MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Gander; the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I believe we have a point of order being called by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mean to interrupt with members' statements, but I am just looking at the Order Paper today and there seems to be some inaccuracies in it, particularly on the motion side. Yesterday as House Leader, I moved, according to Standing Order 11, two motions, one that the House not adjourn at 5:30 and not at 10:00. Those motions are not on the paper, so I do want to make sure that the - I talked to the Clerk, I think the paper is going to be reprinted but those motions should be there.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair notes the inaccuracy and I have been informed by the Table Officers that a reprint of the Order Paper is in the process of being arranged. The Chair certainly confirms that these motions were given notice of in last evening's session.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Gander, on a member's statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the recent accomplishments of the Gander Minor Hockey Association.

This past April, the Gander Minor Hockey Association hosted the Bantam Irving Oil Cup. This was a five team hockey tournament involving teams representing New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and also Newfoundland and Labrador. In total, the Gander Minor Hockey Association hosted over 300 participants, officials, and family members during their stay.

Mr. Speaker, this event attracted a great deal of attention from hockey families and personnel across Atlantic Canada and I am quite proud to say that everyone walked away quite impressed with the experience and the fine Newfoundland and Labrador hospitality. I would also like to congratulate the 200 volunteers who helped make this event such a tremendous success.

Finally, I would like to say thank you to the Gander Pee Wee Flyers for being such great ambassadors for the District of Gander and for our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a Grand Falls-Windsor resident who was recently bestowed with one of the highest accolades from his peers, a Lifetime Achievement Award for his thirty-plus years in real estate.

The award, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors, was presented to Owen Grimes in recognition of his many years of dedicated service. Mr. Grimes can trace his real estate history back to a part-time job with Samco Services, where he worked in the profession. When he started that job, he was also working at the paper mill. After his second year with Samco, he acquired his real estate licence and then started into the business full time.

Mr. Speaker, in 1982 Owen decided to write his broker's licence. Upon completion of this exam, he started his own company, Owen Grimes Realty. Mr. Grimes says selling real estate has been a rewarding experience. One of the big things he recalls about selling real estate was seeing first-time home buyers put their complete trust in him to guide them through the process, and then to see the satisfaction of a family locate to their first home.

This year, he sold his business to his employees, who bought the franchise. Now he is retired from real estate and has only positive things to say about the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating Owen Grimes on receiving a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my colleagues in this hon. House today that on Saturday, May 13, it was my pleasure to attend the thirtieth annual Ceremonial Review of 842 Bomber Squadron of Royal Canadian Air Cadets in Grand Falls-Windsor.

The Reviewing Officer was His Honour, the Honourable Edward Roberts, Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador. His attendance was much appreciated by the cadets and their families.

Mr. Speaker, 842 Bomber Squadron is sponsored by the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 12, and their participation over so many years is indicative of the Branch's dedication to the youth of our community.

A review of the Squadron's activities over the past year is very impressive. Their programs vary from participation in Remembrance Day ceremonies to public speaking, and includes such events as the Provincial Biathlon Competition in Corner Brook and Power Flight Training in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, during the ceremony the following awards were presented: AC Chantelle Flynn was awarded Best First Year Cadet; Lac Chris Hamyln was awarded Best Second Year Cadet; Sergeant Brad MacKenzie was awarded Most Improved Cadet; Flight Sergeant Samantha George was awarded Best Dress, Drill Deportment; Sergeant Rebecca Sweeney was awarded Most Dedicated to the Principles of the Air Cadet Movement; Corporal Hailey Worboys was awarded Most Outstanding Junior NCM; Sergeant Katie MacKenzie was awarded Most Outstanding Senior NCM; Flight Sergeant Chris Thompson was awarded the Squadron Commanders Award; Corporal Hailey Worboys was awarded the Royal Canadian Legion Medal of Excellence; Sergeant Rebecca Sweeney was awarded the Lord StrathCona Medal; Sergeant Adam Bennett was awarded the Cadet Scholarship Award; Lac Tim Granter was awarded Most Improved Bandsperson, while Corporal Kayla Sheppard was awarded Best Bandsperson. Five individual flight sergeants and five individual sergeants were each awarded the Long Service Medal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the award winners in 842 Bomber Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets in Grand Falls-Windsor on a very successful year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge another achievement of Gurpreet Sohi, a Level III student at John Watkins Academy in Hermitage. Last year I rose in this House to congratulate Gurpreet for winning the local and regional Lions Club speak-off and subsequently, representing Newfoundland and Labrador in Halifax.

This year, I am delighted again to acknowledge that Gurpreet was successful in her provincial competitions and has recently represented Newfoundland and Labrador in Portland, Maine. Gurpreet competed against speakers from Atlantic Canada and Maine. The speak-off was very competitive and Gurpreet placed a very respectable forth in the international competition.

Before competing in Maine, her final competition in the Province was held in Port aux Basques where she presented on her topic, "The Importance of Early Childhood Development." She feels the topic should be brought to the people's attention, as very few people take the issue as serious as one should.

Mr. Speaker, she has enjoyed participating in public speaking for the past three year. She encourages other students to get involved because it can be a skill that will help students with their careers later in life. This year she will be graduating from John Watkins Academy and furthering her education in the field of medicine, specializing in pediatrics.

Gurpreet is disappointed her opportunity for participating in this level of public speaking has come to an end and she can no longer represent her own school. However, she is confident that through her success she has encouraged other local students to become involved and they will be quite capable of representing John Watkins Academy in future competitions.

Mr. Speaker, she has made a tremendous contribution to the educational and social life at John Watkins Academy. Students are able to reflect and appreciate her accomplishments. Her commitment and dedication toward education and personal success can be a guide for all those that know her.

I join the students, teachers and staff of John Watkins Academy, the residents of Hermitage, Sandyville and the Coast of Bays region in congratulating her on her success in education and public speaking. I wish her much luck as she furthers her education into the medical field that she has chosen. I am certain that Gurpreet will do well and we will hear much more about the accomplishments Gurpreet Sohi in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, recently I announced another successful year for the Annual Run for the Janeway. The tremendous success of this event would not be possible without the help of many individuals and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to congratulate our local newspaper, The Compass, for receiving the Best Community Service Award at the Atlantic Community Newspaper Association's Better Newspaper Competition held on May 6 in Saint John, New Brunswick.

This award is for a special service to the community that goes beyond the normal role of the newspaper and shows community leadership. Judged on innovation of idea, value to the community, interest to readers and a degree of difficulty and involvement.

Mr. Speaker, The Compass has been heavily involved with the Run for the Janeway since its inception and a member of that business serves on the organizing committee.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating The Compass on placing first and winning the Community Service Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise this afternoon to mark National Police Week that began May 14 and will conclude on May 20, 2006. Police Week is dedicated to increasing community awareness and recognition of policing services while strengthening police-community ties. This special week reminds us that police and community co-operation is the key to safer homes and safer communities.

This years theme is "Working Together for Safer Communities" and throughout the week the RNC and the RCMP have taken part in numerous activities with stakeholders and the media to promotes the concept of police and communities working together to enhance public security and safety. Activities have included visits to selected seniors' homes in the Northeast Avalon area with Mother's Day flowers, a cake cutting at the Avalon Mall with Chief Browne of the RNC and Assistant Commissioner Gerry Lynch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as presentations in schools proudly supported by the media and various community groups.

National Police Week is also a time to reflect and to appreciate the security and safety that we and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel today and often take for granted. In this Province there are hundreds of officers who work hard each and every day to protect our communities and our families. I would like to recognize police officers across the Province for their dedication and their commitment to the enhancement of public safety and security.

Mr. Speaker, our government committed to providing a high level of public protection, and we have worked diligently over the past two-and-a-half years to provide both the RCMP and the RNC with the human and operational resources that they require to ensure the people of the Province feel safe and sound in their communities. I know that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were pleased when government invested $10 million to enhance policing in Budget 2006-2007 and will continue to ensure public safety by making further sound investments in policing throughout the Province.

I would also like to take the opportunity to note that May 15 is recognized internationally as Peace Officers' Memorial Day. Our Province has a Police and Peace Officers' Memorial here on the grounds of the Confederation Building and we are proud to have such a memorial which pays tribute to those police and peace officers who have died in the line of duty.

National Police Week has been a great success and I want to thank members of the RNC, the RCMP, community groups, teachers, seniors, students and the media, for making this year's event so special.

Mr. Speaker, there is safety in numbers and it is so important for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to join together to assist the police in keeping our communities safe and sound. There are still several days left for National Police Week and I would encourage everyone to take part in the activities and to remember to always support our police officers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Justice Minister and Attorney General for supplying me with a copy of his statement.

This side of the House would like to join with government in congratulating police officers all over this Province and support National Police Week. I would say that every week is police week, when you think of the risk of the occupation, those peace officers who are looking to communities and families to keep them safe and are actually dying in the line of duty and putting their own selves at risk to protect us.

I think about the community involvement of police officers today. When I look at my own district, every facet of every organization is filled with police officers, the volunteer work they do. They are into all parts of recreation. You see them in hockey, figure skating. No matter what is going on in the community, police officers are there.

They also provide a great service to our business community. Lots of times you will see RCMP officers giving presentations on break-ins, and what businesses can do to prevent such a thing. You see them working with seniors, and how they can be protected from fraud activities and so on.

It was only a month or so ago that I saw the RCMP teaming up with Health and Community Services and the Pharmaceutical Association, giving a presentation on drugs and crystal meth in our communities throughout our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Just a moment to conclude, if you would?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: In closing, I would like to say a big thank you to the RCMP men and women throughout our Province for doing their best, working hard to keep us safe. Even just the highway reports that they give us on location help us all driving over the highway. Again, I say thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to join in recognizing National Police Week and to recognize and thank the women and men of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for helping us build safer communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, because that is what policing is supposed to be all about, and the new notion of community policing obviously highlights the role of the police force in our communities.

I had an up-close example, Mr. Speaker, of how that can work in our schools when my own daughter at Bishop Field was a participant in the DARE program and I was asked to present certificates to all of the graduates who were involved in this drug and alcohol awareness campaign so ably run by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to give young people an opportunity to understand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Where was I?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: One of these days that rule has to change, Mr. Speaker.

The DARE program, yes. I don't know exactly what all the letters stand for, but drug and alcohol awareness has something to do with it, and it is obviously very important that young people get exposed to the knowledge of drug and alcohol. I think they have moved the age down. They used to do this in high school, now they are doing it with kids who are, like my daughter, in Grade 6, before they go to junior high and get exposed to whatever it is they are going to be exposed to there. At least they are doing that with a knowledge of what it is all about and little bit of fortification, I suppose, in keeping their own counsel and doing what they believe is right for them without being overly influenced by their peers.

I think it is important that we support the work of the police and recognize the important role they play in building safer communities for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral questions.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, for the past eighteen months we have been hearing about one crisis or another in the fishing industry of our Province. Today, on the Open Line Show, I heard the Premier state that it is time for government to get out there immediately and deal with fisheries issues, even though many of these problems, as I said, have been around for nearly two years. The Premier's hasty response to this crisis, which appeared to be nothing more than a smoke screen to deflect attention away from his inaction in fisheries issues, was to hold a summit. However, he could not, yesterday at least, provide the time, the date or the location of this so-called summit.

I ask the Premier: Will you consider holding this summit in a community which has seen its plant close, and will you allow anyone who wants to make a presentation at that summit the opportunity to do so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, how the hon. gentleman opposite could say we have done nothing with regard to the fishery - obviously, we have been extremely active in the fishery. He doesn't like the fact that we are extremely active in what we are doing and he doesn't like the fact that we have gone out. If we don't go out to consult, he has something to say, he objects to the fact that we are not consulting with the people. Now we are going to have a town hall sort of meeting whereby people can come in, and we are prepared to listen; the type of exercise that was a huge success in Labrador when we went up with a ministerial panel, invited people to the meeting, sat there, listened, heard what they had to say and acted on their recommendations. That is exactly what is going to happen here.

This meeting is being arranged together with the federal government. We have a good working relationship with the federal government, unlike the relationship that the previous government had with their counterparts in Ottawa, which was a Liberal government. I think the fact that we are working in consort with our federal minister, the federal Minister of Fisheries, we were able to allocate his time and his officials' time - his deputy minister is actually going to be here as well as our minister and deputy minister and officials from the department. This is going to be a very worthwhile exercise. It is taking place in St. John's because that happens to be the one place where we can pull everybody together.

The House of Assembly, of course, will be open next week in order to try and accommodate my colleagues opposite, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. This will be taking place in St. John's, so everybody is within striking distance of St. John's at this particular point in time. It happens to be the most convenient location. We do not want to go out and cherry-pick communities. We would be accused then of showing favouritism for one community over the other. So, we are bringing people to the capital city in order to have this discussion, and we are looking forward to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier talks about talking to the people, people have been talking and people have been crying out for action from this government for nearly two years now. If he is talking about what he has done for this town or that, ask the people of Harbour Breton, because I am sure you saw that young lady last night cry as she left that town for employment elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier should realize that probably one of the most important things that could be done to help this ailing fishery in our Province today is a licence buyback and an early retirement package. Yesterday, the Premier indicated publicly that the early retirement program would not be the focal point of this summit, even though it is a prime opportunity to have this discussion, because, as you said, your friend and colleague, Mr. Hearn, the Minister of Fisheries for Canada, will be at this meeting.

I ask the Premier: Why won't you use this opportunity to pressure the federal government for an early retirement package and a licence buyout program that will address some of the issues that are in the fishery?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, every tear that is shed by anybody in any of these communities is not lost on me by a long shot. I happen to know that woman. I attended - the member was there when we attended in Harbour Breton. That woman was there at that particular point in time. She was one of hundreds who were crying in the room that time. I vividly remember the fifteen year olds and sixteen year olds whose parents were forced to leave their community. So, that certainly was not lost on me. That is the reason we are trying to do absolutely everything we can. That is why we attended in the community of Harbour Breton. That is why we have exhausted every possible opportunity, and we will continue to do so. We are continuing to work on the Harbour Breton concerns dealing with the environmental concerns.

With regard to early retirement, Mr. Speaker, our government position is very clear on early retirement. It has been for a long while. The former Minister of Fisheries, the current Minister of Fisheries, we came out very clearly. We put our money where our mouth is. We strongly support early retirement. Early retirement will be discussed in this town hall meeting. It will, certainly, be discussed throughout. I mean, we are not closing this off though and narrowing this particular meeting to a discussion solely on early retirement. The issues are too many. There are too many very serious issues. We want to make sure that we do not appear to be bringing federal officials in here into a room so that we can jam them solely on early retirement. Our position is very clear. The federal government knows where we are. The workers know where we are. The union knows where we are. The communities know where we are. Make no mistake about it, we are strongly in favour of early retirement and it will be discussed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier just indicated that he knew the young lady that we were referencing last night on CBC. Yes, Mr. Premier, the night before, by the way, she thanked you and the Minister of Fisheries for driving her out of this Province to seek work.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Premier stated in this House of Assembly that you have to pick your battles with the federal government, in response to a question asked by my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and you had to choose the issues that you were going to pick up for.

I ask the Premier: Do you think the lives of thousands of people in an ailing fishery is worth taking up the battle for early retirement and licence buyback with the federal government? Is this a battle worthy of your attention, I ask the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Quite simply, very much so.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to refer to my letter which I wrote to the Leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of all parties during the last election. The top items were fisheries items. We made them our number one priority and they continue to be our number one priority. Now, if they think that the best approach here is to go in and fight tooth and nail on Wednesday morning with the federal minister over the issue solely of early retirement, completely to the detriment of all other issues, completely to the detriment of all other programs, all other initiatives, all other things that the federal government can help us with, whether it happens to be foreign overfishing, whether it happens to be income support, whether it happens to be aquaculture initiatives, and have the federal minister and the federal government say: No, I am sorry, we are not going to talk to you about any of those now because we are in a battle over early retirement.

Well, when you talk about picking your battles, you have to strategic, you have to be smart as to how you do it and you have to get the results at the end of the day, and that is what we did with the Atlantic Accord and it worked.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: I say to the Premier, the only battles that he is willing to take on are those that he knows he can win.

Mr. Speaker, in referencing the letter that he wrote to the Prime Minister during the election, there was one paragraph in the letter on early retirement and the response that he got back from Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, was equally long - one paragraph. That is all I have seen from you and the Prime Minister since then.

Mr. Speaker, fish harvesters in the Province are experiencing one of the worst fishing seasons in recent memory as they see the prices for catch and their quotas cut. I ask the Premier: Have you had any discussions with your close friend and colleague, Minister Hearn, about eliminating some of the licence fees and other fees that these harvesters are paying? Maybe just that as a token, that you are interested in these individuals who are trying to earn a living from the sea of the day, maybe that would at least let these people know that you care something about them.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans since he came to office about the fee structure. I have been in meetings where the Atlantic Council of Ministers raised this very issue here in St. John's with our federal counterpart because this is an Atlantic Canada wide problem, and the federal minister has undertaken to review those matters with a view to lessening the burden.

Equally, on the processing side, Mr. Speaker, this government reduced and credited back processing fees to processors and hopefully that would have a positive impact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Hopefully, that would have some positive impact, Mr. Speaker, on what they could in turn then pass along to their workers, including harvesters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, you know the fishing season is half over, or more than half for some harvesters. When do you think we might hear from your federal colleague on that issue of licences and fees?

Mr. Speaker, over the past two days I have stood in this House of Assembly and presented petitions on behalf of the residents of the Northern Peninsula who are calling on government to establish an all-party committee to come up there, on the Northern Peninsula, and sit down with the people who find themselves out of work through what they consider to be inaction on behalf of this government. They want to know if you will establish an all-party committee and when that committee will be travelling to the Northern Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have publicly, and in this Chamber, invited all members of this House to work together, to work collectively, to find solutions to a very, very serious problem in the fishery. There is an open invitation, as of yesterday and again today, to the various parties in the House - the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party - to come and discuss with us, next Wednesday, as to what their concerns are, to come up with solutions, to be constructive, to be consistent, to be consistent in their positions so that it reflects the positions they took.

For example, when the Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Fisheries, we would like him to be consistent with where he stood on the all-party committee, what his recommendations were, what he stood for when he was Minister of Fisheries, and we want people to work together. So, when it comes to an all-party committee, we are an all-party committee in this House. We act together here, we act collectively, and I think it is in the best interest of the people of this Province to come up with solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Maybe the Premier can tell me when we are all going to go to the Northern Peninsula to meet with these residents. Is that what you are saying? Because, you are right, we can work collectively together on an all-party committee because I have done that with some of your colleagues and the Leader of the NDP. What these people are asking for is an all-party committee to visit these people on the Northern Peninsula but, obviously, you are not going to do it because you did not say yes.

Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, because he is the minister responsible for workers' compensation.

Mr. Speaker, we know that two processing companies in this Province that are run and owned by the same individuals owe Workers' Comp approximately $500,000, and this government has done nothing to collect it. That is my understanding.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Human Resources and Labour tell us if the employees who worked for these companies were covered by Worker's Comp when these fees were not paid?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question, but I am not in a position to be able to provide a direct answer here today. I will take the question and consult with the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and he will report back to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said he met with the union at Grand Bank Seafoods when he sat in on the meeting of the Industrial Council of the FFAW in St. John's several weeks ago. Mr. Speaker, this meeting takes place annually with the presidents of all the unionized plants in the Province and each president is given a couple of minutes in a round table format to speak to their concerns.

