the Southwest Coast.

I have not had a chance – I do not know how late we are going to go tonight, but I am not down the coastline yet, so I want another opportunity. I thank you for your time. I thank the members for their attention.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to get up in this House and speak to the things that you hold dear to your heart and to your soul. Probably one of the reasons why you got in politics in the first place is to bring certain services and do certain things for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is actually encouraging when – we have only been open, I think, in regards to the House, around five days now, but I have heard just about every minister in this House getting a compliment of great work being done in their departments, such as the Minister of Tourism here tonight. I have had a couple, the Minister of Environment has had one as well, I think, and on and on.

It is great to see that, because when the hon. members across the House see good government and recognize that in this House, it is encouraging to see. I just have to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Chair, tonight I want to speak specifically to the MHA for the Bay of Islands. He has been up now a couple of times in this House in regard to the fiscal arrangement or need of a new fiscal arrangement for municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. When you talk about a fiscal arrangement, you have to understand what a fiscal arrangement is all about. That is what you have to understand. You have to understand exactly what you are talking about because, I even heard the Leader of the Third Party say, in regard to her response to the Speech from the Throne – they are saying what they need, listen to them and give it to them.

That has a lot of implications in regard to just giving $100 million here and $100 million there. I am perplexed; I must say as well, I say to the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands – specifically him, because he is my critic in regard to the Official Opposition – in all honesty that I am certainly concerned in regard to the actions of MNL over the last number of days, in light of all the investments that we have made to municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador since 2008. They are significant. I went over them; I laid them all out, I laid them all out just a day or so ago in this House of Assembly in regard to the millions and millions of dollars that we have invested in Municipal Capital Works. We have invested and re-invested in the Municipal Operating Grants, fire and emergency services in regard to trucks and equipment. Just the other day, as the hon. the Member for the Torngat Mountains mentioned, we made a significant investment in search and rescue operations in Newfoundland and Labrador and their associations with the terminal imaging cameras. This is the kind of work that we do in government, but you cannot do it all.

I have heard members in this House here tonight talking about health care and all that kind of stuff, but you have to step outside – housing and everything else – the situations that they may have encountered when they were going door-to-door or whatever it is.

We are not unlike any other province in Canada. We are not unlike any state in the United States or anywhere else, because you cannot be everything to everybody all of the time. There are certain things in this world that you try to address and you keep banging away at it as your budgets will dictate, as much as you possibly can at any given time, and make those significant investments. You might not touch that person you are talking about today, but you will touch them tomorrow. That is what you work for in regard to government, and good fiscal government in the way we have run government for the last number of years.

Mr. Chair, I also listened to the hon. member, the Minister of Advanced Education. She talked about the flood in Stephenville, and she talked about some mayors and municipal leaders having a vision and having a firm commitment to the area that they live in. They seen a bright future and they went forward, and over five years later they are doing well. They are doing well, economically. The communities are doing well. What did they do? What was the significant thing that she said? They worked with government. They absolutely worked with government in regard to moving forward. They did not go out there asking for things that could not be done at that particular time. They recognized the challenges the Province had in regard to our fiscal responsibility to the Province as a whole. That is what they looked at.

That is all I am asking municipalities to do, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, is to work with government. They have challenges, I have recognized those. I have heard them loud and clear. I meet with municipalities all over Newfoundland and Labrador. I have just about met with 273 of them over the past year, and I hear them. I hear them loud and clear, but they are a third level of government. Always remember that. They went out, they got themselves elected. They went out and asked for the people's vote. They wanted to represent the people in their communities. They wanted to provide the services that municipalities provide to their residents. They also have to remember that the provincial government, being that second level of government, has challenges as well. It is not a bottomless pit of money. The money does not grow on NDP trees, because it just does not. It absolutely does not. It is just there, you have to manage that money. You have to spend it in the absolute right way and have the best bang for your dollar at any given time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: When it comes to fiscal arrangements – let's talk about that for a minute. You have to understand exactly what they are doing, they are confusing it. I heard MNL say the other day that they do not want any changes to the MOG formula. Okay, do you know what that means if we do not change that formula? Have you ever sat down and thought about it, exactly what that means? If we were to populate – the current MOG formula was brought in, in the early 1990s, most of the municipalities on the Northern Peninsula would get way less MOGs as they are getting today. If we populated that the way it was set in the 1990s, they would be wiped out. That is the kind of stuff you have to think about before you actually get into it and start doing things without even thinking about the long-lasting effects that it will have on municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have heard them advocating in regard to the HST rebates. Well unbeknownst - and nobody has spoken in regard to municipalities. The HST rebate, they get a full rebate on all big projects, such as recreational projects today. As a matter of fact, in regard to any municipal capital works there is a portion of the funding that is for HST. I will give you an example of that in regard to the HST rebate. The HST that is applied to a municipal capital works project at a 90-10 basis, we pay 90 per cent and they only pay ten. They are only paying 10 per cent of the total HST; the provincial side of the HST. What does that HST mean to the smaller municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador? Absolutely nothing. What does it mean to the municipalities on the Southern part of Labrador or the Northeast Coast of Labrador, the Northern Peninsula as I look around? Absolutely nothing; absolutely nothing to them. It will not pay for their coffee.

That is the kind of stuff they are advocating that will be fine with us, but it is not fine with me. It is not fine at all because I have to have something that is sustainable, affordable for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and to make our municipalities healthy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I want to put it in comparison with how we have grown, how we have invested in municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last number of years. I told you that we have grown the Municipal Capital Works Program. That budget has grown four times to what it was in 2002. As a matter of fact, in 1995 it was around about $20 million, a little bit below the $20 million. We have grown that to $84.3 million worth of commitment authority.

I ask all hon. members, do you know what the Municipal Capital Works Program is in Nova Scotia? Do you know what it is, I ask you? It is $3.75 million. That is it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? That is it?

MR. O'BRIEN: That is absolutely what it is. You have to do your research. You have to do research when you get up and start talking about municipalities and then municipal fiscal arrangements and all that kind of good stuff. You have to think about that, you have to think about these things. You have to research it.

We have invested in municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador heavily over the last number of years. I have 570 projects on the go worth about $300-odd million. This is the kind of stuff that we do.

I am getting back to my point in regard to municipalities having a role to play too, municipalities do. They have to work with government; it is not a one-way street. I answered a question in this House today I think or yesterday and it was a partnership, but it cannot be a one-way street. You just cannot give it all to them, I am sorry. I have to say to the Leader of the Third Party, you just cannot give it all. You have to have a balance. That is what it is all about; it is balancing your budget, making sure that you have made the right investments, making sure that you get the best bang for the dollar. It is our dollar, it is the people's dollar – it is the people's dollar of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what it is and that is what we have been doing.

