December 13, 2012                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVII   No. 69


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the Member for St. John's North; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for District of Port de Grave; and the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

The Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Association for being recognized by Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador as Club of the Year during its Annual General Meeting this past spring.

This award is presented to a hockey association that makes significant contributions to the sport within the local community and across the Province. Many volunteers with the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Association were recognized during the AGM as well.

Denise Fagan was elected as Eastern Zone Co-ordinator for Hockey NL. Gerry Taylor received the President's Award for his ongoing support to Hockey NL President, Mr. Jack Lee. Ms Bonnie Evans received a Gold Stick Award for her many years of service to Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador. Last, but not least, Mr. Gerry Evans was named Honourary Life Member of Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is evident that volunteerism is certainly alive and well in the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey Association, along with these outstanding volunteers. As we have recently begun a new hockey season, I wish the best of luck to everyone.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a resident of St. John's North who was recently recognized with a Seniors of Distinction Award.

Ted Blanchard has a long record of service to the people of this Province, including serving one term, in the 1980s, as the MHA for Bay of Islands. Born in Gillams, he worked as a teenager in the Bowater mill in Corner Brook for a short time before training as a teacher.

Ted and his family settled in St. John's, where he spent most of his career working for the provincial government. A labour mediator, Ted is known in other circles for his contributions to music in the Province – with Don Randell, he released the first-ever commercial recording of Newfoundland music in 1957. They received the St. John's Folk Arts Council Lifetime Achievement Award in 2008.

Ted also spent years with the Royal St. John's Regatta as a rower, coach, coxswain, and committee member. Since his retirement, he has been able to focus on his hobbies and passions, and our community is much better and much richer for it, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Ted Blanchard on receiving the Seniors of Distinction Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize an individual for her tremendous contribution to the City of Mount Pearl.

Lucy Stoyles is a long-time resident, city councillor, and community volunteer. She has served on all standing committees of council, the Regional Water Committee, Municipal Assessment Agency, and the Northeast Avalon Joint Councils. She has also served the past two terms as Avalon Director of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and at the recent Municipalities NL Annual Convention, received a sixteen-year long service award.

This former Mount Pearl Citizen of the Year has volunteered with Lupus NL, the Kidney Foundation, Literacy NL, Learning Disabilities of NL, School Lunch Program, St. Peter's Parish, and the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival. She has also raised thousands of dollars for residents of the community dealing with medical challenges.

They say volunteers are the heart of the community. Lucy is the heart, the soul, and a true representative of human kindness, compassion, and love for her community.

I would ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Lucy Stoyles on her many accomplishments and thank her for exemplary service to the citizens of Mount Pearl and to the Province as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to congratulate Edith Samson on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. Ms Samson was recognized for the countless volunteer hours she has contributed towards the betterment of Trinity Bay North Region.

Edith is currently the executive co-ordinator for the Sir William Ford Coaker Heritage Foundation. Her latest accomplishment at this site is the restoration of the retail store and the salt fish plant.

Through great vision, determination and teamwork, this site is one of the greatest tourist attractions for the district and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is certainly worth a visit to the historic community of Port Union.

Ms Samson serves as the co-chair of the GEO Park Committee, another wonderful project in the works, guaranteed to attract both tourists and residents of the Province. She is a member of the Community Sector Council, the Rural Secretariat, the Emergency Response Committee, and was chair of the Local Home & School Committee. If this does not keep Edith busy enough, she is also a member of the Cabot Loop Voluntary Clusters Project and the Leadership Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly evident that Ms Samson is deserving of this prestigious medal; so please join me in recognizing Edith Samson for her continued hard work and dedication.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate the Upper Island Cove Volunteer Fire Department on forty years of service to the Communities of Upper Island Cove, Bryant's Cove and Bishop's Cove.

Much has changed in those forty years but much has stayed the same, says Chief Harvey Mercer. Those first years when a call was received the first member at the hall rang the bell. Today, members using technology and pagers go and answer the call as well.

The twenty-two members train each Tuesday evening in preparation for the call. Fire departments today not only respond to house fires but in many cases are first responders to vehicle accidents, medical emergencies and pet rescues. This year alone they have responded to 115 calls, which demonstrate their ongoing dedication and commitment to their communities.

The fire department played a major role in the development and implementation of the Town of Upper Island Cove's new emergency response plan. As well, I would like to congratulate Assistant Chief Darren Mercer on being named firefighter of the year.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Upper Island Cove Volunteer Fire Department on forty years of loyal service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize an innovative development in my district. The Quidi Vidi Plantation is a wonderful example of good things that happen when people work together.

The Quidi Vidi Village Foundation, incorporated in 1999, has the mandate to preserve and protect the character, culture and historical significance of Quidi Vidi Village, while developing the tourism industry and promoting economic and social growth for residents.

The Foundation now has offices in the 4,600-square foot Plantation building, formerly the Eli Tucker fishing premises. Judy Ryerson, current, and Barb Mallard, the first president of the foundation, worked tirelessly to achieve the dream of preserving a piece of our cultural history.

The vision and support of St. John's city councillors and staff, and funding from ACOA, brought the dream to reality.

Today, the Plantation is a craft incubator, a beautiful and functional studio space where visitors can watch, interact with, and support craftspeople who produce unique handmade items.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to congratulate the Quidi Vidi Village Plantation and all the people who worked so hard to put it in place, and I encourage everyone to take time to visit this wonderful spot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to announce the annual launch of the Snow Means Slow winter road safety awareness campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation and Works endeavours to reach drivers with the Snow Means Slow message every year at this time to remind them to adjust their driving habits to road and weather conditions.

Driving safely is vital at all times of the years, however, with the weather we experience here in Newfoundland and Labrador it places extra emphasis on safe driving practices as we head further into the winter season. Snow can create highly dangerous driving conditions with whiteouts and reduced visibility.

The Department of Transportation and Works maintains more than 9,000 kilometres of highway – Mr. Speaker, that is longer than the entire distance of the Trans-Canada Highway from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador to Victoria, British Columbia. Our staff maintain more road than the Trans-Canada spans from coast-to-coast, and they are committed to keeping each and every metre of our roads as safe as possible.

With 567 pieces of equipment, including plow trucks, graders, loaders, snow blowers, brine tankers, and backhoes, Transportation and Works staff work to keep our roads clear of snow and ice. In the last five years, we have invested in 101 new pieces of snow clearing equipment, which replaced older machines; and every year, Mr. Speaker, we invest $65 million in our winter maintenance program. Our staff work in the most treacherous of weather, and at times putting their own safety on the line to keep the public safe themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the Snow Means Slow message is an important one, given the high speeds at which drivers sometimes travel on our highways. Department of Transportation and Works road crews do their best to keep the Province's roads safe, but drivers must also do their part as well by adjusting their speed to suit road and whether conditions.

Mr. Speaker, as we enter further into the winter season, I ask drivers to adjust their speed and make our Province's highways safer for everyone. Remember, Mr. Speaker, Snow Means Slow.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We also on this side, as the Opposition, do thank the staff for keeping our roads safe throughout Newfoundland and Labrador throughout the year. Snow Means Slow is a great concept that we must adapt across all of our highways, Mr. Speaker, to make them safe. They ensure that people are very conscious of the winter conditions, the snow conditions, and our highways.

Mr. Speaker, I have to bring up the twenty-four hour snow clearing. I know my colleague, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile has brought it up and presented petitions on many occasions – the stretch of highway from Port aux Basques to Stephenville. Many nights, people cannot even pass it. That is our gateway to the Province, but yet we cannot get twenty-four-hour snow clearing.

I ask the minister once again, if you are going to keep your highways safe and Snow Means Slow, we have to ensure that our highways are safe. I know, Mr. Speaker, the twenty-four hours do not include the Bay of Islands. On many occasions last winter, I know in three, the school buses could not even go; they had to wait for the snow plows to come through. It is a major safety concern.

I agree with the minister on Snow Means Slow. We definitely have to ensure that the roads are clear so that people can at least drive slowly on the roads when there are winter conditions.

I thank the minister for making it aware for all the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is all incumbent on us to make this idea more public awareness for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. To the people: drive slow; it is your life we are talking about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and as well, to thank the highway staff, particularly, who are out there working the roads, sometimes around the clock. We know that there are going to be changing conditions. Thanks to the staff for keeping on top of that.

Outside of that, besides what the highway workers do, Mr. Speaker, there also has to be recognition amongst the general public that conditions can change relatively quickly. In my twenty-three years of commercial driving, the one rule that I came to understand was that if you were in doubt about the road conditions, do not – do not travel. It is as plain and simple as that sometimes.

Another word, Mr. Speaker, on that is a word of caution, as well, to drivers. The one thing that I found in my twenty-three years of commercial driving: make sure that your braking systems on your cars and everything are in good operational order. It does not take much to throw a car out of control if the brakes are working unevenly. As well as that, Mr. Speaker, watch the roads for hazards and watch out for flat tires. Always make sure that you are carrying the appropriate safety equipment.

With that, thanks again to the minister and the staff for the Snow Means Slow awareness campaign.

Thank you very much.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the provincial government's commitment to providing citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador with opportunities to engage in regular physical activity, an essential part of healthy living.

More specifically, I would like to focus on the benefits of the recreation grants provided by the provincial government, including the Community Recreation Development Grant Program and the Capital Grant Program.

These recreation grant programs help town councils and local committees develop, promote, and maintain recreation, sport, and physical activities in their communities. Upgrades to local recreation and sport infrastructure such as playgrounds are funded to ensure residents have safe and accessible facilities. As well, a variety of community-based recreation activities are supported through these grants, such as recreational sports, seasonal programs for citizens of all ages, and active living initiatives for the entire community.

The provincial government's support for recreation and sport in this Province has included an investment of more than $70 million since the launch of Active, Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador, which has been committed to recreation and sport infrastructure, programming, and athlete development throughout the Province.

One of the numerous communities that will benefit from the recreation grants is Little Burnt Bay. I will be there tomorrow to announce details on the extensive funding provided through the latest series of recreation grants. I look forward to visiting Little Burnt Bay and seeing firsthand how funding under the Recreation Grant Program impacts their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, myself as a former athlete and still a coach of basketball, I know how much a lot of these grants and funds help out kids for recreation. It is all of our responsibility to ensure that we promote a healthy living style.

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation helped me obtain a grant for the Town of York Harbour and Lark Harbour this past summer and with grant we started a new soccer program – the parents did – with fifty-eight kids in the new first-year soccer program. The minister helped with the $15,000 for the fencing and to develop the soccer field. That is a great endeavour, which shows how much this program does work in Newfoundland and Labrador and in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We all know the high incidence of obesity in Newfoundland and Labrador and we as all parliamentarians must find some way to help out. We also must make the education program more available and try to promote healthy living, which I know we all do as people in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I just continue: if there is any way that we can expand the program to help, anything that we can do to help with active lifestyles, with more education on fitness, more education on sports, it is going to help in the long run in our health care bill.

I will thank the ministers, the former minister for his assistance and this minister for some work that was done in the Bay of Islands through this grant. I can assure you: if you want to know a prime example of where this grant works, I say walk down to York Harbour and see the soccer program that they have next summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. These two grant programs are essential for communities, especially rural communities with limited funds. In my own district, communities are able to repair their facilities and build new ones to respond to changing recreation needs of our population.

We have to continue to do more to access healthy lifestyles and to better manage our high levels of obesity and diabetes. Government must continue these investments in recreation and sports infrastructure programs. It is more critical now than ever that we maintain a healthy population. This is good investment in people, and I certainly thank the minister for all the good work he has done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week we heard of a $100 million clean up for the Premier's expropriation mistake in Grand Falls-Windsor. We are now pushing $15 million on legal fees for this botched expropriation, $30 million to cover Emera if they want out of Muskrat Falls, and now a projected deficit of $725 million.

I ask the Premier: Have you now lost complete control of the financial matters of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government, since we have gotten in office, has had cumulative surpluses of over $5 billion. We lowered the net debt by $4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the economy of this Province remains strong. It is strong right now and it is going to continue to be strong. We have capital investment the highest in our history. The rate of growth is highest in the country. It is driving employment. Employment is higher. There is a new record in employment and the people are getting higher wages.

Average weekly wages in this Province are now the highest they have ever been. For the first time in our history, they are higher than the Canadian average. Mr. Speaker, that is leading to business confidence and consumer confidence. We are seeing it in retail sales, we are seeing it car sales, and we are seeing it in new records in car sales and housing stats that are the highest in our history.

The economy is strong and confidence is strong. Unfortunately, we have a fiscal problem caused by the slowdown in the world global economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: (Inaudible) a lot about the past but, Mr. Speaker, what he has done this year is actually projected oil pricing to be at what we consider to be exaggerated levels. The minister, as I said, is now projecting a $725 million deficit and this largely due to an exaggerated price per barrel that government budgeted for this year.

I ask the Premier: How did you and why did you budget $124 a barrel when you know prices have not been close to that for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, when we budget for mineral prices and when we budget for oil prices, we rely on the best experts in the world. That is who we rely on. We get their numbers and we follow up, and we get additional forecasts and we have to adjust accordingly.

What has happened is that the anticipated improvement in the world economy coming out of the recession was not as fast as people had expected. It is much lower. As a result of that we have a recession in Europe. There is a slowdown in the US. They are not buying from China; China's exports are down. India's are down even more. Therefore, demand for commodities is down. If demand for commodities is down, prices are down, which means royalties go down and taxes go down.

It is not just us, Mr. Speaker. Alberta has the same thing. BC has the same thing. Canada has the same thing. It is a world economy, but our own economy is doing very well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, what was really ironic in that response was that the same experts – which was really about seven, eight months ago – had the inputs into this budget at $125 a barrel, and they have not been right once. These are the same experts we are going to use for a fifty-year projection, Mr. Speaker. I would have to question those experts.

Before government can borrow with the federal loan guarantee, they must put up billions of dollars in equity for the Muskrat Falls Project. This money has to come from somewhere, but with the $725 million deficit, cash reserves, as we know, are drying up.

So I ask the Premier: Are you now going to borrow money for your equity investment in Muskrat Falls, not covered by the federal loan guarantee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we would finance our equity investment in Muskrat Falls by the Province. It is about $2 billion that we will put in, and we will invest it out of our cash that we have on hand, out of borrowings, depending on the cash flows at the particular time.

We have $1.4 billion in the bank today, Mr. Speaker. Based on the future, we have other projects we are going to do as well – lots of infrastructure projects we are going to be doing. We are going to need cash for that, and if we have to borrow, we will borrow. The difference is that our equity investment will put $2 billion into this project, but over the next fifty years we will get $20 billion out of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this is the right thing to do, because as oil revenues go down, we are replacing those revenues with renewable revenues from a renewable source of revenue – Muskrat Falls, and Gull Island to come after that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Well, Mr. Speaker, we know, too, that there will be no revenues until past 2017, and that is not including the overruns. So we must be very careful, because there could be significant costs left on this project yet.

It is inaccurate for the minister to say that Muskrat Falls will not add 1 per cent to the provincial debt. The money for government's $2 billion in equity has to come from somewhere. If it is taken out of cash reserves, we must borrow for other things, like the hospital in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker. So, it is easy to govern when the purse is full.

How much money will we have to borrow to make ends meet, and at what rates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that our investment in the Muskrat Falls Project will not increase our net debt by one cent – not one cent. We will use our cash and we will use borrowing if we have to, to finance our equity investment in a project that is going to not increase our net debt, because we will have our borrowings on the one side, but we will have an asset on the other side.

It is an asset that is going to kick off cash to this Province starting in 2017 at $15 million. At the end of fifty years, it will be $900 million; it is an average of $450 million a year that will pay down that debt. Mr. Speaker, if we have to do some borrowing in the future – we have not borrowed for eight years. That government never can say anything like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has not recognized the member yet.

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say what this government has done is they have taken the benefits from a lot of good projects from the Liberal government and they know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: They know that. They should admit it. Give credit where credit is due, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance said that cuts were coming from public service and government programs.

I ask the Premier: What programs –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – are you planning to cut, and how many people will be issued pink slips because of your poor planning?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the money that comes into the government comes from the people of the Province and comes from business in the Province. We use that money and we give it back to the people. It is the people's money, Mr. Speaker, it is not ours.