I ask the minister: Do you really consider that to be an acceptable response to a five-month old request for a meeting with you from the union executive who represent the more than 300 workers for Grand Bank Seafoods?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, part of what the hon. member has to say is true and there is another part that she either doesn't know or won't acknowledge.

Yes, the Industrial Council is a large group and I went down at their invitation, or the invitation of the president, and I sat with them and they each, around the table, raised issues that they wanted to raise. In addition, Mr. Speaker, when that meeting was finished another meeting was convened in another part of the hotel with the presidents of all of the local and others, because there were not only presidents there, the presidents of all of the locals on the Burin Peninsula including Grand Bank. That meeting took place too, Mr. Speaker, and in that meeting the representative of the plant workers in Grand Bank raised the issues with Clearwater, the processing restrictions they would like to see on licenses and the problem of fish going to China. All of those issues were discussed in that meeting of presidents from the Burin Peninsula.

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I won't take any marching orders from the incompetent Member for the Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the minister has difficulty agreeing to meet with the union executive of Grand Bank Seafoods. They are calling and saying they can't get a meeting with you, Minister. All they want is for you to agree, after five months, to let them come into St. John's and meet with you in your office to discuss a number of issues, one being that one of the product lines has already been moved to China; another thing, that the boat that is being build by Clearwater to replace two existing boats will no longer land their catch in Grand Bank. The product will have to be shipped from somewhere else. Do you think Clearwater is going to continue to do that for a long period of time, Mr. Minister? My problem I have with you is that you will not even sit down with them to discuss their concerns. Why won't you agree to meet with them in here, like they have asked?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty meeting with the union from any plant in any place in this Province. As a matter of fact -

MS FOOTE: When can you do it? When?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. member when she was putting her question. Now, if she could afford me the same courtesy I would appreciate it.

What the hon. member does not understand is that I have met with representatives of the union of Grand Bank here in St. John's. Now, if they want to come in again and meet with me, they can call and I will set up another meeting. I have never said I would not meet with them. All I said to the hon. member is that I met with them. Since I met with them, four or five or six weeks ago, to my knowledge - I will check with my office - I have had no further request to meet with them. That is all I am saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that not only have they been asking for a meeting to sit down with you in your office to discuss these issues, but our office has requested the same meeting and he has just refused to meet with them. You know that the meeting that took place with the FFAW was for a limited period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member putting her question.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Bank.

I ask her to put her question quickly.

MS FOOTE: I will tell them, Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has agreed to meet with them again, to call his office and we will see how long it takes

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: His words, Mr. Speaker, his words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to permit the member to put her question in silence.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am only repeating what the minister said, out of respect for the minister. What we will see happen now is another request from the union for a meeting and we will see how long it takes this time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said the discussions had taken place with Service Canada about ways the federal government can support those who worked at the FPI plant in Fortune. I understand that support could come in the form of EI extension. Bear in mind now, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of those affected are over fifty.

I ask the minister if this simply means that for those who want to go back to school to be retrained, the federal government will look at extending their EI benefits? Wouldn't he agree that this really isn't an option for the majority of the workers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I would assume the rules of Question Period are such that I will have an equal amount of time to reply to the preamble before the hon. member got to her question on the Service Canada issue.

In that context, let me say that there was no time limit when we had the separate meeting with the presidents of the locals from the Burin Peninsula. They had as long as they wanted, Mr. Speaker, and all of the issues that the hon. member raised in her preamble were discussed at that meeting with the president of the local from Grand Bank.

If I have another request from the representatives of the FFAW in Grand Bank, of course I will follow up on it, but an e-mail every five or six weeks from the hon. member saying, have you set the meeting up yet? when one of the meetings are over just does not cut it, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take the hon. member's advice and not answer the question that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they could reduce the debate part of their question. We should get directly to the question, and we should avoid long introductions.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the minister what the president of the union told me, and that is, he had about three minutes to express his concerns, at which time you spent the time talking to Earle McCurdy, so he does not even know if you heard what his concerns were.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs confirmed that the guidelines for the Community Enhancement Program are indeed being reviewed. He said as well that the review would not result in the workers of the fish plant in Fortune having to wait three months to receive the support promised by the government.

The documentation requested by the government has been submitted for some time, so I ask the minister if he can tell the workers who are watching today when they can expect to receive that support? Because their EI has either run out, or will shortly, and without such support they will be forced to leave the Province, as many of their co-workers have done, in order to provide for their families.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Province, the Minister of Fisheries, the former Minister of Fisheries, have stated that we, as a government, take the situation in the fishery very, very seriously.

On May 11, people from my department met with the Mayor of Fortune. As recently as today we had a conversation with the Mayor of Fortune. We did request information. The information has been submitted to us. We told him at that point in time that we would have an answer for him within two weeks, which is next week, next Thursday, May 25, or whatever the case may be. We are working on that time line, Mr. Speaker. There is work that has to be done.

We put in the Crab Workers Support Program last year, Mr. Speaker. We take the situation, the impact that it is having on the plant workers in this Province, very, very seriously, and we will do what we can as fast as we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bellevue District.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

The Eastern School Board has announced its intention to close several schools in the district. Schools are slated to close in English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre. Students will be transported over treacherous roads from English Harbour East to Terrenceville, a distance of thirty-eight kilometres, and from Grand Le Pierre to Terrenceville, a distance of twenty-five kilometres. Parents and residents are raising concerns that the decision of the board was rushed and not well-researched.

I ask the Minister of Education: Does she think this is a reasonable distance for young students to travel over a road that is very treacherous during the winter, and will she intervene in the case to save these schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, and he raises a very serious concern for the people who are affected in Grand Le Pierre and English Harbour East.

I have had the opportunity, along with the MHA, to listen to the concerns of the parents. I made it very clear at that time that the issues that they brought forward to me, that I would relay back to the school board that was responsible for making the decision. We had meetings. We let the parents and the concerned citizens speak. I certainly took time; I listened to the member. I have done it with other schools, as well, when he had concerns from the parents from Swift Current.

Mr. Speaker, I did what I had indicated to the parents I would do. I documented their concerns and I forwarded them to the Eastern School Board so they could consider what the parents had relayed to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Minister, for meeting with the group, but the residents and parents of English Harbour East and Grand Le Pierre are very passionate about the future of their community, and the role of the school as a focal point within their community, as they outlined to you.

Mr. Speaker, these schools were designated as necessarily existent schools by the previous Administration in recognition of the special circumstances they face. The minister clearly has the option to get involved, should she choose.

I ask the minister: Will she intervene in this case and tell the board that these are necessarily existent schools and direct them to back off with their school closure?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the designation of small but necessarily existent schools came in, in 1999. There were a number of schools that received that designation at the time.

Mr. Speaker, we have done nothing to remove the designation from these schools. The designation was meant to indicate that these schools would be appropriately resourced. It did not preclude or did not prevent the boards from either the Eastern Board or any other school boards to review the configuration and determine how they best felt they should have education delivered within their districts that they are responsible for.

On January 31 of this year, Mr. Speaker, I wrote the Chair of the Eastern School Board because they were looking for clarification at the time of the designation of small but necessarily existent schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: At that time I indicated to the Chair that the designation alone does not prevent the closure of a school, as indeed many schools have been reconfigured or closed that actually had that designation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, I did not hear what the minister had to say. I also would take into account that the Premier is finding this to be a very laughable matter.

Mr. Speaker, the school board trustee for that area has written the minister regarding these schools and asked her to get involved. The school board trustee is recommending that the school be left open until the year 2010, the postponement of any decision until the school is built in Terrenceville, and give residents and parents more time to prepare for any move. This is from the school board trustee.

I ask the minister: Has she received this letter that was sent to her on April 21 of this year, and what is her reply to this request from the school board trustee that represents this area?

The school board trustee for the area is asking you the question right now, to delay the decision. This is the school board trustee asking the minister to delay the decision and to make this school necessarily existent and to keep the school open.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: As the member should realize, a school board trustee has asked me to overturn the decision that was made by the board that the trustee serves on. In particular, it causes concern that any time a trustee or a minority of trustees do not agree with the decision of the board that they feel the minister should step in and overturn the decision.

Mr. Speaker, there is a bigger issue here with regard to, if one board trustee writes because they were not pleased with the decision of the board that they actually sat on and voted on, can the minister come in and overturn that decision? I can say, at this point in time, I will not be overturning the decision because the trustee has put in writing that he wants me to go down and overturn that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, Inco has stated they want to abandon the Argentia site for the nickel plant and relocate to Long Harbour because of environmental reasons. They want to leave an area that has been already environmentally damaged and relocate and cause further damage to what is now a pristine area, including using Sandy Pond as a tailings dump.

Mr. Speaker, the Argentia Management Authority already, I say to the minister, has an indemnity granted by the federal government for the Argentia site. Why isn't Inco taking advantage of this indemnity to construct the plant on the already existing brownfield?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that the hon. member has asked.

To be frank about it, had the agreement with Inco been put in place that should have been in place, the question that you are asking today would not even be necessary to ask, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question that the member has asked. It is an important issue.

I want to inform the House that last Friday myself and my colleague, the new Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, met with Inco and informed them of government's decision. We do not agree with their move to Long Harbour for one reason in particular that you have outlined, that it is moving from a recognized brownfield site where there are standards in play from the federal government for indemnity through the AMA. We do not support that move to a new site up the road in an environmentally pristine area where there are no certainties.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, yes, the AMA has an indemnity from the federal government known as the AMA accommodation agreement with Inco. We believe that may be sufficient enough to mitigate any environmental concerns that Inco has. Inco does not believe that. That is where it is right now, Mr. Speaker; but, from our point of view, I want to be crystal clear. We have met with Inco, and we have told them in no uncertain terms we do not support their move from Argentia to Long Harbour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears that a lot of people have been suspicious since day one. It appears that this move by Inco is nothing more than a delay and, if given permission to move to Long Harbour, it would only be a matter of time when they would find a reason why it cannot be done there or anywhere else in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they have already chosen a site; they have made that decision. Will the government say a definite no to polluting a pristine lake like Sandy Lake, and what is government prepared to do to insist that Inco proceed with building their plant at the site previously chosen and not delay things further?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with a company - and I will give an example of what you are dealing with. On November 30, we received a letter indicating that they felt, for environmental reasons, they could not proceed with their plans in Argentia. Yet, two weeks before that, the Chairman of Inco, Scott Hand, was in Argentia and said to the people, at a public meeting, through the paper, The Charter, that they would be proceeding with the development of a hydrometallurgic facility in Argentia, knowing full well that two weeks from now they were going to write the Province and look for a move.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Six weeks.

MR. E. BYRNE: Six weeks.

We do not support - for example, the Leader of the Opposition said, well, you know, they have gone through the environmental assessment process.

Any company has the right to go through an environmental assessment process. We wrote Inco and said, if you go to that, do no take that as support from the government, because we were continuing our assessment of their proposal to us.

We have finished that assessment. We have informed Inco of what we believe. We need to meet with the federal government, Minister Hearn, and the MP, Mr. Manning, that if Inco has a problem, if it is real of perceived, with the indemnity provided to the AMA, then our view is that the federal government should provide it directly to them.

Having said all of that, we do not believe that the risks that they provided to us, or to the people of the Province, substantiate a reason to move from Argentia to Long Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again, had there been any - any - consideration given to that aspect, that agreement - we would not be here discussing it today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

MR. REID: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question, the Minister of Natural Resources, I think, probably just misquoted me in the House of Assembly.

The minister stood today and said that they were not in agreement with Inco moving down the road to Long Harbour. The point I was trying to make to him was, if they did not want them to move to Long Harbour, why did the Minister of Environment just recently announce that he was saying to Inco that they have to do an environmental impact study in Long Harbour?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A legitimate question, and I am going to provide him with a legitimate answer.

Inco came in with that request at the same time that our assessment was going on with respect to the issues and all the technical geophysical, geochemical studies, information that would be that thick, that we plowed through. They indicated to us that timing was a problem, so we wrote back to them and said: You can proceed with the assessment, but do not take proceeding with that, that government supports you moving in that direction.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, while we said go ahead, with absolute caveat that once our assessment is complete we will inform you of what our view is of your move, we have done that and we do not support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members know that points of order deal with some irregularity in the proceedings, in the Standing Orders.

There is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting, when you listen to Question Period today you realize around rural communities the problems that are facing rural communities.

My petition today is concerning the problem in the Buchans area. Even though the people of the Buchans area are only looking for a small amount of money to upgrade their highway, we are here in this House of Assembly and later today we will be discussing a bill to raise $9 million on tobacco tax.

Two years ago the government brought in an increase in fees where they are going to be getting an extra $27 million a year, and they are fees that every ordinary man and woman in this Province can relate to. They are drivers' licences, they are moose licences, and the things that mean so much to us in our everyday life. We thought when those fees were raised we were going to get better highways.

When you look at the new industries that are happening in the Buchans area, look at the millions of dollars that the Province is going to gain through income taxes from 250 full-time employees. Look at the money that the Province is going to get from HST on all the goods and services sold in the area, but still, this government has no commitment to rural communities. They cannot find $1 million to upgrade the Buchans Highway. When I look at the Finance Minister, and he spoke yesterday in this House, he said $300,000 was minuscule to give Griffiths Guitars -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: That is what he said.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Minister of Finance

The Chair recognizes the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is fundamental that when members speak in this House, they speak appropriate and accurately and to the point. I said $300,000 was minuscule compared to the millions that they gave out during their term to the same company. That is what I said. Let's put it in perspective.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans presenting a petition.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I suspected, there was no point of order. The point is that this government left $76 million of a surplus on the table this year, in their Budget year. That is what this government did, they left $76 million. They are not concerned about highway safety in Buchans. They are not concerned about that. They know that a school bus has to travel from Millertown -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Listen here, Mr. Finance Minister, when I was a Minister of the Crown the Buchans Highway was in perfect condition. I never had a complaint. I spent money on that highway. You cannot realize -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Colleagues, the Chair recognizes the member who is presenting a petition.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, the government can stop this heckling back and forth. The government can own up to their responsibility here. I will not need to stand up day after day in this House of Assembly, all the government has to do is own up to their moral and financial obligation of making sure that highway is safe.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the third petition that I have presented this week on behalf of the residents of the Northern Peninsula who are calling upon government to strike an all-party committee and travel to the North Peninsula to discuss with those affected by the crisis in the fishery, sit down in that area and discuss the issues with the concerned citizens group.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the petition again:

WHEREAS the great Northern Peninsula has suffered extreme amounts of high unemployment for the past five years; and

WHEREAS fish plant operations have been the primary economic generator along the Northern Peninsula; and

WHEREAS many fish plants have been closed as a direct consequence of government action or inaction, such as New Ferolle, Englee, Black Duck Cove, Anchor Point, as well as others; and

WHEREAS the fish plant workers are out of work; and

WHEREAS the current operating fish plants are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, attributable - I might add, Mr. Speaker - to government action or inaction; and

WHEREUPON the undersigned petitioners humbly pray that you call upon the House of Assembly to establish an all-party committee and go to the Northern Peninsula to meet with the concerned citizen's group.

Mr. Speaker, I raised a question in the House of Assembly today pertaining to this petition and the two that I presented already this week from the residents of the Northern Peninsula and the Premier got up and fluffed off the idea, saying that we can work together collectively in this House but, obviously, he is not concerned about leaving St. John's and going to the Northern Peninsula. As a result, he will not even allow us to strike an all-party committee, which I happen to think would be a very valuable committee, to travel to the Northern Peninsula. The Premier does not even have to participate, I say, Mr. Speaker, but he can send some of his ministers and some of his backbenchers along with some of us over here and go up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are asking: What about the representatives from the Northern Peninsula, the two members from the Northern Peninsula? I have gone through that three times this week. They will not present the petition to the House, or they are afraid to present the petition, but I would like for them to stand in response to a petition, or maybe they can stand on a point of order, and tell me - the Member for St. Barbe and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North - if they support the people in the area and if they would push the Premier to strike an all-party committee so that we could all go up there and sit down while there are still people on the Northern Peninsula to sit down and speak with.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the constituents in the District of Grand Bank, and I guess, on behalf of all the people of the Burin Peninsula, when you consider what is happening with the closure of the FPI plant in Fortune to date, and of course a significant reduction in the workforce at the plant in Marystown.

The prayer of this petition is:

WHEREAS the people of the District of Grand Bank primarily depend on the fishery for their livelihood and prosperity;

WHEREAS these same people have an historic attachment that dates back hundreds of years to this renewable resource;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to recognize and respect the importance of the fishing industry to the area, and to take whatever action necessary to ensure that the quotas traditionally processed by Fisheries Products International for this area remain within the region for the benefit of the people and their communities.

Mr. Speaker, this petition I have been presenting now for the last couple of weeks has been signed by people, not only those who worked at the plant in Fortune but by many members of the community and the businesses of course, because they are all impacted by this callous action of FPI to close the plant in Fortune.

What we are seeing here today, of course, are many, many people having to leave the community and move away. Whether they are moving to Northern BC, to Alberta, to Ontario, New Brunswick or P.E.I., they are having to leave because, of course, they have to provide for their families. What they are asking the government to do is to put a stop to this exodus, and the only way that can happen is if the government would do whatever it can to ensure that the quotas traditionally processed in Fortune continue to be processed there. Whether that is by FPI, by the Barry Group of Companies, any other interested party, or Cooke Aquaculture, you know the people who worked at that plant really don't care, as long as there is employment for them. It is their right, it is their quota.

I remember what the federal Minister of Fisheries said: The fish belong to the people. It is a common resource, it doesn't belong to a company. The company has it so that they can utilize it for the benefit of the people who live in the communities. There should be no reason why this government cannot get in touch with the federal Minister of Fisheries and make that happen. These quotas are renewed on an annual basis by large. All the federal minister needs to do is say: Sorry, FPI, if you are not going to process that quota in Fortune that was traditionally processed in Fortune, then you no longer have it. It is going to be processed in Fortune by whomever takes responsibility for that particular facility.