I have looked at the audited statements of the City of St. John's, looking at surpluses in 2010, 2009; $42 million surplus in 2010 audited statement. Tangible assets less liabilities are worth $597.2 million. We have done well with the City of St. John's and we will continue to invest in the City of St. John's.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: It is our city, it is our capital. They have municipal capital works requirements.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Oh, I was just going to keep on going. I was just getting wound up. Sorry there, Mr. Chair, but I will get up in a couple of minutes time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It gives me pleasure again to speak up on Interim Supply. I have to say while the government has been making some steps when it comes to serving of municipalities, there is a lot more that could be done. We do know that the call is out there on the part of Municipalities NL right now to address the financial inequity that they believe is there. Hopefully, government will get together and have a good, concerted discussion with the members of Municipalities NL and come up with a funding arrangement sooner rather than later.

I think that Municipalities NL is looking for an arrangement this year while government is saying that they cannot address it until next year. There are obviously some problems as regards to budget considerations that have to be addressed, that I think that the government is probably going to take some time to – I am asking them in the sense of urgency that government address this sooner rather than later.

Mr. Chair, listening to the hon. the Minister of Finance earlier talking about the chances of the survival of the Corner Brook paper mill, we also hope that the mill survives. I do have a suggestion, possibly as well to pass over to the Natural Resources Minister, and probably to the Finance Minister as well, next time in their talks with Mr. Kruger if they have thought about the possibility of getting into the alternative fuels production, if you will, from biomass. There is such thing as the manufacture of a wood-type alcohol that is blended right now and is used as an oxygenate in the petrochemical industries. Right now, most of the ethanol that is out there on the market, which is derived from a food stock, has a tendency to drive up food prices. So perhaps the hon. the Finance Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources can bring a proposal to Kruger and have that looked at.

God only knows, we have the resources here that the government can avail of. God only knows, we have the wood stock. We have the federal office, the forestry offices in there, the Brookfield Road Experimental Farm that can probably analyze what type of fibres can be used for such a thing. There are things to be done to possibly save the Corner Brook paper mill. Indeed, hopefully Kruger will make the proper investments to possibly come out with two products rather than just one to ensure its survivability.

Mr. Chair, tonight I would like to say a couple of words about Muskrat Falls and talk about the things we could be losing because we are not looking at options. Mr. Chair, for the last fifteen years I have been part of a consumer group that has looked at fuel prices, so I know a little bit about oil prices, a little bit about the options that are out there, and a little bit about what we lost in the consumer driven marketplaces out there and what we have actually gotten now.

In learning about the price of fuel and everything that is out there, what I did learn over the last fifteen years or so is that the consumer lost choice. A very important word is choice. Of course, when you are talking about Muskrat Falls and when we are talking about the two options that were available when we were looking at Muskrat Falls, one of the things that I do not believe was considered was the simple fact of choice. I am going to touch on natural gas when it comes to that because natural gas is, as far as I am concerned, a viable option. It works for Nova Scotians; it can work here.

Natural gas right now, for example, is the equivalent of 4.4 cents a kilowatt hour equivalent when it comes to electricity. It is the equivalent of about forty-six cents a litre for heating oil. These are choices that, if natural gas was brought onshore, burned for electricity, and the excess taken and put into the consumer marketplace, can be viable options to keeping dollars in the consumers' pocket as well.

So, Mr. Chair, I would like to be able to bring forward the proposal that government look at bringing in natural gas anyway, even if they do not use it for Muskrat Falls, simply on the basis of the options that it provides to the consumer, because at the end of the day, I think that we are all talking about trying to save the consumer some money here. Whether Muskrat Falls is the best option right now, because the option of natural gas is not being looked at, or because it is hidden in one of these eight boxes that are around, we really need to get together on this one and see if we cannot bring natural gas in onshore.

Mr. Chair, the other thing that I will add to that is that it kind of hurts to know that we are not going to be able to look at that other option and ask ourselves the question, simply: What if? What if we had to look at natural gas and possibly bring it ashore and set up a whole new generating station and take Holyrood offline at the same time? What if we modernized these facilities? What if we looked at the possibility of wind power, for example? Wind power is another option that is not being looked at.

In our rush to develop Muskrat Falls, the possibility here is that we could be losing something a whole lot bigger when it comes to our environment, when it comes to putting a dam up on Muskrat Falls and saying goodbye to the thunder that you actually feel in the ground from Muskrat Falls. So, there is an awful lot there to consider.

When it comes the markets when it comes to natural gas, there is a possibility here as well that we are losing possibly another fuel for export that could be bringing money into the treasury here in this Province. As far as I know, we do not have a natural gas royalty regime put in this Province yet, and it has been a long time coming, and people have been a long time waiting on it. What is this leading to, when we are talking about Muskrat Falls and the project as it is right now?

Well, Mr. Chair, it is my belief that what we are actually doing, besides taking away that possibility of choice in the future for consumers of this Province, we are taking away a variable that is out there in the marketplace that could be driven by the consumer, in the simple fact that if the consumer had the choice of using electricity for a central source of heat, or using natural gas for a central source of heat, then we have one particular product that is going to be playing off the other; that is how consumers end up with lower prices. I think it is a very important point that we have not explored yet, and this House should be talking about when it comes to debate on Muskrat Falls.

If you are going to end up protecting the marketplace for electricity, and the people that are manufacturing electricity right now, the price is going to stay high to the consumer. The price is going to stay high to the consumer and we are not going to have that variable in there. The options are gone because Muskrat explores only two of those. I would beg the question, if it was not government that was driving the Muskrat Falls issue, what the competition bureau would say about actually keeping, for example, natural gas out of the marketplace, because I do not know why natural gas is being kept out of the marketplace. Some people would argue that it is stranded gas and it is such a small supply. I hear people outside this House talking about the huge reserves of natural gas that are actually out there.

Mr. Chair, I do believe that what we are really losing here is a loss of choice on the part of the consumer. It may not show itself tomorrow, it may not show itself next year or the year that Muskrat Falls comes on stream, but maybe in the year after that consumers might be asking themselves: Why did we go and get Muskrat Falls power when we could have had natural gas power generations? I will leave those two points with you and I will add a thought on a Web site that I ran into quite some time ago. It is from heritagegas.ca out of Nova Scotia; there was a section there that gives consumers a nice little breakdown on what the equivalent price is right now in natural gas. Right now, today – just to let everybody know some prices – the equivalent heating oil price for natural gas is 48.6 cents a litre, propane it would be the equivalent of 31.1 cents, and electricity at 4.4 cents a kilowatt hour.

Mr. Chair, I believe we are missing out on a world of opportunity here when it comes to the consumer marketplace with the options given. With that, I will take a seat and let someone else carry on from here.

Thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to get up tonight and offer some comments on Bill 2, Interim Supply. It is good to be back in the House, and like all the other people on this side who have spoke, you have to fight for your chance to speak over here. There is a line-up and trying to break that line-up – it is easier to get into the Toronto Maple Leaf's line-up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here. I like the other members as well want to thank my constituents in the great District of Placentia – St. Mary's for electing me back in the House for the third time.