Mr. Speaker, when the money is gushing in – and there are times when it is gushing in – we are very happy to pay our public servants more, we are very happy to build infrastructure, and we are very happy to add progressive social programs to the people of the Province. When the revenue stops coming in because of what is going on in the world economy that we do not control, we are takers of those prices. When the revenue goes down we obviously have to lower our expenditures to match our revenues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Families have to do that, businesses have to do that when their income is down, governments have to do that. It is a responsible thing to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we call responsibility is sustainable planning, Mr. Speaker. That we have not seen. The Premier has increased the costs of government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – with no sustainability planning for the future. Now she has realized that she has to take it all back.

I ask the Premier: How can you expect the people to have confidence in your government when they are obviously mismanaging the public purse today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, when the friends of the hon. member were in office, how many surpluses did they have? You would have to search pretty far to find them.

Mr. Speaker, we have had six surpluses in the last seven years. We have lowered net debt –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: – by over $4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we are off equalization. Our credit ratings have gone up. Mark Carney says that this Province has been a model for the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibilities to the people of this Province very, very seriously. It is their money. We will never forget that and we will be responsible insurers of the taxpayers' money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious now that this government wants to take credit for everything that has been done before 2003 as well. They forget the great projects that have been done that they are now taking full advantage of. Why do they not give credit for that, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Government is playing with the lives of the hardworking people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not only planning to issue pink slips, but they are planning to strip pensions.

I ask the Premier: What exactly have you planned for pension stripping, something the Minister of Finance says needs to happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pension plans in this Province, the Public Service Pension Plans, are simply not sustainable. That is a fact. We have not put any proposals on the table to strip away any pension plans. We are not going to do anything to hurt any people who are presently retired and receiving pensions, but the pensions are not sustainable, so we have asked the unions to come in and meet with us to discuss what we are going to do to reform that and how we are going to make those pensions sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick has made changes. They came up with a shared cost program. England is making changes. We have to work together or there are not going to be pensions left. It is very important that the pensions are there, that they are protected, and they are strong for the people who work for this Province, to look after them in their retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union has publicly stated: hands off our pensions. This morning the minister replied and responded by saying: hands off our pensions means you will not have a pension.

I ask the minister: What did you mean by this comment? Is this a threat to the nurses and other public sector workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the President of NAPE, the President of the Nurses' Union, said hands off our pensions. If we keep hands off of their pensions, the pensions are going to go broke. If we are going to stop that from happening, we have to do something.

I have invited the unions to come in and meet with me. We had a meeting set up today but they could not make it today. We had a meeting set up earlier which NAPE could not make.

The idea is to get together, to look at the problem and come up with solutions. The public sector unions can bring expertise to that discussion. They have people working for them who are experts in this area. I was on the phone last week to the Secretary Treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress and we talked about that. Working together we can do something but if we take hands off, those pension plans are going to go broke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Making a better recipe to go broke, Mr. Speaker.

Two ATIPPA requests from our office to the Department of Natural Resources show legal costs for Abitibi court cases in 2009-2010 to be over $7 million. Yesterday, the Premier's office sent an e-mail to some media stating that the legal costs for the Supreme Court for Abitibi case was $2 million.

I ask the Premier: Since these are just the costs for one department in one fiscal year, can you confirm that there are other costs to the Department of Justice as well as Nalcor, and how much are these expenses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were specifically asked by the Opposition and others, what were the legal costs associated with the Supreme Court case, and the legal costs are $2 million. Were there other costs incurred, Mr. Speaker, absolutely, but they inform other pieces of work that need to be done.

We need to know the scope of the remediation. There was other information that was required, not only for the legal cases, Mr Speaker, but for a government as we move forward in terms of the scope of work that will need to be to done to remediate these properties. Legal fees on their own, Mr. Speaker, associated with the expropriation of Abitibi are $2 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, from the information that we have, we think those expenses are a lot higher.

I ask the Premier one more time: If you can include all the Abitibi costs, the costs from all departments, how much is the total bill for the legal fees for the Abitibi expropriation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I can only give the same answer I have already given.

Mr. Speaker, the legal fees for government in the Supreme Court of Canada case on the expropriation, all of the legal fees come to $2 million. Now, I would suggest that everybody in this House of Assembly get an oversized calculator, and maybe, Mr. Speaker, we can come to some agreement on the numbers.

There are other pieces of work that were done that informed the legal case but they are not specific to the legal case, Mr. Speaker. It is to develop the understanding and the expertise that are going to be required within government to remediate these properties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, after an agonizing year and extensive lobbying, parents and students will know tonight if their schools will get the death knell as the Eastern School District Board Trustees meet in Spaniard's Bay.

I ask the minister: Is it true that these boards were asked to save your fiscally-incompetent government money on the backs of children and communities, even though the schools may be viable?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we know what an emotional issue this is. There is no doubt about it, tonight will be a difficult night for all involved. These trustees we have at the board level, Mr. Speaker, are volunteers and they are very genuine.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite irresponsible for the member, I will say this, who made a statement just a couple of days that there were amendments in reference to the Schools Act and said there were changes. Mr. Speaker, people have asked me: Have there been changes made? Mr. Speaker, that is – now, I have to get this right – factually incorrect. This is simply factually incorrect. It is irresponsible of the member to be putting incorrect information out there, Mr. Speaker. The parents, the students, and the trustees deserve better than what the hon. member is (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, schools boards in this Province only make recommendations to the Minister of Education, who has the final say on whether to close a school or not. The people of Catalina, Whitbourne, Swift Current, Colliers, and Heart's Delight are not well served by this government.

I ask the minister: Will he do the right thing and stand with the parents and communities, and keep the schools open until his government carries out a proper review of school closure processes in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we have elected school boards is that they are at arm's-length. These are not political decisions.

Here is a member, Mr. Speaker, who goes on a radio talk show and says for politicians to stay out of it. Now, he is asking the exact same – irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while displaced workers from the OCI plant in Marystown are working community projects, Burin plant workers will receive a severance from High Liner who is closing the plant this month. We now know two separate deals were negotiated between the Province and these two companies.

I ask the minister: Why did your government require High Liner to compensate Burin workers while allowing OCI to sacrifice workers in Marystown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is another situation, I guess, where the facts would certainly help clarify for the member what happened.

Our government, as we stated many times, is firmly committed to the fishery of this Province and working with communities. In the case of Marystown and Burin, they were operated by companies, Mr. Speaker, who determined that their businesses were not viable; therefore, not sustainable.

In the operations of Marystown, there was an obligation by the company. If they did not meet the obligation, they had to pay a financial penalty. As determined by Deloitte, Mr. Speaker, the company met their obligation; therefore, there was no financial penalty.

In the case of Burin, the company did not meet their obligation. There was a financial penalty. Through the support of this government for the people in Burin, this government decided that that financial penalty could be into a trust to support the workers in the event of closure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Today, in the same press release, government claimed it was unable to predict the provincial economy nine months in advance, but then also claimed that the benefits of Muskrat Falls will still be flowing fifty years from now.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can this statement be seen in any way as being a responsible statement on fiscal stewardship?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the prediction of oil in the short term, it is very difficult as a result of the volatility – as my colleague pointed out earlier, we have the question of what happens in China and India, it affects the demand for oil in the world. We have had shale oil, Mr. Speaker, that is having an impact.

In the short term, volatility is difficult to project. Mr. Speaker, in the long term, the basic principles, the fundamental principles of supply and demand still apply. Even though we know there will be increased production in the United States, we also know there is an increased demand in the world.

What we are told by the experts: It is, in fact, easier to look a decade out in terms of the projection of the cost of oil than it is in the short term. Mr. Speaker, with Muskrat Falls, we know how much is going to be produced, and electricity bills will be paid.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

This government has had nine years and eight Budgets to get the Province's finances on solid ground. It has known all along about the volatility of oil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It has known all along about the volatility of oil. This government has celebrated the surpluses, yet made no provisions for the downside.

So, Mr. Speaker, how can Premier claim her government is practising good fiscal stewardship?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have used the same methodology in determining the revenue of the Province, predicting the revenue of the Province, in the last nine years. It was only a few short months ago when the NDP House Leader was on in the media accusing us of deliberately underestimating the revenue from oil so that we could have the joint surpluses.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Leader of the Third Party confer with her House Leader and at least they try and get their story right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I assume the government is now going to recognize that our House Leader should be separate from the leader of the party. I am going to be pursuing that one, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says this year's –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – Budget shortfall has tripled his spring prediction reaching $750 million.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Does that sum include the $100 million-plus cost of the bungled AbitibiBowater paper mill cleanup you brought on the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, expenses that are incurred are included of course in the expenses of the Province. Some of the environmental cleanup – that has to be estimated. The engineers and the scientists in the Department of Environment will go out and do an inventory and do an analysis. As the Minister of Environment said the other day, they will do an analysis.

That contamination that is harmful to public health and public safety – that will be done. Then an estimate will be provided for in the public accounts and that is based on the recommendation of the Auditor General.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fall financial update shows the Premier is caught in a vice. Huge cash demands for her Muskrat Falls Project vying with the first of what will likely be many serious cash shortfalls in the Province's Budget. The Province's finances are a mess.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she choose to download her mismanagement onto the backs of the people through cuts to services in order to bankroll her Muskrat Falls Project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has outlined in this House a number of times, Muskrat Falls will not add one penny to our net debt. We have had responsible governance. We have reduced our debt by over $4 billion in the last nine years, Mr. Speaker.

Daily, daily, daily in this House we hear requests from the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, for hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of new spending in this Province. Why don't they tell us how they intend to fund it, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

It is one thing whether or not Muskrat Falls will affect our debt. One thing is certain: It is going to take over $2 billion of cash out of our income. Mr. Speaker, when things are going well –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, when things are going well this government always is quick to take credit, holding themselves up as competent stewards of the public purse, but now when things are not going so well, are they taking any responsibility? No, Mr. Speaker, it seems somebody else is to blame.

Will the Premier stand up and take responsibility for the massive deficits that will be racked up by her government beginning this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have always understood our responsibility to the people of the Province. They are foremost in our minds and in our planning, and everything we do. We remember who hired us, Mr. Speaker, and why.

Mr. Speaker, when we developed our Energy Plan in 2007, we talked then, very specifically, about how important it was to get away from basing over 30 per cent of our revenues on the volatility of commodities and why we decided to use some of the money from our non-renewables to transition to a renewable economy to get rid of that volatility and have a sustainable financing platform foundation for the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, families are under extreme financial and emotional stress trying to find reliable home care or respite care for their disabled children. Under the current system families can pay $2,000 to $3,000, or more a month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already said government spends $161 million on seniors and people with disabilities, but home care must be an integral part of our public health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: When will this government stop charging families for home care for their disabled children?

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 cannot let this opportunity go and not be able to draw attention to the contradiction we hear everyday in this House from the Third Party.

We had the Minister of Finance this morning talking about a $725 million deficit this year. We have the Leader of the Third Party standing up and critiquing government, and asking what we are going to do to get out of the mess, and immediately on her heels, Mr. Speaker, we have a request for the Province to spend more money. That is what we deal with everyday in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, these are expenses directly on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Mr. Speaker, sixteen-year-old Courtney of Little Catalina is severely disabled, cannot speak, is developmentally delayed and can barely walk. Her mom has been a home care worker for fifteen years. Every morning her mom bundles her up and takes Courtney to a respite worker and then goes off to work to take care of someone else. The Steads are waiting for government to fulfill its election promise of family paid home care workers –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: - however, this program can only work if family care workers are part of a comprehensive home care program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When is she going to honour her promise to help the Steads and other families like them by creating a real home care system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all of us can come to this House on a daily basis and put forward very sad stories about the reality of people's lives in this Province. When we hear the call to spend more, spend more, spend more from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that what is being asked is in no way illegitimate. We do not argue that people do not deserve these services, Mr. Speaker.

We absolutely understand that people have needs in their lives and we as a government have to do the best we can to meet those needs, but we have to operate within an envelope, Mr. Speaker, in order to be responsible and sustainable. So every need cannot be met, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purchase of the Battery Hotel by Memorial University means that the City of St. John's stands to lose close to $300,000 every year in taxation. Other government purchases of buildings like the two Johnson Insurance properties at Portugal Cove Road and Elizabeth Avenue, for example, has also short changed the city and impacted the city's bottom line and to put taxpayers on the hook for the difference.

Question: Will the minister change the present government policy and start paying its share of municipal taxation to government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we now have the third person from the Third Party speaking and requesting that we spend money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, government only has two ways to find revenue. We either get it from royalties and taxes, Mr. Speaker, paid by industry, business, and the people of the Province, or we have to raise taxes. There are only two ways, Mr. Speaker.

The NDP seem to think that we have a money tree growing in the backyard. There is only one taxpayer in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and they are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we do not have the money from royalties and other sources of income, from our natural resources, Mr. Speaker, then we can only go to taxpayers, whether the municipality does it, the provincial government does it, or the federal government does it. That is the reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious this government is not using its imagination and using a little bit of creativity on the part of municipalities. The Province is looking at some sort of new funding arrangement with municipalities so they can help them meet their future financial obligations. Government could release Crown lands within town boundaries, barring the environmental concerns, and let them realize their full potential.

Question: Will government consider the release of any Crown lands within city boundaries that could allow towns and cities to generate their own potential revenue and help government solve its own problem in having to fund municipalities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier just said in referencing our fiscal update that was given by the Minister of Finance today: nothing sinks in, I guarantee you, and I do not think it ever will. We have been hearing it now over a year and a half and it is not going to sink in. It has not sunk in and it is not going to.

In the meantime, we have had some meaningful – and I mean meaningful – meetings with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last number of months and we are moving forward. One of the things we will consider is Crown lands and whatever it may be to make a more –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: I am standing on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of heckling that goes on back and forth in this House, and we all generally accept it. From time to time, barbs occur, and people get excited.

I very clearly heard, though, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's North shout at the member opposite to, quote: sit down and shut up. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider that is very unparliamentary and out of order for this House.

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

MR. KIRBY: I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker.

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

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with section 19 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the members from the gallery: as they leave the gallery, could they do so quietly, please?

In accordance with section 19(5)(a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting held on September 18, 2012.

Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11 that I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 17, 2012; and I further give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 17, 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act, Bill 58.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, No. 2, Bill 59.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of the Muskrat Falls Project, Bill 60.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act, And The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, Bill 61.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today, Mr. Speaker, on the family caregivers' petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, this petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

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 the people to be able to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

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

WHEREAS the PC 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 House of Assembly to urge the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in the 2012-2013 Budget.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again and I am after presenting many petitions on this family home care. I know the Minister of Health – I think it was in April or May, Mr. Speaker – said there is a new one coming very, very, very, very soon, and we are still waiting for that very, very, very soon. As we are waiting for that very, very, very soon from the minister, there are still people out there who cannot get care for their loved ones.

I know a lot of times in this House we barb back and forth, but this is such a serious issue, Mr. Speaker. This was committed in 2011. We hear in this House of Assembly and we hear in the media just about every day about how we need family caregivers to take care of the loved ones in their home, and they feel it is the best care. On many occasions people cannot find caregivers to take care of their loved ones, and the only ones left are the family, who must go through financial hardship, quit their job, and move back home to take care of their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, this was a commitment that was made by the Premier of the Province in 2011.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I hear the Minister of Health saying it is going to be honoured; Minister, you stood up six months ago and said it was very, very, very soon. You stood up a month ago and said within weeks, and we are still waiting. We are still waiting.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say to the minister – I have all due respect for the minister; when it is done, what was committed in 2011, this Member for the Bay of Islands will be the first one to stand up and say: government, you fulfilled your commitment; you did a good service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Until that is done, Mr. Speaker, until that commitment is made and lived up to for family caregivers – that was committed to in 2011 – I will be presenting petitions and I will be fighting on their behalf.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Your time is expired.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Kathy Dunderdale, made a promise during the 2011 general election campaign that home care clients will have the option of receiving that care from family members

We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to honour their election promise by the Premier to allow family members to provide home care to their own.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present this petition that was started by the Stead family in Little Catalina and they had a hard time getting anybody else to present this petition in this House on their behalf and so I am happy to be able to do it for them.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, they have 892 signatures that they have collected on their own in their region of Bonavista. There are people from Little Catalina, Clarenville, Snook's Harbour, White Rock, Milton, Shoal Harbour, Hickman's Harbour, Lethbridge, Milton, it goes on – it just goes on and on, people all over that community: Southern Bay, Charleston.