That is what the prayer of this petition is all about. It is signed by hundreds of people who are being impacted so drastically by the actions of FPI and the callous way in which they just terminated their employment at the plant in Fortune. What they are saying is, make that quota available - whether it is to Cooke Aquaculture, who has indicated that for them to even consider going to Fortune, they would want a quota; whether it is a Barry Group of Companies; whether it is the Penny Group of Companies. They really do not care, but they want to go to work and they want to work in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not want to have to uproot and go to some other part of this country where they know no one, where it will cost them more to live, where they will not have any kind of medical insurance to cover the cost of their medications and, in some respects, that could be $200 and $300. Do you know what they have done? They have done the math, and they have determined that what it would cost them to move away, to go to work, and look at the mortgage payments they have back home - in some cases, look at the cost of medications - that they would be better off on social assistance. I can tell you that these are very proud, hard-working individuals. The last thing they want to do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I do so because of the importance of this particular petition and the paramount importance to the people who are impacted by the decision of FPI, and why it is so important that the government do everything it can, whether they do it by amending the FPI Act or whether they do it by enforcing the FPI Act as it is today, or whether they do it by talking to their federal counterpart, Minister Hearn, and saying this must happen and this must be done in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in this case, in the interest of the people on the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of my district in support of the community of Williams Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, Williams Harbour is one of the communities in my district that is not connected to the main highway that runs through the Southern Coast of Labrador. In fact, they are only about twenty kilometres from this highway. At an estimated cost to government of about $5.5 million, they can build a road to this community. The previous government committed to do this section of highway and, actually, completed the environmental assessment work on it, completed the engineering and routing work on it and was ready to move to tender a contract, but the current government cancelled that when they took office and, instead, opted to do an economic assessment on whether it was economically feasible to connect the community of Williams Harbour to the main highway.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell any members in this House of Assembly that there are a lot of roads built in this Province, and paved in this Province, that were never economically viable or economically feasible to do, but it was done to improve the standard of living of the people who live in those communities. That is the whole purpose of this community having a road as well, so that they can access nearby communities, like Charlottetown and Port Hope Simpson, where they currently have to go for medical services and for other services that are essential to them.

In the past year, actually in the past three years, we have been seeing a real transition in the climate in that part of Labrador. In previous years, you would have been able to get off the island of Williams Harbour to the mainland for about three to four months out of the year just by snowmobile. This year, Mr. Speaker, they got off the island once by snowmobile. The other attempt that was made, two people went through the ice and nearly lost their lives. This is a critical situation and everyday that I sit in this Legislature and listen to the Minister of Transportation brag about his $66 million that he is putting into road work this year, and knowing that he refuses to build a highway to this community is absolutely appalling, Mr. Speaker. What is more appalling is knowing that the $66 million he boasts about, $23 million of that is coming directly out of the pockets of taxpayers in this Province because of the new fees and taxes that the government implemented in 2004. We also know that a good portion and a good chunk of the money that he brags about spending everyday is also coming from layoffs of over 100 workers in the Department of Transportation every summer and from the closure of depots around this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely sickens me every time I hear that, knowing that the people in this community have to come on their knees begging to this government that they have a road access. In this day and age it is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, for them to have to do this.

I would like to invite the Minister of Transportation - as I have done on many occasions when I stood in this House to represent the people of Williams Harbour - to go to this community, to meet with these people, to see firsthand how little distance there is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS JONES: May I just have a moment to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been requested and leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you very much.

I really would like for the minister to go to this community, to meet with the people in this community and get a real understanding of how important it is for them to have a road connection. To know that it can be done for just $5 million, I cannot see why the government, with a surplus budget out there everyday spending money in this Province on things that may or may not be able to wait, but on things that have no other priority anymore than the issue that I have raised today on behalf of the people of this community in Labrador.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Order 5, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, Bill 26, second reading.

I think the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is putting forward that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: I do not know if the Government House Leader saw me or not, but I was standing to make a petition at that time. I wonder, could I have leave to do so?

MR. SPEAKER: The Standing Orders indicate that the Government House Leader can, at any time, stand after a petition is presented and call the Orders of the Day. Then the Chair responds to the Government House Leader, and that is what happened in today's session.

The Chair would seek some direction. I did not note the number of the bill that had been called.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26, second reading of An Act To Amend the Public Utilities Act. It is moved and seconded that this bill now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend the Public Utilities Act." (Bill 26)

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 26, which is entitled An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act of this Province.

These amendments will allow new full-time commissioners to be appointed to the board for a ten year term, instead of the current term of appointment to age seventy. It will also establish basic qualified standards for commissioners to ensure a dedicated and professional team to fulfill the boards very important regulatory functions. It will help streamline the operations of the board, contributing to greater regulatory efficiencies and cost savings, ultimately, to consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board is an independent quasi-judicial regulatory tribunal and it regulates electric utilities, both Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as well as Newfoundland Power. It supervises insurances rates for some fifty-five registered automobile insurance companies that operate throughout the Province, as well as other sundry regulatory responsibilities, including limited regulation of motor carrier activities, including trans-Island bus service and ambulance operations.

The board also conducts hearings and does expropriation requests by government. So, it not only deals with utilities, it also deals with some other regulatory matters and, in fact, in other provinces, the Public Utilities Board is, in fact, referred to as a Regulatory and Appeals Board.

In 2004, Mr. Speaker, the board was assigned responsibilities for the former Petroleum Products Pricing Commission which is located, as hon. members know, in the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. The members of the board are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, and the board consists of three full-time commissioners and up to six part-time commissioners. Two of the three full-time commissioner positions are currently occupied, whereas five of the six part-time commissioners have their three-year term set to expire in May, 2006, with the other expiring in August of this year.

Now represents an opportune time, Mr. Speaker, to address needed changes in the governance of the board. This particular bill will provide for the establishment of a fourth full-time commissioner, and this position will replace the entire complement of up to six part-time commissioners in the existing legislation.

This amendment will allow for a board consisting of full-time members only, who will have the ability to more efficiently respond to the board's regulatory obligations while, at the same time, saving regulated industries and consumers about $150,000 in regulatory costs. This will result in the work of the board being conducted in a streamlined and a timely manner by a team of dedicated and appropriately trained commissioners who, in turn, will be in a position to exercise their regulatory judgement with continuity and consistency.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill will enshrine in the act the establishment of basic qualifying standards for board commissioners. The board maintains regulatory responsibilities involving three key commodities that are consumed by the citizens of this Province, namely: electricity, automobile insurance and petroleum products. The decisions of the board are of fundamental importance to both regulated enterprises and, even more importantly, to the consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These companies, Mr. Speaker, rely on sound regulation by the board to enable their businesses to flourish and, in certain instances, compete for capital in the money markets of the world. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, board commissioners require a basic skill set combining expertise either in the law, in finance, in accounting, in engineering, in technical skills or business.

Commissioners must also subscribe to a regiment of training and development in the areas of administrative law, operating fundamentals in each of the industries that are regulated, utility ratemaking, actuarial analysis, cost of capital, cost of service, and other regulatory methodologies. Appeals of board orders are made to the Province's Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, it is with these factors in mind that we must ensure continued appointments of qualified commissioners to our Public Utilities Board, and this bill speaks to that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the statutory appointments of a full-time commissioner to age seventy is no longer considered a particular requirement for these positions. Appointments to a ten-year term with a renewable option will offer greater flexibility while maintaining the independence of the board.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, these changes will add to other actions taken by the board itself in recent years toward reducing regulatory costs. I look forward to this trend continuing, whereby the board is able to generate regulatory savings to the benefit of consumers in its regulated industries while, at the same time, enhancing regulatory performance.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I want to take this opportunity to thank the current members of the board for the services that they have been rendering and have rendered to the Province. Mr. Speaker, the commissioner, Mr. Robert Noseworthy, who I believe will retire later this year. Ms Darlene Whalen is the vice-chair and is a full-time commissioner. There is a third full-time commissioner position which was previously held by Raymond Pollett of Corner Brook, the Mayor of Corner Brook. Mr. Pollett retired some time ago, when he reached the mandatory retirement age. There will be, if the House of Assembly in its wisdom deems it feasible to pass these amendments, there will be a fourth full-time commissioner.

The five part-time commissioners will retire, and on behalf of the government I would like to express our appreciation to them for the services they performed to the board and to the Province. Mr. John William Finn has served three, three-year terms, a nine-year term, as a part-time commissioner. Mr. Gerard Martin of Corner Brook has also served for nine years; three, three-year terms. Mr. Don Powell, an accountant of Stephenville, has been a part-time commissioner and he has served two three-year terms. Mr. Fred Saunders, a commissioner from Pleasantville, has also served for nine years; three, three-year terms. Mr. Gordon Seabright, a former Judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, will also retire as a part-time commissioner, as will Mr. Walter Vincent, an accountant of the City of Corner Brook, who has served one three-year term.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Province, and let me say on behalf of the board, we express our appreciation to the people who have acted as commissioners. We appreciate their services to the Province and to the board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate on Bill 26?

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to have a few words with regard to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

For those people who do not know what this act does, it is the legislation which governs what we know as the Public Utilities Board in the Province. That is the board that regulates insurance rates, that regulates Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro rates, and, I think - do they regulate petroleum products now?

MR. REID: Yes.

MS JONES: Petroleum products as well. So, when you hear of gas prices going up, or diesel prices going up, quite often it is regulated by this very board that is governed by this act. The same thing with insurance in the Province, and the same applies to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro customers.

Let me tell you, over the years I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with the Public Utilities Board, and not by choice but because I have had to. On three particular times I have to go before this particular board and commission on behalf of my constituents, when Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was pushing for rate increases for consumers to ensure that their electricity bills went up and not down. So I am quite familiar with how they operate, and the work that they do.

What this act is doing today, Mr. Speaker, is actually replacing the part-time members on the board with another full-time member, as I understand from the minister. More so than that, it is giving government the opportunity to appoint four members to form the Utilities Board for a period of up to ten years, with an opportunity to renew for a second term of another ten years, which is a career, in my mind, twenty years of serving on a board appointed by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister, when he was standing, to tell us how much these people are paid, because I tend to forget now, but I think it is a pretty handsome amount of money that comes attached to this particular job. I certainly remember some discussions about it in the media back a few years ago when there were some board members dismissed who were unpleasant and filed through the courts for remuneration of pay, that there were hefty amounts that were paid out at that time.

MR. HARRIS: Seven hundred thousand dollars.

MS JONES: My colleague, the Leader of the NDP, reminds me that it was probably about $700,000.

I would like to know what the salaries are that are attached to these ten- and potentially twenty-year jobs appointed by the government. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, while they may do some good work, that is some pretty long-term business and certainly shores up a career for certain people.

Let's talk about the work that these individuals, highly paid individuals serving at the wishes of the government, will do in our Province. As I started out talking about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, whenever Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro wants to increase the rates to consumers in the Province, how much you pay for your light, your heat and so on, they go to this board and they file an application to have an increase. It is not just a simple application, Mr. Speaker. It is an application that comes with compiled documents, research, data, and everything else. Then this board undertakes to review all of this information. The information is not just passed in over a desk to the Public Utilities Board. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are submissions by lawyers, accountants, financial advisers, administrators, and all the rest of it, vice-presidents, presidents, and everybody in the corporation. This is the kind of information that the Utilities Board would then take and digest.

What does the consumer do, Mr. Speaker? The consumer, the individual who lives out there, paying $200 a month for light and heat in their house, or whatever the case may be, they have to fight to make sure that these rates are not increased. Mr. Speaker, that can be a very intimidating process for some of them. I know, as I said, I have been through it three times. You are walking into a panel of public utilities people appointed by the government, who are there to listen. You are walking in, Mr. Speaker, and you are trying to provide a case on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your community, or on behalf of your district, to try and stop Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from getting this rate increase. The first thing that you are confronted with is not just all the experts of the Utilities Board, the people that they have the authority under the act to pay out big money and contract for advice - financial advisors and lawyers and accountants and all these people - then you have, on this side of the room, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with about eight or ten or twenty experts sitting there ready to testify against every word that comes out of your mouth. Mr. Speaker, that is a very intimidating process for any consumer in this Province who wants to go out and file an application to have their electricity rates not increased. I really believe that most members would agree with me that that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to see is more advocacy for these consumers. Now, I understand that there is a Consumer Advocate in the Province appointed and paid for by the government, and maybe they could tell me how much this individual is paid. Up until three and a half minutes ago I didn't know there was one. I had to ask my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, if we still have a Consumer Advocate, because I haven't heard who he is, I have never heard him in the media, I have never been approached by him as a member who represents the majority of rural isolated customers in the Province that is governed by Hydro; never heard tell of him. I will say this to the hon. minister, that when the previous Consumer Advocate was there, Dennis Browne, I can guarantee you that I had many dealings with him. For every hearing that I ever went before the Public Utilities Board, he was the one who was sitting down with me, preparing me, Mr. Speaker, to meet the team of lawyers and accountants and experts who were going to be brought in by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. He was the one who did the work, came up to Labrador and sat down with the members and the mayors in the communities in my district, to help them prepare to go before the Public Utilities Board. Today, I had to turn and ask my colleague if we still have one because I have no idea who he is, where he is or what he is doing. I have not heard a Consumer Advocate out there in the Province in the last twelve months.

MR. E. BYRNE: He has been out (inaudible) quite a bit.

MS JONES: Is that right? The Government House Leader tells me he has been out quite a bit. He will have to refresh my memory and tell me the issues he has been out there on, because I have certainly not come across him or had any involvement with him whatsoever.

What I would have liked to see, Mr. Speaker, is that while you are fine-tuning the Public Utilities Board in the Province and while you are making sure that their positions are going to be secure for, in some cases, up to twenty years at wonderful remunerations, I would also like to see more effort being put into having consumer advocates available to people in the Province who need help in preparing to go before the Public Utilities Board to make their case, whether it is on gas prices, whether it is on car insurance rates, housing insurance rates, whether it is on the price of electricity, or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker. That is where I would like to see a more concentrated effort being made.

Now, the other question, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to ask is that, in appointing this Public Utilities Board - of course, the act outlines that these people will have expertise in law, in engineering, in accountancy or finance. Now, there are four positions. I am assuming that there is going to be one from each faculty here, probably, appointed to the Public Utilities Board. While I have no problem with the academic backgrounds that are outlined here, I want to ensure that we are not going to have four people sitting on this board who are all from downtown St. John's, because that would be a concern for me.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi grunts really loud in his seat because he is representing the wonderful people of downtown St. John's. But, I want to make clear, that there are different issues that face different parts of this Province. While there might be a regulatory uniform rate on electricity that goes right across the Province on a grid system, it is not always the case for people who are on rural isolated diesel systems. This is my concern, because I represent a district in this Province today that pays the highest electricity rates of anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador and, I do not know, but probably in Atlantic Canada. The minister of energy would probably know that, but I would beg to say that they are probably the highest in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the business community in my district - you talk about fostering business development - in and of itself, pays almost three times more, in some cases, for electricity to service their companies than they do in other parts of the Province. So, I want to make sure that in appointing a Public Utilities Board, that they are going to be a board that can grasp what the issues are that are facing other regions of the Province, I say to the minister, and be able to sit and listen, listen with some understanding to people when they are coming before this utilities board with their issues and their concerns and not just with understanding, but also with compassion for the situation that they find themselves in. I know that these decisions, as to who will sit on this board, are going to be at the discretion of the minister. I want to just let him know what my view is and to ensure that those things are taken into consideration when they are being appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I know from past experiences, as I said, I went before this board on three different times and I guess over the period of the last twelve years - I think it was twelve years ago I first approached them - I have gotten to know some of these members over a period of time and some in other capacities who actually ended up on the Public Utilities Board. I have to say, not every time did I win the case I went there with, but on occasion I did. I really believe that I won the case on behalf of my constituents, not because I was such a great member - which I am, I say to the minister - but because the people I was presenting to had an understanding of where I was coming from and of the region that I represented. They could listen with compassion and understanding. They could make a decision weighing out, not just what was being said by the legal team, the financial team, and the accounting firms that were seconded by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but also be able to listen and understand the viewpoints that I brought forward on behalf of my constituents and my communities, and the mayors themselves that brought forward. That was very important in that process, I say to the minister.

I think that in doing this - I do not have a problem with the number of people on the board. I do not have a problem that the board is going from nine people to four people. That is not the issue for me, Mr. Speaker. The real issue in this is the caliber of people you have there, the wealth of knowledge and understanding they bring to the job, and their ability to be able to do it and to do it fairly on behalf of the people. That is my main concern. I just wanted to make sure that I pointed that out to the minister.

Now, I talked about hydro rates. Let's talk about gas prices for a moment because I did write the Petroleum Pricing Commission back about a year ago, putting forward a position for them to review. Because, as you know, my district, as well, has the highest gas prices in the Province. I guess the further away you get from the capital city sometimes the more you pay for the things that you need in life. Anyway, my district, as well, pays some of the highest gasoline prices, highest diesel prices in the Province. The only one paying any higher than me, and in some cases equivalent to some of my communities, would be my colleague for Torngat Mountains.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, last year with the continuous surging upward in gas prices in the Province we went extremely high. I am trying to think, I think we probably went to $1.50 or $1.45 at one point in terms of gas prices, and maybe even higher than that because for some reason I think in some communities where it is divided into zones now, it even went up to $1.61. Anyway, at that time, I do not have to tell anyone, that it was definitely very difficult and a great deal of hardship for people in that area to be able to afford those prices for one thing. So, I wrote to the Petroleum Pricing Commission, because although the gas prices are now regulated, they are still regulated based on zones. Quite often I cannot determine how the zonal prices are differentiated because you will have a zone here and you will have a zone there, and you could have a gas price that varies by six cents to eight cents a litre, which makes absolutely no sense to me because when you know the regions I am talking about, when you know the distance between them, when you know where the oil tanker lands and fuels the tanks and offloads the fuel, you cannot really make any basis or any guess in terms of what the differential is.

So, Mr. Speaker, this was a problem for me because in my district I have three zones - three zones for gasoline and diesel regulation in my district. Now, keep in mind that there are only 6,000 people and we are under three different pricing regimes for gas price regulation. I can never understand why you can go an hour down the road and all of a sudden your gas prices just went up by eight cents a litre. So it is a little bit amazing to me. I have never been able to find it out.

I wrote to the Petroleum Pricing Commission, which I understand - and the minister can nod and tell me - would be under the Public Utilities Board. He says yes it is. I wrote to them and I asked them to look at regulating gas prices in the Province. So it does not matter if you live in Nain or if you live in Burgeo or Corner Brook or St. John's, that we should have a regulatory regime of gas pricing in the Province. So, really, it would be more like a uniform rate, and the basis for my argument was this. If you look at how public utilities are regulated, you look at everyone on a grid system in Newfoundland and Labrador, they are on a uniform rate so it does not matter if I am getting electricity into my home in Bird Cove, in Colliers, or in Mount Pearl, I am paying the same price, Mr. Speaker, because it is a uniform regulatory price set out that covers the whole Province that is under a grid system, making it fair and equal for everyone.

The same thing happens with rural isolated customers. There are twenty-seven rural isolated connections in the Province. Fifteen of them are in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, just because you are in Nain, or if you are in - Burgeo, now, is on the grid so it would be Grey River, I guess, or one of those communities - LaPoile, it does not matter, you are still at the same rate.

Now, while it might cost $15 million a year to the government to subsidize the customers in my district and only cost $5 million a year to subsidize the customers on the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland, they still do it and they still provide a uniformed regulatory rate because the government recognized, and Hydro recognized, that there is an affordability issue here and that they have to make it electricity that is affordable to the consumer so they regulate it. The same concept I asked for with gas prices, I say to the minister.

What I asked the Petroleum Pricing Commission to do was this: Look at the gas price regulation across the Province. Look at what you can do to bring a uniform rate to it. I am not asking to increase gas prices in the City of St. John's to subsidize gas prices in Nain, but what I am asking for is this: Look at a regulatory regime that takes in most of the Province. Look at what the additional cost to government is going to be to provide the same fuel prices in other regions of the Province.