One of the perks in this job, you get to meet some great people and make some great relationships. That is what happens to us as politicians in our district. I will be eternally grateful for the great people that I have met in my district and the people I work with every day. I hope to be able to serve them in the way they deserve to be served over the next four years.

To all of the new members who have come into the House, I want to welcome them as well, and all of the members for that matter. To the new members I say to them: Politics is an honourable profession, contrary to what you might hear on occasion. A politician is not always held in the highest social esteem by members of the public for strange reason. Those of us who are lawyers in the House suffer under a double whammy because lawyers are not held in such highest social esteem either. Mr. Chair, when I was elected to the House I always asked myself the question whether I went up the ladder or down the ladder. The only thing I know for sure, I am still somewhere at the bottom of the ladder.

Mr. Chair, I want to say a few words with regard to Interim Supply. The minister is looking for $2.7 billion to pay the bills of this government over the next three months, and over $68 million of that is required for the Department of Justice. I would like tonight, in the time that I have, to be able to expound on all of the great things we are doing in the Department of Justice, but time does not permit me to do that. I do want to respond basically to what the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile raised earlier with respect to Bill C-10 and the situation with regard to corrections in the Province. There is more going in corrections in the Province than the canine therapy program we talked about earlier today. I am glad he made reference as well to the importance of dogs on the Southwest Coast, so obviously dogs are in the highlight today.

Bill C-10, Mr. Chair, obviously is a complex piece of legislation. It is omnibus bill which makes it more complex in that there are several pieces of legislation combined in one bill. That is what makes it difficult to respond to. There are several good points, good parts of the legislation, and we support it. There are some good things in there, and we support it: the Protecting Children from Sexual Predators Act, the Increasing Offender Accountability Act, and the Supporting Victims of Terrorism Act. This is all good stuff and we support all of that, but there are some complex provisions in there as well.

Certainly, the issues that the hon. member raised, and have been raised in a number of circles in recent months, have to do with the impact that bill might have on our correctional facilities' programs in this Province. We have no way to determine that, Mr. Chair. There is all kind of speculation out there that it is going to cost millions and millions of dollars, we are going to have no room to put our prisoners and all of that, but nobody has come up, yet, with any definitive figures. The federal government disagrees with the advocate who came out the other day and said how many millions it was going to cost. In this Province, we are part of the Atlantic Provinces that have a correctional team put together to do a financial impact of that piece of legislation. We are working through that and at the end of the day we will be able to determine what impact that bill will have.

There are suggestions that taking away the mandatory minimum sentences, reducing judicial discretion, conditional sentence and whatnot are going to put more people in our correctional institutions, going to put more pressure on our prosecutions and so on. We have to wait and see what is going to happen there, Mr. Chair. We can make all kinds of speculation and do all kinds of fear mongering about what is going to happen in our system, but we really do not know yet until we get a chance to analyze it.

Mr. Chair, this had considerable discussion at the last meeting of the federal-provincial Ministers of Justice and they took a lot of discussion at the table. Even some of those provinces that really do not know and cannot get a grasp on the financial analysis of what it is going to mean, so we have to wait and see what is going to happen there.

Whatever happens, Mr. Chair, we are in the position right now of assessing our correctional facilities to see what we are going to do. We have infrastructure problems, we agree to that. The hon. member had the opportunity to tour the HMP not long ago, he also toured the lock-up and we were glad to give him the opportunity to do that. I think he must have the media parked at the door because he was not out of the place when the public release had been made. That is fair ball, there are no new secrets coming out, that is for sure, with regard to the conditions of Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

We recognize what the problems are there and we have to move forward. We have been negotiating with the federal government over the last number of years to see if they will come on board, but so far they have not. We have to move forward, and we are doing that. We are currently assessing our correctional facilities. We are doing a study of all our facilities to see if we can increase any capacity through reorganization, retrofitting, rearrangement or whatever, and increase the capacity in our other facilities. We will use that information to inform our decision as to how we are going to replace HMP. We are involved in that and we hope in a timely fashion to be able to bring some recommendations to Cabinet with respect to what we are going to do with our corrections infrastructure.

Mr. Chair, that is not to say that we have not invested and not continue to invest in our corrections infrastructure. We have invested $7 million in our corrections infrastructure, Mr. Chair, since the Decades of Darkness report in 2008. We have put $1 million worth of renovations in the Newfoundland and Labrador Correctional Centre for Women; we have made $750,000 worth of improvements to HMP; we have established two trailers for programming space, we have had one attached to the medical unit; we have done renovations to the school; we have put in a new ventilation system at a cost of $750,000; we have put $700,000 in the West Coast Correctional Centre; we have improved the Labrador Correctional Centre; we have funded a new security camera system for all our facilities.

Mr. Chair, as a result of good leadership and good relationships with our correctional officers, we have hired numerous correctional officers; a lot of which, by the way, are women. In 2008, Mr. Chair, of the correctional officers in our system, 15 per cent was women. Since then, 38 per cent of the correctional officers are women – a 50 per cent increase in three years. We have hired 117 temporary correctional officers, 31 per cent of which were women. In the last recruitment, Mr. Chair, in July 2011, 50 per cent of them were women. In connection with International Women's Day last week, the justice system is certainly doing its part for gender equity.

Mr. Chair, as a result of the Decades of Darkness report, as I said, we put $7 million into our correctional system. Mr. Chair, as per the seventy-seven recommendations of that report, most of that money went into training and programs. There were seventy-seven recommendations in that report, and I am proud to say that seventy-six of them are being implemented – seventy-six of the seventy-seven.

Some of the highlights, Mr. Chair, of that: We have programming enhancements in addictions counselling, drug awareness, violence prevention, employment training, structured leisure activities, mental health improvements, and women's programming. All of these things have been added to the programming in our correctional institutions. We do that in partnership with our partners and stakeholders: the John Howard Society, Stella Burry, Turnings, the Mental Health Association, and so on.

Mr. Chair, much has been made recently, and understandably so, of mental health issues in the justice system. A lot of people would argue that a lot of the crimes being committed are associated with mental illnesses or addictions. There are other people who argue that incarceration is not the solution for people with mental health issues. We see it every day, but we do not have the facilities and the other provinces do not have the facilities either. Probably too many people with mental health illness are incarcerated.

Mr. Chair, the needs of the mentally ill inmates is highlighted in the Decades of Darkness report. Since that report, Mr. Chair, mental health training has been provided to all front-line correctional staff, psychological services are available in all provincial prisons, full-time psychologists are now in Her Majesty's Penitentiary, the Justice Project in consultation with the Canadian Mental Health Association, a fetal alcohol syndrome project co-ordinator for Labrador, and Aboriginal liaison people. Mr. Chair, $7 million since 2008, seventy-six of the seventy-seven recommendations have been implemented, and millions of dollars going into infrastructure.