Mr. Speaker, these people are really concerned about the current state of home care, and particularly care for families with children who have physical disabilities and who need a lot of assistance, who need help. For two reasons, Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of paid family caregivers; we know that, for instance, in the case of the Steads' daughter, she is severely developmentally delayed, has severe physical disabilities, and is not able to speak.

Her mother, Louise, has been a home care worker for fifteen years. What she has to do is bundle up her own daughter, take her to a respite care worker, and then go off and take care of someone herself. We know how difficult this is for this particular family. The Steads, as a matter of fact, are not the only family in this kind of situation; there are families all over Newfoundland and Labrador who are facing the same problems.

Aside from having paid family caregivers, we must not leave them on their own. Family caregivers need to be part of a comprehensive home care program, a public home care program that takes care of our most vulnerable.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, rising on a point of order.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out that during the presentation of this petition by the Member for St. John's East –

AN HON. MEMBER: Centre.

MR. DAVIS: St. John's Centre, my apologies, Mr. Speaker. She addressed a member of this House by their proper name. Mr. Speaker, we know it is not appropriate in the House of Assembly to address members by their proper name. The member opposite did during the delivery of her petition. I would ask that she correct that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cleared the petition exactly as it is with the proper channels and it was approved. I could withdraw the name.

MR. SPEAKER: All members would recognize that in referencing members who sit in this House, they are to be recognized by their title or their district. We do not use individual names in referring to any member who sits in this House, and that would include any presentations and submissions from documentation, including petitions. I would remind all hon. members that it is not appropriate to refer to individuals by their names.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS strikes and lockouts are rare, and on average 97 per cent of collective agreements are negotiated without work disruptions; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since 1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the well-being of residents, as evident by the recent use of temporary replacement workers by Ocean Choice International and Vale in Voisey's Bay;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition a number of times in the spring sitting and received quite a number of additional submissions. Some of them are written on the front and back, and are well-worn, from all around the Province.

I know we did have a discussion when legislation was being considered and in fact was passed here in, I believe, June of this year. It was unfortunate at the time that both the governing party and the Official Opposition opted not to support our motion to enact this anti-replacement worker legislation. The fact that we have these additional petitions shows there is still an appetite out there in Newfoundland and Labrador amongst workers to have such a law.

I will submit this for – I do not know who has the job these days over there. Whoever is the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency should give this some consideration and hear the pleas of these petitioners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I call Orders of the Day, there was a point of order raised in the House yesterday by the Member for St. John's North. I indicated I would review Hansard to see if there had been any comment made that was unparliamentary. I conducted that review and the records do not reflect any such comment.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, Motion 4 on the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn today 5:30 p.m. Thursday, December 13, 2012.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 13, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn today, Thursday, at 5:30 p.m., nor at 10:00 this evening.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third reading of a bill, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy, Bill 50.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services that Bill 50, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill be now read a third time.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry.

The Opposition House Leader, speaking to Bill 50 in third reading.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am speaking to the bill, I guess, just because I want to make sure that it is on the public record that there were concerns expressed to us by community pharmacists in the Province with regard to a couple of sections in the bill.

It is my understanding that the Minister of Health and Community Services has undertaken with her officials and with the people who brought the complaint forward to clarify that particular information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, some of the concerns that were brought forward had to do with the make up of the actual board that would be put in place. It is my understanding that the board will multifunctional. It will not just have one single role. As a result of that, it is necessary for the board to be made up in such a way.

It is also my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that concerns that were raised around privacy fall in line with other legislation and other regulations and acts that are in place within the health care system for the protection of privacy for individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I guess for our part in it we would just want to ask the government to be cognizant of the concerns that are being raised, to work with these individuals as the act comes into force to ensure that their issues and their concerns are addressed adequately.

Other than that, Mr. Speaker we have no objection with the bill and will be supporting it in third reading.

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

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

It was also brought to my attention by some concerned pharmacy owners about the whole issue of review of files, when there is a review of practices of some pharmacists by the appropriate board within the act, but that the review of files may have to do with patients, and that patients, in fact, may not know that their files are being reviewed.

I feel that is a very valid concern, considering as well the history of some of the reviews we have had over different mistakes within our health care system. Patients need to be notified if, in fact, any of their files are being reviewed, or there must be some kind of system put in place to protect the privacy of patients, and also, a very, very clear explicit process and procedure that would be undertaken in the review of any files that pertain to people's names, their health issues, and their pharmaceutical issues.

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to respond to that particular question or issue that was raised. I want to point out that this is a public protection statute we are referencing here, and it is simply meant to detect any practice concerns that might – and detect that at a very early stage.

The legislation will be very carefully crafted, but it will reflect PHIA. PHIA, which is the Personal Health Information Act, clearly has regulations in place that permit the accessing of these files, but confidentiality of those who are accessing the files is required, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the Member for St. John's Centre, we are in third reading. This is unlike committee, once you have spoken once in third reading, your time will be limited.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 50 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 50)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Premier, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act, Bill 56, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice will have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act, Bill 56, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to introduce Bill 56 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 Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act", carried. (Bill 56)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Premier, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 57, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 57, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 57, 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 Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act", carried. (Bill 57)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3. I move, seconded by the hon. the Premier, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 54, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act.

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

All those in favour of the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will now consider Bill 54.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act". (Bill 54)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 54)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report on Bill 54.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 54.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte and Deputy Speaker.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 54 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 54 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 53)

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to speak to Bill 53. I spoke to this bill, actually, on Tuesday, and I am just going to conclude my comments today. I had some time left on the clock, and I am happy to do so, Mr. Speaker.

This particular bill will certainly facilitate some necessary infrastructure in terms of power agreements for industry in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this is something that we all know; those of us who are familiar with what is happening in Labrador will all know how important this is.

I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to say that we have reached a point in our history in Labrador where we start realizing that the future for the whole Province rests in what happens in the Big Land and how we facilitate development infrastructure over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador right now is seeing an abundance of investment. These investors, Mr. Speaker, are coming from all around the world. There are people who are coming with very deep pockets, with huge amounts of money that they want to invest – not in the millions, but in the billions – because they see extreme potential for opportunity for the long term in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet some of these financiers and their representatives. When they come and they are ready to invest in the mining industry – in particular in Labrador – they are not doing so because it is going to be an opportunity that will turn over revenues or profits for them for a couple of years. They are doing so because it is going to be a contributor for many, many years to come. They are looking at longevity, they are looking stability, and they are looking at good return for the dollars that they are investing.

Mr. Speaker, these investors, some of them are Canadians, a lot of them are from China, in India in particular, but of course, there are investors there from all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, what Bill 53 is actually doing is setting out the frame for which prices for industrial power will be negotiated with these companies. It is allowing the government to establish power purchase agreements. It is allowing the government, through the consent of the Public Utilities Board, to bring these agreements into play. It is also allowing the Public Utilities Board to regulate the transmission of power for all of these industries in Labrador.

It is important to explain that because what will need to happen in order to facilitate this and in order for these companies to plug in to the line, they need to have a line to plug into. Transmission lines will have to be built. There are people out there in the Province who will say: Why should the government and why should we be paying to build transmission lines and bring power to the mining companies? That is not what is happening here, Mr. Speaker. What is happening is that government is facilitating a process. That process, Mr. Speaker, will allow for the recovery of cost on the infrastructure.

These companies at the end of the day will not only get a competitive rate, be offered a competitive rate for their power, but the people of the Province will get a return on any investment they have. Mr. Speaker, the transmission and the generation will all be built into the price of power. That is what has to be looked at. It will be built into the price of power that will be provided to the companies.

People out there who think this is a free ride – it is not a free ride. Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity here for all of us in the Province, an opportunity to build the revenues of the Province for the long term. There is an opportunity here to secure industry for the Province for a long time, far beyond creating jobs for four or five years, but creating jobs for the next fifty and 100 years. There is an opportunity to generate more revenue, taxation, and corporate return, Mr. Speaker – returns for the Province. That is what this is all about.


Mr. Speaker, we support the fundamental principles of the bill that will allow for this happen. We also see an opportunity for the government here to take it a little bit further. We would like for them to look at certain amendments within the bill. We will bring forward those amendments as we get into the Committee stages. We have already provided the government with advance copies of those amendments for their review. We hope they will consider incorporating them into the legislation. We hope they will incorporate them into the legislation.

One of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, basically says that there would be an incentive for economic development. We will certainly bring that up in Committee, as we propose it, and we will seek the input of the government in terms of whether they are prepared to look at that direction. Basically all that means, Mr. Speaker, is that government, right now, is doing this so they can promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador.

What we are saying is that we want you to promote the development of industrial and economic activity, and we want you to allow for an incentive –a negotiated incentive. Maybe government feels it does not need to be legislated. We think it does. Maybe they think it is something they can do without having anything within the act, but we think it is important, and I will tell you why.

A lot of these companies that are investing are looking at where we can get the best return on our investment. Is there something more that we can do? If they are going to come in and they are going to extract 25 million metric tons of ore in Labrador, they might not want to rail all of that out and take it out, they might want to do pelletization or another form of secondary production. I think the opportunity to provide an incentive on power rates for companies that want to do secondary production is important. I think it gives them something to think about and consider, but at the end of the day it gives us a far greater return on our investment.

I am going to use the Iron Ore Company of Canada as an example. IOC's power contract will expire by 2015. That is when you are going to see the new agreements under this legislation coming into force in the Province. Mr. Speaker, IOC is one of the few mining operations currently in Labrador that have invested in secondary processing. They have a pelletization operation – I am not saying that 100 per cent of the ore they extract is pelletized, because I know that it is not. I know that their pelletization is based on market demands. Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that when we have companies that want to make that further investment, create those extra jobs, provide that extra revenue to the Province, let us see if there is a better deal that we can work with them to stimulate that economic development piece.

Let us talk about another project, a project that government has out to tender now on Julienne Lake. Julienne Lake, Mr. Speaker, will be the second largest iron ore development in Labrador, next to IOC. It is even bigger than the Alderon project, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what the potential capacity is. We know that government is already out calling proposals for it right now. I think the deadline may have passed; the minister can clarify that for me. Mr. Speaker, we know for sure there is interest, I would think, in that project.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you know.

MS JONES: I know, Mr. Speaker, there is interest in that project, I say to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I know there is interest in the project. I know there are submissions in or being worked on. I also know, Mr. Speaker, there is a potential there for government to secure secondary processing around Julienne Lake, because they will be at the negotiating table on Julienne Lake.

They own, right now, the reserves. They are asking for companies to submit a proposal to develop it. When they sit at the table to negotiate those proposals, government now has the option to say to whoever that company is, company X, company O: listen, we want you to do secondary production of ore. We can give you an incentive on your power rate to be able to do that in order to create extra economic development and benefits in Labrador. Government has the option to do that specifically in the Julienne Lake case, Mr. Speaker.

There are other mining operations, as we know, that are not into secondary processing that are ongoing in Labrador right now. I talked about one yesterday, the Labrador Iron Mines. The minister kept telling me that I had it wrong, they were across the border.

Mr. Speaker, I had to go back in Hansard and check to make sure I was right, and I was right in what I said. I said Labrador Iron Mines, and it is in the Hansard I say to the minister. You thought I was talking about Bloom Lake, but I was not talking about Bloom Lake at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you were talking about Sept-Ξles (inaudible).

MS JONES: No, I was not. I was talking about the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I was talking about Labrador Iron Mines, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members not to engage –

MS JONES: The minister must have misinterpreted what I said.

MR. SPEAKER: – in conversation across the floor.

MS JONES: The minister must have misinterpreted what I said because he continued to correct me. Then I thought maybe I had said something wrong, so I could not sleep last night, Mr. Speaker. I could not sleep. I rushed in this morning to get the Hansard so I could have a look and make sure, Mr. Speaker. Sure enough, I was right.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that right now in Labrador there are so many opportunities that are there. I just hope the government is recognizing that. I hope, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to stop at trying to put in place the right power purchase agreements but rather they are going to continue to look at the other infrastructure needs, like railway that I talked about yesterday, and how they can meet and deliver on that for the people of the Province.

One of the things I did observe in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that Muskrat Falls power would be exempt from Bill 53. Meaning that although they are going to reach agreements with the mining companies on the power purchase of the TwinCo block, the 225 megawatts, however, any agreements that they have on Muskrat Falls power will not be handled in the same way.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board will not be an overseer, an arbitrator, or a rate setter when it comes to Muskrat Falls power going to the industrial companies. That will be negotiated solely between government, or Nalcor or their subsidiaries, and the company in question. We have some concerns with that, Mr. Speaker. Our concern is we feel that bringing the PUB in, in the TwinCo block is the right way to do it, why would government exempt them in all the other power requirements like Muskrat Falls power?

Maybe the minister can answer that when he stands up. I think the Minister of Labrador Affairs is going to rise. Maybe he can explain to us why we are going to regulate the TwinCo block of power for industrial customers and the mining industry but we are not going to apply the same regulation to those customers who might be getting Muskrat Falls power.

Mr. Speaker, I hope they are not exempting it because they have no intentions of giving Muskrat power to customers in Labrador. I understand they have all intentions of allowing customers in Labrador to have Muskrat Falls power, but it looks like, Mr. Speaker, what government is looking for here is a mandate that they themselves can set the rate on that power and it will not go through the Public Utilities Board like the other blocks of power.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk a little bit in general about what is happening in Labrador right now with regard to the mining industry. Some people might think because the price of iron ore is down that we are not going to see a lot of these things materialize. I am very much the optimist when it comes to what is happening in Labrador and the future of the industries there. I think we are into a hiatus period, but I think it will also be short lived.

I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that over the next five to six years you are going to see tremendous activity happening within the mining industry. I think Mr. Locke's predictions will be achieved far earlier than the period he predicted. I think that we will be into production of up to 80 million metric tons of iron ore long before 2020. I think that we could be there as early as the next five to six years, depending on what happens to projects like Julienne Lake, Mr. Speaker, and whether the investors are prepared to move forward quickly to get that operation in place and government can reach the right agreement.

I certainly have a tremendous degree of optimism around what is going to happen there, but I hope, Mr. Speaker, that government is gauging this activity, because right now in Labrador we are into a real crunch when it comes to housing in particular, when it comes to the affordability of housing for people.

I talk to people on a regular basis who have the opportunity to go and work in Labrador West and would love to go and work there, but because they cannot take their families or they cannot find affordable housing it has become very difficult for them to accept those positions.

We are not going to be a much different position in Happy Valley-Goose Bay over the next two or three years. I actually heard Sterling Peyton on the radio this morning, from the Chamber of Commerce up there, talking about the amount of activity that is being generated in the local economy in Happy Valley-Goose Bay right now, and how people coming into Goose Bay need to start booking their hotel rooms well in advance if they are going to be able to secure accommodations. That has been the case in Labrador City for the last number of years.

Those are very good indicators of where we are going in Labrador. I do not know if people around the Province actually realize the tremendous amount of activity that occurs in Labrador. I would invite all the members of the House of Assembly – the NDP members, the government members; all of our caucus have already been there – to go to Labrador, go to the Coast of Labrador, go to Lake Melville, go to Labrador West, and see what is happening in your Province – just see what is happening in your Province.

You drive by Long Harbour, so you know what is happening there. You have been to Marystown when they have been in the peak of activity, so you know what is happening there. You take that and you double it, you triple it, and you quadruple it in a smaller area, and you see the kind of traffic that is occurring.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing – amazing – what is happening, and it is all good. It is good for the Province and it is good for the people, but when we have all of this development we have other challenges that we have to address. Those challenges are around looking after people who cannot always afford to look after themselves in societies of growth like this, ensuring there is affordable and proper housing, and ensuring the infrastructure is there to meet the demands, meaning that there are good public services and there are good transportation networks. All of these things are critical to large-scale development projects.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the mining industry has been good to Labrador. Not only have they contributed greatly to the people of the Province, but they contribute to our communities and they give back. That is worthy of noting.