So, if the subsidy at the end of the day to the government happens to be about $15 million a year to bring in a - and I am just hauling numbers out of the air. I don't want anybody to quote me on this. I am giving a very vague example, but if it was to cost government $15 million a year to bring in that subsidization and to bring in and implement a uniformed gas rate in the Province, man! that would take such a burden off so many consumers in some many different regions of this Province that it would be unbelievable.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it would be a catalyst for other things to happen, for other development, for the movement of people, and those things. With that, Mr. Speaker, would come additional revenues to the government. Not only that; if it was uniform and regulated as a uniform rate on petroleum products right across the Province, then what potentially could happen is that the sales for the consumption of gasoline may indeed increase and the government's taxes would increase as well. So, at the end of the day, the subsidy that they would pay out, they could very well end up taking it in. If the Minister of Finance was listening, I am sure he would have all of that calculated for me now and could give me an answer.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a way that can be done. I wrote the Petroleum Pricing Commission, and this is what disappointed me most of all. Initially, when I wrote to the Petroleum Pricing Commission and made that submission, they were out asking for the public to provide submissions on gas prices and diesel price regulation in the Province. I was one of the people who provided a submission. I do not know who the other people were. I am sure there were many. I never received a response, Mr. Speaker, never received a response.

A phone call, one day, I made to their office to ensure that they had received my submission. They said, yes, indeed they did. I said: When will I have an opportunity to come before the Petroleum Commission, or to have you come in my district and hold a hearing?

The other thing, at the time, they were advertising that they were going to hold public hearings around the Province. The minister nods, because he remembers that. They were asking for submissions, and they were going to hold public hearings.

I never, ever, got acknowledgment after that for my submission. I never, ever, got a public hearing, and that disappointed me. It disappointed me, because I thought the Petroleum Pricing Commission that was put in place by the government, paid for by taxpayers' money, were sincere about the job that they were given to do. I, as one member, have certainly felt very let down. They did get my letter, because I called to check, to make sure. I called to make sure. I honestly thought that they were going to come into my district and hold a public hearing.

I am not saying that uniform petroleum rates being regulated in the Province is going to be a song and dance that everyone is going to want to partake in. There might not be any support for it outside of areas like mine, and in Northern Labrador and on the Southwest Coast of the Island and on the Northern Peninsula and places that pay a whole lot more for petroleum products. There may not be much support for it outside of that, but I do not know that. I do not know that, because I never had the opportunity to go before the Petroleum Pricing Commission to express to them, in person, the plan that I was asking them to research and to assess and to look at on behalf of the consumers in the Province to see if it would work.

Furthermore to that, Mr. Speaker, at that time that they committed to come into my district, I actually told people in my district, told mayors and communities, when I met with them, that the Petroleum Pricing Commission was going to be holding hearings around the Province - in fact, I do not know if they ever held either hearing; I was never, ever, notified - and that they were going to come into Southern Labrador and they would hold a hearing, but I never heard anything about it after. I do not know, actually, from that day to this, if there was ever a public hearing held on petroleum pricing in this Province.

What I would say to the minister is that it needs to be held. It needs to be held, because when you look at how gas prices are fluctuating in the market today, rising, rising, rising, dropping a little ways and rising again - as they say, one step forward and two steps backwards. Well, that is kind of like we are with oil price regulation right now.

I think there should be public hearings held on pricing of petroleum products in the Province, and I really do believe it should be held, especially in areas like mine, where people have some real concerns. I am not saying that it is not a concern everywhere in the Province, because I firmly do believe that is the case. I think it is an issue for a lot of people, and I think if the Petroleum Pricing Commission still exists and is there to do a job, that should be a very fundamental part of their job, listening and dialoguing with consumers and the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know. Maybe this new Public Utilities Board, when they are established, will have a role of some sort in doing this. I do not know. Maybe they are the group that are supposed to mandate groups like the Petroleum Pricing Commission. I do not know. Maybe they are, but I guess we will have to wait and see.

Those are some suggestions that I wanted to make and, I guess, to say that at this time we are going to be going before this new Public Utilities Board again very soon; because, as you know, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have now applied again to have a rate increase for all consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I think, in the Province. It does not matter where you live. They have presently filed an application to the Public Utilities Board again for a rate increase. I am not sure of the amount, what the amount is. Do you remember, Jack?

MR. HARRIS: No.

MS JONES: No, but there was a certain increase that they have applied for. As a result of it, I guess there are going to be a lot of us going back to this new Public Utilities Board again to fight our case on behalf of the consumers and the constituents that we represent. While I do not know the amount of the increase that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has asked for, I do know that it is not affordable to many consumers in this Province, and least of all to the people in my district.

As I said earlier, right now we have a business community in my district that is looking at paying almost twenty cents a kilowatt hour for electricity. Not only are they paying way beyond their means to be able to afford this energy, but there is also not an availability of power that they demand. That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. It is really hard to create industry under those circumstances. I can just give you a couple of examples.

Back in 1998-1999 we were putting a shrimp plant in my district - the only shrimp plant, I say, that is in Labrador. We built it in the community of Charlottetown. When the company decided to invest $10 million into this plant there was no electricity to be able to source this plant. The first thing the government of the day had to do was go out and make a commitment to invest almost $3 million to upgrade the diesel plant and the electrical lines in the community to provide power to this plant. Now, if the company had to provide that electricity themselves at that price, there would be no shrimp plant in Labrador now. There would be neither one. The only way that this could be done and be feasible for the company to make the investment and for us, as communities to have the industry, would be for government to pay the money to build the power lines and to upgrade the diesel plant. That is just one example, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give you another example in my district. When you talk about growing the economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, electricity and transportation are really the key. Let me tell you about another community, Port Hope Simpson. Port Hope Simpson is a community where we have always had a wood industry for a number of years, as the Minister of Natural Resources would know and is quite familiar with, but for many years we did not get into secondary production. In the last five, six years we have moved in that area in a major way. Do you know what the first problem was we had to deal with? It was not getting a business to invest the money, it was not getting a company to come in and set up all the mill equipment and all that was required to have a secondary production of wood in this community, it was delivering power to the sawmills and to the production company. Delivering the electricity. No three phase power in the community. The lines had to be upgraded. Three phase power had to be installed. The generators had to be revamped. Some were taken out, new generators were put in. I do not remember the exact cost of all the work that was done there but you can go back through the records, it was probably about $1.5 million. If this company had to go and pay to have this work done themselves, they would not be there today. They would not be able to be there because they would not be able to afford to be there.

When you are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro going to the Public Utilities Board looking for further increases in hydro rates, Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of real issues that exist that have to be dealt with. These companies, not only would they not be there if they had to install the infrastructure, I was proud to be a part of a government who was prepared to make those investments and put that infrastructure there to create these jobs in communities in my district. But, still today, that sawmill, Mr. Speaker, does not have the supply of electricity that it needs. When there is certain equipment they have to put on, they have to make a call to the hydro plant so they can shut down so many residential customers in the community to allow this sawmill operator to operate this piece of equipment.

That is the kind of climate in which we have to do business and then you get hydro coming back and wanting them to pay more money when they are already paying almost twenty cents a kilowatt hour for power. Three times what businesses in other areas of the Province would be paying to provide the same commodity, to do the same kind of business, to create the same kind of jobs. Mr. Speaker, there is no fairness in that and do not ever expect me to understand or be sympathetic to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when they come with their hand out looking for increases in hydro rates, because I have a district that can write the book on the trouble with having availability, accessability and affordability to electricity in this Province. They will get no sympathy from me. They are not the only company in this Province that has to deal with increasing fuel prices or different shifting changes in the market. They are not the only company that has to deal with all of this, Mr. Speaker. But, having said that, in dealing with increased fuel prices in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, they have still turned a profit of over $50 million last year, I say to the minister. Maybe he can give me the full amount when he stands up because I cannot remember, but I know the profit they turned was well over $50 million. I read it just a couple of day ago in one of their reports that they had put out, and of course it was in the Budget as well.

So, I do not know where the real financial drain on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is coming from that they have to be out there again tormenting the lives of the people who have already expended every cent they have, to try and get more money, squeeze more money out of them for the bit of electricity they are burning to keep their houses going. They will get no sympathy from me on that particular situation, I can guarantee you, because we certainly do not see the wage rates increasing with fuel prices. So there is not a lot more disposable income around to satisfy Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's new aggressive agenda that they are creating over there or anything of that sort.

Mr. Speaker, these are important issues and they are important issues that will fall under the regime of the Public Utilities Board, and that is why - getting back to my initial point that I started off with. That is why it is so important to have the right caliber of people sitting on this particular commission, because they are going to make decisions - believe it or not, they are going to make decisions that will either be able to allow for development and industry to occur in different regions of the Province or they will make this decision to ensure that it is stagnant. That is a very critical point, Mr. Speaker, very critical. Because given the examples that I just outlined for my hon. colleagues here in the Legislature today of the things that I have dealt with when it comes to providing electricity for industry development in one rural district in this Province, any additional increases in rates, you know, is not going to stimulate development there. It is not going to stimulate new opportunity. I think the worst thing that can happen right now would be to make it even more cumbersome than it is, put more pressure on these companies than is already on them, because they are dealing with a lot of other issues. These companies, too, are dealing with increased gas prices, but they are dealing with a lot of other issues. They are dealing with shifting markets, out-migration, and all of those things in their businesses as well, so their level of profitability is not going up. In most cases, it is going down. Therefore, it is even a more difficult time for them.

Mr. Speaker, this Public Utilities Board has a huge responsibility. I am a little bit washy on the fact that there are going to probably have an opportunity to sit there for twenty years. I think that is a little bit of a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, for some four people in the Province who could end up having a twenty-year career with the Public Utilities Board, I just hope they have some understanding for what the people in the Province are going through every time they get a big company, whether it is an oil company or a utility company, coming to them looking for increasing petroleum products prices or increasing hydro rates. I hope that they will be able to have an understanding of how these issues affect ordinary people every day in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, other than that, I do not have a problem with it. I have made my comments with regard to the consumer advocate. I think there should be more work done by the consumer advocate with individuals, getting them ready and preparing them to go to the Public Utilities Board, because quite often that is the only resource that many of those people have. If you are in a municipality where you have 300 people and your total tax base is $100,000 for the year and you can only afford to have a part-time maintenance person and a part-time town clerk, how can you afford to retain expert advice to try and stop Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from increasing the hydro rates to the people in your community? You cannot do it. The resources are just not there. That is why the consumer advocate appointed and paid for by the government has to be out there working with these communities, because that is the only expert advice that they have. I really want to stress that.

It does not matter to me who the individual is, just as long as they are available and they are accessible to provide the kind of information and the kind of services that these communities are going to need. I know, in the last round of Public Utilities Board hearings in Labrador, we went to Goose Bay, the people in my district. There were, like, ten communities from my district that participated in those presentations, and every one of them had the opportunity, if they wanted to, to work with the consumer advocate to get ready for their presentations and to be prepared for it. That is the job that needs to be done. In fact, if we are going to keep seeing more applications for rate increases, and continuous increases to petroleum products and things like this, we may even have to look at increasing the resources that the consumer advocate has to do the work that they do.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time I have left.

MR. HARRIS: Unlimited time.

MS JONES: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says I have unlimited time, but somehow I significantly doubt that.

Mr. Speaker, there are other people who have comments they would like to make on this bill, and I am sure that some of my own colleagues are probably going to have other input that they would like to add.

I cannot stress how important it is to have the right caliber of people who sit on this Public Utilities Board, because they make very important decisions, and important decisions regarding the rates of electricity and petroleum and insurance, but especially with electricity that affects whether our communities can grow or become stagnant at the end of the day.

I have experienced it first-hand and I know what the difficulty is. When you are talking about creating business opportunity in rural areas of this Province, one of the major attractions is going to be energy, and whether it is affordable and whether it is available in whatever shape or form, as long as it is available and they can afford it. I think that and transportation, in my experiences, have been the two major pieces that have to come together before people are prepared to invest, especially in rural areas, but I am sure the case is in every area. It does not matter where you are in the Province.

I think the job of these individuals is going to be a huge responsibility, but a responsibility that will certainly, if decisions are not made in fairness and in balance and with knowledge and consideration of the consumers they are dealing with, the outcomes may not be as pleasant as we would hope, and we would not want to see that.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am going to conclude my comments and turn it over to one of my colleagues who, I am sure, would like to add to this.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, not to interrupt the debate obviously, but I did want to just move a few motions before we get into other people speaking to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

Motion 2, Mr. Speaker, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that the debate or further consideration on the resolution of Bill 6, respecting a measure to impose taxes on tobacco, shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, schedule or schedules, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to Bill 6, shall be the first business of the Committee of the Whole on Ways ands Means and shall not be further postponed.

I guess, we need to vote on that, Mr. Speaker, do we?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have all heard the motion as put forward by the Government House Leader.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 3, pursuant to Standing Order 11, Mr. Speaker, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion, as put forward by the Government House Leader.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: We have all heard the motion as put forward by the Government House Leader.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to speak at second reading on Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking following the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who expressed some concern that in making appointments to the Public Utilities Board that they be all chosen from downtown, St. John's.

MS JONES: I did say that, I said they shouldn't be.

MR. HARRIS: You said they shouldn't be. You said you were concerned that they would be all chosen from downtown, St. John's.

Having been the representative for a large part of the residential area of downtown, St. John's, I, first of all, have to come to the defence of those people who reside there. Certainly when the government is looking for people with expertise in law, engineering, accountancy or finance there will be plenty of people to choose from, because the people of my district, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, not only those who live downtown but who live elsewhere in the district -

MS JONES: (Inaudible) Ed Hearn.

MR. HARRIS: Well, Ed Hearn has some relationship to my district. I think he has an apartment in my district, although he resides in Labrador West, so there is a lot of expertise in Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but I agree with the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, that we should not have commissioners that are only from one area. We should ensure that the people who are representatives, whoever they happen to be, are knowledgeable of all areas of the Province regardless of where they reside. I think it is probably a good thing that some consideration is given in the legislation that the Cabinet, in making appointments, consider the need of the board to have some expertise in those areas.

Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about the change in the nature of the board at the PUB. We now have three full-time commissioners and a number of part-time. I believe currently there is a provision for six part-time commissioners and three full-time, and I guess the change from three to four, and the elimination of part-time commissioners will probably provide for more consistency amongst the members because there is a fairly high degree of expertise and knowledge and experience required to do a good job as commissioners.

First of all, before I get into my major portion of my speech today, I do want to say that I am quite surprised and shocked, I might say, that the Minister of Justice, two days after passage of the Human Rights Code and elimination of discrimination against people who are over the age of nineteen years of age, eliminating and getting rid of the prohibition of discrimination against people on the basis of being sixty-five years of age, and eliminating the upper-end discrimination, tables a bill and speaks in favour of a bill which discriminates against people who reach the age of seventy years. That is found in clause 3.

I say to the minister, I would have expected some consistency from the government, and maybe he can explain how it is that clause 3 of this bill is compatible with the new Human Rights Code that was passed a couple of days ago. I know he was absent at the time, and we did our best to debate the bill in his absence. He was absent on Her Majesty's service but, nevertheless, a bill was passed saying that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of age.

I believe our Human Rights Code says that where there is a conflict between that act and other acts, the Human Rights Code applies, but that would certainly be designed to deal with previous acts of the House of Assembly, and I hope that this item of inconsistency can be addressed by the minister when he closes debate on this subject, because clause 3 clearly says - I recognize, of course, that it is only a transitional provision, and whether it would affect any particular individual who now holds office or not, I am not aware. I do not know the ages of the current full-time commissioners, but it does certainly allow, by operation of the act, that those persons would cease holding office if they reach seventy years of age. Certainly, for the sake of consistency, we ought not to have such a provision being passed into law at any time, but certainly two days after the passage of an amendment to the Human Rights Code that is giving rise to the removal of age discrimination for someone reaching the age of sixty-five, or being older than sixty-five year of age.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do wonder from time to time whether we need four full-time commissioners. Is there sufficient work for them to do? I know it is an important job and role, and I know that they have been given additional responsibilities to oversee at least the office of the oil and gas prices commissioner. I wonder that. I wonder that out loud, Mr. Speaker, because I am not sure that there are enough ongoing applications to warrant four full-time commissioners, and I hope that the minister can address that when he speaks. Although I know it is important to have the kind of expertise that is being sought here, and I do know it is also a very important task, a very significant task that they have, and it is a quasi-judicial body, one of the senior quasi-judicial bodies, and the fact that people are being given ten-year appointments obviously indicates its importance.

The Labour Relations Board, for example, which is equally important in managing the relations between works and unions and employers, has very short terms of office. I believe it is five years, five-year appointments. The ombudsman, for example, appointed by this House of Assembly, serves for only a period of six years and eligible for reappointment for another six years.

MR. R. COLLINS: The Apprentice Board is five.

MR. HARRIS: The Apprenticeship Board, I am advised by my colleagues from Labrador West, is five years. The Auditor General, I think, has a term of ten years, so perhaps there is some consistency there with respect to the Auditor General.

It is a long period of time. As members have noted, it is a reduction from the term of appointment that goes until age seventy under good behaviour. The term good behaviour, by the way, merely means that you cannot get rid of somebody because you do not like them. You have to have a reason, that they have to have conducted themselves in a way to deserve being terminated. So, you cannot interfere with people once appointed but, in this case, once appointed by this government, all four appointees will have ten years of independence, independent from this government and independent from another government of another political stripe which might be elected the next time.

I would ask - maybe the minister can deal with this one. I am dealing, first of all, with some technical points. Clause 6.(5) of the bill, and I recognize that it is a repeat of what is in the previous bill, says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall set the terms and conditions of the appointment of a commissioner."

I wonder what is intended to be dealt with there. I know, obviously, there are issues related to salary and that type of thing. Is that something that is already established, or is there some standard by which that would be judged? What is the intention here in terms of the terms and conditions of employment to be established by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council?

The work of the commission - I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have taken great interest, since I was admitted to the Bar in 1980, with the work of the Public Utilities Board previous, and now the Public Utilities Commission, over the years, their work in regulating, particularly in relation to energy matters. Prior to the acknowledgment of the federal jurisdiction in telecommunications, our Public Utilities Board, apparently by some sort of general agreement but not by law, actually operated to manage the telecommunications in this Province. They actually heard, not the CRTC, the telephone company regulation, cable television regulation; and, as a matter of fact, issues of conflict between the cable television industry and the telephone company were actually dealt with by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities and not the CRTC, which is a constitutionally-responsible body that now deals with these matters. So, we are now only dealing with matters within provincial jurisdiction, but I have taken a great interest in it because when you are dealing with the management of energy, particularly electrical energy in this case, you are dealing with resource management, you are dealing with consumer regulation, and you are dealing with the operation of a significant public utility such as Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Newfoundland Power and Fortis Corporation.

There has been, over this period of time in the last twenty-five years, Mr. Speaker, some pretty important changes taking place in public utilities. I have had the experience of appearing before the Public Utilities Board on a number of occasions, sometimes as legal counsel for the Consumers' Association of Canada, which was a body that took applications on behalf of consumers to the Public Utilities Board. In the period after, the Federation of Municipalities, for a long period of time, financed the applications and interventions before the board. Noel Clarke of Corner Brook was the normal - and Mr. Hutchings, whose first name escapes me at the moment. Joe, my friend Joe Hutchings from Corner Brook also acted for the Federation of Municipalities before the board, and did a very good job of presenting a case on behalf of consumers and challenging rate increases. We have also seen - after that, the Consumers' Association took it up. Then the government undertook the practice of appointing consumer representatives after Andy Wells was taken from the board back in the early 1990s and successfully sued the government for some - eventually, I think, the Supreme Court of Canada gave him about $700,000 for being fired from the Public Utilities Board.