Mr. Chair, there is a lot of good things happening in corrections, all part of the good news story that we are so eager to get out on this side of this House. We had to fight over each other to get it all out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

One very good thing that came out of the debate tonight is we have heard that the Kruger plant in Corner Brook appears to be on the brink of being saved and not lost. That will be great news for the West Coast. I am really pleased to hear that the government is working diligently to save the Kruger plant in Corner Brook. The government has not had much luck with saving plants, so hopefully this is the ‘Goldilocks' solution. This is the solution to the not-too-hot and not-too-cold – it is not too much, and not too little. In Stephenville, it was not enough and somebody said the plant would close ‘not on my watch', and in fact, it did close. Then a little later when there was trouble in Grand Falls, the government rushed in and expropriated – too big of a hurry, probably was not necessary; so hopefully, now they have learned from two blunders in a row, the government now might get it right on the third one. If they will get it right on the third one, that would be the ‘Goldilocks' solution.

We have heard of hockey analogies here tonight and the Minister of Justice mentioned the Leafs; I hope he will be kind in his comments on the Leafs, otherwise we may have real difficulty keeping order here. If the government were to lose three mills in a row, would that be a hat trick, or is it only a hat trick when you win three times instead of losing three times? It looks like probably a hat trick for losing three in a row.

It is nice to hear that the government has learned something from two blunders in a row and maybe they will get one right this time, and that would be great. It shows that even if they are impervious to reason, they are susceptible to political pressure.

Now, generally they need to save the Corner Brook mill, because if the Corner Brook mill closes there will be even more power available that is already here in the Province, and that would really hurt the Muskrat Falls. If we have even more power – if the Corner Brook mill closes, there will be even more power available and less need for Muskrat Falls.

When people in my district ask me about Muskrat Falls, they ask me: so what do you think of Muskrat Falls? I usually answer the question with the same question: what do you think of Muskrat Falls? Probably of any ten people, two will say it is a great thing, two will say it is an awful thing, and six will say, I really do not know.

Then they want to know well, if Muskrat Falls is such a good thing, and we are going to export power, then why aren't we doing all of the Lower Churchill? If it is a good thing, wouldn't more be better? I cannot explain to them why we would not do it all if it is a good thing. If we have a good thing and we can export, it would seem to make sense that we should export – develop and export all that we can.

Obviously, we do not think it is a good enough thing that we would develop the entire Lower Churchill. Does that mean that it is a good thing? It is difficult to say, if we need it or if we do not need it. If it is good, why would we not develop all of it? If it is not worth developing all of it, why would we develop any of it? A simple solution – is it all or is it none?

The question which then comes to mind is people want to know what will happen to their electrical bills. On viewing the presentation by Nalcor, I saw the lines on the graph that appear not to be the ones that the Minister of Natural Resources refers to when he talks about only a few dollars per month on electric bills. The lines that I saw in the Nalcor presentation showed an abrupt increase by a pretty considerable amount in five or six years when Muskrat Falls comes on stream; then it levels out.

Depending on the factor that is used for how much we would have had to pay, some years down the road we will get to a point of what I will call, break even. What does it mean when we get to the point of break even? It means that thirty-five, forty or fifty years from now, we will be as well off as if we had not developed Muskrat Falls. Where is the logic in doing this?

Then people want to know, if we could do this and it is going to take us so long before Muskrat Falls becomes viable, then why do we not wait for the Upper Churchill – why does the government not wait for the Upper Churchill in 2041? We have heard tonight, the Upper Churchill really is not within our control. If it is not within our control then how can it be a bad thing that we lost it? If we could not control it, then whose fault is it that we do not have it anymore?

The government clearly has not looked at all of the options. It has looked at two options and one option has the word link in it, which makes it sound good, and the other has the word isolated in it, which inherently sounds bad. Do you want to be isolated or do you want to be linked up? It is simply a play on words that two proposals have been put forward.

It is like asking, which of my blue cars do you like better, the light blue car or the dark blue car, and someone says, the dark blue car; then, the government tells the world that everybody likes the dark blue car. That is not true. There were only two choices, a light blue car and a dark blue car. In this case, the people have only been given two options; only two options have been studied. Everybody who has passed an opinion, an informed opinion on Muskrat Falls – whether it is viable or is it the lower of the options – all of their remarks are always prefaced with the comment that based on the information provided, based on given the choices, based on given the options, this one is the lower of the two. Of course, it is the lower of the two, but if the dice is loaded so that there is only two in any event, then clearly, one must be lower than the other. Muskrat Falls apparently is lower than if we do nothing. Nobody is saying we should do nothing.

What will it mean to small businesses? What will it mean if there is a 50 or 60 per cent increase in an electric bill for a small business? It may mean that small business will go out of business. What will it mean to older people? What will it mean to people on a fixed income? If people are concerned about what they will pay for their hydro bill, I would suggest to them to take the kilowatt price that they are paying right now, multiply by their consumption, add the tax and then they will see exactly how much they are going to pay. It is a simple matter then of forward averaging the cost that they would pay on all of the hydro that we have, and they will be able to see, is this a good deal or is this not a good deal.

As members are called upon at some point to vote on this Muskrat Falls deal, I would propose there should be a free vote. We hear quite a bit about politicians' pensions and pensions of members of this House of Assembly and the House of Commons. I would say that if any member is confident that Muskrat Falls is such a good deal, then have that member's pension be backed up by the investment in Muskrat Falls. If that member's pension is backed up by the investment in Muskrat Falls then that person will be secure if Muskrat Falls works. That person will be able to say to his or her constituent: I believe in Muskrat Falls so much that I am willing to put my pension, my life savings on it, so you do not have to be concerned about later on if your hydro bill is high; I will be suffering the same outcome as you will suffer. That will be what the real proof, the real proof of the pudding, would be.

What is the alternative for older people in our Province? For older people, who tend to be on a fixed income, for people who are on fixed incomes generally due to being on social assistance or a non-indexed pension plan – there is a non-indexed pension plan of public servants in this Province – the choice might be in six, seven, eight or ten years time, what do I do; do I have electricity and heat my home, do I pay for my drugs, or is it a choice of what I have for supper? Am I going to have kippers or cat food, because that is what we could be looking at; am I going to have kippers or cat food, because I cannot afford to pay the light bill that we have been assured by the Minister of Natural Resources will only go up by a handful of dollars in the life of this contract.

Those numbers clearly cannot be right if the presentation done by Nalcor all over this Province is accurate. The graph that Nalcor presents, which goes up like this and across like this, it is not something which is only $15, $20, or $25 a month. It is a figure which will be significantly higher than that.

As we have a more aging population, then they will be the ones who will have to consume electricity. The more electricity they consume, the worse off they will be. Members, if they really want to support Muskrat Falls and explain it to their constituents, be prepared to have your MHA pension plan backed up by the investment of Muskrat Falls. It must be a great investment; everybody is going to vote for it. You are going to subject the voters to the outcome of Muskrat Falls, so why not accept the same risk and the same outcome for anybody who wishes to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make some comments on Interim Supply. I recognize as well, being the first opportunity since being re-elected, as my other colleagues have done, I want to thank my constituents for giving me the opportunity to represent the great District of The Isles of Notre Dame and to come back a second time and continue to work with them on improving the district.