Mr. Speaker, if we can treat them fairly, if we can offer them competitive rates that are competitive with Quebec, if we can entice them to do secondary economic development in our Province, in Labrador, creating those jobs and creating those opportunities, then that is exactly what we have to do. All of it at the end of the day will make for a better quality of life for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It will help us to give a hand to those who need it in our society, but also to be able to create stronger government services and programs for everybody at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, there are great things happening in Labrador. I am always happy to rise in my place, talk about it, and support it. Mr. Speaker, I am frankly quite impressed with the minister who brought forward this bill. For a long time I have been standing on my feet in the House of Assembly asking him what he is going to do in terms of meeting the power needs for industry in Labrador and if, in fact, there would be any power for the mining companies at all.

When the initial term sheet on Muskrat Falls was signed, there was no talk about Labrador. In fact, we were not even mentioned other than in the name of the Province: Newfoundland and Labrador. There was no commitment to the people of Labrador – no commitment on power, no commitment on industrial rates, and no commitment on transmission capacity. None of these things were included, Mr. Speaker. It was not even talked about. It has taken a couple of years to get there, but finally we are getting there. The more and more it seems, Mr. Speaker, they are able to put their feet on the ground in Labrador, more and more they tend to understand about what is happening and the need to address some of those issues.

I am happy today, Mr. Speaker, to see that government's mindset has changed and that they are more focused towards what the real opportunities are in Labrador and how they can play a role in seeing those flourish into the future. One of those roles is in ensuring that there is a block of power for industrial customers in Labrador, that there is going to be a line for them to plug into, and that there is going to be a competitive rate regime so that they can run their operations, mine their ore, produce any kind of production that they want on a secondary level, and do it competitive with everybody else in the country, Mr. Speaker, but more importantly with the people on the other side of the border in Quebec.

I think that is important. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I talked to a number of the mining companies in the last number of days myself. I think over the last little while, like the minister, I have talked to almost every company that has an interest in Labrador from exploration to development. I have met with them all at one point or another. It is always interesting to see the energy and the drive that they have, and the encouragement and the enthusiasm that they have for the potential developments that exist in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with them. We will continue to work with government any time that there is an opportunity to create more jobs and build on the revenues of the Province, and to ensure that there is long-term economic growth that we are able to pay for the services that we have the privilege to have in this Province for many years to come. I think that is what it is really all about.

Mr. Speaker, on those notes, I will certainly say that I will bring forward some amendments to the bill as we move into Committee, whether that be today or on another parliamentary day. I am sure that the minister will be very keen to respond to those amendments, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he will be very interested in looking at if there is a need to strengthen the bill, and if there is a need to strengthen it, how we can do that to achieve the objectives that I am sure we all want to achieve and maximize the results for the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is a pleasure to rise here in the House today and speak on the industrial rate policy for Labrador and the mining in Labrador. This is something that the people in Labrador have been waiting for a long, long time.

I just want to say that two of the mines that are affected by the old regulations that we were talking about and that many people have mentioned in the last couple of days – the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines – are both in my district, so I have a very close relationship with the mines. Being in Labrador West for thirty-five years, I have seen the benefits that those mining companies have brought to the district. I have often been in arguments where they say it is a one-industry town, or a two-industry town.

So, I am very pleased to say that the mining industry is certainly the main industry in Labrador. As we are witnessing now with a lot of the projects that are happening now in Labrador, we are realizing that mining is certainly the forefront of the industry all throughout Labrador, whether it be on the North Coast of Labrador, on the South Coast, in Central Labrador – which I am sure my colleague for Lake Melville will be talking about later – and certainly in Western Labrador. In Western Labrador, some of the projects we have seen happen for the last fifty years, and I am sure we will continue to see happening for the next fifty years.

Unlike the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair who spoke and said that she did not feel that there was any conversation or any inclusion of Labrador in the conversations that have been happening, I have been –

MS JONES: (Inaudible) initial term sheet.

MR. MCGRATH: Well you talk –

MS JONES: (Inaudible) years ago in the initial term sheet.

MR. MCGRATH: In the initial term sheet there have been conversations and consultations. Sitting on the side of the government, Mr. Speaker, I have been privy to those conversations and consultations. So, there has been an awful lot of conversation and inclusion of Labrador, and all of Labrador within the preparation of the term sheet. We will see, as we are seeing here today, a lot more papers coming forward showing the inclusion of Labrador within these rates.

Now, the whole thing that we have here now for the whole purpose of this paper that we have coming forward, to me, what I see in it, the word that comes out to me is stability. I think for many, many years, even though there was an agreement between Churchill Falls and the mining companies in Labrador West – they had an agreement and it was an agreement that went back to the TwinCo project that when Churchill Falls took over that project, there was an agreement there that the mines would get a low rate. So, it is no secret, or this is not a surprise to IOC and Wabush mines that this was going to come to an end. They have known for a long, long time now that that contract would be up, and I think they have prepared themselves.

Now, nobody likes to see a change when it is going to cost you money, but I have to look at a company such as IOC, for example, who is looking at expanding now. One of the main things with the conversations that I have had with IOC is they want to be able to say: if we are going to do a multi-billion-dollar expansion, where are we going to be with our rates – because they are going to need more electricity. I think that is one of the good points with this here.

Alderon certainly is a great example of what is happening with this policy coming forward. Alderon is looking – they are ready to move; Alderon is geared up, ready to get their mine into an operation stage, but the one card that is holding them back, the one thing that they are waiting for is they need a stable, concrete electrical rate. They need to know: this is what it is going to cost us to put that mine into operation. That is the one thing. I think putting this policy in place now gives them that last piece of the puzzle so that they can take their mine now and put it into an operational stage.

When you look at the Labrador rates now – where they are, the electrical rates now – and compare them to the rest of the world, we are by far the lowest in the country, for sure, and I would think throughout the world. The rates that we have are certainly the envy of a lot of people. For the companies that have been there for the last fifty years, they have certainly enjoyed paying that very low rate, but I think what we are doing now with the expansions that are coming is we are giving them – there are going to billions of dollars; again, I heard the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair talking about the billions of dollars of investments that are going to be coming in, and not just in Labrador West, but all of Labrador. These people want the stability of saying: we can now forecast where we are going. They want to be able to say: we are forecasting, and this is how we build this into our rates now. This is how we build it into the price per tonnage when we sell our product.

I have been talking to people – and we are looking just in Western Labrador alone: over $10 billion in investments in the next few years will be realized just to prepare them to get into an operational stage. That is an awful lot of money we are looking at being spent in an area.

I want to talk about some of the economic benefits that come, and not just in the mining industry. If these expansions happen – and Julienne Lake is just now into an interest stage; within the next ten years, you will see Julienne Lake being developed. The amount of jobs that will create in the Julienne Lake project alone is unbelievable.

Then you have Tata steel and you have Vale Inco if they go underground. You have Alderon, like I said, ready to go now, and Grand River Iron Sands, which is in Lake Melville. I am sure the Member for Lake Melville will elaborate on that. All of these projects are going to need power. One of the blocks they were looking at is: okay, we are going to need the power; where are we going to get the power from and what is it going to cost us to get that power?

The rates we have proposed are very comparable and competitive with the rest of the country. To me, that shows Labrador as a strong point of interest: here is where we can go. I am sure when people are out exploring they are comparing Labrador with other places they can do business. This policy now puts us into a very competitive stage.

I have to mention our neighbours just across the border in Quebec. The mines we are dealing with look at Quebec as another source of power. We have to be competitive with the rates that are in Quebec. The rates we have put forward are very competitive with Quebec. There are two mines, Tata Steel and the Labrador Iron Mines; the operation Labrador Iron Mines has presently is on the Newfoundland and Labrador side of the border.

I was there this past summer and I did a tour of Labrador Iron Mines. They are looking at an expansion. Already, they are looking at an expansion. If they do expand, their expansion in the Labrador Trough brings them in on the Quebec side of the border. That is an option they would have. They could get their power from Quebec also, their electrical power. So we have to be competitive with Quebec.

I was doing some research on the amount of jobs that would be created if some of these projects move forward. Here in my notes I was talking about some of the positions. In Julienne Lake, for example, I mentioned that is almost as big, once the project is up and running, as the IOC project. You are talking thousands of jobs in that one. Alderon is talking probably 1,500 hundred jobs – permanent, full-time positions. Tata Steel and Vale Inco will be hiring more people if they go underground. Labrador Iron Mines are constantly already recruiting for new positions.

These are all big things for the economy, not just for Labrador, but for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will bring in an awful lot to our economy. In tax dollars, we are talking about $343 million that would come in tax dollars coming into the revenue for the Province.

The indirect benefits – come outside the mines now. If the mines come into production they need suppliers. With these supplies and goods that they are going to need, they need people to service them in that industry, in the secondary industry. You are going to need your hotels; you are going to need your restaurants. You are going to see your roads built. You are going to see the transmission lines being built to get the power to these mines. All of those create extra jobs that we will see there.

We talked about consultations with the customers that we already have. In the summer 2011 to the spring of 2012, I know customers that I talked to, one of the main concerns they talked about was being competitive in the rates. They were saying we need to see the rates that are going to come out. Are we going to be competitive with the other jurisdictions? The one jurisdiction we heard a lot about was Quebec. As I mentioned earlier, our rates are very competitive with Quebec there.

I want to touch a little bit on the workforce that is in a lot of these large projects. Again, I will go back to Wabush Mines. I will go back to IOC, Labrador Iron Mines, Tata Steel. These are all unionized employees who are in these mines.

I heard the Leader of the Third Party stand up on a point of order two or three times the other day talking about – she was upset because someone said she used the word subsidized. She did not use the word subsidized, she used the word protect. I was a little bit baffled because I needed to find out, what is the difference in subsidizing and protecting in the context of how the word was used? It was monetary protection we were talking about. If you think of what a subsidy is, it is normally a monetary gift. There is not a big difference.

What really bothered me the most, I guess, and what I was upset with was when I heard the Leader of the Third Party stand up and complain about government protecting these people in all these unionized jobs. I could not understand it. I had calls from my constituents –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

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

I would like to point out that the Member for Labrador West is once again interpreting words. I did not talk about taking protection away from the workers at the mines in Labrador. I would once again ask that if I am going to be quoted, what I say exactly be quoted, not interpretations of what I said.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to continue.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the complaint was that government was protecting the industries by giving them special rates, and the protection was a financial protection. That is what I was hearing, and I do not see where the problem was. I do not understand why there was a complaint about government doing what governments are supposed to do.

What we are doing here today is we are not protecting just individuals, we are protecting the economy of our Province, and that is what we are supposed to do. All of these unionized workers – I had calls, as I was saying before I sat down for the point of order, from some of my constituents asking what the issue was and asking me to raise that issue in the House of Assembly. So, I am speaking on behalf of my constituents, but I think it is very important we realize that the whole issue with the rates we are putting here now, this policy we are bringing forward, is to protect the people. We are protecting the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you look, .06 cents is what the power is being supplied for now. For thirty-five years I have enjoyed that rate. I think it is very important, and I know the Minister of Natural Resources clarified it and made it very clear, because it is a question that the residents in Labrador West, and all of Labrador, are worried about. Is this going to affect the residential customers in Labrador? This is not. This is an industrial rate policy. It is not a residential rate policy. The residents in Labrador were very concerned.

I look twenty-seven kilometres away from Labrador West and you have Fermont, Quebec. Quebec Cartier Mining is the main and only stakeholder and industry in Fermont, Quebec. When you look at what they are paying now, in Labrador West it is between $6 and $11, in Fermont now, at Quebec Cartier Mining, it is $47.

We are giving away what belongs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are actually giving it away now. What we are going to do is we are going to stabilize it. All of the money that we are going to stabilise it with, where is it going? It is going back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I hear often, every day, there are asks. You heard the Minister of Finance talk about it today. You heard our Premier talk about it today. Every day people are standing up in the House of Assembly: We need more, we need more, and we need more. We need our roads, we need our schools, and we need our hospitals.

Every day we hear petitions on the hospitals, but where are we getting the money to provide all of those infrastructural needs for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Stabilizing these rates is going to put money back into the coffers of the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that way it will be able to provide what we need to put in our communities.

The other thing that I like about these rates is that, quite often, you hear nothing goes over the so-called overpass. This is something that is good for all the rural areas because we are stabilizing – what we are doing here is we are giving a very fair and equal opportunity to bring new businesses and large industry into the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is something that when the industries were looking at it, they would get to a stumbling point where they would say: Well, we are ready to go. We have gone through the exploration. We have no where to go now because we know we need the power, but we are not sure what it is going to cost us. So, they could not do their forecasting as to where they were going to go. They could not forecast how much they had to charge. Anyone who is in business, when they are in business, what the profit line is going to be is the main thing people worry about.

I was in business for many, many years and I wanted to get a return on my investment. These large corporations are no different; they want to get a return on their investments. It is very important to them that they be able to say: What is it going to cost me to get the power to produce my product? Once they have that cost, with these new industrial rates, they can now forecast exactly what their cost is going to be and they can build that into their sale price. Whereas before, they were always wondering: Well, if the power is coming through, where is it going to go?

Again, I go back to the Iron Ore Company of Canada that is doing a huge expansion right now. Right now, they are at 18 million tons per year. They are going to 23 million tons per year with phase one of the expansion that they have already done. They are hoping when their expansion of phase two is finished that they will actually go to 50 million tons a year. So that is more than double what they are already producing.

The Iron Ore Company of Canada is the largest open mine pit in North America. So, that is actually going to double in their production. They could not forecast – and in a lot of the deliberations and conversations I have had with the Iron Ore Company of Canada, it was always wondering: Well, we cannot forecast what it is going to cost us. After 2015, we do not know what it is going to cost us, because we do not know what our electrical rates are going to be.

I have to say, living in Labrador West, I am not hearing a lot of negativity with these rates. People are comfortable, they are saying – do they like an increase? No, nobody likes to see things cost them more money, but they have realized that this is reality, this is the way it has to be, and in the long run – and that is what these companies are looking at. They are not investing billions of dollars because they are in it for a short term. It is long-term investments they are making, and they want to see long-term returns on what they are going to get.

So, Mr. Speaker, I realize I am running out of time, and I will be supporting this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege to actually stand in this House today to speak to Bill 53, the Act to Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

So, the importance, Mr. Speaker, today to actually stand and speak to this is because it speaks about a Labrador power supply and about how we actually supply power for industry in Labrador. I think it is important that we get an understanding of the way the power is currently supplied in Labrador. It happens in a variety of ways, Mr. Speaker.

For instance, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Lab West, which includes, of course, Labrador City, and Wabush – these communities and those industries, those residential and those commercial customers are supplied, really, from what we know from the Upper Churchill block of power, through those areas, as we know, and they have been there for quite some time now.

So, Mr. Speaker, this has provided, as you know, over the last number of years tremendous benefit to both the people who live there, as it should, and for the industry – both commercial and the industrial users over those years. So, this is important to know.

Then on the South Coast in Labrador, it happens a little bit differently. There are two options there; one would be through diesel generation and one would be through the purchase of power from the Robinson Lake Project, which is in Quebec. This would be the South Coast; as we move to the North Coast, it is still primarily through diesel generation. There is a small – I think it is eighteen megawatts in Menihek that supplies some power as well. We have a variety of options right now in Labrador when you look at the source of electricity.

All of those, for some reason – this patchwork is what we use today. What this particular bill is doing is really not to change much of that; really, it will not change a whole lot of that. What it will change is the way that we price industrial power – in particular to Labrador West, Labrador City, and Wabush – and how we use that to either generate economic activity or the mining industry in Labrador West.

We all know that in this particular area there are a number of significant opportunities that we have seen. I had the experience last February – just after becoming leader of the party and Leader of the Official Opposition, I did take some time and I went to Labrador West. It has been quite some time since I had been there, and it was really good to get on the ground. Even though the weather was extremely cold in late February, I must say the economy down there and the welcome that we had was very warm.