So, we have had a number of changes. There was a consumer rep on the board. Now we have a part-time, full-time board, and now the board is changing again. There has always been, Mr. Speaker, problems in trying to get the Public Utilities Board to make substantive decisions to try and get the utilities to behave in a certain manner.

I want to talk about some of the issues that I think could affect the actual price to consumers of electricity, particular in this Province, that the board has not been able to deal with it. Yes, they have dealt with rate applications. They have turned down some. They have allowed many. You know, you have to realize that this is a very, very - the regulation of electricity prices is a very highly technical job that the lawyers and the accountants and the experts that come with the power corporation, whether it be Newfoundland Power or whether it be the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, they come with their briefcases and piles and stacks of documents, and literally as high as this. Literally, two and three feet high, stacks of documents, briefing books and documentation that is used to convince the Public Utilities Board of all the reasons why they need a rate hike increase.

In some cases, Mr. Speaker, and particularly in the case of Newfoundland Power, and Fortis after it, it is virtually a situation where the role of the Public Utilities Board is, in fact, to guarantee that this corporation makes a profit. Guarantee that they make a profit, and a rate of return established by the Public Utilities Board. That is the role. There is a lot of expertise and expert evidence given, but the ultimate role of this is to - and there is a game that is played, because the way our Public Utilities commission works is you are entitled to get a rate of return on the capital invested in your work. So, the companies come and say: Well, we have to invest more capital to do this and do that, and we need to get a rate of return on this, on your rate base. It is a very technical thing. So you do need technical people to deal with it. What I would like to see is a little broader power in the Public Utilities commission.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker. This goes back to fifteen years ago. I made, on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada, an intervention to the Public Utilities Board, and it was a Newfoundland Power rate hike. At the time, they were asking for a rate hike. There were some very obvious reasons why a certain amount of a rate hike was going to be granted by the way the rules worked, and there was not very much you could do about it. It was not a very big rate hike that was being asked.

We went, on behalf of the Consumers' Association, with an application to get the Public Utilities Board to actually order Newfoundland Power to engage in something that is called demand side management. That is something that has been practiced widely across the country, across North America, and has been for many years. Some utilities, for example in California and in British Columbia, have made very big steps in controlling demand. The theory is very simple, that what you do, instead of adding new capacity to your operation - very expensive. Usually, the next megawatt of power that you add to your capacity is going to cost you an awful lot more than what you have there already, because of inflation and because you are going from new equipment to stuff that is already amortized and paid for. So, instead of spending all of that money, what you do is you actually reduce your demand. You reduce your demand by encouraging energy conservation. You actually get the utility to spend money - the utility must spend money to get consumers to use less electricity. Now that is a real problem for a private utility like Newfoundland Power, and I will tel you what happened here.

We spent a great deal of time convincing the Public Utilities Board that, if the power company was forced to engage in demand-side management, consumers would save money. Isn't that the role of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities? Well, the answer is, no, it is not. It is not the role. They are not there to ensure that the consumers pay the lowest possible price for electricity. They are there to follow what the act says and deal with the application based on the interpretation of the act.

I was very disappointed at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, because the Public Utilities Commission did not say that, but they did force Newfoundland Power to actually engage in some studies on the issue of demand-side management. Lo and behold, they actually did that. They carried out a study and they did something that they should have been doing ages ago. They actually gave away low-flow shower heads to a certain group of people and they tested to see whether or not it resulted in lowering the demand for electricity - in particular, lowering the demand for electricity at peak periods, which is an important consideration in the management of energy demand and managing your system.

Well, I read these studies. I was back at the Public Utilities Board for another hearing, and while I was there making representations, as a Member of the House of Assembly, I read through some of the presentations that were made and I found that, lo and behold, Newfoundland Power had actually carried out this study. They found out that they saved consumers not only money, but they clipped the peak so that people were using less electricity. This was something that was actually working. It cost very little and saved consumers money, but they discontinued the program, Mr. Speaker, and they actually gave the reason why. The reason they discontinued this program, that was saving consumers money and using less electricity in their homes, was because it interfered with sales. It interfered with sales, and therefore they made less money.

That is one of the consequences of having a private power utility operating in our system, and one of the reasons why, obviously, we were highly opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and letting Fortis take over the whole shooting match.

Our position was, and is, it should be going the other way so you have one utility that looks after both generation and distribution and you can have effective demand-side management programs. In fact, you should not only give the PUB the power to insist on demand-side management being carried out; Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be given a direct mandate to undertake programs and spend money that will have the effect of reducing the demand for power.

Let me give you an example of how effective that could be. In the Province of New Brunswick today, Mr. Speaker, there is a program organized by the provincial government, in co-operation with the now almost defunct energy guide program by the feds, which allowed an energy assessment to be done of an individual's house and you could find out what your needs were, how much money you could save, where you could insulate your house and stop air loss, and various other factors. The Province of New Brunswick has a $10,000 interest-free loan that is made available to consumers.

Well, the program has only been operating for a year or two, Mr. Speaker, and 528 houses have been done. The results of that program, and the study of those 528 houses, has shown that the average reduction in energy consumption for those 528 houses in their program was 37 per cent. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, that a consumer of electricity or oil in this Province could save 37 per cent on their energy bill. That is astounding, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if members opposite could give me leave for another minute or so, just to finish this particular point.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank members on both sides for granting leave.

This is an extremely important point. Imagine, to be able to save 37 per cent of your energy costs by a program that gives a $10,000 interest-free loan.

Mr. Speaker, in the age of high energy costs and increasing energy costs, isn't that something that we, as a Province, should be doing for our people? Isn't that something that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could undertake? Because, do you know what? Not only would consumers save 37 per cent of their energy costs. You know, we have an operation out in Seal Cove that burns Bunker C oil and pollutes the environment, very expensive oil, $70 a barrel now we are up around there, burning out there, and last year there were 1,370 some-odd megawatt hours of power burnt out at Holyrood. If we were going to save an individual consumer 37 per cent of their power, if they were using electricity, then the more people engaged in that program, the less Bunker C that would be burnt out at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's plant in Seal Cove, and it would be good for the environment.

I see the Minister of Environment taking some notes over there. Maybe he will get up and tell us what good things the government is doing, forcing Hydro to use less polluting fuels and that sort of thing, and he is right, improvements are being made, but we are still burning expensive oil. We are still burning polluting oil and we are still burning oil that could be - he is not getting up he is just making notes for his officials. He is going to convince his Cabinet colleagues to tell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to get involved in energy conservation in a big way, not just leave it to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. They have to get money from Ottawa or they have to get money from somebody else.

I see somebody over there tapping on their watch, so it seems to me like leave is about to be withdrawn.

MR. REID: Keep going.

MR. HARRIS: The Leader of the Opposition is giving me leave, so there we go.

There are obviously things that can be done, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to see more changes to the Public Utilities Board Act to give the consumer, the PUB, the power to try to invigorate these companies and make them more responsive to the needs for conservation, to make them more responsive to the need for demand side management, to actually be in a position to direct companies to do things that are going to save consumers money.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we don't have any major objection, aside from the Human Rights Code, to second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand in response to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

At first glance, I looked over this bill, and I said, this is all about restructuring the board. The first thing that came into my mind was Club Senate, the same rules as Club Senate. When I looked it over it was all about changing the part-time positions to full-time positions. It currently has three full-time and six part-time, but now they are going to have four full-time positions.

The strange and unusual part about this bill to restructure this board, is that the term is really unusual. The term of the commissioner is going to be for ten years. It is currently seven. What I found really unusual was that in clause 11, it says, "Unless otherwise directed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - the Cabinet - a commissioner shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of 70 years". Now, that is in total conflict with what the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, announced the other day in the House of Assembly regarding the Human Rights Code. According to the Minister of Justice, you can work forever. Nothing stops when you are sixty-five. In this particular bill you are only allowed to work until you are age seventy, the same conditions that are in the Senate. I would call this a club Senate bill if I were looking to put a name on this bill.

There is also another interesting clause here, it is clause 3. Anybody that is there now as a full-time commissioner, they are protected. They do not have to get out after seven years, or ten years. They do not have to wait to be reappointed again. It says here: notwithstanding subsections 6(9) and (10) a full-time commissioner presently holding office the day that this bill comes to pass shall hold office during good behaviour. As long as you are doing your job right, if you are a commissioner there now, and unless otherwise directed by Cabinet, the only way that you are going to get out of that job, if you are there now, is Cabinet has to kick you out or you have to be into bad behaviour. That is what it means. If you are there now in a full-time position you can become a career commissioner. You can stay there until you are seventy. If you are only fifty now, you do not have to be reappointed. As long as you do your job and Cabinet thinks you are doing your job, you are there until age seventy. Then you are going to get a pension. Isn't that great!

However, part two of that same clause says: A part-time commissioner whose term of office has not expired on the coming into force of this Act. So, if you are part-time commissioner right now with that board - there are six of them, there are six part-time commissioners - as soon as this act comes into place you are getting the flick. As soon as this act comes into place, you six part-time commissioners are gone, you are history. You do not have a chance to get reappointed, you are out the door. There are going to be four full-time commissioners. They are going to be able to stay in the office for ten years and be reappointed again. Anyone who is there now, they are set for life until they are age seventy. The same conditions as club Senate in Ottawa. The very same conditions as club Senate.

So this is a plum appointment. Anyone who is out there now, you have a real chance of getting one of those plum jobs, except there are two full-time positions there now. They are not going, I do not imagine. If there is anybody out there now in TV land and you are a lawyer, an engineer, an accountant, a bank manager, or someone into finance, you have a chance to get one of those full-time commissioner jobs and it could be good for twenty years, as long as you do your job and Cabinet does not flick you out. So, there you go. I have those jobs posted now. It is not a public service job so if you are going to apply and be scrutinized by the Public Service Commission, forget it. The only way you are going to get one of those jobs is if Cabinet thinks you are the one for the job.

There is something interesting that came out of the Auditor General's report on this particular agency, because we all know that the Public Utilities Board has been around as long as the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was established in 1949, the same year that we came into Confederation. The job of the Public Utilities Board is to be the watchdog. It is to be the watchdog and to make sure that the rates that are charged by the public utilities, such as Newfoundland Hydro - now, of course, that is extended to the Petroleum Pricing Commission, automobile insurance and public utilities. The Public Utilities Board is the watchdog for all rates set in this Province.

Now, the Auditor General had a few things to say about the Public Utilities Board. Some of the things that the Auditor General said was the fact that they are not really showing much independence. They do publish a year-end report but that report goes directly to government. The Auditor General was saying that there should be more independence. The Public Utilities Board should report to the House of Assembly so that the board and the act could be further strengthened.

Also, another indication from the Auditor General was that the Consumer Advocate - the Consumer Advocate currently is Mr. Tom Johnson. Prior to Mr. Tom Johnson, there was Mr. Browne, who was the Consumer Advocate prior to that. The Consumer Advocate is not required to file a financial report at the end of the year, which means that it costs $500,000 to maintain the Office of the Consumer Advocate. As of now, the Consumer Advocate is not required by law to file a report giving any accountability with regard to expenditures or operations of that particular office. So, that was a recommendation made by the Auditor General, that that should be tightened up. The Consumer Advocate should file an annual report. Anyone who is spending $500,000 should be accountable to somebody and that report should be filed. That is a question I would like to have for the Minister of Justice and ask him if he has adhered to the Auditor General's report, and whether or not that will be one of the recommendations that he will be making sure that will be done.

Also, the Auditor General pointed out that, currently, the Public Utilities Board is appointed by Cabinet. So there is a perception that the Public Utilities Board is not totally independent because the appointments are directly at the pleasure of Cabinet. That was the reason the Auditor General said that the Public Utilities Board should be looked at as being totally unbiased, independent and the accountability to the House of Assembly should be strengthened.

Of course, there were several findings that the Auditor General made in his report. Several of them said that the board did not always call public tenders or obtain three quotes, or otherwise establish a fair and reasonable price for all purchases as required under the Public Tender Act. That is direct contravention of the Public Tender Act when the Public Utilities Board has to go out from time to time to contract out different levels of expertise for different rate hearings that they are involved in. The Auditor General is saying that the Public Utilities Board has not acted under the Public Tender Act. In many occasions we are going out and getting three quotes and then making a decision as to who they were going to hire for outside consultants. Now that is an important area of concern, when you look at the fact that - the Public Utilities Board has a surplus, simply because they charge back to any particular agency the cost of actually hiring consultants, the cost of holding hearings and the operation of any kind of a rate schedule and a rate structure.

When you look at the fact that the Public Utilities Board currently has a surplus over $1 million, how does that affect someone in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who has to pay a high utility bill and here the Public Utilities Board are currently sitting on a surplus? They are currently sitting on a surplus, when somebody is phoning me, their member, saying, I can't pay my light bill this month. I can't pay my light bill this month.

What will I do? I will try to negotiate with Newfoundland Power an arrangement for a constituent who cannot pay a light bill. Sometimes, when that does not work out, I will go to a church in my district. Many times churches have helped me out, and helped me find money to help a constituent pay a light bill.

Here we are, the Auditor General has pointed out that the Public Utilities Board are sitting on a surplus of over $1 million. This should go back to the rate payers of our Province. That should not happen.

One thing I have noticed as well is that in the report, the Public Utilities Report of 2003-2004, it outlines the salaries. At that particular time there were six part-timers and two full-timers. Guess what the salary was? Guess what the salary was for six part-timers and two full-timers? Nine hundred and forty-four thousand, almost $1 million, for two full-time commissioners and six part-timers. Now, that did not include any travel cost for people getting to and from those meetings and hearings. That was basically salaries. Six part-timers and two full-timers collected $1 million in salaries.

I notice that in the last report, 2004-2005, that particular information was not available with the publishing of the annual report for the Public Utilities Board. This is supposed to be an open and accountable government that will clearly give information with regard to the running of every entity in our Province. That was the idea of putting all boards and agencies under the same umbrella, so we could look at accrual accounting. Every board and agency under the government's purview was supposed to be able to come under the same scrutiny. I do not see the salaries or the operational costs in the report from last year for the Public Utilities Board, but, based on what it was the previous year, I would venture to say that it is more than $1 million in salaries.

What is going to happen in the future when this particular bill is passed? We are going to have four people, four commissioners. We know what the salary was for six part-timers and two commissioners; it was $1 million. That gives me an idea that, if you are going to pay four commissioners full-time wages, at least you are going to pay them $250,000 a year. Maybe it is more, I don't know, because I do not have that information in front of me. I am just basing on what it was for six part-timers and two full-timers.

This bill will give those commissioners the opportunity, the two who are currently in their jobs now - I do not know what ages they are. I do not have any idea what age they are right now. Clause 3 will give these two commissioners, who are full-time now, an opportunity to stay there until they are seventy years old, as long as they do their jobs right and Cabinet does not want to get rid of them. They can stay there now, in a full-time career as the commissioner of the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For the two new ones who are coming on - I am advertising for two new ones here, now, as I speak; I am advertising for two more full-time commissioners - as long as you pass the scrutiny of the Cabinet, and you are on good behaviour, and you have the expertise that Cabinet is looking for - you have to be a lawyer or an accountant, or an engineer, or something to do with the financial community. Don't be an ordinary person, a man or woman on the street. Don't be the ordinary person who is out there trying to forge a living and pay a light bill in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Don't be that person, because that job is not open to you. Do not apply. If you are an ordinary person out there struggling from day to day in a rural community, don't apply to be the commissioner of the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland and Labrador. That job is not for you.

MR. REID: How much do they get paid, I wonder?

MS THISTLE: How much do they get paid? I am trying to guess what they get paid.

MR. REID: A deputy minister's salary, I guess, is it?

MS THISTLE: A deputy minister's salary? I would think it is a lot more than a deputy minister's salary, based on what I see. One million dollars for six part-timers and two full-timers in 2004, that is big money.

It reminds me of club Senate in Ottawa. You can stay in club Senate in Ottawa. In fact, you only have to show up in club Senate in Ottawa once a year. You have the free haircuts, you can travel all around the world, you have the perks.

MR. REID: They are there until seventy-five, are they?

MS THISTLE: Until they are seventy.

MR. REID: Seventy-five.

MS THISTLE: Oh, seventy-five for club Senate. I am wrong.

MR. REID: This is getting pretty close.

MS THISTLE: This is pretty close. This is the Newfoundland version of club Senate, the Public Utilities Board. You can stay there until you are seventy. The two who are there now have it made. They are there until seventy. They are grandfathered in. Clause 3 of this bill grandfathers in the two present commissioners until they are age seventy. That is perfect.

Seriously, the Public Utilities Board of Newfoundland and Labrador are tasked with a very important responsibility. They have to make sure that the public utilities in our Province are treating the consumers fairly. They have a job. They are supposed to be giving unbiased decisions and making sure that consumers in this Province are paying the rates that they should pay and everything is fair. They have an important job to do, an important function, but I would like to say that many times over the past year-and-a-half I have questioned that, because the Automobile Insurance Act that was brought in here was supposed to save consumers money. We were supposed to get big reductions, 25 per cent. I did not see it. I challenge anyone out there to let me know if they got a reduction in their insurance of 25 per cent. Now, that the hoo-ha is over, who is going to be regulating the insurance industry to make sure that the insurance industry are holding their feet to the fire and making sure consumers are getting a fair deal?

I would like for the Public Utilities Board to look at fuel prices in this Province. They are directed by Cabinet. We have several people sitting on Cabinet right now who said, when they were in the Opposition, they were going to make sure that electricity prices were included for subsidy like oil prices. That is not happening right now. I would like for the Public Utilities Board to look at what it would cost in real dollars to provide a subsidy to rate payers in this Province on electricity bills and fuel bills based on the 8 per cent portion of the HST. Other provinces have found a way to do that for their consumers. I would like for the Public Utilities Board to engage in a study to see what that would cost, and how it would help the people of our Province.

The Auditor General pointed out more things about the Public Utilities Board. It also said that the board is paying a former commissioner an annual pension of $24,000 without the approval of Cabinet. Also, contrary to the Public Utilities Act, a commissioner was appointed to the board even though the person was over seventy. The board had no authority for a payment of $10,000 to a former employee as a settlement of a proposed court case relating to an issue with early retirement. Contrary to government policy, the board paid credit card fees for two staff. Travel claims were not always properly documented and approved for payment. There were expenditures relating to staff functions that were out of order.

So there are lots of things to look into. Even the Public Utilities Board needs to be under the close scrutiny of the House of Assembly. I agree with the Auditor General in this case. I do not think that by Cabinet doing the appointing and the firing of the Public Utilities Board that there is an unbiased independence of operation of the Public Utilities Board. The Auditor General is pointing out that the Consumer Advocate do not prepare any form of annual report for the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans that her time for speaking has expired.

MS THISTLE: May I just have a moment to conclude my remarks?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that leave.