As well, I certainly want to welcome and congratulate the others who are sitting here, some for the first time, some returning. Obviously it is a great honour and a privilege to be here. I am sure as time goes on, we will continue to do what is best in the interests of the people of the Province.

Mr. Chair, generally what happens when you get up in this House, you stand up and make some comments about things that are happening on the other side, back and forth. The member that just spoke, there are a number of things, I guess, I could challenge about his speech. I want to focus on my own, but there is one comment I want to make and that is to the people of Corner Brook. I think a mistake was made earlier tonight in referencing the mill in Corner Brook. Again, Mr. Chair, I just want to point out to the people of Corner Brook that our government takes their situation extremely seriously. The mill is critical and important to not only the people of Corner Brook but the west coast. As the Minister of Natural Resources indicated earlier tonight, both him and the MHAs for the area and the Premier are very engaged and working very closely with union and ownership to see to it that the mill gets on the right track. We are not about to make jokes here in this House.

Mr. Chair, a few things I do want to talk about tonight – first thing, so I can clear it up, because I think the hon. member's father made the same mistake in the House; I never, ever played with the Port aux Basques Mariners. I want to clarify that. I played with the Royals. The Mariners beat us. I did not play with the Mariners, but I did play softball in Port aux Basques.

Mr. Chair, there are a number of things that I want to talk about tonight. Particularly, I want to make a few comments about the dynamic of the House. We were six months trying to get in here – a lot of lobbying, a lot of media attention – and there are a number of things happening that I see from the Opposition side, I guess, that I did not see in the previous sitting. There are more members over there. I am starting to see a little more theatrics, I think. I think the relationship between the two is not the same as it was; I think that is obvious, as well, in terms of the working relationship. They are kind of lobbying for media time and these kinds of things, the dynamics of the House, which I think makes the House a whole lot more interesting.

We are hearing a lot more about Twitter. Twitter is alive and well, and alive and well from the House as well.

Mr. Chair, just five or six days in, and already we are starting to see a repeat of questions. We are already starting to see members stand up and ask questions over again, which concerns me; it certainly concerns me in the long term, because we plan to be here for a while. I certainly hope that some of the questions that we will see will jump into some of the issues that the people of the Province obviously want to hear as well. I just point that out, and I point it out – simply the facts and observations that I see – because we were so long out there in the media defending and explaining why the House could not open until now, so just a couple of observations.

Mr. Chair, the banter that we see back and forth is part of politics. We are in the political arena and this is an important part of the political arena. Some of the banter that takes place, Mr. Chair, is a side show, but what is really important is what we as a government do for the people of the Province. How we are proactive, accountable, responsible, how we have a vision for this Province. It is up to the Opposition to challenge that, to question that, but, Mr. Chair, make no mistake that we are six months into a new term, and the people of the Province clearly spoke on what they saw in terms of the needs of the Province, of the programming, of the spending, of the vision. They surely sent a message to the people of the Province and to the Opposition parties, that it was this side of the House; it was this government, this party, our leader, that the people of the Province wanted to lead them over the next four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Chair, just a few observations in terms of how the House has been operating and some of the questions we get back and forth, if I might point out. They are slamming us for spending. They are slamming us for our spending, but yet they stand on their feet day after day and ask us to spend more money. I do not get it. You cannot have it both ways. We are trying to be responsible with our spending. The Board of Trade says watch their spending. The Opposition say watch your spending; yet, they stand here and they want more and more.

Here we are trying to prepare a Budget, a good, solid Budget for the people of the Province that will reflect our vision. We take our time, we are going to go through an exercise to ensure that our programs and our departments are efficient and effective, yet they stand here and say we are spending without thinking. They stand here and complain, because where is the Budget? Yet, at the same time, when we are trying to be fiscally responsible, and the people of the Province expect us to be, they complain because we cannot rush in the Budget. So, Mr. Chair, confusing messages coming all the time.

Earlier today, one of the members opposite stood up on a little tirade and talked about our hiring practices. Talked about how the AG pointed out that one worker was still a temporary worker after twenty-one years, and sat there and gave us the big tirade. Failed to mention that twelve of those years, the first twelve of the years, was when their government was in power and did the hiring, using the same practice; again, a confusing message.

Again, on Muskrat Falls; they all stand and talk about Muskrat Falls. They ignore all the experts, all the research, and all aspects, and all the information that has been put out there. They do not agree with Muskrat Falls; yet, the member opposite stands and talks about all the power that is going to be needed in Labrador. Well, where is it going to come from? Where are we going to get it? You stand and talk about all the power that is needed in Labrador for development, yet one of their colleagues stand tonight and says we should wait until 2041. So, which is it? Does Labrador need the power and need it for development, which we firmly believe they do? If you do, we need to come onside and get it done. We cannot wait until 2041. What is it going to be?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Chair, just a couple of other quick points I want to talk about. I want to talk about the NDP who consistently stand in this House and talk about seniors and child care and the working class. Mr. Chair, I want to say to the people of the Province - and you can look at our record, you can look at our investments. Everybody in this House aspires to do good things for the people of the Province and we have proven it. They are not the only party in this House or in this Province interested in seniors and child care and the working class, we are too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Chair, they stand up and talk about labour. They criticize us about labour. Mr. Chair, they fail to mention that when this country and indeed the world were in the depths of a global recession, when there were layoffs across the country day after day on the news, it was this government that stood up, and unions stood shoulder to shoulder with us and we gave them a 21 per cent pay increase when the rest of the country was spiralling downwards. We did that, Mr. Chair.

You talk about the challenges out there; we were the ones who brought the minimum wage up to $10, Mr. Chair. We were the ones as well, just like they always aspire to, the good life for the people of the Province, making life better for the people of the Province. I say to the people of the Province, when you give wage increases, when you raise the minimum wage, is that not recognition in trying to make life better for the people of the Province? I say it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Chair, they talk about seniors and all that needs to be done. Do you know what? My grandmother is a senior, so are my parents. We all want to do more. When you look at what our government has done in health care alone, $148 million for prescription drugs. The list will go on in terms of capital investment; new dialysis; mental health and addictions investments; the extension of the med school so we can get more young Newfoundlanders trained to go out into our rural communities and take care of our elderly people; improved waiting times. We have more physicians than we have ever had in the history of our Province. These are things that we have decided as a government and the people who support it, so that we as a government can go out there and support our seniors and support the people out there in the community. These are things that we need to recognize, investments in child care and so on.

Mr. Chair, I could go on, there are so many things. I do want to take time to recognize and acknowledge as well that the fishery is an important issue. I look forward to standing and speaking on it in days to come.