What I heard there was indeed that there were many people down there, and not just the industrial customers, I would say, Mr. Speaker. We often hear of what we would do for the Rio Tintos of the world and, for instance, the Wabush Mines; how do we support those industries? It is important to realize that even though sometimes we have to be very patient and it is very difficult to understand, sometimes it may be seen as we are giving those large industries some benefit that we are not prepared to give to our smaller commercial ratepayers or our residential ratepayers. What I see here is that we have so many of the residents in that area, so many of the smaller businesses in that area who depend on the viability and the sustainability of the larger industries.

This is not about, in my opinion, giving large mining extra benefits or subsidizing large mining. What it is about is keeping a sustainable and a viable economy for all the people, all the residents, in particular Labrador West and in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. What it speaks to is how we maintain viable and sustainable economies in this important part of our Province.

What this particular bill does, Mr. Speaker, is it mentions a sustainable and predictable industrial rate; what happens there is people can actually plan. This is important. No matter what business you are in, you can actually plan for your future expenses. The fixed cost that is associated with energy in this particular case is a huge component of the cost of doing business.

I will repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is not about this being subsidized by the people of the Province. We must recover our cost here. This is the premise of this particular bill and this particular amendment. This is not about subsidized power. This is about cost recovery. As we deal with that, and of course the economic benefit that comes layered on top of that – getting our cost back – then the overall economic benefit comes with that. All of us as a Province, in particular the people in Labrador, will be able to enjoy the benefits of that.

One of the things, too, for people who are listening and people who will read this at some point is: what is industrial power? What makes industrial power different than, let us say, what we see in our own homes and in our smaller businesses? That is why we have some questions about this.

The industrial power is not about, for instance, the amount of power you actually purchase. The industrial power is about how you actually take that power. For instance, we were told in this particular case – we have a few, for instance, industrial customers within the Province. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper would be an example and Vale would be an example. These are industrial customers in the Province who actually take power in a different way. It actually goes directly. We do not need substations. We do not need transformers. They are able to take high-voltage power.

What it means is there is less cost in getting that power directly from, for instance, someone like Newfoundland Hydro, to the industrial user. In this particular case, there is a different rate applied simply because there is less cost to maintain the power supply and less cost to get it to the industrial customer. This is what we know now to be the industrial block, which we talk about in Labrador. Indeed, we do have customers on the Island as well that would be considered industrial consumers.

I know this because even in my own district, for instance, living in the community of Deer Lake, we see an industrial block of power used by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. Actually, this has been something that has been very significant over the years in keeping that mill alive. If you speak to people who have worked with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, they will tell you one of the big benefits of having your power supply and the industrial rate, certainly a rate that they own –having the option of supplying some of the excess power to Nalcor.

It has been important; it has been an important piece, and I know today, as we stand here, that particular piece of our forestry industry has been struggling. There is no question that there is still a big question mark over where that will be in the future, but there is no doubt that no matter where it goes, the access to the industrial rate, access to power, is going to be a very important component of the overall cost of doing business for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper in this particular case.

I will say that what they have is their own transmission line that actually leaves the power station, the power plant, in Deer Lake and it goes directly into Corner Brook to support the paper mill. That generating station in this particular case has the ability to produce about 121 megawatts of power, Mr. Speaker. Behind all of that, because of the reservoir that we get in Grand Lake and another reservoir in Hinds Lake, Nalcor now produces about another seventy-five megawatts of power just from that one body of water.

Mr. Speaker, as we go into Labrador, we understand the importance: the future of Labrador, the future development of Labrador, and the key role that the industrial rate would pay. This is the reason we have seen from past experience; we do know that in this particular case, based on the TwinCo block of power, that the mining companies in Labrador West have been able to enjoy what we would consider to be a very significant benefit for a number of years. There is no doubt that is a benefit that they have enjoyed.

We also know that as part of the Upper Churchill agreement with CF(L)Co, this contract will expire; this contract will expire in 2014, so we must now develop a new way to sell industrial power to those customers. This is what this bill will outline, a piece of this.

We also know that we need to be always cognizant of: if you are a customer, what are you competing with? It really does not matter if you compete with power, if you compete with labour, or if it is other sources; there are many, many things that actually influence the cost of doing business.

In this particular case, you have to compete with other suppliers. In this case we are talking about competing with other jurisdictions for power. We all know that in Labrador West, we are in very close proximity to Quebec. We need to make sure that our industrial users in Labrador West are in the competitive market, because as the minister just mentioned, Quebec is there. We have to make sure that not only do we compete with them, but if Quebec is, in some cases, maybe higher, we need to make sure that we get the maximum benefit from this power supply for the benefit of the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece. We all know the importance of maintaining cost and being competitive, no matter what the aspect of your business is.

Mr. Speaker, competition and what you use for your competitive advantage is very important, because many jurisdictions in the world do use power, but not everybody, even in our own particular country, has the ability to produce power that they could use as a competitive advantage.

In this particular case, we have had that TwinCo block of power, 225 megawatts, Mr. Speaker. We now roll this into what we will call the development block.

What is the development block that we speak to in Bill 53? The development block is made up of two components, one being the 225 megawatts that come from TwinCo and about fourteen megawatts that we use from our recall power.

The reason why we define the development block to be 239 megawatts of power is because historically, this is what we have used: fourteen megawatts from the recall power and 225 megawatts from the TwinCo block. Of course, the reason why we refer to the 225 megawatts of TwinCo power is this really goes back to the development of the Upper Churchill. This was at a point in time where the mining companies used this power and were using this to provide energy for their own industries in Labrador West.

They found that with the development of the Upper Churchill, there was a better way. They could actually produce more power if this water was allowed to flow into the Upper Churchill. The TwinCo generating facility actually got closed up and mothballed. It is still there today, but obviously there is no use – as we have been told by the department – for this particular generating station, because we actually generate more power downstream with the Upper Churchill development.

This is what we have used now to be able to leverage – this TwinCo block of power is being used until 2014 to support the mining industries in Labrador.

This has been giving the mining companies a very significant advantage over the last number of years, and competitive advantages that we now know will obviously change in 2014. We want to make sure the rate becomes more in-line with what is considered to be a fair rate. As a matter of fact, our own agreement says it has to be commercially competitive.

Now, what is a commercially competitive rate? We do know the mining companies, I would suggest based on what we know about companies in general, will not want to take any extra cost or add any extra cost to their companies. It is fair to say they have known about this for a number of years and they can and should be expecting some degree of increased costs in this power. That is to say, though, that what this bill does is make sure we will still be competitive and allow those companies to be viable, and still with an attractive rate. That is important.

As I mentioned, it is important to look for the competitive advantage no matter what line of business you are in. Some jurisdictions, as I said, might use land or they might use whatever options they have available to them. In this particular case in Labrador West, it would be Labrador. Some people use tax incentives. Some people use wage incentives.

In a general sense, what it does is create economic benefits to the people, and therefore the Province as a whole will generate more royalties. You would see more employment for employees. You will see smaller businesses that will be more viable, more sustainable, and will actually pay more corporate taxes.

The reason we support the principle of this bill is based on that premise. It is meant to create economic activity to support a growing economy. Indeed, what we want to do is use this to leverage other and future economic benefits so that people can make long-term plans for their future. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we keep this in place.

As I said, this is not about making sure we give this power away. What we are looking for here is a fair return. We need to make sure there is a sense of fairness throughout this whole process. We have communities, we have employees, we have smaller businesses, and we have lots of people who depend on the viability of those businesses in this particular area.

We are not supporting that we give this away, as we said. We are not supporting giving anything away. What we are supporting is a sense of fairness that we can use for the creation of employment and a viable economy in Labrador West.

The industrial rate as we know it, and as it has been described, has two components to it. One is the generation, and that is unregulated in this particular case. The industrial rates, the generation component is unregulated. The transmission part of it, the transmission assets are regulated and are based on a cost of service. What you do is the regulation comes from the basis or foundation of getting your cost of service, the cost that it takes to put this transmission in place.

You sit down and you negotiate with the companies in advance. You look for what capacity they would need on the transmission lines. The ultimate goal is to get the cost of service, the cost that it takes to install those lines, you recover that. Then you take that and you blend it into using the TwinCo power, the 239 and the fourteen megawatts from your recall, 225 from TwinCo. This becomes your development block and then any future energy that is used to create the industrial block goes added on to that, and you will get therefore the overall industrial rate.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the bill, we will be bringing some amendments. We believe there are some instances here that we can use to make this bill even a little better. What we would like to be doing of course is to make sure that we put in place something that can provide future long-term benefits for the people, in particular in Labrador, but also for the people on the Island of Newfoundland. It is important.

I know in my own district, for instance, we have a lot of people as part of a mobile workforce. They fly into Labrador West, and some even into Happy Valley-Goose Bay for employment. It is not just working for the individuals who live there, but many of them are working with contractors who do work in Labrador West. It is important we get the stable rates in place so that we can keep the economy stable, keep the economy viable. In doing so, we can use whatever competitive means we have available to us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak just for a few minutes about the recall power and the impact that this would have on recall. What we have been told is that there is 300 megawatts of recall power. In this particular case preference still will be given to the residential and the commercial ratepayers in Labrador.

We need not fear that the recall power we have available to us through the Upper Churchill agreement in 1998, that recall power will be used in the industrial rate or in the industrial block and taking away preference to the residents or to the smaller commercial operators.

As we understand it, that is not the case. That is one of the reasons why we do actually support the principle of this bill because the recall power will still be and still provide benefit to the residential and the commercial ratepayers in Labrador, and that is important to us.

Where does this all lead? We all know that the current contract will expire in 2014, and then we will move into January 2015, when we will see the industrial rate really take its full effect. What we know now is that we are at 0.6 cents a kilowatt in Lab West. The Island, for instance, for the industrial rate, would be at around 4.6 cents.

It is important for us that we actually keep being competitive. The Canadian average, as we understand it, is around 6.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. This puts us really into a competitive market as it exists. I believe that in doing this we will still be very competitive and there will be a sense of fairness that is created with this industrial block.

It is important, by the amendments that we intend on bringing forward, that we actually bring and make this bill even better so that the economic benefits for the people in Labrador – and we fully, I guess, expect that we will have many MHAs who will see that the type of things that we are talking about in terms of stabilizing the economic benefits for the people in Labrador will be something that MHAs should support. Because if it is good for Labrador, it is good for the Province, and it is good for all of the residents in Labrador and good for all of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few more minutes to wind up my comments here. It is important too, as a part of this amendment, that the Public Utilities Board will be included in the transmission, so they will actually be involved in the transmission and setting the rate for transmission for all customers in Labrador. That is an important piece of what we are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation here, bringing the Public Utilities Board back into the regulation of transmission for the people in Labrador, this will happen now and will include public oversight, should it be necessary, over the future 225 megawatts of power between CF(L)Co and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

What we understand this to be, from the briefing session that we have had, is that CF(L)Co, which is two-thirds owned, of course, by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and one-third owned by Hydro Quebec, what will happen there if there is an issue around setting the rate or coming to what is considered to be a fair rate, well then either one of those parties could actually bring the Public Utilities Board in to actually negotiate and put an agreement in place on what that rate would be on this 225 megawatts of power.

Mr. Speaker, we see this as a greater role for the PUB. We see this, as we have mentioned many times in the last few weeks here, a role for the PUB, and this is fairly new in this particular case.

I will finish up my comments here now. The principle of the bill, as I said, is something that we can support. The development block, being a block that is part of TwinCo and part of the recall power, 239 megawatts, layered on top of that we will see market prices set into the whole industrial block and the PUB will actually still be available to provide oversight into the negotiation between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in this particular case CF(L)Co, on the price of the power that gets added to the development block; therefore, defining this as the industrial block for Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these are all very important components of the industrial rate, as we set the industrial rate for future development in Labrador. I will say that the economic development of Labrador I believe really depends and largely depends on having a very competitive industrial rate for not only the mining industry because we have a lot more at stake than this. We have the smaller businesses –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: We have the community in general. We have many of the residents who live there and actually depend on very viable mining industry, as we all do, of course, the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will finish of my comments with this. In principle, as I said, we do support the bill, but we will be bringing forth some amendments to this bill and hoping that what we can actually do is add benefit for all the people in the Province, which will include some of the smaller companies, the community as a whole in Labrador City and in Wabush, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and in all parts of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I conclude my comments for now.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is my pleasure to get up here today and talk about Bill 53. Specifically I would like to touch on the second amendment that is proposed here in terms of the promotion of the development of industrial activity in Labrador.

I will just set this up for you: as a young boy growing up in Labrador, in Goose Bay, our family spent a lot of time out to the cabin, Mr. Speaker. When dad would shut off the motor and we would glide in to the beach and the dog would make that early jump for the shore, my brothers and I would get into the water and we would walk up on that beach. We would walk up on thick, thick, black sand, Mr. Speaker, as far as the eye could see. You could reach down with a bucket and you could scoop up an entire bucket full of this black iron ore right off the surface of the beach.

It was nice, we always used to take our magnets down there and play with that stuff. It gives you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of what people see when they are prospecting in Labrador and what makes them want to come to Labrador, invest money, raise capital, and get into a situation where they can create jobs and begin industrial development.

I think the Minister of Natural Resources said in his preamble to the bill that there was $172 million placed into Labrador last year. Those people come, they prospect. Then they get into pre-feasibility. They get into feasibility; they work towards getting towards an industrial mine, Mr. Speaker. I tell you one thing, and it has been said by many members that have already spoken to this bill already, Mr. Speaker: whether they are prospecting or whether they are getting into pre-feasibility-type activities, they are doing one thing for certain and that is investing in the communities adjacent to those resources.

So, I would like to spend a little bit of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about Grand River Ironsands, specifically. That is one in Lake Melville that is on the rise right now. I am going to talk about the cascade effect that is going to happen when we establish and publish an industrial rate for that electricity that is needed to get into mining activities.

Grand River Ironsands came into Goose Bay, Labrador; they started to go out across the beautiful Churchill River, Mr. Speaker. On your way to Mud Lake you can see these sand bars, that same black sand I was talking about – absolutely phenomenal, beautiful scenery. They got out there, and what is the first thing they do, Mr. Speaker? They hire local people. They get people for logistics with boats and motors and equipment and camping equipment. They get their people out in the field.

Then they need supplies, as mentioned by the Minister of Labrador Affairs, Mr. Speaker. They have to go out and begin the procurement process. They go local; they get their groceries, they start using the restaurants, they start using the amenities in the communities, Mr. Speaker. They get out there and they spend a lot of dough, plain and simple. They get local people out there in the wilderness, in our pristine wilderness, out there braving the elements to get a look at what we have to offer.

Then they begin to do small amounts of drilling activity, sampling, Mr. Speaker. They start to then begin to evaluate the resource, what they have. In the case of Grand River Ironsands, they ended up supplying jobs to a whole lot of local people. We had people out there who were operating drills, people collecting samples, people categorizing, people separating materials, Mr. Speaker. You had people in logistical support who were driving speedboats, setting up camps, preparing those meals. That is only one small project that is now coming to fruition. That was just the prospecting phase of that, Mr. Speaker.

Now if you were to go see what they are up to today, Mr. Speaker, you would go up to their plant where they are processing their bulk samples. I will tell you about the day that I went in there. I went in to see what Grand River Ironsands was up to and the first thing I saw was a new supervisor who was a friend of mine who had been looking for employment. You have one job, a supervisory-level job right there.

I look over to the right of that supervisor, Mr. Speaker, and what do we see? We see a heavy equipment operator from the Torngat Mountains district who is now in Goose Bay operating heavy equipment, pushing this black sand around, putting it into the magnetic separators on the conveyor belts. We are seeing real industry start to happen. We start to see a project come to life, Mr. Speaker – totally amazing to see. I went through the entire operation, what did I see? Local people, Aboriginal people in good, high-paying jobs, contributing to a development that is just on the cusp of breaking through, if you will.

We then went upstairs, Mr. Speaker, in their plant and we got to look at some of the more technical things: the separation, the actual testing of the samples, the various high-tech science-type stuff, if you will, that was occurring in there. What did we see again? We saw more jobs; we saw young Aboriginal people, Mr. Speaker, in their high hats and in their fluorescent vests with their breathing apparatus on, really enjoying being there and being a part of something that is going to be something great.