I would say, in conclusion, that the operation of the Public Utilities Board is very important for consumers in this Province, but I would also question the structuring of this board and the many frills that go with it. I would also ask the minister to look into the surplus currently at hand and pay that back to the ratepayers. Make sure that the salaries that are paid to the people in this board is a reflection of what can be paid, based on the economics of this Province, and also the fact that ratepayers are struggling all over this Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

I rise today to say a few words on Bill 26. I just have a few comments that I would like to make, but I certainly want to use the opportunity to make them.

Mr. Speaker, the changes with the PUB act - I want to say first that, to me, the biggest problem that is created now with the Public Utilities Board decisions took place when the Wells Administration, as I understand it, made a change where prior to the changes instituted by Premier Wells, the PUB reported to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who ultimately decided on PUB recommendations and decisions.

Now, the problem that we ran into from the area of Labrador that I represent, when we had a big fight with the Public Utilities Board, is that now the PUB decision is final and cannot be changed by Cabinet, so that consumers of the Province now are stuck with the PUB decision, regardless of what it may mean to them and they have no recourse. At least prior to this change being made by Premier Wells, people of the Province who felt they were unjustly treated by a decision of the PUB could at least try and seek a political solution to the problem that they were experiencing. But that is not true anymore, Mr. Speaker, and that, I say, had drastic consequences for many people of this Province.

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the government is elected, the governing party is elected to police the Province and protect the people of the Province from anything that may cause them undo hardship or threaten them in anyway. Ultimately, people elect governments to make decisions. I feel strongly, and I am sure others agree, that any decision by the PUB or any other group in this Province should be subject to approval by Cabinet and that Cabinet should have the final decision, because after all, they are the people that the Province elected to make decisions on behalf of the people of the Province. So they should be the final voice on what takes place in areas such as this.

I want to say, my experiences with the Public Utilities Board - and I have had a few - have not always been great and have not always been pleasing. I sort of compare the Public Utilities Board decision and Labrador West for an example, something like what is taking place with the gun registry on the federal scene. A couple of weeks ago I had two letters in my mailbox the same day. Both of them from New Brunswick, both of them from the gun registry department. One letter said if you do not supply us with the information we requested, your application for a FAC will be cancelled and the money that you paid, your fee, will not be refunded. You will have to start the whole process over again unless we receive the information we requested within thirty days.

The second letter, Mr. Speaker, on the same day in my mailbox, again was from Miramichi, that letter contained my FAC card. So it seems like one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. On one hand I had a letter saying: they did not receive the information, my application would be cancelled, and in the same mailbox on the same day, another letter containing my card. So, they did not know what they were doing. I say that is something like the PUB, Mr. Speaker.

I will give you one example. In the Town of Wabush, the Public Utilities Board ordered Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to reimburse the residents of Wabush over $1 million, because Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro overcharged them for a ten-year period. That was great news, Mr. Speaker. The people of Wabush really appreciated that. They knew they were being overcharged. Here was the Public Utilities Board telling them, you are going to get reimbursed from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because the hydro company has been overcharging you for the past ten years. When they got that letter they were elated. It was only a couple of days later, Mr. Speaker, they received another letter: By the way - Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - we overcharged you for the last ten years, we are reimbursing you your money, but guess what? Now we are applying for a further increase. I mean, where is the sense in all that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Con artists.

MR. R. COLLINS: Con artists. Where is the sense, Mr. Speaker? Where is it? We overcharge you for ten years, we reimburse you, and now we are putting your rates up, above and beyond where it was when we were overcharging you. If there is any sense in that, I would like for someone to be able to explain it to me.

That is a decision, Mr. Speaker, that I feel Cabinet should have the right to review. Instead of having the decision of the PUB final and binding without question, decisions like that should be able to be reviewed by Cabinet. Because ultimately, as I said earlier, the government of the day, and the Cabinet in particular, are ultimately responsible for protecting the people of the Province.

The other argument, Mr. Speaker - I found it a very confusing procedure to follow, and very difficult at times to try and figure out what the logic of the Public Utilities Board is and how they arrive at decisions. For example, they deemed that Labrador West was part of an interconnected grid system, and used that to justify, Mr. Speaker, people in Labrador West having to pay the same price as people in the Labrador East and Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. Now I have nothing against it, if they were going to bring the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to us, but Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro wanted to have what they call uniform rates, and the PUB agreed with that.

Mr. Speaker, we probably would not have anything against uniform rates if it applied to everything in society, but we do not have uniform rates when we have to pay airfares to come to St. John's for a medical. We do not have uniform rates when we have to send our kids to university. We do not have uniform rates on the price of goods that we have to buy and consume each day. That is not the real world, Mr. Speaker, where we have uniform rates.

For Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to want uniform rates simply because it would make their accounting easier should not be reason enough to justify giving it to them; however, the PUB agreed with them, that there would be and should be uniform rates across Labrador - and to find out, Mr. Speaker, that what we put in front of the board should have been enough evidence to swap any person who was using any logic whatsoever to arrive at a decision.

The whole issue of an inner-connected grid does not make sense, and we proved that. We proved our case to them, Mr. Speaker. We gave them mountains of evidence that would justify that the rates we were paying are the rates that we should have continued to pay; but, you know, it went unheeded. They did not have to take into consideration the things we were saying and, in the end, in spite of everything, they chose to ignore it.

What they failed to consider, Mr. Speaker, is that prior to there ever being a Churchill Falls there was a Twin Falls. Twin Falls was created, built, by the Iron Ore Company of Canada. They ran the transmission line from Twin Falls to Labrador West and, because of that, we were paying a certain rate for electricity. That is because the cost of generating that electricity and getting it to Labrador West, 250 kilometres away, was not costing so much that we would have had to pay exorbitant rates.

In the end, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board chose to ignore all of that. They went and agreed with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and there was absolutely nowhere else we could turn, nowhere else, Mr. Speaker. We should have been able to turn to the political people in the Province, the government of the day, who has the authority, and should have the authority, to deal with any and every issue that affects citizens of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we felt was quite inappropriate at the time by the Public Utilities Board is that we had the consumer representative who, during this hearing, Mr. Speaker, acted more, and was accused of acting more like the corporate representative. Every question that was asked by the consumer representative was one that tried to justify why people in Labrador West should have a rate increase. They used everything from university students back in the 1970s having their own cars at university to the price of a quart of milk being not that much of a difference. Mr. Speaker, he was not acting in the best interests of the consumers of Labrador West at that time.

The other thing, the reason government should have intervened, Mr. Speaker, and I have shown various ministers of the government proof of this, the rates that you pay for electricity should not always be based on uniform rates, because one other thing that should be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker, is usage. How much electricity you consume should be taken into consideration. There are not too many other parts of this Province, Mr. Speaker, that experience minus forty and colder temperatures, not too many parts at all, and particularly, Mr. Speaker, for the extended period of time that we experience it in Labrador West. I have shown ministers of the government my hydro bills for December, January and February, when there was hardly anyone in my house in Labrador West. It was just the doors closed up, for the most part, and the furnace set on seventy and that is it, nothing else being used. That is electric heat, Mr. Speaker, that I have there.

For the place that I have in St. John's, there were four people living at that house for most of the time, and when we looked at the power bills they were pretty much equal price-wise but the big difference, Mr. Speaker, the big difference was this: the amount of kilowatt hours used. Here in St. John's, with four people, for the most part, occupying a residence using everything that you have in the house these days, from your hot water to your stove, fridge, washer, dryer, all these things, I consumed 3,600 kilowatt hours of power. In Labrador West, with hardly anyone there for that period that same month, Mr. Speaker, I consumed over 9,000 kilowatt hours because the temperatures were minus forty for the entire period, just about, and the furnace in that house did not cut out. That is an electric furnace, if anyone was wondering, but that furnace did not cut out because it had all it could do to maintain a steady temperature inside the house because of the extreme temperatures outside.

So, I say to members, it should be more than just a uniform rate considered because we have to look at the consumption that you require when you are living in very frigid areas of this Province. That is something that the PUB chose to ignore completely. They did not take it into consideration at all. They had one thing, and one thing only, on their mind, from my opinion, and that was to justify the wishes of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to achieve the ultimate that they wanted, which was uniform rates across Labrador. That, Mr. Speaker, sadly, is going to have dire consequences for people who reside in my riding in particular.

I have had people say to me that, if they are going to paying $300 and $400 a month on energy, they are probably going to be spending it on air conditioning and not heat. If you look at that from a retiree's respective, that has a huge financial impact upon them, and it certainly influences their decision of whether or not they will remain in Labrador West after retirement, or how long after they will choose to do so.

So, Mr. Speaker, this whole concept with the PUB having the authority and the autonomy to make whatever decision they want and be subject to no review, to me, is wrong. I think, ultimately, any board of that nature, any group or any board or any organization who has the power to impact negatively upon people's lives in this Province, their decision should ultimately rest with Cabinet, who should have the final say on decisions of this nature.

Like I say, since 1992, I think it was, or 1994, when the Wells Administration changed that, from that day since it has not been that way and that is unfortunate for many people in this Province for any number of reasons.

I notice the minister, in his opening remarks, talked a bit about what these changes would mean, and I want to concentrate on one section for a little while, Mr. Speaker, and that is on the duration of the appointments. The minister said each appointment, the four appointments, would be for a ten-year period.

Mr. Speaker, most organizations, most boards in the Province, whether it is for government or fraternal organizations or whatever it might be, generally have a staggered term. So, I suggest to the minister that maybe you should look at, rather than having four ten-year terms where, when the terms expire, everybody is out the one time, if it works that way, and you have all new people going in, if it is going to be a ten-year term at the most, why not have a seven-, eight-, nine- and ten-year term, so that each year, in the last four years, you are getting a new person on the board who would provide continuity when the tenth year arrives. In the tenth year, Mr. Speaker, under this scenario, you would have three people who have been there three years, two years and one year each, and they would have a bit of a history of what has taken place, what the discussions were and how they were arrived at. I think it is important that if we are going to have a board like this, and if it is going to be set up in a manner that government has offered up as the way they want to see it, then I think that the numbers of the years should be staggered so that it provides some type of continuity towards new people coming on when the eventual ten years is reached so that we do not have a full turnover all at the one time.

Mr. Speaker, with these comments, I will conclude my remarks. I just wanted to make sure I put forward that the PUB, as a board in this Province, has an authority that very few boards have, and that is that they are the be-all and end-all and that their decisions are not reviewable. I think that is fundamentally wrong in a democracy where we have people elected whose ultimate responsibility is to protect the people of the Province that elected them.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am going to have a few words, because most of what I wanted to say has already been said by my colleagues on this side of the floor. I want to speak to the Public Utilities Act that the government has on the floor today and tell the people of the Province what that board does and what they govern.

The Public Utilities Board regulates, number one, auto insurance. Now the petroleum pricing board falls under the Petroleum Act or the Public Utilities Board, as well as home heating fuels and electricity and things like that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk, first of all, about regulations pertaining to insurance, because when this government came to power back there two-and-a-half years ago we were promised all kinds of insurance reform, in that we were all supposed to get a lot of money back and that our rates for auto insurance were supposed to drop dramatically. I do not know if it was intentional on behalf of government, and if I am the only one who has witnessed it, but I have not seen those great reductions in my rates. Maybe it is just me. Knowing that I am a Liberal, I suppose, I do not know if they gave instructions to the Public Utilities Board not to lower my insurance, and mine only. I am being rather facetious here today, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think anybody has seen the reductions that they anticipated from this government in the past couple of years.

There are a couple of things about the auto insurance that really bother me. Number one is that I have a couple of young sons, one just turned twenty-one and the other has just turned eighteen years old. One of the things that this government talked about was that they were not going to allow insurance companies to discriminate based on sex. We all know that in the past young male drivers always paid far higher insurance premiums than young females. I thought, when I heard the government say that they would no longer be able to discriminate on sex, that the rates I am paying for my two sons would drop. I certainly have not seen any reduction of any significance. In fact, I am not sure if there was a reduction at all. I know I called my insurance company some time ago and asked about when we would get a rebate based on the fact that you can no longer discriminate based on sex. I was told that the regulation had not been put in place at that time and that I might see that rebate or reduction in my rates at some future time. I am not aware that I have seen it yet, Mr. Speaker. That is based on sex.

The other one is based on age. You are not supposed to be able to discriminate based on age. The Minister of Justice put forward a bill yesterday for changing - what was the name of the bill?

MR. BARRETT: Human rights.

MR. REID: They are changing the Human Rights Code or Act where it says you can no longer discriminate based on age. The insurance companies, through the Public Utilities Board, through the government, has found a way, I am sure, to be able to discriminate against people based on age. What this government said, in trying to get elected and after, is that it did not matter how old you were, that the insurance companies could not treat you any differently. In other words, if you were sixty or if you were sixteen you could not be discriminated on when it came to auto insurance premiums. I understand now that the insurance companies have found a way around that. No longer is it based on age, but when you go to get insurance on a vehicle now it is going to be based on the number of years you have been driving.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, you know what happens to the novice driver, the new driver, the sixteen-year-old or the seventeen-year-old, as is the case with my son who does not have his licence yet. When he goes and gets his licence and I put him on my insurance claim the insurance company is going to say: We will not discriminate based on the fact that he is only seventeen-years-old. They are going to tell me that, because of the fact he has not driven before they are going to charge him more than someone who has been driving for five, six or twenty years. What they have done is found another way around the age discrimination just like they found around the sex discrimination, which is unfortunate. We do not hear the government saying anything about it, because they are the ones who set the policy. The Public Utilities Board just follow the policy and regulate the insurance companies.

The other thing is that the Public Utilities Board, I guess, with the Petroleum Pricing Commissioner now underneath them, they also govern the price of petroleum, gasoline and diesel and things like that. We have seen what has happened to that in the past few years and I do not think we are ever going to see any great decreases, because I think what happened after it went over $1- we are not going to see it sink below $1 for any length of time ever again in our lifetimes. What they do is they go up and down and up and down and up and down, but what happens is they never go back down as far as they originally were. They continue to go spike, spike, spike. We haven't seen any help from the government or the Public Utilities Board with regard to some break on the cost of petroleum, whether it be diesel or gasoline.

I know, last summer when it was spiking up close to $1.50 per litre - and someone mentioned to me the other day, Mr. Speaker, that I was talking about $1.50 a litre or $1 a litre. An individual called me and said that, those of us who are older, who were brought up under the old British system, not the metric system but -

AN HON. MEMBER: The imperial.

MR. REID: The imperial. They said: Why don't you talk about gallons and quarts, because when someone says that gasoline is $1.50 a litre it does not sound as high to me as $6 a gallon. That is how we all used to talk about gasoline once upon a time. In fact, I have a can out in my shed now and I call it the five gallon can, and I think a lot of us do. When I go down to the pump I do not talk about $6.00 or $6.50 a gallon, I talk $1.50 a litre which sounds a lot lower. It is like when you go into a store and you see something that is $1.99, for all intensive purposes that is $2.00, but it looks better with $1.99 on the price tag because you think that you are saving a lot of money.

Anyway, I am getting off the topic. I am talking about gasoline prices. Mr. Speaker, I know that when it started to creep up last summer I and all of my colleagues on this side of the floor were out criticizing government and asking for some kind of a break on petroleum products whether it be diesel or gasoline. Every time I put out a press release on it the Minister of Finance obviously was called by the media and he had to give a comment. What I was suggesting was that you give us a break on either the gasoline tax or the HST. I do not know if most people are aware, but I was somewhat shocked last summer when I was out in Exploits and for the first time I actually looked at the bill at the ESSO station, not the amount that was on the bill, I always look at that, but I looked at the breakdown in the taxes, and there are three different taxes on a litre of gasoline, and those are the provincial fuel tax, the federal fuel tax and then the HST, and one is tacked on top of the other. The provincial fuel tax today is sixteen cents a litre, regardless of what the price of the litre is. Whether it is $1 or $1.50, it is sixteen cents a litre. Then there is a federal fuel tax. I am not sure exactly what it is now, but a comparable amount. I think it is ten cents to fifteen cents, and then there is the HST.

What I discovered that day, Mr. Speaker, is that 40 per cent of the price of a litre of fuel was taxes, 40 per cent. So, if we are paying $1 today, 40 per cent of that is finding its way back into the coffers of a government, whether it be provincial or federal.

I asked the minister, basically, through press releases and talking on Open Line shows, whether or not he would do something to cap the taxes on fuel, and he always came back and said: No, we can't do that. We can't do that, because every time the price of a gallon of gas goes up, or the price of petroleum goes up, the government loses money.

That defies logic, as far as I am concerned, and I have never heard the minister explain clearly why he loses money when he is collecting more taxes. If he wants to follow through on his logic - he is saying that every time the price of fuel goes up and he is collecting more taxes, but he is not, he is losing money, well, I suggest to him that what he should do is lower the price of fuel by dropping the taxes and then he would make more money. Now, that is how silly that sounds.

Anyway, I also talked to him about: Why not take off the provincial portion of the HST? On every 15 percent HST tax that you are charged anywhere in this Province, the provincial government gets eight cents of that and the federal government gets seven cents. So, the next time you go to the pumps and it says 15 per cent HST, that means the Minister of Finance here in the Province gets 8 per cent, and the federal government, a cent off there, is 7 per cent.

I asked the minister: Why don't you reduce the taxes? Why don't you reduce the HST? His answer then was: Can't do it. Can't do it. No, we signed an agreement with the federal government and the other Atlantic Provinces, namely New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and ourselves. We have an agreement, and the only way that I can reduce the HST on gasoline is with consent from the other three Atlantic Provinces.

Now, what a crock of hogwash! What a crock of hogwash, I say, Mr. Speaker, because what has happened in the last few weeks? We heard the Premier of Nova Scotia, who announced just before he called the election, just before he called the election - what is he going to do? What is he going to do? The good Tory Premier from Nova Scotia, what is he going to do? Without consulting, I would say, the Minister of Finance from Newfoundland, which apparently he had to do, he has found a way to get around the agreement that he had with our Finance Minister and the other three Finance Ministers because he is not going to reduce their portion of the HST. He is going to take that 8 per cent, but he is going to rebate it. He is going to give it back to the people of Nova Scotia through a rebate on heating - and that is something I am going to get into after - whether your house is heated by oil or propane or natural gas, which we do not do here, or electricity. That is something else I want to talk about later.

The Minister of Finance goes out on the air, on many occasions, and he says things that I am sure that people must scratch their head and say: Is what he saying entirely true? They must question: Is what he saying entirely true?

I am hearing that the minister cannot reduce the HST, but then I hear over in Nova Scotia that the minister over there has found a way around it. Not only that, but it is my understanding, too, that another fellow, who is not supposed to break the agreement, and that is the Premier of New Brunswick, another Tory Premier, Mr. Lord, has found a way around the tax on home heating fuels and electricity. He is going to rebate 8 per cent as well.

The question is: How come our Finance Minister cannot do it? How come our Finance Minister cannot give us a rebate on our gasoline? I am certain that the fisherpeople of this Province, the harvesters, could certainly use a further rebate on their fuel, especially this summer, when you look at the price for crab and shrimp and the cuts to the quotas that they have received.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that the Minister of Finance can control, even though the Public Utilities Board governs it, if he sets the regulations, if the Minister of Finance and his government come out with a policy, then obviously the Public Utilities Board have to live within that policy and they are governed by that policy. I want to ask him today, and maybe he will stand later when we go into Committee on this bill, when we get to ask a question and a minister over there will get up and give an answer - but I should not say that; that is normal procedure.