Mr. Chair, to the people of the Province and the people in this House, this government, as well as, particularly the NDP and the members opposite, we aspire to do good things for the Province and we will continue to do it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to comment on the Member for Humber East and his optimistic report about the mill in Corner Brook. It is great to hear because that is a vital industry on the West Coast and Central Newfoundland and Labrador. He is certainly right about the integration and how it is interconnected with other industries and that it does feed – the waste from sawmills are feeding each other. That is creating lots and lots of jobs directly and indirectly in both rural and urban areas.

I just want to point out that one opportunity we may want to look at when we look at the forest industry is paying greater attention to the Model Forest of Newfoundland and Labrador and the role they can play for looking at value added and looking at value-added industries so that we can have greater success with looking at non-timber forest products in the Province, because there are a lot of resource. There is some total allocation in District 17 and District 18 on the Great Northern Peninsula that is certainly not being utilized, which could be. Maybe there are things that could be done, like fuel wood lots and things like that.

I want to point out that 95 per cent of our natural resources in Canada are not in urban centres across the country. When we look at that, we have to look at that it is both urban and rural areas that make success and make up the fabric of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to have success in both areas. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs has stated, St. John's has been having a balanced budget for the last couple of years. This is a great thing, because as the Minister of Finance would note, the Province has been having balanced budgets for a number of years but there are still challenges. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done in both the rural and urban areas and how money needs to be spent on infrastructure and other areas.

I want to talk a little bit about what the Member for St. George's - Stephenville East had said about the co-operation that happened in the community when the mill in Stephenville had closed. Seeing the community come together, seeing government partner and really work to see that town turn around and have greater economic development in the region is a great thing. That is absolutely incredible. I am happy to see that. I am encouraged to hear that some of her solution was that the government had put offices there and they put jobs there, public sector jobs in Stephenville, to help turn that economy around.

Well, I want to talk about a community in my own district, and that is in the Town of Englee. Since 2004, that town has lost its key employer, and that would be with the fish plant. Because of health and safety regulations, the plant was closed down. It was not fit to continue working there. Because of that, we have seen the company end up going bankrupt and leaving a monstrosity to the town. With that, the fish processing licence was reallocated to different parts of the region. With that, the people of Englee in that community have now had to see no processing in their community for the last eight years and they have seen all of the fish trucked off. Lots and lots of jobs were lost.

The government did intervene and they did put money in to look at training these people through their fisheries program. However, unfortunately, it is eight years later and the town has not rebounded economically, not in the same way as Stephenville. It is a town of over 600 people without a key employer. It still has a plant there that needs to be greatly torn down. We have seen it in the news. We have seen it in the media. It is all over the place that the plant is collapsing. It is a public safety hazard. This is something that really needs to be dealt with. I was hopeful before I was the member that in last year's Budget there was $150,000 announced to clean up old structures, fish plants and structures like that. Well, there are about 500 tandem dump truck loads that need to be moved.

This place has a lot of historical significance. It is one of the first freshwater fish processing facilities in the Province that employed hundreds of people. With the loss of it, we have contents that are there that pose a risk to the health and safety of the people, such as ammonia. We have the roof that has collapsed. You have parts of the property that are flying into public roadways and it is hindering the main harbour way.

The government is well aware of this and they have been working on this matter. I am hopeful that the collaboration through the various departments that are there will find a solution to this. The Town of Englee needs to move forward. They have had the opportunity to have economic development in this region, millions of dollars in investment to happen so that we can see greater jobs, greater sustainability from our rural regions as well. This is something that really needs to be addressed. We need to look at ensuring that we are not allowing fish processing companies just to walk away from their commitments in regions and leaving people in such dire straits.

It is a similar thing in other communities. In the area of Sandy Cove, in my district, I walked by and saw the eroding fish plant that is there. The fish processor decided: Oh, I am not going to continue to operate or process; now it is putting the fisher people that are there, that need to sell somewhere – and there are very limited buyers; it is really putting people's incomes – people that are depending on this, people that have been doing it for generations and generations, we are seeing that they are really, really having their incomes eroded because the community does not have some form of control of the resource.

If you look at something like the SABRI model, where the community has some control of the resource, you are seeing the greatest economic benefit for the people. These are things that we really need to look at to find better solutions so that our rural areas and our urban areas can have greater success.

As I go further into my district, and I go to a community like Croque and Gransway, going over a thirty-kilometre woods road that was put there because of the resource development around Abititi Bowater at the time – these roads are still gravel roads. The member in 1966 to 1985, serving in the district, managed to get a waterline coming from the pond into the community. The town is not incorporated. It is not a local service district. It is not a municipality, but they do have a waterline. Every fall, when the temperatures cool, that waterline freezes. It freezes, so the people in the community now have to bring water by snowmobile. There are a lot of senior citizens there; many of the households do not have the ability. They have to bring water by tubs so flushing toilets have to go by tubs. You have to boil kettles to take a bath in this community.

This is not a have Province when you look at – we have areas where we are bridging gaps, where we are seeing such great disparity, and we need to look at somehow overcoming some of these challenges. There are a number of houses there that are just abandoned; we are seeing more and more abandoned, isolated, and resettled communities. We need to have a better plan when it comes to sustaining our rural regions. There are things that we can do. There are great things that we can do. I believe there are great things this government can do to help and continue to move forward, and looking at what we can do with the resource developments that we have. We need to take greater precedence and look at housing in this Province. If we look at the Town of St. Anthony and we look at the long-term care facility and having all of its beds full and acute care, you have hospital beds taken up because there are huge waiting lists. Then, in other private homes, in the non-profit homes in the district, you have a long wait-list. We have an aging population, and we do not want to have to be sending people outside of the region to deal with and live in areas. There are no rooms. Myself and my colleague for St. John's Centre were in Norris Point and they were talking about how people have to be sent down to Port Saunders to get long-term care. This is where we are putting our seniors.

We have some great things happening at the College of the North Atlantic in St. Anthony, enrolment reached about 100 students, great new programs added but there is no dorm. It is adding pressure to housing and these are things that need to be addressed because it is not just social housing, it is housing and general affordable. This is something we have to come to grips with; we have to have a plan to deal with that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the Member for Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Chair, before I begin I will just take it easy on the ears of the hon. Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. I will do my best to tone it down just a little bit this evening. She does not need to put her earplugs in tonight.

Mr. Chair, I had not planned on taking the floor this evening to speak, but after listening to some of the comments that have been made, in particular by members both of the NDP and some members of the Liberal Party across the floor, I do feel a need to be able to stand in this House to address some of the concerns that have been raised with regard to commentary made on Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. Just to listen fifteen or twenty minutes ago to the Member for St. Barbe and I would like to ask him and get a response from the party across: Is this the platform from which the Liberal Party would run on? Is that the attitude, in the Red Book, that the Liberal Party would have, when someone in this hon. House can stand on the floor and say to the people of Corner Brook, the people who the Minister of Finance represents, the people who I represent and the people that the hon. Member for Bay of Islands represents – because there are a good many people in the Bay of Islands who work at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, many people in Humber West work at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, as it is in Humber East and all around the West Coast. The member opposite made a comment, and the comment suggested that if, members, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper does not survive, then we do not need to develop Muskrat Falls – shameful. If Corner Brook Pulp and Paper does not survive, we do not need to develop Muskrat Falls.