When it comes to a company like Grand River Ironsands, what you saw was simply what other members have said here today, Mr. Speaker. You have a situation where without a published industrial rate for electricity, companies have difficulty in generating capital, going out and getting in front of potential investors who are willing to put that money on the table. When you have that missing component, Mr. Speaker – the most crucial thing involved in mining, and especially iron-ore-type mining, let alone processing secondary – what you see is they have an inability to paint the entire picture, if you will, to potential investors.

As the ministers have already said, and people from across the way have already said, too, we are looking at $10 billion to $15 billion in the next decade of investment in Labrador in terms of what is going to happen, and that is a wonderful thing. If they do not have that missing component in order to be able to paint that beautiful picture of why people should put their money into Labrador, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have difficulty securing that capital. They are going to have difficulty getting into the local communities, out into the field next to the resource, and being able to get into the process of spending that money, creating those local jobs, and then hopefully getting towards a true industrial development where they can have a mine.

I tell you what, if you look at all of the potential companies out there, we have talked about Vale Inco, Grand River Ironsands, Labrador Iron Mines, Alderon, Tata Steel, and all of these different companies, Mr. Speaker. This is a truly exciting time for Labrador, indeed for the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just want to touch on one thing here, too, about Vale Inco. We have heard the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador Affairs already mention about the simple fact that if they choose to grow underground with their operation, they are going to have requirements for a line to be brought up there, too. With that comes the indirect benefit, Mr. Speaker, of having roads connecting the Northern communities in Labrador.

We are going to see the transformation of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and that is true. We are going to see roads and power lines connecting our communities on the North Coast – and South Coast, I hope as well, to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, I say. What we are going to see is cheaper goods and services. You are going to see hopefully a cutting back on the North Coast needs for ferrying services, Mr. Speaker. You will see accessibility to health care services.

You will see cheaper materials for building, cheaper industrial development type of materials going up the coast. They can, in turn, begin to look at new projects, new resources, and new staked claims, Mr. Speaker, in terms of those resources out there that are untapped and untouched right now. That is what I was talking about earlier when I talked about the cascade effect that is going to happen.

When we get an industrial rate, Mr. Speaker, that allows people to plan in an appropriate fashion in order to get into a situation where they can start spending money and can start evaluating a resource for development, you will see more people come. We have, like I said, the ones I have mentioned now who are going to be fighting for that heritage block of power. We are going to see an exponential development of different people coming in and looking at the resources, too. What does this mean for all of us?

We heard the Minister of Natural Resources talk about the $343 million in tax revenue that is going to come. I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the jobs, the indirect benefits that are going to result from this kind of development, it is simply astounding. What we are going to see is people spending money. They are going to have a higher quality of life, Mr. Speaker. They are going to have disposable income they have never had before, Mr. Speaker.

They are going to be able to get to a place where they can have a higher quality of life for their family. They can look at their kids who may be out in Alberta right now, Mr. Speaker, they could be anywhere, and they are going to be able to say we have opportunities right here at home, right on our doorstep. High paying jobs, Mr. Speaker, which will allow those kids to come home, make their way, build their houses, raise their families and enjoy a comfortable living. That is certainly something that should not be overlooked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: At the same time, you have the people who are going to be working in these – whether you are prospecting, whether you are at a mine, whether you are simply surveying to stake claims for a company, Mr. Speaker, you are going to see these people making use of – like was mentioned by the minister before – restaurants. You are going to see them shopping. You are going to see them having recreational activities within the towns, Mr. Speaker. You will see the population grow. You will see new people building homes. It is a boom, Mr. Speaker.

What you are going to see is not only like was mentioned before by the minister, the tax revenue situation, but you are going to see people start to reinvest in their own communities. You are also going to see these companies that are involved in these claims, in these potential projects, as charitable companies, too, Mr. Speaker, which will help contribute to some of the social ills in our communities. They will start to, hopefully, address a lot of the recreational needs in some of these small rural communities as well, Mr. Speaker. It will be a good story all the way around.

I would just like to say that one of the things, Mr. Speaker, that was very prevalent for me on the campaign trail, not last October but the October before in 2011, every time I went to a house – and I would like to think, Mr. Speaker, that one of the big reasons why I am here today is because I really beat the streets. I tell you what, Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody that I was racing against covered as much ground and went into as many homes as I did.

I tell you what, every time I went into a home, Mr. Speaker, I had people who wanted to introduce me to their kids, introduce me to their nephews, nieces, whatever, and the kids all said one thing: What about Muskrat Falls? What about industrial development? What about mines? What is going to happen with that, Mr. Russell? I told them, look, what we are going to do is we are going to create jobs. We are going to create things back here at home for our kids.

Everybody said you have our support, Mr. Russell. You have our support. If you will simply come in here and push this project, push for development and prosperity to occur right here at home so we do not have to go away and end up somewhere else and have to worry about travelling for hours and hours and hours on a plane just to get home to see mom and dad. That is certainly something worth fighting for. I will keep advocating for development, advocating for Muskrat Falls. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will get to a point in our Province here where we can chase down Gull Island as well right after that.

We are going to see these youths – and we are seeing the change now, Mr. Speaker; what we are seeing is that these kids are adjusting their anticipated career paths to go to CONA, to get into carpentry, electrical, into heavy equipment operation. You are seeing people take geological technician courses, Mr. Speaker.

I will give you a specific example of that: my own brother, Mr. Speaker, was out in Ontario working as a geological technician when Vale Inco came on stream. What did we see? We see him back home now. We see him up on-site, as many other people in my community that are within Lake Melville are doing, Mr. Speaker: flying in, flying out, doing some good work. They are upgrading their skills, and you know what is best? They are raising their families and they are building homes back home in Labrador.

They do not have to fly away and change their way of life. They can still get out on the land, they can still enjoy our culture, and they can still get out there and spend time, especially like we are going to do right here now in the holiday season, Mr. Speaker, get out with their families and enjoy that. That is something that they deserve and that is something that this government continues to advocate for, in terms of doing things right here at home, having prosperity right here at home, and not having to worry about the outside forces that be, not having to worry about volatility of oil markets and such, Mr. Speaker. We are going to make our own future right here.

That is what this government is going to do: with a bit of vision and the true leadership of our Premier, we are going to make our way right here, Mr. Speaker. We do not need anybody else. We are good on our own – absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RUSSELL: Good to see such positive support from the other side. We have had the Official Leader of the Opposition and we have also had the Opposition House Leader get up and say very positive things about this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. That is great to see, because they know that if we continue on without having a transparent formula to identify what the electrical rate is going to be for industrial customers, Mr. Speaker, they know that we would simply be leaving money on the table.

Our Minister of Natural Resources said in his opening remarks to this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the same amount of power over the last decade that was purchased by the two customers that we have today, being IOC and Wabush Mines – they paid $100 million for that. That was $900 million worth of power, just slightly over the border, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RUSSELL: I look to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, and she said certainly, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to hear her say that here in this House today, that we have to be competitive with Quebec. Because anybody who knows a little bit about our map here, when you talk about the Labrador Trough and all we have to offer in terms of iron ore, in terms of industrial development, that Trough also extends across the border, unfortunately, into Quebec, and we have to be right there in order to be able to fight for those companies to come work with us, come work with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is certainly how it has to be.

Unfortunately, I have such good things to say about our Official Opposition here today, but I do not have the same to say about the Third Party, Mr. Speaker. I tell you what, if you were to ask my honest opinion about what I think about what is going on over there, it reminds me of the old travelling salesman you see or read about in all those old books. It is the person who is selling the magic tonic, the one that cures everything from the common cold to broken bones, Mr. Speaker. That is because they are only saying whatever people in front of them at that particular time want to hear. You know what, that is something we do not do over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, we have integrity, Mr. Speaker, and we will keep acting like that. We hear the Leader of the Third Party talk out of both sides of her mouth.

We heard our hon. Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Mr. Speaker, make a great point yesterday in the Legislature –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): A point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the phrase that has just been used by the Member for Lake Melville – I really question when he said that the Leader of the Third Party speaks out of both sides of her mouth. The meaning of that statement, Mr. Speaker, is duplicity. I call it unparliamentary language and I would like you to give consideration to what I am saying.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

I did not hear the remark. I will check Hansard and I will report back the next sitting day. Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Snake oil salesmen.

MR. RUSSELL: Yes, snake oil salesmen, I hear some colleagues here on this side of the House. You simply cannot just see whatever the flavour of the day is, the flavour of the month is, and then comment on that.

We hear the Third Party talk about poverty issues, Mr. Speaker, housing issues, the need for increased health care, increased support for seniors. Where do they think this stuff is going to come from, Mr. Speaker? You cannot just pull money magically out of the air off the money tree and spread it around.

You have to have industry, Mr. Speaker. You have to have development. You have to have investment, and that is what this bill is all about. It is about having a published rate that is competitive with other provinces out there to draw people into Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, to have them set up shop here, spend their money here. The by-products of that will be enormous, as I have said before.

My comment would be, if you talk about the project – we have certain members in this House who would say: okay, have to close Holyrood, Mr. Speaker. Then right when we start getting to a point where we are that close to developing Muskrat Falls, they say: no, we do not want Muskrat Falls, we do not want Muskrat Falls; keep putting 1 billion tons of pollutants in the air on the Island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador every year.

To me, Mr. Speaker, that is what I was referring to earlier. We simply do not play that game over here on this side. On government's side over here, we are in an enviable position; we are about to head into Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. We are about to expand the industrial sector in Labrador. The potential is enormous. The people in my district, Mr. Speaker, whether I am in Sheshatshiu and North West River or whether I am in Goose Bay and Churchill Falls, they are excited because they see the opportunities that are going to come with all of this stuff.

We are at a point –and I think the words that have been bantered around in the media right now have been game changer and things like that. This particular bill is going to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we set ourselves up to be able to make the best use of that power, not leave money on the table, and be able to once again further diversify the revenue streams we take into this government in order to eventually provide back to the people of this Province and get them to a point where we can increase their quality of their lives because that is what this government is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, in terms of some of the things going on in my district I am certainly in support of all the industrial development that is happening. There is a buzz in the communities, Mr. Speaker, within my district. I would like to thank all the other members who got up and had something to say about this particular bill. I am glad to see the support from the Opposition as well, Mr. Speaker.

They talked about things such as cost recovery. We need to recover costs in terms of these power rates in order to continue with some refurbishing of our assets in Churchill Falls. We heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about fair return, and we certainly have to have fair return for that power. This is where we are heading. This is what this legislation does. This is going to increase the effectiveness in terms of what I just said earlier and giving back to the people of this Province through responsible fiscal management and development, Mr. Speaker, so we do not have to have a giant money tree in order to do what is right by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to them.

MS MICHAEL: I will give it to them. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, we finally have before us in the House the first of what I understand will be three bills that have been called by the government side of the House enabling legislation. The bill we have in front of us today, Bill 53, is An Act to Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

We did have today notice given by the Government House Leader of two other bills – or they may have been done by the Minister of Natural Resources, but notice given for two other bills that are going to be brought into this House as well that also have to do with enabling legislation for the Muskrat Falls Project, Mr. Speaker.

So, I am very happy this afternoon to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, which I do consider an important bill. It is a bill that deals primarily with issues in Labrador, where, of course, the Muskrat Falls Project is going to be located, and has to do primarily with dealing with industrial electrical rates.

The industry that is most referred to, of course, in this bill is the mining industry, and how the new project might affect this mining industry, though it is mainly looking at issues that have to do with the ongoing work of the mining industry in Labrador, and how that mining industry has benefited from the Upper Churchill, and the process by which they have received electricity and how they have paid for it.

Of course, up to now, Mr. Speaker, the way in which this has happened is that there has been a contract for IOC and Wabush Mines with regard to power from Churchill Falls, from the Upper Churchill –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – and that contract ends in January 2015. So, a lot of this legislation has to do with changing the regime for electricity in Labrador.

I have to point out that it is very interesting that the first piece of enabling legislation that has been brought to the floor of the House for the Muskrat Falls Project does not have anything to do with the delivery of electricity to the Island of Newfoundland, which we were told was the original reason for Muskrat Falls Project, but it has to do with delivery of electricity to industrial corporations in Labrador who are mining companies.

I find it very interesting the way in which the reason for Muskrat Falls morphed from being an answer to electrical needs on the Island of Newfoundland to being electricity that was going to be able to go to the mainland, to Nova Scotia, and to the United States to make money for us, and then morphed into we want the mining industry in Labrador to benefit.

I have nothing against the mining industry in Labrador benefiting, Mr. Speaker. The mining industry in Labrador has been the backbone of Labrador, especially for people in Labrador West. We know that. They have benefited immensely. Not only people who lived there as the mines started, but also people who have moved in and who have created Labrador West, who have created the towns of Labrador City and Wabush.

It has been a long history. I recognize that history, and it has been a wonderful history, there is no doubt about that.

Now, the industry is growing and it is important to note that the industry is growing. That is what this bill is all about: facing the whole new reality of a growing industry with new companies coming in, companies that are exploring, smaller companies, larger companies. There are a variety of companies.

The government had referred a number of times over the past week or so to the report that was done by Dr. Wade Locke on the mining industry. I have read that report very well. The report has to do with everything from the companies that have existed for decades right through to the companies that are just starting out. There is no doubt that there is a future for many, many decades to come.

I think IOC alone has identified that its new finds of ore can be mined for the next 100 years. That is just one company; it may be more than 100 now, they are saying.

We do know that the mining industry is extremely important. It is extremely important for the companies, it is important for the Province in terms of the royalties that we receive from the mining companies in Labrador – although I think we actually could be looking for more money in royalties from mining, not just here in this Province, right across the country.

It is also good for the people who work at the mines and it is good for the people who benefit from the secondary industry: retail industries, service industries in particular, that grow up in the communities, especially Labrador City and Wabush, in the areas in which these mines exist. People do benefit from those mines. There is no doubt about that.

Putting in place a system that is going to benefit the mines as they move forward, but also benefit the Province – because let us name it as it is: what is happening is that the change that is happening with regard to the electrical rates is going to simplify –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The changes that are going to be made are going to allow market rates to be used for the electrical rates. That is very important, because that is not now how it happens. Right now, we have a contract that has been in place for a long time, in which IOC and Wabush mines pay a relatively small amount under the market rate for their electricity. When that contract ends in 2015, things are going to change for those two mines.

We have been told by the minister and we were told in the briefing that we received that those mines have been consulted with and that those mines do not mind, that IOC will not mind another $60 million going out annually in electrical fees. That was the figure that was quoted to us in our briefing.

We have to take the word of the people in our briefing – and I do – that the consultation happened and the two companies are quite acquiescent. They have not said anything publicly. We have to assume that they have been consulted and that they are acquiescent and they know it is going to happen, therefore they will have to comply.

The real benefit then is going to come from the fact that their fees are going to go up, their rates are going to go up; if IOC alone is going to be paying $60 million more a year, that is $60 million that will be going into the Upper Churchill, that eventually some of it may go to Muskrat Falls, if Muskrat Falls goes ahead, Mr. Speaker. Then, of course, I do not have the figure for Wabush Mines – that figure was not given to us in the briefing; we were only given the figure for IOC.

Mr. Speaker, the new mines that are coming in – and this is what I found interesting in the briefing; in the briefing we were told the new mines that are now coming on board, at this moment do not have – they are not even in operation, therefore they are not paying any rates. They now know coming in that they will have to pay a new rate. I think it will be about six cents. They are aware that they will be paying a rate that will be market rate, so that rate will be variable; it will change as market changes.

There will be two parts to the rate; I do not need to go into the mechanics of what the two parts are. The important thing is that one part is market rate, and that is extremely important. I did notice today that the Executive Director for Mining Industry Newfoundland and Labrador pointed out that this is good for the new companies because at least they know what they are dealing with. They can do their planning. They can do long-term planning knowing what the rate is going to be.

It is good for the Province because we will no longer have a contract that is going to be in place for decades and you have to wait for the rate to change. The rate now will be changed regularly by the market, and that is good. That is very, very good. The Executive Director of Mining Industry Newfoundland and Labrador pointed out that is a benefit for the new companies. Now, though, he also pointed out it is a negative for IOC and Wabush, because their rates are going to go up and they too now will be dictated to by the market rate.