I went out to Hansard just then, talking about giving answers, and I said: I want the answer that the Minister of Education gave this afternoon. I said: I am sorry, that is the wrong word, when I said I wanted the answer that the minister gave, because I have not heard an answer.

No, not true, Mr. Speaker, not true. I have. We have been open since the middle of March now and I have heard one answer. I have to hand it to him, it came from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: We have been asking questions in this House for the last two months, and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs gave an answer, and a good one. In fact, I have it right here in front of me and I was half-tempted -

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

I am sure that the hon. member is going to make all of this very relevant to Bill 26 very shortly, and the Speaker looks forward to his making it relevant, but I would ask him if he could get to the relevancy part fairly quickly.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, we will not go into why that is relevant but in order, sometimes, to find out what this government is doing about fuel taxes, the Public Utilities Board and stuff - because I do not have the answers to everything, so I sometimes have to ask them a few times. That is what I was doing that time, Mr. Speaker. I got a little sidetracked when I was talking, that we have only heard one answer and that was from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I tell you, I think this group over here in the Opposition have at least 100 questions on that Table there right now, as we speak, that we have no answers for.

To get back before, Mr. Speaker, you asked me what was relevant, we were talking about home heating fuels. I am talking about electricity or oil, because that is regulated as well by the Public Utilities Board and that is relevant, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion the other day. I went into a store up behind the Avalon Mall that sells fireplaces, and we were talking about the state of the economy here in the Province. By the way, he sells propane fireplaces, Mr. Speaker. If you are wondering what that has to do with what I am talking about, I think that is relevant. Anyway, we were talking about the price of fuels, and things not being as rosy as some people would lead us to believe. We got to talking about how difficult individuals are finding it this year, with the price of trying to heat their homes.

He was telling me, because he works just behind the Avalon Mall, he said: If you go to the Avalon Mall on any given day - it is the same, I would say, Mr. Speaker, in any mall in the Province - you will see a large number of senior citizens either walking around or sitting on the benches.

I have, and I do not know if any of you have noticed it before because I never thought about it until he mentioned it to me. He said: What do you think they are doing there? Well, I have heard of the mall walkers who go in, in the morning, before the stores are open, and they walk around on the inside so that they are warm, dry, and they get their exercises.

He said: They are not the ones I am talking about. I am talking about the seniors who you see sitting on the benches or slowly walking around the Avalon Mall. Do you know why they are there? I said: Why? He said: They are there to keep warm. They are there to keep warm.

That is what that individual told me. He said the reason for that is because home heating - whether it be electricity or oil or propane - is so expensive that seniors on fixed incomes cannot afford to heat their homes, so they spend as much of the day in the mall as they possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, that might sound okay to some, but the thing about it, there is no mall on Fogo Island. There is no mall on Change Islands or Twillingate island or New World Island. The seniors down there cannot even go to the mall to stay warm during the day. It was just recently, in the past couple of months, that I saw an individual or a senior citizen, a lady from the Placentia-Argentia area, when CBC did a story on her talking about how she has to keep the heat turned down. She only turns it on certain at times during the day. They even showed her bed buried up, as I call it, in quilts so that when she goes to bed in the nighttime she can turn down the heat because she cannot afford to pay for it and buries herself up under a pile of quilts and goes to sleep and gets up the next morning and turns on the heat for a while. She even went as far as to talk about how she gets the local newspaper - what used to be the Robinson Blackmore newspapers - and she would go through all the ads for the grocery stores in the area and pick the specials. She had to find the specials because if she did not, she had to make a decision of whether or not she was going to eat or whether or not she was going to heat herself. That is a sad scenario, to think when we are living in a province now, that we are the second largest producer of oil in this country.

We have heard speeches from the Minister of Finance and those opposite about how great we are doing now because their leader managed to get the Atlantic Accord from Paul Martin and what the benefits that the Atlantic Accord, meaning the oil industry, is bringing to this Province. Well, I will tell you one thing, I have not seen the benefits. We are paying the highest price for petroleum products in the country. We are paying more for gasoline at the pumps than anywhere in the country. We are paying, I would say, the highest hydro bills in the country. Probably the highest hydro bills - and I see the Minister of Natural Resources, he can give a little speech on it if he wants.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Ontario is? All right.

I can tell the Minister of Natural Resources, we are not getting it for free. What I am saying is that we have all of this oil - I am not aware that Ontario has any oil fields, or do they? Maybe you can correct me on that too, but I am not aware that Ontario has oil fields.

We are talking about, we are awash in cash because of the great oil fields we have out here on the Grand Banks. We are awash in cash. I will tell you how much money we have now because of the oil industry. I heard the Minister of Finance say something the other day that I could not believe would ever come out of his lips. I could not believe that I would ever, ever hear him say it. He must be so rich, as the Finance Minister for this Province, that every now and then he lets it slip out, because we were talking about giving a loan to a guitar company in Mount Pearl to produce guitars in China, and he said: Sure, we only gave them a minuscule $300,000 so they could produce guitars in China. I suppose, next to where they produce our fish in China, Mr. Speaker. Maybe that is where they are doing it. Then when the guitars come back, they are going to a warehouse in New Jersey down with the Sopranos. I wouldn't doubt but Tony Soprano owns it.

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that we are making money on oil and gas offshore but we are not seeing the results of it. I am sure that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Before you interrupt me - I have my train of thought gone now, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.

Anyway, I am talking about how we are awash in money from oil and gas but the residents of this Province are not seeing the benefit. The residents of this Province are not seeing the benefit and I place that squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance and his Cabinet over there. That is the reason we are not seeing it, because he is more interested in giving money to a company that is making guitars in China than he is giving us a rebate on our heating, whether that be gasoline, electricity or oil.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Hydro, because their rates are also governed by the Public Utilities Board. Just recently, the Premier decided that he was going to make some changes at Hydro. I think the Minister of Natural Resources is introducing a bill later today or tomorrow on Hydro, and I will make some further comments about that later. But the Premier decided that he was going to make changes in Hydro. One of them is that we are going to change the Chief Executive Officers over there and we are going to start paying people what they are worth because in order to make Hydro the company it should be, we are going to have to pay the executives over there more money. That position, as the CEO of Hydro, has always been filled in the past with an individual who made a salary comparable to a deputy minister's salary. Not true?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Two hundred and twenty-five thousand.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point that I am trying to make is that, right now, the President or the CEO of Hydro is making somewhere in the area of $300,000 a year. It is also my understanding that the other executive members over there, if they are replaced, will be replaced with people who will get similar salaries or comparable salaries.

Mr. Speaker, what also somewhat perturbs me is that when we were in government and the Minister of Finance was sitting just right there, every year when Hydro showed a profit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Every year when Hydro showed a profit, we would ask Hydro for some of that profit so that we could spend it on hospitals, or trying to keep taxes down, or schools. Every year we would take a few million dollars from Hydro -

MR. T. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay. Well, we took millions. How is that, I say to the Minister of Health? He is getting a little bit perturbed over there because I said we took a few million. If you listen you might get the point that I am trying to make.

Every time we did that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health would get up and rant and rave and say: Oh, you shouldn't have taken that money from Hydro. You shouldn't have taken the profits from Hydro and spend it on hospitals and schools and things like that. No, you shouldn't have done that. You should have left that money over in Hydro so that they could reduce the rates charged to consumers. Not a bad idea, Mr. Speaker. Or freeze the rates charged to consumers, I said.

What happened this year, Mr. Speaker, over at Hydro? Hydro showed a profit this year, but did the Minister of Finance ask Hydro for any money? No, he did not need it. He did not want to take any money from Hydro and put into more road work or to help the poor. He did not want to do that this year because he would have had an even bigger surplus.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to the Minister of Natural Resources over there trying to throw me off my game this afternoon, he asked me: What does this have to do with the Public Utilities Board? I think the Public Utilities Board governs Hydro, don't they?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes. Well, that's what I am talking about. How do you think they got their profits if it did not come from the rates, I say to the minister, if you are asking for the relevance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: If you would listen and try and follow I am sure you might be enlightened. There is relevance if you would listen. You might be enlightened.

Now, I am going back to what I said earlier because once they interrupt me I have to repeat it. When they were over here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a fair bit of dialogue going from both sides of the House. It is preventing the Chair from listening attentively to the presentation made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition to continue his address.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I have to go back and recap a little so that people do not lose their train of thought.

When the Minister of Finance and his gang were over here they complained that we took money from Hydro when they showed a profit and spent it on things like schools and hospitals. They said, you should not do that. You should leave the money with Hydro, so Hydro could freeze or reduce electricity rates in the Province. Well, this year Hydro showed a profit. This government, like they said before, should not be taking the profits from Hydro because the rates would go up, so what happens this year? They left the money in Hydro, because Hydro showed a profit this year. They did not take any money to spend on schools and hospitals. They certainly did not take it to spend on the senior citizens who are sitting on the benches in the Avalon Mall to stay warm. They did not do that. They did not want the money, so they left it over in Hydro.

So you would assume, using their own argument that they used when they were sitting over here, is that Hydro could have frozen the rates, or reduced them, because they had this money that was left over there by government. Guess what happened? Guess what is going on at the Public Utilities Board today, if the minister knows why it is relevant? Guess what is going on at the Public Utilities Board today? Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro have asked the Public Utilities Board if they can increase our rates by 5 per cent. If wants to know what relevance is, he should wait until I get to the point that I am trying to make, I say.

Here they are, they would not take the money from Hydro because they said that would drive up the rates in Hydro, so they left it there hoping that the rates would stabilize or go down. So Hydro says: We will take the cash. We are going to the Public Utilities Board and we are going to ask for another rate increase so we can make additional cash so we can keep it next year and then come back for another rate increase.

That is not so bad, Mr. Speaker. If I am not mistaken, and maybe the Minister of Natural Resources will correct me, this is the third year in a row that Newfoundland Hydro has come back looking of a rate increase. I think they asked for 10 per cent two years ago, 5 per cent last summer, around the same time as now, and 5 per cent this year, for a total of 20 per cent. If you want to do a compound or accumulated increase on that, you are talking about 21 per cent, and we are still leaving money over there, and they are showing a profit. They showed a profit this year, but they want to increase those profits so they need to increase our rates by 5 per cent.

Who owns Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? I say to the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Finance, who owns it? It is not FPI. I can see why FPI are looking to increase their profits, because they have a bunch of shareholders. Very few, if any of them, live in Newfoundland, and they want more money in their ass pocket. Who owns Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is applying to the Public Utilities Board for a rate increase? Who owns it? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador own it. So why are we looking for increased profits? Maybe it is to pay their new executive over there, who have seen a significant increase in their salaries. Maybe that is the reason they are doing it.

Mr. Speaker, not only am I talking about rates for individuals but I am also talking about electricity rates and fuel rates for companies in the Province which employ a lot of people. Take, for example, the fish plants in my own district. Can you imagine what kind of a fuel bill the Fogo Island Co-op has on Fogo Island to operate two plants out there? Can you imagine what they are paying every year to Newfoundland Hydro? Can you imagine how much money is coming? The same in Twillingate, where Notre Dame fisheries has a shrimp plant. The same in Cottlesville, where Breakwater Fisheries is operating a fish plant. Can you imagine that next year they are going to be faced with another 5 per cent increase in electricity and fuel costs to run their operation in those three towns and employ hundreds of people? Here they are being asked to cough out more money in electric rates, and what is happening to the price that they are getting for their product in the marketplace? It is going down, down and down. These are the people and the individuals and the company that are trying to employ, trying to survive, trying to employ people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and are they getting any break from Newfoundland Hydro? No. Are they getting any break from the Finance Minister? No. Certainly not, doesn't believe in breaks. Are they getting any breaks from this provincial government to try and help them through a difficult time that all of these companies are experiencing today in the fishing industry? No. They are getting none of these, Mr. Speaker. Yet, we talk about what a great government and all the money we have and what is happening? Everything we use is going up in price.

Speaking of which, Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked last week what we were going to do for truckers in the Province. What we were going to do for truckers because the price of fuel that they are using is going through the roof so much that a lot of these truckers cannot afford to keep operating. They cannot afford to keep operating in the Province, and they are heading off to Alberta like everybody else who cannot operate or find employment in this Province. That is where they are going; and, because the price of diesel fuel that these truckers are burning to bring every good into this Province - because nothing comes here any more on a train, like it used to. That brings me to another little point, Mr. Speaker.

Every single item that comes into this Province comes in on a tractor trailer. With the price of fuel, I do not know if anybody is noticing it, the price of every commodity, every item that we eat or wear or consume comes in here on a truck and, as a result of rising gasoline and diesel fuels, we are going to be and we are paying more for everything that we consume and wear, but are we going to give the truckers a break, the trucking companies, especially the small independent ones here in this Province? Are we going to give them a break? No, not going to give them a break.

If we do not give them a break, we are not giving ourselves a break. If we do not give them a break, we are not going to get a break ourselves, because everything that comes in here in our truck is going to cost us more to buy. Every one of us are getting poorer, and who is getting rich? Who is getting rich on the cost of petroleum products? Who is getting rich?

We talk about the large oil companies, they are making a killing, but there is another group that is making a killing off high prices. Guess who that is? Guess who that is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. REID: The government, and the Minister of Finance, because every time he wakes up in the morning now and he checks the paper or he turns on the twenty-four hour news service, he is looking for the tickertape coming across the bottom to see if the price of oil rose today. That is what he is looking at, and every time he sees it go up a cent or a few cents, he is rubbing his hands together and saying, a few more dollars we are going to put in the Treasury, a few more dollars we are going to put in the Treasury. Every time that goes up a cent or so, every one of us, as consumers, are getting hit. What are they doing about it, only allowing the Public Utilities Board to allow Hydro to raise their rates? That is what they are doing. That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker.

Now, all of a sudden, they are going to change the structure down at the Public Utilities Board, hire more people, and guess what? Let some of them stay on a lot longer. My colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, mentioned this afternoon that some now are going to be permitted to stay until they are seventy years old, and she referred to it as the Newfoundland and Labrador club Senate, club Senate. Some of these people who are making huge salaries, who are appointed by this group opposite, because that is who is going to appoint these people who work down at the Public Utilities Board, is this group opposite and the Premier. I should not say the group. I have to retract that. I cannot accuse them. The Premier will be appointing them, because I will you what, Mr. Speaker. These opposite will not have a lot to do with it.

We talked about appointing Charles - a.k.a. Chuck - Furey the other day as the Chief Electoral Officer, and I will tell you one thing. We talked about private conversations here in the House a few weeks ago. I have had private conversations with a number of the ministers opposite. They had nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Furey as the Chief Electoral Officer. They did not know about it, did not know about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until they read it in the paper.

MR. REID: Until they read it in the paper.

I have heard their comments. I have heard their comments. They told me in privacy that they did not appreciate the fact that they were not notified.

I will tell you another thing. They might have all stood and voted for him the other day, because the Premier was in the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: - but their true feelings and their true thoughts were not the same when they told me they weren't going to vote for him but they had to. If they would like for me to mention them, all they have to do is say it. If they want me to start pointing fingers - as the Premier said outside the door: If they want to ask in the House, I will tell them. So, if you want to hear it, I will tell you who they were. I will tell you which ministers had concerns about the appointment to the Chief Electoral Office. They had some concerns.

You have to remember, they sat over here across from us when that individual -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: You are going to talk about relevance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is obliged to bring to the attention of the hon. member, that there are relevancy rules. The Chair welcomes the opportunity that he will provide to the member so he can show the relevancy of the points he is making to the second reading of Bill 26.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The relevance in this, Mr. Speaker, is this: One of the clauses in the bill talks about restructuring the Board of Directors down at the Public Utilities Board. The commissioners are appointed, I say, Mr. Speaker, they are appointed. I was saying: Who was appointing them? It is supposed to be the Cabinet, but we all know it is the Premier. I was giving an example of another appointment that the Premier made. Mr. Speaker, that is all I was doing. I was trying to explain to those who are listening out there who makes the appointments, and I was giving them an example of one who was just appointed. I think that is relevant, Mr. Speaker. If I can't stray off, if I can't give an example to bring home my point, then that is getting a bit strict, Mr. Speaker; not to question your ruling.

Anyway, we know how these appointments are made and we know that the Premier is going to be appointing the next commissioners. They changed the rules because I think you could only stay there for a certain -

MS THISTLE: Seven years.

MR. REID: Seven years. Now they are going to stay there until ten. Now you are going to be able to stay on the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, the bill we are talking about, now you are going to be able to be a commissioner on the Public Utilities Board until you are seventy.

This is why my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, is calling it the Club Senate, because the only other place that I am aware of where you can get the salaries and the perks is in the Senate in Ottawa and you can stay there until you are seventy-five. You are appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In this case you are going to be appointed to our Senate, the Public Utilities Board, by the Premier. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't expect to be appointed to the Public Utilities Board by our Premier. I don't expect.

I was talking to colleague across the floor, the Minister of Natural Resources, and I said: These fellows, the fellows who are going to be appointed to the Public Utilities Board, probably have far more influence on the Tory Party then he does. I am sure that he would not mind being on the Board of Directors of the Public Utilities Board and be guaranteed an income until you are seventy-years-old. That is something that we do not have in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the ironic about that, how you are going to leave them there until they are seventy years old and then you cannot go any further - I think my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, raised that question this afternoon - the fact that you have to get out when you are seventy years old somehow conflicts with the piece of legislation that the Minister of Justice put on the floor yesterday about not being able to discriminate on age. He just changed the legislation yesterday to take age discrimination out of the public service, not just in the public service but anywhere I take it, Minister. Am I correct? You cannot discriminate based on age anywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador anymore. You say that you cannot discriminate on age, and this board that they are established down there now at the Public Utilities Board, well you have to get out of there at seventy.

I tell you minister, you do not have to get up and speak to that, because I do not think they should be down there until they are seventy, in an appointed position by the Premier, in the Newfoundland Senate, the Public Utilities Board. I do not want them, so I do not mind if you discriminate in that case, I say to the minister. I do not mind because I do not think it is right to begin with that the Premier gets the sole right to appoint an individual until he is seventy-years-old in a cushy position down at the Public Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, I have been speaking a lot longer than I think I was allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. REID: No! Okay.

I know that my colleagues do not want me to sit down, but I am going to sit down right now because we are going to be back for third reading of this later on when I can ask some questions of the government, especially the Minister of Finance. I hope he is back here when we do third reading because I want to talk to him about why he says he cannot give us a tax rebate on home heating and on gasoline. Also, I need him to explain it to us here in this House of Assembly, on camera, some of the comments that you hear him make on the radio about how he loses money every time the price of gasoline goes up. People in the Province, especially in my district, are at a loss to try and figure out how he loses money every time the price of gasoline goes up. Like I am saying to him, if he is losing money every time it goes up, give us a tax reduction, drive the price down, and he will make more money.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will ask some questions later on in the evening on this bill. Thank you very much for indulging me while I strayed slightly to try and make a point on relevance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to add my commentary this afternoon to Bill 26 and just look at some of the facts that were not mentioned here this afternoon. One of the facts is that the present Utilities Board spends roughly $1.5 million a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SWEENEY: One-and-a-half million dollars.