I would ask this House, I would ask the party opposite: Is that a platform of the Liberal Party of this Province? Do they not care about the people of Corner Brook? Do they not care about the people who make their living on a daily basis at the mill in Corner Brook? Do they not care about the people who make their living from the secondary and tertiary products that are produced from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper? If that is the attitude, Mr. Chair, well then I would say that is reprehensible.

I am also finding it difficult to follow some of his reasoning and thoughts. To stand in this House and to make comments along those lines and to do it in a joking manner, to stand with a grin from time to time and do it in a joking manner after knowing what we have gone through in this Province in both Stephenville – as the minister spoke earlier this evening – and in Grand Falls-Windsor, all the people who were affected by it, families who had to move, even though we know the economies are turning around in those parts of the Province. Yet, to believe and to stand in this House, to make that kind of statement for the people of Corner Brook, for the people of Stephenville, for the people of Grand Falls, no matter what town they live in, I find that really, really difficult to even accept and swallow, Mr. Chair.

This government, as you all know, we have invested millions of dollars in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper down through the years – millions of dollars. We have invested it not only in Corner Brook Pulp and Paper but for the people who make their living on a day-to-day basis making their living at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, Mr. Chair.

The Minister of Finance, the Minister of Natural Resources, have met, I have met with the mill unions, the representatives from the unions who are retired, those pensioners who are getting the pension from Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. We have met with them not on one occasion, not on two occasions but three or four occasions. This past weekend, Mr. Chair, the Minister of Finance, myself and representatives from the Premier's office, met for at least three-and-a-half hours with two different mill unions, two different groups of mill workers in Corner Brook, because it is important, Mr. Chair. It is important for this government. It has always been important to this government. We are working on a daily basis in the Natural Resources Department, in the Finance Department, with Kruger, and with the mill workers such that we can see long-term viability of the mill in Corner Brook. That is what we want, and I am sure that is what everyone wants in this House, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Chair, this company that runs Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, they have invested heavily in the mill. The workers have invested heavily in the mill. They have given their talents, their time, their efforts, and a lot more to the mill in Corner Brook. What I see when I sit across the table from all the mill unions, every one of them, including those who are retired, they collectively want to see the mill in Corner Brook succeed and prosper, not for one more year and not for two more years. They want a long-term plan. They want a plan that is viable, and that is what this government wants.

The Minister of Finance stood today and the Minister of Natural Resources stood today and said that if Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and the mill unions come to an agreement, they put on the table a long-term plan and a viable plan for the long-term viability of the mill in Corner Brook, this government will be there. This government will be there for the people in Corner Brook because we care about the people of Corner Brook and we care about the workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: When I hear that kind of statement being made, I think about the four workers who received layoff notices. They called my office. In actual fact, I picked up the phone and called a couple of them from the very first day to see what plans we could put in place, caring for their jobs, and caring for their future. We did that from day one, Mr. Chair. I do not think with the attitude that they would have from the other side of the House, especially coming from the Member for St. Barbe, if that kind of care is there for the workers. I find that very difficult to accept and very difficult to understand.

Mr. Chair, we all know, as was said in this House, that the world markets in the pulp and paper industry are challenged. We know that the readers in Canada, the United States, and Western Europe, the numbers are down. However, in India and Brazil, emerging markets, readers are up. The percentage of daily reading is up and advertising is up, just to use a couple of examples.

In India, for example, the top paper in India produces 7 million copies a day – 7 million copies a day, Mr. Chair. In comparison, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and The New York Times combined are around a 2 million readership a day. Kruger has positioned themselves in the world market, well situated in Corner Brook, with good fibre, a good workforce, and power. They will situate themselves. They have gone to the emerging markets, Mr. Chair. They have gone there and they will be successful if they can put in place a plan with the workers. Again, our government will be there for them, Mr. Chair.

Before I clue up, I just also want to draw attention to the Member for St. John's North, who made a comment earlier this evening with regard to the commitment of this government. He referenced firefighters and the situation that firefighters were doing in Corner Brook. He referenced my efforts on behalf of the people of Corner Brook. I want to clarify a point. I want to stand in this House. I am very proud of that, that I am working for the people of Corner Brook, and that is what I entered this life in politics for.

At 6:10, the evening of the firefighters' rally in Corner Brook, I was in my office with a firefighter and we were discussing the situations that the firefighters were going through in Corner Brook at that point in time. A few days before that, there were a number of firefighters that had a conference with myself and Minister Marshall, discussing the situation that firefighters are in, in Corner Brook – not only the current situation but other situations, Mr. Chair. It shows that this government is a caring government; it is a government that does not always have to be out there –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: We do not always have to be out there in the paper, trying to get our picture in the paper, Mr. Chair, on a daily basis as we travel the Province. This government often meets with interest groups, unions, mill workers, retired workers, firefighters, municipalities, and other municipal governments in the Province, Mr. Chair. We are doing that on a daily basis. I am proud to say that I am a part of this government and we will work together to see that Corner Brook Pulp and Paper survives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise today to speak on the bill. I was not going to talk about the mill in Corner Brook this evening, but it seems like there is a lot of tension on the other side of the House, Mr. Chair, when you speak about the mill in Corner Brook. I just listened to the Member for Humber West. He got up and made a speech, as if everybody on this side of the House was out there lobbying to get the mill closed, which could be nothing further from the truth, Mr. Chair. I have not heard one speaker in this House of Assembly today that said anything that could be contrived to be such a statement.

Mr. Chair, I want to address some of the comments that he made, because he referred to the Member for St. Barbe. Mr. Chair, I heard what the Member for St. Barbe said. The Member for St. Barbe said that if another mill closes in this Province, does that mean it is a hat trick for the government? Do you know why he said that, Mr. Chair? Because this is the very government that went out and stood up and said to the people of this Province, no mill will close under our watch. That was the big statement, Mr. Chair.

The Member for Humber West wants to talk about getting his picture in the paper. Well there were a lot of pictures snapped that day, I say to you. There were a lot snapped that day when the statement was made from the PC government of this Province: No mills will close under my watch. Well, guess what? Two mills closed under that watch and that government opposite, Mr. Chair, two mills. Then you have to question if the confidence is in the benches across the way to save the third mill in the Province. You should not be getting your back all puffed up, I say to the hon. member, you should be making sure everything is done to save that particular mill in that part of the Province. That is what you should be doing.