As I said, they have not said anything publicly to say they do not like it. I guess they know they have to accept it and they are swallowing it, and that is the way that it goes.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to that part of the bill I am extremely happy and I am extremely supportive. I am very, very glad that issue is being taken care of because it should be taken care of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask all hon. members to be respectful of the speaker. If we could have some respect for the speaker. It is hard to hear the speaker.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I really appreciate that.

I am very pleased with that part of the bill. I am really glad it is happening, and I think it will benefit everybody as I said. It definitely will benefit the Province. It will not have a negative effect on the people in Labrador for example. The residential customers from Churchill Falls are not affected by this.

I do know that workers at IOC do have an agreement with IOC, for example. If there is a change to electrical rates and if they become – as workers, as residents in the community but as workers of that company – affected by the changing negative rates, that they actually have an agreement that the company will benefit the workers, the company will make up for the difference in the rates.

The workers are not going to lose. Those who work at the mines are not going to be badly affected by this. They have taken care of the possibilities of impact through their collective agreement. It does not affect residents in Labrador because it is the industrial rate we are talking about. There is a hope – and this is what I find interesting. There is a hope in the government and in Nalcor that the new mining companies are going to co-operate with each other. I am not saying they will not, but we do know that corporations are in competition with each other.

In the briefing, we asked about transmission lines and the transmission lines that are going to have to be built, which will be paid for by the users over a period of time. The cost of the transmission lines will be in the rates and over years they will eventually pay for the transmission lines. We asked: What happens if you have a transmission line that goes so far for one mine and then it gets continued to another new mine? The answer was this will give an incentive to the companies to work together and co-operate.

I would like to say to the government: I am not saying they will not co-operate, but I think government is going to have to be a bit more proactive with the mining companies in that process. Nalcor will have to be more proactive. The companies that are set up for Muskrat Falls Project and for the transmission line in Labrador are going to have to be a bit proactive. I really do not believe you are just going to get the companies automatically working together when they are in competition with one another. I believe there is going to have to be a process put in place to encourage that kind of co-operation between the mining companies.

It is very interesting what is going on, though, here. You have the government saying Muskrat Falls is going to be in place, we are going to have all this electricity, and there are mining companies that potentially could come. We have this electricity for them. The other way of looking at it is: These mining companies are now going to give an incentive for Muskrat Falls. They are going to give a reason that Muskrat Falls, in actual fact if the government did not do this, could actually not pay for itself. Being there for the mining companies is going to give a reason for being for Muskrat Falls. They are going to lose the reason for being when it comes to selling a market in the south when you go into the United States. We have a changing scene and we have a changing market with regard to electricity.

What government is doing – and I am not saying it is bad; I am just pointing out the reality – they realize they have to get money from the mining companies to make up for what they are not going to get south of the border. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker. I am just naming the reality. That is all. It is extremely important to name that reality.

The point I want to go to, Mr. Speaker, and to speak further to this afternoon is the fact that in section 5.8 of the bill, we have a section that has to do with the role of the Public Utilities Board under the Public Utilities Act and its relationship to the transmission lines and related assets located in Labrador. The bill says: Notwithstanding section 7 of The Churchill Falls act – and I will not read the whole name – the Public Utilities Act shall apply to all transmission lines and related assets located in Labrador, except (a) those in relation to the supply of hydroelectric power described in a paragraph in the Churchill Falls Act, and it relates specifically to assets that belong to Hydro-Quιbec. So that will be exempted from the Public Utilities Act – and that is very understandable, it always has been. It is understandable because they are assets under Hydro-Quιbec, but the bill now says also that the transmission lines and related assets from the Muskrat Falls Project will also be exempted.

It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that government has chosen to put that section in this bill, because that section in this bill nullifies the other stuff in the bill. It does not nullify it, but for me, as a person who is being asked to vote for this bill, I am being asked to vote for a very key thing in the bill that I totally disagree with, thrown in there along with all of these good things with regard to the mining industry in Labrador.

That is most problematic, Mr. Speaker, because it is extremely important that the Muskrat Falls Project be under public scrutiny. That like any other utility in the Province, Mr. Speaker, it is under the scrutiny of our Public Utilities Board, just like Manitoba Hydro is in Manitoba. We should have exactly the same thing going on here.

This bill is the first step in removing Muskrat Falls from public scrutiny under our public regulatory body, Mr. Speaker, and I find that very problematic. It is something that I have spoken to already in this House in speaking to a private member's motion, and I am speaking to it again now. It is the one thing that, for me, makes it impossible to vote for this bill, because I do not believe that the Muskrat Falls Project should be taken out from under the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker. It is not acceptable. It does not happen elsewhere.

Yesterday, we had the Minister of Natural Resources say some of the processes that are in the loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, that are processes like the guaranteed stream of revenue, that is part of industry. That is part of the commercial world, it is, and the regulatory bodies have to deal with it all the time. They know they have to treat equally. They have to take care of the needs of the customers who use electricity and the needs of the company.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason I am bringing forward a motion to this floor. I move, seconded by the Member for St. John's East, that the words following the word "that" be deleted and that the following be substituted: "Bill 53, An Act To Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to the Resource Committee."

I have copies of this motion, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is in order. I have checked with the Table and it is in order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, to clue up.

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

If I am correct, I now start another twenty minutes to speak to the motion. I will continue from where I was. Some of the members on the floor seem to be a bit confused, Mr. Speaker. I will point out – maybe I should have said when I moved it – the referral motion was given to the Table Officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We met with the Table Officers; it was passed in to them. They already made the decision that it was in order.

Mr. Speaker, I started talking about the main issue of why this bill is problematic and why we think this bill should go to the Resource Committee for discussion. Before going on and talking to that, I want to remind us, Mr. Speaker, of what is in our Standing Orders.

In our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, section 65(1)(c) first of all, refers to a Resource Committee. Then we have, Mr. Speaker, section 65(3) which talks about the make up, the membership of the Standing Committees that are part of section 65. It talks about when Standing Committees can meet, Mr. Speaker. When a Standing Committee is "…concurred in by the House, and shall continue from Session to Session within an Assembly, but shall be subject to such changes as may be affected from time to time."

In subsection (4) of section 65: "The said Standing Committees may sit at all times during the Assembly for which they are appointed, whether or not the House is in Session, adjourned or prorogued". The committee goes on.

In subsection (5) – which I think is an extremely important subsection, Mr. Speaker – is: "The said Standing Committee shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and except when the House otherwise orders to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report direct to the House".

Mr. Speaker, we have a Standing Order that gives this House the power to refer anything from this House to Standing Committees that are set up by this House. We have a Resource Committee; that Resource Committee, at this point, for the most part, is a committee that operates only during the time of Budget and Estimates hearings, but that committee can now be extended to do much more than just look at Estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that it is extremely important that we take the time to look at all pieces of our legislation and to look at it carefully, especially a piece of legislation that is dealing with the largest development project this government has ever been part of, that is involving an expenditure in cash by this government of – according to the Minister of Finance – over $2 billion. Mr. Speaker, we have to take time to check every single word.

We have experiences in this House, a number of experiences of legislation, whether done quickly or whether time was taken – I do not think it matters – where errors have happened. We all know our famous experience, which is out of Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls-Windsor, and the accidental expropriation of the mill, because the legislation was written so quickly that the technical work of looking at the longitude and latitude information in the appendix of the legislation, that technical work was so intense that not enough time was given for it to be done correctly.

The government found out months after the fact – well, they found out weeks after, we found out months after – that they now had a piece of legislation that they did not want to have and they had something they owned, that they did not want to happen; with the ruling on Monday, I think it was, of the Supreme Court of Canada, the government definitely has a piece of property that they do not want to have.

All of that because of an error – what could look like a really slight error; maybe it was only one little number, either in the longitude or the latitude, that was wrong, but it was enough to now have an impact on us that it is going to cost us, I would suggest, hundreds of millions of dollars for a cleanup, because of that error.

Mr. Speaker, my own experience – and some people in the House were part of it. There were bills; I was here by myself, had a staff working with me, and as I carefully read bills I found things in bills that literally were errors. On three different occasions I went to ministers. I did not do it in Committee of the Whole, I went to them first, and I said: you may want to look at this; I do not think this is right. I do not think you can have this in a bill.

On three different occasions, ministers in this House agreed with me and made the changes so that when it came to the House, Mr. Speaker, when it came to the House, the mistake was already taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, the reason for the referral –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – is to take the time to really make sure that the pieces of legislation that are being put in place are going to be accurate and are not going to have implications that could have negative effects down the road. That is the reason for the referral.

The government is rushing these pieces of legislation. I know that the loan guarantee document says very clearly that the government has the responsibility – it is in the first appendix – to make sure that the correct legislation is in place to enable all the pieces of the Muskrat Falls Project to be in place. I understand that; but the appendix does not say what the things are that have to be in legislation, not in detail. This government makes the decision about what are the details they are going to put in place.

For example, Mr. Speaker, certainly the loan guarantee does say, and I fully understand why it says it, the loan guarantee in appendix 1 says that the Newfoundland and Labrador government has to make sure that the regulated rates for NLH will allow it to collect sufficient revenue in each year to enable NLH to recover those amounts incurred for the purchase and deliver of energy from Muskrat Falls, including those costs incurred by NLH pursuant to any applicable power purchase agreement – and there is a lot of detail there, but it is important detail.

So, yes, the government is responsible for doing that, but it assumes that the way to do it is to pull Muskrat Falls out from the scrutiny of the Public Utilities Board and let it, through Nalcor, be a law unto itself. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a lot of work that could be done by the Resource Committee – which, I point out for those who are listening, is a committee of all parties in the House. That a Resource Committee would be able to – and this is what I would want studied by the Resource Committee – look at what happens in other jurisdictions. What happens when a utility which is a Crown corporation comes under the Public Utilities Board? Because most of our provinces have Public Utilities Boards which do look at all the operations in their Province.

So, what do others do? Look at the fact, as the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out yesterday, at how the Public Utilities Board makes sure that any utility corporation – it does not matter which one it is – can meet its own financial needs and its own financial requirements.

As the minister pointed out yesterday, this requirement for a revenue stream that is going to make sure that all of the financial commitments are taken care of, that is there for every utility. A Public Utilities Board in doing its studies, for example, of a request for new rates, a Public Utilities Board is going to look at all of the financial requirements that a company carries, it is going to look at all of the financial responsibilities that a company has, it is going to look at, in the light of all of that: Do rates have to go up? What should the rates be?

Mr. Speaker, that is why I say this bill should be going to the Resource Committee, so that that kind of study can happen, so that the Resource Committee can bring in representatives from other utility boards, that evidence from other utility boards can come in. Even when it comes to the other parts of the bill, the part of the bill with regard to the changes in the rate system for IOC and Wabush, Mr. Speaker, they could bring IOC and Wabush in and have them present how they feel about this bill.

There is so much that the Resource Committee could do with this bill alone, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that what is in the bill is going to work, and that what is in the bill is going to be for the benefit of the people of the Province down the road. Not just for the benefit of Muskrat Falls, not just for the benefit of Nalcor, not just for the benefit of mining companies, but for the benefit of all the people in the Province, and especially the people in the Province who are going to be footing the bill for Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reality, and their voice needs to be heard, just as their voice was heard by the Public Utilities Board back in the early 1990s when there was a move to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The way in which people's voices were heard was they were able to come to public meetings of the Public Utilities Board and voice their opinion and voice their evidence and be heard. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the ways in which we protect the people of the Province. What is happening with this piece of legislation is that protection disappears. That is very, very problematic.

Mr. Speaker, this government has time to do this correctly. They have time to write the legislation with care. They have time to make sure there are no errors. Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee must be concluded. Financial close is December 13, 2013.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I understand as well from the briefings we have had that Nalcor and those who will be seeking the loans cannot even take a step towards seeking the loans until the fall of 2013, until September of 2013. With the financial close not happening until December 13, we have the time to ensure that the legislation is correct.

We can come into this House at any time; we do not have to wait for March to come in to look at legislation. If this Committee does its work, we could come in early March, we could come in the end of February, we could come in whenever we need to look at the legislation after it has been scrutinized by the Resource Committee and after we are sure what the implications are going to be, Mr. Speaker. The time is there. We have to make sure we take the time.

The government has to reach the financial close by meeting the conditions that are outlined in section 3.5 of the agreement and also in Schedule A of the same document. I understand that and I think there are twenty-odd conditions that have to be met. We have to make sure that everybody who needs to be involved in looking at those makes sure that it happens. I know there will be no financial close unless other things take place.

One of the things that have to take place is not just the sanctioning by this government, Mr. Speaker, of the project. Obviously the sanctioning is slowing down with this government. We were led to believe it was going to happen before Christmas –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – then we were led to believe it was going to happen before New Years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a sneaking suspicion that the sanctioning is a bit down the road. I think that is good. I am not saying that is bad. I think that is good. I am glad to see government realizing they cannot rush the sanctioning. Nothing can happen until that sanctioning happens. It is not only the sanctioning here of the project. There also has to be a sanctioning by Emera in Nova Scotia. We are not the only ones, Mr. Speaker, who have a word in this.

Emera owns part of the transmission line from Labrador to the Island. They actually own 29 per cent of what will be the transmission line from Labrador to Newfoundland. If this goes ahead, they will own 29 per cent. Mr. Speaker, they have a real voice in this, and they have to sanction. That has to happen. Even though there is a difference between the sanctioning and the regulating – and I know there is and the Minister of Natural Resources keeps pointing it out to us – it is still absolutely essential that Emera know at some point their Utility and Review Board in Nova Scotia is going to approve the transmission line, the Maritime Link. If they do not because they think the electrical rates are going to be too high for the people of Nova Scotia, they are not going to say yes.

This government, whether it likes it or not, has a number of months ahead before we know what is happening in Nova Scotia. We have probably around six or seven months before we will know what is going on in Nova Scotia. So we have the time to slow down, to take our time, and to make this happen the right way.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we have brought in this referral motion to refer, as we have the right to do –which this government does not seem to understand that we have the right to do. Some of them do not even know what is in the Standing Orders when it comes to Standing Committees.

Not only do they have the right to do it, Mr. Speaker, I would say we all have the responsibility to do it, because we are talking about an expenditure of billions of dollars of the people's money in this Province – billions. I mean, we could not even have thought about that ten years ago.

We have a responsibility to make sure it is done carefully. We do not want to find out in 2016 or 2017: oops, we have a mistake there that is going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, like what happened with AbitibiBowater, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand how the government can take that lightly, because it is not a light thing. Especially on a day when we find out that we have a Budget that is going to be $750 million in deficit, surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, they must recognize the responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We are dealing with deficits of almost a billion dollars now and they are going to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to speak to the bill, please.

MS MICHAEL: Pardon, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to speak to the bill.

MS MICHAEL: I think I am, but I will make sure I do, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MS MICHAEL: We have to make sure that we recognize our responsibility to make sure that everything in this bill is going to be for the good of the people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have made the motion. That is why we will be voting for the motion and I really encourage the people in this House, Mr. Speaker, to recognize their responsibility to vote for this motion as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure for me to rise in this hon. House today to speak to Bill 53. I am actually going to speak to Bill 53. Bill 53, just for the record, Mr. Speaker, as I read at least, is: An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. I believe, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the explanatory note, this is really meant to set industrial rates in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what we were supposed to be debating here today, so I am going to try to stick to it, unlike the member opposite. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our debate rules allow for a motion to be made. A motion of referral has been made. It has been recognized by the Speaker of the House as being in order.