Now, Mr. Chair, what we have seen happen with this mill is we have seen a lot of concessions being given by workers. We have seen workers in this mill take a 10 per cent reduction in their pay to try and save their jobs. That is the kind of commitment we have seen coming out of them. The member questioned what our perspective was on it. I say, one, you go have a look in the policy book and it will tell you. Secondly, Mr. Chair, the other thing I am going to say is this, there were lots of opportunities for us to stand in this House and condemn the government, if we wanted to, on the $50 million in investment that went into Kruger in Corner Brook, but never did we do that. Never did we ever mention it, Mr. Chair, in terms of the investments that were made in Kruger. Even when the Auditor General put out the report and said there was $14 million transferred to Joe Kruger and that company for land acquisitions, but there was no documentation on the land acquisitions. Even when there was $5 million laid out for training in that particular company and it was questioned what the money was used for and the training was used for, because, Mr. Chair, what we saw was this. We saw workers who were going out and doing every single thing they possibly could to try and save this operation and save what was happening out in Corner Brook.

Mr. Chair, I heard a lot of tripe tonight from the Member for Humber West, and a lot of things being taken out of context. At the same time, it is a serious issue, it is a very important issue and it is one that certainly cannot go unaddressed.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about a number of important issues this evening, and one of them happens to be the school that is closed in my district. This is affecting so many people in this community. I know every time I have raised the issue on this school I have been told I have gotten two new schools in my district. Yes, I did get two new schools in my district and they were definitely deserved, I say to hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: They were definitely deserved, and this one is no different. You cannot turn around and say because you gave one school for one lot of children, we cannot give you a school for another lot of children. It does not work that way. Every child in this Province deserves to be educated in proper facilities.

Mr. Chair, since this incident has happened three weeks ago with the school in my district I have received a lot of e-mails. Many of those e-mails, and I think probably all of them, have gone to the minister as well and to many of his staff. Mr. Chair, they were talking about how children in the school have been sick for quite a while and how after the school is closed and the child has been out of school, how the breathing problem has improved with children. There are even children who had been sent out for MRIs to Corner Brook only a few weeks ago are now all of a sudden finding that their medical conditions have improved. I do not think these things can be overlooked.

Mr. Chair, it is a serious problem that is happening here and it is affecting a lot of people. I know that there is not an easy solution. It is never an easy solution when you have a school that has to be closed down in the middle of the season and there is very limited space, if any, in the community to relocate the children. I realize that. I am not saying the solution is an easy one in the short term. In the long term, the solution is going to be to replace the school. In the short term there has to be another solution. The solution I think is for government to start looking at what they can bring in to these communities as mobile classroom units or something that they are going to be able to use. In the absence of that, there is not going to be any facility where they can go and get an education properly over the course of the next few months.

Mr. Chair, I know that we are dealing with a situation in Labrador as well, where we have a lot of snow on the ground, we have a lot of ice, and we have a lot of cold temperatures. It is not easy to be able to be mobilizing a lot of equipment and stuff at this particular time. It is a situation that will require some effort, and it will require effort immediately for the short term and for the long term. I want to stress that. I know that the minister understands that as well, Mr. Chair. Certainly, I hope that he is giving some direction to the school board in terms of what the next step should be and the moves that they should make.

Mr. Chair, when we came back tonight to start our debate at 7:00 o'clock, I actually put out a tweet and said that we were in the House of Assembly tonight. I asked if there were any issues. Anyway, I got a page and some more on another page of issues that people wanted raised in the House of Assembly tonight. I do not think I am going to get to them all but, Mr. Chair, some of the ones that were tweeted were with regard to municipal funding, municipal infrastructure, and a new municipal agreement, which have been debated and addressed several times this evening in the House. I am sure there will be lots of debate on it over the next little while.

Mr. Chair, there was also suggestions that if the government wanted to find cuts, they should find them in the Executive Council budget of government. I do not know if there are any particular sections that they were referring to, but I certainly had a number of e-mails with regard to the Animal Protection Act and why the government has not proclaimed that particular act, even though it has been on the floor of the House of Assembly for quite some time. Maybe we will have to get the answer, Mr. Chair, in the next few days through Question Period if we do not get it in another way before the evening is over.

Mr. Chair, there were a lot of issues. Many of them were the same: the issues around the school that I raised, there were issues around the Abititi lands, there were issues around Muskrat Falls and, in fact, there were comments about the information that Nalcor is using on Muskrat Falls is outdated, and therefore, there is every reason for the debate to continue.

Mr. Chair, one of the interesting ones that was suggested to me was the Russell Wangersky column that was in the paper today. It had to do, Mr. Chair, with the point of privilege that the Government House Leader raised in the House of Assembly on Thursday of last week. It was the fact that the House Leader had disclosed the tapes of a recording that were left by the MHA for St. Barbe to the public. Yet, Mr. Chair, what they wrote about was the fact that the government itself actually went right to the Supreme Court to try and stop e-mails from his own political staff and politicians from being released to the public. That was what they were referring to, the double standard, in that a member could easily come in and place that kind of information from a tape recording on the floor of the House of Assembly, but certainly would not permit to give e-mails or replies to e-mails that were in the possession of the government, saying that it was top secret, Mr. Chair, and saying that it was confidential and so on, and therefore –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

CHAIR: No leave.

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have been listening here in this House, and as I always said, I sit in my seat; I am very attentive when people are speaking in regard to this House. I have some grave concerns when I look over across the House and I listen to remarks in regard to Goldilocks, and hat tricks, and smirks on their faces with regard to the closure of paper mills in Newfoundland and Labrador, which we take very, very seriously. We have come to the bat in each and every one of those communities, all caused by a global downturn in the economy, in regard to the newsprint industry. Then we hear all of these foolish remarks in regard to hat tricks and all that kind of stuff. It is insulting to the people that live in these particular districts and these particular towns. It is concerning to me, absolutely concerning to me.

Then when you get to fiscal arrangements with municipalities, which I debated in the House of Assembly – well, I have not seen any debate, because I have not had any suggestions. Nobody has shown any understanding in regard to what a fiscal arrangement would be with a municipality. I have not heard a thing, not one thing. Not one thing in this House of Assembly in five days have I heard anything that makes any sense to me in regard to a new fiscal arrangement with municipalities in general in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not have any understanding of it; that is what I am hearing – making statements that are untrue and misleading to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have to understand what a new fiscal arrangement would mean with municipalities, when you are only shifting money from one area to another; that is what it means: shifting money from one area to another. Do you understand what that means? That means that important programs in health, important programs in education, important programs in regard to Child, Youth and Family Services would have to be cut – or not, we have to raise taxes. Are municipalities going to take the responsibility of increasing taxes, personal income tax in Newfoundland and Labrador? This is not a one-way street. This is about a partnership. Then when you have people sitting over there, sitting back with no idea about what it takes –

CHAIR: Order, please!

Pursuant to Standing Order 10, it now being of the hour 10:00 o'clock, this Committee will now rise and report progress to the Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte and Deputy Speaker.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it being of the hour 10:00 o'clock, the Chair of the Committee of Supply reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of 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? Tomorrow?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It being 10:00 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.