Speaking to the motion, Mr. Speaker, is in order. I really do not think that the Member for Mount Pearl South should be making the references that he is making as if my motion was an illegal motion and I should not be speaking to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

There is no point of order, but I remind the member that he is speaking to the amendment.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the actual bill that we started debating was about industrial rates in Labrador. I understand the member opposite wanted to put in a motion to refer this or to nix this, whatever you may want to call it, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly going to speak now to her amendment if you will, Mr. Speaker, and say that I am absolutely against her amendment. I will not be supporting her amendment, Mr. Speaker. I think that is in order.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out that I think the correct language is used. I did not make an amendment to the bill. I have moved a motion for referral to the Resource Committee. It is not an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, it is an amendment.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Yes, thank you for that clarification, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, the member's amendment that she brought forward, I certainly will not be supporting it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that every time I come to this House of Assembly, every time the member opposite, certainly the Leader of the Third Party stands to speak on something, I always feel like I need to get out my umbrella because of the dark cloud that seems to be always wandering around the House of Assembly every time they speak. I have never heard such negativity in my life, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to commend the Official Opposition – and thank God they are the Official Opposition – they do see the value of the Muskrat Falls Project, certainly of the amendment to this bill, in terms of setting industrial rates for Labrador. I think they realize the value that mining is going to bring, not just to Labrador but to the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of funny, I listened to the Leader of the Third Party over there. She said mining is good for the people working in the mines. She said it is good for secondary industry. She said it is good for the Province, it is good for Labrador. She said the whole concept of mining to Labrador is very, very good. Now, that is what she said out of one side of her mouth.

Then, Mr. Speaker, at the same time she is somehow trying to jump on the bandwagon, if you will, of the value of mining to Labrador and to the Province, it is the same party that are voting against Muskrat Falls and have been totally against Muskrat Falls, right from the outset. It is the same party that obviously is not concerned about the people of Holyrood because they do not want to see Holyrood shut down. They talk about the environment and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LANE: They talk about the environment all the time, Mr. Speaker, yet here we are with a project that is going to eliminate that polluter at Holyrood, the equivalent of taking 300,000 cars off the road. They do not want to see that happen. No, they do not want to see that happen, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one thing about this whole amendment in terms of bringing industrial rates to the Province, to Labrador – industrial rates for mining – it is going to increase funding to the coffers of the Province. With that increase in funding to the coffers, we are going to be able to do a lot of the things that the Third Party in particular are asking about all the time. Why they would possibly be against this is totally beyond me, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the member opposite talking about the deficit. Yes, we have a deficit this year. The minister explained the reasons why. Even though we have had eight years of surpluses, now we are in a situation because of global events and so on where we do have a deficit this year. The minister did a great job of explaining why that is, Mr. Speaker.

Can you imagine the deficits we would be in? Bankruptcy is what we would be in, Mr. Speaker, based on what we hear from the Third Party all the time. The Leader of the Third Party said she was going to go and breach all of the oil contracts – going to breach all of the offshore oil contracts. Do you know what would happen? Not only would we not have revenues for mining, we would not have any oil money at all. There would be none. No one would want to invest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand it is late in the afternoon, but order please!

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, they talk about deficits and can you imagine the state that things would be in – state is a good word there – if had to rely on the Third Party and their idea of fiscal management.

As I said, the first thing she was going to do was breach all of the oil contracts, Mr. Speaker. Besides all of the additional benefits we would get from mining, she is now going to breach the oil contracts. I said in this House before: If the NDP had their way, there would be nobody left from oil companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, except for the lawyers that were left behind to sue the government for whatever we were worth. That is what would happen, Mr. Speaker.

Where do they think they are going to get the money for their early learning and care programs, that I hear the Member for St. John's North talking about? Where do you think we would get the money for municipalities, as I hear the Member for St. John's East talking about all the time? Where do you think the money is going to come from, Mr. Speaker, for the housing that we hear from the Member for St. John's Centre all the time? Where do you think the money is coming from for broadband that we hear from the Member for The Straits – White Bay North all the time? Where does he think he is going to get all of his transportation that he is asking for all of the time, the transportation systems, Mr. Speaker? Where do they think all of that money is coming from?

There has to be a source of revenue, Mr. Speaker. Muskrat Falls is going to provide that source of revenue because we cannot find ourselves in a situation where we are going to be totally dependent on oil. We know the volatility with oil. That is why this government has a plan, Mr. Speaker. We have a plan and our plan is to revert from an economy that is based on non-renewables to an economy that is based on renewable energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is their plan?

MR. LANE: I hear some member saying: What is their plan? The only thing I can figure, Mr. Speaker, certainly the Third Party, the only plan that they have for Newfoundland and Labrador, in my estimation, based on everything I heard, is bankruptcy. That is the plan: bankruptcy.

AN HON. MEMBER: No plan.

MR. LANE: I have heard people say: no plan. I believe it is bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker. That is their plan.

As I said, there is a giant rain cloud over on that side of the House of Assembly, and I can tell you it is very disappointing to have to listen to all this negatively all of the time, no vision, no leadership, Mr. Speaker.

I tell you what. What a state we would be in, Mr. Speaker, as a Province – what a state.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it that we need to set these industrial rates, because for far too long because of contracts that were signed in the past as part of the Upper Churchill agreement, we have a block of power certainly known as the TwinCo block, and we have not been receiving our fair share of revenue from that power. I believe the amount we have been receiving right now is 0.6 of a cent, if memory serves me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANE: Is it 0.06? Okay, I am not sure if it is 0.6 or 0.06.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 0.6.

MR. LANE: It is 0.6 of a cent. Now, as we set these rates, Mr. Speaker, we are going to gradually, certainly for the mines that we have now in IOC, the mines that we have in Wabush, Wabush Mines, over time as we introduce this new industrial rate we are going to bring those levels up, and I believe by 2017 we are into about 4 cents, and eventually we go up to about 6, 6.5, 7 cents, thereabouts in 2020, which will do two things.

A: the first thing it is going to do is it going make sure that we receive fair royalty for that resource that we are providing. At the same time that it is doing that, Mr. Speaker, it is also going to maintain our competitiveness throughout the country and, in particular, our competitiveness with Hydro-Quebec. It is going to bring millions and billions of dollars into our coffers, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is going to do.

Not to mention beyond the actual revenues that we will derive from selling the power, now we are going to be in a situation – as we know, we have a number of mining projects. We have two mines right now, of course, that are currently in existence. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there is a half dozen more, six, seven, or eight more mines in various stages of feasibility, prefeasibility, and development and so on, Mr. Speaker.

Those mines need that power. We are going to be able to provide that power to those mines. We are going to be able to do it and get a good return for the power through this Muskrat Falls Project and certainly through changing the industrial rates, as this bill is proposing, Mr. Speaker. Then, beyond those royalties, we are going to have all these jobs that are going to be created. I honestly would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP – because a lot of these mining jobs and so on, as I understand, are unionized jobs. I imagine that most of these construction sites are going to be unionized closed-shop sites I would think. I would think they will be. I would think that these mines are going to be unionized, Mr. Speaker.

I would have thought that our brothers and sisters across the way here – that is what they like to call themselves – would be in favour of that. I would really like to know what the President of the Federation of Labour thinks about the stance that the NDP are taking. I wonder what their stance is. I wonder what the stance of all the unions –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, I would wonder what their stance is on the position that is being taken over here by their brothers and sisters. It does not sound to me like they are being very supportive of them. I do not think they are being supportive. I think this side of the House and certainly the Official Opposition are being very supportive of all those good paying unionized jobs and all those benefits.

The Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, absolutely, she stood up on her feet and she supported it. Good for her. She represents Labrador. She understands the benefit that is going to be derived to Labrador, as does our Member for Lake Melville and our Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs. They all understand. I think we all understand. The Member for St. John's South, he understands.

It always seems to come back down to that same group all the time. I do not understand what it is all about. I do not know how we can all be wrong, but they are always right. I do not get it, Mr. Speaker.

Hopefully, the people will get it, because I have a feeling the people are on to them; I really do. I think in 2015 people are going to get it; I really do, Mr. Speaker. They are going to let them know.

We are doing this amendment for all the right reasons. We know it is part of a larger project, Mr. Speaker. It is not just about Muskrat Falls because as we have this agreement on the TwinCo block, which is expiring in 2015, now is our opportunity to set the rates on a go-forward basis for the existing projects that we have, the existing mines.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that once Muskrat Falls comes on line, once that happens, once sanction occurs – and I really believe it will. As far as I am concerned, it will, Mr. Speaker. I never had the opportunity, unfortunately, due to the circumstances of how the bills came and Address in Reply and so on, and particularly since the Opposition over there never really wanted to have a true Muskrat Falls debate, so I never had the opportunity to actually stand up – I did stand up on the Premier's private member's motion and voted, but I never had the opportunity to stand up in this House and say I support Muskrat Falls. I am going to take the opportunity right now so it is perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, for the record, for ever and a day, that I support Muskrat Falls, and I am proud to support Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: I am proud to support Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.

There are so many reasons why Muskrat Falls is a great project for Newfoundland and Labrador. First of all, we need the power. We absolutely need the power, Mr. Speaker. We undertook an exhaustive exercise to determine what was the best way forward to get that power. This project went through more scrutiny than any project in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. We used experts from all across the country. We used our own experts here locally. We used international experts, Mr. Speaker. They all came down to the same conclusion: Muskrat Falls is the best project for Newfoundland and Labrador.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, that is being brought forward here, because again as you or the former Mr. Speaker just ruled, it was an amendment but if you want to call it an amendment, you can call it a referral, you can call it a deferral, you can call it a delay tactic, because that is really all this is.

We are here supposed to be talking about industrial rates for mining in Labrador. I think that what we have here is a good solution to that. It makes all the sense in the world. It also has been scrutinized by experts, lawyers and so on both from our end, Emera, the feds, everybody else. They all agree that this is the way forward, Mr. Speaker.

All we are seeing from the Third Party in what they are doing here now with this amendment, with this deferral, with this referral, with this delay tactic, that is all they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, they are trying to grandstand once again. They are delaying things and they are doing so, possibly, as they continue this, they are doing this despite the fact that this is the best thing for Newfoundland and Labrador; despite the fact that this is the best thing for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; despite the fact that we need power and this is the best way to get that power; despite the benefit to the people of Holyrood in terms of the environment; despite all of the jobs; despite all the spinoff; and despite all the royalties, Mr. Speaker, the NDP do not want that. They want to continue to delay, delay and try everything they possibly can to shut this down, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am here to say, as one member of this government, that I will do everything in my power to ensure that the NDP do not prevail in trying to shut this down to the detriment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand here and debate legislation. This is a very, very important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I take this very seriously, as do my colleagues, as do the members of the Official Opposition, I think, on this particular piece. We all take it seriously. We are all interested in doing the right thing. That is why I support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time is expired.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a great honour for me to stand in my place here and speak to the referral of Bill 53, and it is a great privilege for me to be here in the House of Assembly representing my constituents in St. John's North. I have been lucky to have seen a good number of them over the past few weeks at various Christmas parties around the district. We had a great time last night at Kelly's Brook Apartments, where we were visited by the Wesley Male Choir and also Santa Claus. So it was quite a good time.

I am, of course, privileged to represent an urban district, a district that is near the Confederation Building, that is in St. John's, because it affords me a lot of opportunity to interact with my constituents, because it is really just across the road. That is especially the case, I am fortunate when the House sits at night – like it very well could tonight – when the House goes on and on at night I still have that opportunity the next day to go and interact with my constituents. I understand that is more difficult for members from rural districts, from districts outside St. John's, and also folks who have to travel to Labrador.

Of course, everybody knows what we are here for, and I did hear the Premier in the media today decrying the possibility that the House might be open up until Christmas, but of course, it seems like the government is a bit delayed on legislation such as this bill. The fact of the matter is that it was really important to get to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. A lot of members did not have an opportunity to do that, and I am not sure they all had an opportunity to do that yet. Perhaps we might stay open late tonight, Mr. Speaker, so more of them can get that out of the way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff at the Department of Natural Resources for the briefing they provided to Opposition MHAs. It was a good opportunity for us and it is always good for us to hear from our senior public servants regarding the background and arguments for each of these important pieces of legislation. Of course, they are all important in their own ways and in their own right.

I believe Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation we have seen in this sitting because it will provide that level of transparency we have wanted to see for some time. The reason why we are making the motion, why the Leader of the New Democratic Party caucus made the motion for referral, is because of what essentially is a poison pill clause here in clause 4.

I just wanted to rebut there. I know the Member for Lake Melville stood up and talked and talked about a money tree. He and his Minister of Finance may very well need a money tree, Mr. Speaker. They will definitely need something if they are going to have to deal with that $700 million-odd deficit that was announced today. I just wanted to respond to the Member for Lake Melville who made that comment earlier.

As I said, this will provide some additional level of transparency when it comes to the setting of industrial rates for mining companies in Labrador. I know my colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, did point out that there will be a benefit by having a better means of calculating the future opportunity costs. Of course, we do not have to use that enormous calculator the Member for Conception Bay South is going to be using to calculate his Muskrat Falls power bill at all.

There are many new developments and expansions on the horizon in Labrador. It is certainly very exciting. Mining will definitely play a big role in our future and our children's future in Newfoundland and Labrador in the coming years. That is a great thing for every person in this Province.

Altius has the Julienne Lake project that they are looking at. We have Alderon, that company is also interested in the iron ore in Labrador. Tata Steel is there. Labrador Iron Mines, I understand from speaking to my colleague from Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, have been there for a couple of years now. Vale is obviously planning to further prosecute that resource at an underground mine at the site in Labrador. We have North Atlantic Iron Corporation that is also looking at things, and then Aurora which is looking at the possibility of uranium in mining. So there are lots of very, very bright things on the horizon in the Big Land, and I think that is really important.

We certainly heard a lot about this bill in the last couple of days. Yesterday, the Natural Resources Minister stood in the House of Assembly –

MR. SPEAKER: I remind members not to engage the gallery.

MR. KIRBY: He was talking about the importance of setting electricity rates, having this bill to have the setting of rates for industrial users in Labrador. He said: Mr. Speaker, we need a guaranteed revenue stream in order to assure the bond rating agencies and the federal government that there are going to be monies to satisfy the requirements of paying for the project – I guess he meant – so this has to be a restricted role for the Public Utilities Board.

I have to say, I do not agree that this needs to be restricted. I really do not think the federal government, I do not know about the members opposite, I know some of them did support Stephen Harper in the last federal election, but I do not feel very comfortable for my constituents in St. John's North putting so much of that responsibility and role into the hands of the federal government because who knows how long Mr. Harper is going to be there.

I think it is unfortunate that we have not really had a more full debate on Muskrat Falls in this Legislature because other –

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: This is relevant to clause 4. I could read it out for the Member for Mount Pearl North if he does not have a copy

They have had a full debate on this, Mr. Speaker. Unlike here, they have had one in Nova Scotia. I just want to read a quote for you because I believe it is relevant to this debate, to members in Nova Scotia about the findings of the Joint Review Panel because it is very relevant to the debate we are having here right now and in Newfoundland and Labrador. That person said: I heard the Premier say that every review done says Muskrat Falls is the way to go in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Joint Review Panel did a review of Muskrat Falls, a panel comprised of representatives of federal government, provincial government, the private sector, the public sector, a true independent review.

Do you know what they concluded in that Joint Review Panel? They concluded that Muskrat Falls power is far too expensive for any province or State to purchase. That is what that review concluded. Do you know who said that, Mr. Speaker? I ask members, do they know?

These comments were made in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly during that province's emergency debate on Muskrat Falls. They actually had an emergency debate, and that happened on October 30. The person who spoke those words was the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia. The Premier's political cousin in Nova Scotia said that, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has had a lot to say about what the Government of Nova Scotia has had to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Yes, I agree, the Premier has had a lot to say about what the government had to say, but she has never had a word to say about what her political cousins over there think about her Muskrat Falls plan. Never, never a mention of what the PC Party of Nova Scotia has said, never a word – never a word. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, because there is certainly a lot here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, seeing the hour, I will come back to this I hope at some point in the near future. Seeing the hour, I will take my seat and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the member speaking.

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I can move adjournment of this section of my debate, correct?

MR. SPEAKER: You are moving and have it seconded by someone to adjourn the debate. Is that what you are suggesting?

MR. KIRBY: Yes, that is right; moved by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, Mr. Speaker.

MS MICHAEL: Moved by you, seconded –

MR. KIRBY: I am sorry.

Seconded by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi. Sorry, I am like Peter Penashue up here.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion has been made that the debate do now adjourn.

All those in favour of the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion passed. This debate is now adjourned.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for St. John's North, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.