As a matter of fact, at the end of March 2004 the board had a surplus of $1.2 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, I find that rather ironic because the board is a self-funding organization. The government does not put any money into the Public Utilities Board. Now do you know where that money comes from? It comes from the companies and the organizations out there that are applying for rate increases. I do not think there is anybody on record ever applied for a rate decrease. I do not think the Public Utilities Board has ever handled that situation.

Mr. Speaker, if a company applies for a rate increase, say for instance an oil company applies for a rate increase or an insurance company, if any of those companies apply, they are charged for expenses. They are charged for that service that the Public Utilities Board is supposed to be rendering. It is interesting to note that $1 million in 2004, almost $1 million, $993,000, was paid to an accounting consulting firm to review and to adjust and to give opinions on these rate increase proposals. Guess where all of this money is coming from, Mr. Speaker? It is coming out of the pocket of the consumer. We all know how business operates, that any cost incurred by a particular company for this sort of function is passed right on back to the consumer.

Mr. Speaker, that gives me great concern, that now we are appointing a board with full-time commissioners, people who are going to be there who I imagine, like any other Crown corporation in this Province, will be subject to full-time salaries, all the expenses and perks that go with the job. They will also be subject to pensions, because the Auditor General in 2004 found some problems with a person who retired from the board and a pension that he or she was paid. It was referred to as commissioner, so I am not sure what the gender was. But you can be sure, and the important part about this is, the board is paid for by the consumer.

My colleague there, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, mentioned about the people, the seniors walking around the mall during the winter months availing of the goodwill of the mall trying to stay warm. It hardly seems right, Mr. Speaker, as to what would justify a board that is supposed to manage its own expenses to have a surplus of $1.2 million, and especially when you cannot help but flick on TV or look at ASN and gas prices in Halifax are at $1.09 a litre, and, lo and behold, at the same time, the same morning after I leave my house and pull into the pumps in my own area. it is $1.22-plus a litre. I am wondering: Does the Public Utilities Board have time to turn on TV or make a call to see what is happening to the price of fuel in other provinces? We are talking about the difference between a province that is regulated with fuel prices and a province that is not. The province that is regulated has a higher price than a province that is not regulated. Now, it sort of defeats the whole purpose of a petroleum product pricing regulation. There is something wrong with that system. How often, it seems, somebody will say to me: Well, the gas goes up in a hurry but it does not come down as fast. We will see this great big leap in the price of fuel and, lo and behold, you will see a slow decrease when the price drops.

What is more interesting, and I know the big spin that everybody puts on it, the board would put on or the Petroleum Products Pricing Commission would put on - well, propane is going up this month or this week while gas comes down. But guess what? Oil comes into that refinery and different products come out through the different distillation methods. If gas can come down, why can't propane or fuel oil come down? Somebody will say: Well, it is because they do not use as much. Well, if they do not use as much, there should be that much more of a surplus left, and when the stuff is stockpiled. You know, somewhere along the line, the guidelines that are governing petroleum products pricing in this Province have fell off the rails.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about expenses of the board. You know, with all the consultation and everything else that takes place within the Public Utilities Board - a consultation expense for automobile insurance was $96,944. Special expenses in the amount of $778,889 were incurred by the board in connection with the automobile insurance review conducted at the direction of the government. These costs primarily comprised participation of the government appointed Consumer Advocate.

MR. JOYCE: How much?

MR. SWEENEY: One hundred ninety-seven thousand, nine hundred and fifty-two dollars. It gets a little bit better or worse, I am not sure how to phrase that.

Retention of actuarial and other outside consultants, $449,334. Communication and advertising associated with public hearings, $93,636. A minuscule number here of $37,967 for board related costs involving travel, printing and related overhead.

Now, these one time expenses - and get this. If we wonder why we are not getting lower insurance rates in this Province. These one time expenses were assessed by way of a special assessment to automobile insurers in the Province as required by section 3-1 of the Insurance Companies Act. Mr. Speaker, is it little wonder I am still waiting for my rebate from last year? Because I do not think there is any coming. I do not think there is any coming.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say you must be paying some high rate to get one because I have not gotten one, I say to the Government House Leader. I am still waiting. I have been promised.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I doubt it very much. I have the lowest rate in the country, I will tell you that right now.

Mr. Speaker, the whole process of this - and now when we start talking about full-time commissioners, do you know what happens when we get full-time commissioners? The job becomes their own. Before, when we had these expenses there, these were involving part-time commissioners, people who were called in when they were needed. Now we have four under this new act, this amendment. These four commissioners are going to replace three full-time and six part-time commissioners. I sort of wonder what these costs will be the next time we get a report and how apt and responsive these full-time commissioners are going to be to respond to the consumer. It causes me great concern.

Then, section 6.(1) of the act: Government will consider the board - get this one, government will consider that the board has experience in law - surprisingly enough - engineering, accountancy or finance. Do you know what is missing, Mr. Speaker? There should be one more part in there. There should be a consumer. If we are going to do something, let's do something for the consumer.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: No, I say to the Leader of the NDP, I think that is going to be encompassed somewhere else. It was there one time before, yes. A lot of experience in a lot of things.

Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the government say we will put another one in, and let that be a consumer? Somebody who has to get up in the morning, check his thermostat and turn it up a little bit to get warm before he steps out onto the cold flooring because the heater was turned down all night; somebody who is out there who can ill afford to pay. I have not seen too many people in either one of those professions who are too worried about their hydro bill or their gas bill, or for that matter, their insurance bill. When we look at the legal profession - the insurance profession and the legal profession sort of go hand in hand, don't they? One sort of works off the other. If you have an accident, you can call your insurance adjuster. The next person you have to call - according to the ads on television, if you are hurt or suffer any injury, call this number. Both of these professions work hand in hand and neither one of them are doing too badly.

Mr. Speaker, these are some of the problems that I see with Bill 26. The other part of it is that not even these four people will have the option of selecting a chairperson or a vice-chairperson because it says government shall select a chairperson or a vice-chairperson from the commissioners. Government shall set the terms and conditions of appointment of a commissioner. Well, I tell you, it is sounding more as my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans said, club Senate.

Each commissioner shall serve a ten year term during good behaviour. Now, I wonder what that good behaviour would constitute? Would it be a big, fancy Christmas card to the Premier at Christmastime, bigger than the other persons to stay there longer because the card was fancy, or sends over a turkey or invites the Premier to Christmas dinner, something like that?

MR. JOYCE: Do what you are told.

MR. SWEENEY: Or, is it as my colleague from Bay of Islands says, as long as they do what they are told that will constitute good behaviour. That will constitute good behaviour.

As if ten years was not enough, it goes on to say a commissioner is eligible for an appointment for a second ten year term. Now, it does not say, Mr. Speaker, if a third year term is eligible or not because that part is left out. It does not say for a second ten year term - or it says a second ten year term but does not say a final ten year term. So, I am wondering if somebody, let's say, thirty years of age was appointed, would they be eligible for four terms? Would they, I wonder?

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that comes from long term appointments - one of the big drawbacks I find with long term appointments, apathy. When we look at people, sometimes who are in a position for so long, become apathetic. They sort of go deaf. They sort of lose touch with the needs of the people that they are supposed to be there for. That is one of the things that I find would be one of the dangerous things of this particular one.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we look at that consideration, because if you get an apathetic board who is there getting paid God knows how much - because there is no salary figure put in here. You know, there is no mention of the amount that is paid for the position. We have no idea how much that is, but we know that the position of a certain Crown Corporation here right now, with this government, there are certain positions that are being paid industry standards. Now, whatever industry standards are, whatever we can classify an industry standard - because if we are going to match some of the salaries of an oil company then we are in real trouble, aren't we, with some of these plum jobs?

I mentioned a few moments ago that the board is supposed to be self-sufficient, and section 6 there says, the board may employ workers. It gets better. It gets better, Mr. Speaker. Not only do we have four commissioners appointed by the government, and we had an incident this week of somebody who was appointed by the government and half of the members opposite did not know who it was until it was after the fact, but the board itself now, these commissioners, may employ workers required to carry out this act, but guess who pays for those again? Their salaries and other expenses come out of the board's annual expenses.

That is a little bit of a misnomer, because the whole part of that is that those expenses actually come out of the consumer's pocket. Those expenses actually come out of the consumer's pocket, so we are setting up a pretty good deal here, aren't we?

Then, to go further on, it says: No employee of the board shall be held responsible for anything done or omitted in good faith in the course of carrying out his or her duty.

That is not bad. You can get a job that pays all sorts of dollars by a board appointed by the government and not have to be responsible.

Now, the second amendment added to section 6, Mr. Speaker, is that the Chair shall be CEO and shall have authority over the overall operation, management and financial administration of the board.

Now, where this really gets interesting is later, I would suspect, this evening when we get into Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act. That is where that gets interesting.

Clause 6.1 (2) "The chairperson shall supervise and direct the work of the commissioners and the staff of the board. (3) The chairperson shall manage and plan the conduct of applications to the board and matters referred to it...."

That is an important clause, because the chairperson gets to decide which application goes to the board first. That could result in lengthy delays and high cost to the consumer

It is interesting to note, as well, that there could be very little continuity between this newly appointed board by government and the existing board, because the third amendment, the second subsection, section 3 of the act, says: A part-time commissioner whose term of office has not ended on the coming into force of this act shall cease to hold office when this act comes into force.

So, the commissioners out there right now are gone as soon as this bill and the new board starts to come into effect.

Mr. Speaker, I imagine we should see some changes. I hope we do see some changes in the speedy relief of fuel prices, the speedy relief of electricity rates and, I guess, most importantly, the speedy relief of cost of auto insurance, and some fairness for all our people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how one full-time board member will increase the productivity of this board by replacing six part-time commissioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to make some concluding comments.

MR. SWEENEY: I didn't realize I had that much to say, Mr. Speaker.

On that note, I will just add the following point. As our leader said a few moments ago, I say to the minister, when you are looking at this act, just how the seventy part fits into the new bill on Human Rights, Bill 25, that is another concern that I would have in this particular situation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will close debate at second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank hon. members opposite for their comments that they have made during the debate tonight, but I do have to point out to them, that many of their comments are totally incorrect.

First of all, there was a lot of talk by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace criticizing this act, this amendment that we are bringing forward, by claiming that it was legislation that allowed members to be appointed to a position until the age of seventy. They were not happy with that. They were quite critical of that and I agree with that criticism, that is why we have introduced this amendment that is going to stop that and limit appointments to the Board of Commissioners to ten years.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans indicated that they could stay until seventy. As I indicated, this amendment will change the act that permits a commissioner to be appointed to the age of seventy by limiting the appointment to a ten-year term. There is a section in the act that says that a person who serves a ten-year term is eligible to be appointed to a second ten-year term. That, of course, will mean, as the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans indicated, that you could have someone appointed for twenty years. But, under the current legislation, someone could be appointed for thirty or forty or fifty years even, and that is why we brought this amendment in to change that.

Members opposite also talked about the fact that this bill that we are introducing would terminate the appointments of certain commissioners, mainly the part-time commissioners. Again, that is not correct, Mr. Speaker. The part-time commissioners' appointments will end, under the current legislation, on the twenty-first day of May, which is just a few days from now. One of the commissioners appointment will end on September 1, 2006.

I also indicated earlier when I spoke to open the debate on this particular amendment, that the commissioners would be retiring; the part-time commissioners and the full-time commissioners are being retired. That is not correct. The part-time commissioners, as I just indicated, are retiring but that will not apply to the full-time commissioners. There are two full-time commissioners, the Chair and the Vice-Chair. They will be continuing. They were appointed under the previous legislation, and under the previous legislation, which I believe was brought in by the Wells Administration, that permitted appointments to the age of seventy. As I indicated earlier, we are changing that by this amendment to limit appointments to ten-year terms. Of course, the two current full-time commissioners who were appointed under the old legislation, the transitional provisions will allow them to stay if they wish to the age of seventy.

I would also like to make reference - some hon. members opposite did, in fact, make reference to the fact that - they talked about the conflict between the amendment to the Human Rights Act, which ended discrimination in employment for people sixty-five years and over. Under the previous law in this Province, an employer could discriminate against someone who attained the age of sixty-five and refuse to hire that person, or had a mandatory retirement. We brought in an amendment to the human rights legislation that will end that.

What we have done here, Mr. Speaker, we have provided that - unless otherwise directed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, a commissioner shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of seventy. Basically, that would mean that if somebody was appointed to a ten-year term and would have to retire at seventy, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can allow the appointment to continue until the full ten-year term is up.

With respect to age seventy, this was a recommendation of the commission. As a comparison, they looked at retirement ages for provincial court judges across the country. This is an independent quasi judicial tribunal, similar to tribunals, such as a provincial court. It was recognized, given the type of work, that age seventy might be the appropriate retirement age. Of course, given the change to the human rights legislation, given the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, given policy changes that I believe the Minister of Finance will bring forward, it is always open to someone to, of course, challenge the legislation under the Charter. When the Minister of Finance brings forward his legislation, these anomalies in different pieces of legislation can be corrected.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans also indicated the salaries of the full-time and part-time commissioners. Now, under the existing legislation there are three full-time commissioners, there are up to six part-time commissioners. The hon. member opposite indicated that their salaries total $1 million a year. That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker. The total budget for the full commission is $1.5 million and before the Petroleum Pricing Office in Grand Falls was integrated with the Public Utilities Board, the budget was $1 million, but it was not just the commissioners. Indeed, it was the salaries of all the commission staff and all the commission expenses. As has been pointed out, it is the utility companies, it is the industries that are regulated, that are assessed each year to pay these costs so that while the taxpayers do not pay the costs, obviously the regulated industries and consumers, of course, do pay the cost.

The good news and the reason for this amendment is that if this amendment passes, the savings to government by changing the number of commissioners from nine to four will be approximately $150,000 a year savings to regulated industries, and ultimately to consumers. So, it is not $250,000 a year. The hon. member indicated the salaries are $250,000 a year. The salaries are, actually: The Chair receives $125,000, the vice-chair receives $95,000 and the full-time commissioners receive $90,000 each. So that is a long way from $250,000 a year.

One last point, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the comments from the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Her comments that the board should circuit around the Province and have hearings in other areas of the Province. I am told since 2001, the board has held hearings in Labrador West, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, in Stephenville, in Grand Falls and Corner Brook and I agree that those types of hearings should, in fact, continue.

With respect to the Consumer Advocate. There is an Advocate appointed and paid for by the regulated utilities to make representations on behalf of consumers. He is an extremely capable individual. He even, before the last hearing, travelled all over the Province and met with consumers and met with individuals and heard their concerns. Mr. Thomas Johnson, the Consumer Advocate, travelled over the Province. He had hearings and he met with the consumers so that he could take their concerns before the hearing.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks. I am happy to move second reading to this very important piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act has now been read a second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 26)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss matters related to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself in a Committee of the Whole to consider matters relating to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act and that I do not leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on the Committee stage of Bill 26, An Act to Amend The Public Utilities Act.

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Public Utilities Act." (Bill 26)

CLERK: Clauses 1 to 3.

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 3. Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Yes, just a short comment. I noticed and some of the speakers mentioned, that the four people who would be selected - and do not get me wrong, I have nothing against those people. I think it was engineers, lawyers and financial people. I think my hon. colleague from Carbonear-Harbour Grace mentioned it. I just want the minister to take it under consideration.

For instance, with the Canada Pension appeals, the review tribunal, you have your lawyer there as chairperson, no problem, you have your medical people on the other side, but you always have someone there, probably at large, who can - I am not saying those people have no concerns for the ordinary person but it sure plays a big part when you go to those appeals, and probably something worth considering down the road.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 to 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 3 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 26 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion is carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me that they have reported a bill, Bill 26, carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, has passed without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now by leave.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, by leave.

On motion, report received and adopted, bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, be now 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 Amend The Public Utilities Act. (Bill 26).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been 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 Amend The Public Utilities Act,"read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe we have agreed that we would take a supper break until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House, by agreement, is in recess until 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Resuming debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994." (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise to introduce Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

Mr. Speaker, if we look back to this government's position just prior to the last election and, I guess, the ensuing election, one of the planks of our policy platform was an expanded role for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Philosophically, we believe that hydro, as a Crown corporation, has tremendous potential, Mr. Speaker. It has tremendous potential to grow revenues for the people of the Province that will enable government, for example, as the shareholder, on behalf of the people of the Province, to utilize those revenues for the social infrastructure within Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be on roads, schools, hospitals, into the social fabric.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's history as a Crown corporation, I do not believe that people in the Province truly understand how significant an asset Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is. I know that people in the Province treasure Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown corporation.

I recall, during 1994, a debate in this Legislature and, for me, in my political career, it was one of the most important debates that I believe has occurred in the last thirteen to fourteen years. That was when an attempt was made to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, to sell it to the public sector, and the cost - just to give you an example of what was at stake at that time - the cost that was being bandied about of what we would get for it was somewhere in the vicinity of $250 million to $300 million.

Now, the people of the Province did not want it. There was a significant debate that occurred in this House. I remember the petitions that were presented and ultimately, I believe, Mr. Speaker - and you, yourself, participated in those petitions, like many of us did - ultimately the government of the day saw the wisdom, I guess, in the view of the people of the Province.

There were many people who participated in that debate, both inside this Legislature and outside, but saw the wisdom, I guess, and the point of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that they did not want their Hydro Corporation sold.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, because it really underscores and sort of sets the stage for where our view of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro developed, and how it developed to where it is today.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for example, is the fourth largest utility in Canada - the fourth largest. It has over forty years of experience in transmission of electricity services. Up until this point in time, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been concentrated on its legislative mandate, which is to deliver the least cost power to both the consumer and industrial user as is possible. That is its legislative mandate. If it is going to develop, for example, the next source of hydro power, it is obligated, under legislation, to look at what is the next cheapest source for development. That provides, I guess, some assurance to the people of the Province, from its corporation point of view, that it tries and it is legislated to keep costs at a bare minimum with respect to the ratepayer.

We have a situation, though, with Hydro with respect to, that causes the fluctuations in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to electricity prices. That is our dependence on the Island portion of the Province and the impact that it has on the Labrador system, which is a completely separate system from a regulated point of view, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of burning oil causes fluctuations, price hikes and price dips, depending on the price of oil where it is. So we have, I think, a challenge in front of us over the next decade, really, by where we believe, as a government, that we can get to a point where our dependence upon burning fuel in this Province will become non-existent.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for most people, is a sort of everyday corporation in the Province that provides significant benefits but, to the expertise of Hydro again, most people did not realize and would not realize, and I think we need to say it until we are sick of hearing ourselves say it, but it runs the eighth largest hydro project, in terms of Upper Churchill - the eighth largest hydro project - on the planet. So, the experience of Hydro is extremely high. It is high from a point of view of, it has significant expertise in construction of hydro capacity, if you look at what it has done in the past in Cat Arm, in the Baie d'Espoir project, if you look at, as I just indicated, its experience in developing these types of projects, so it has experience that we believe we can capitalize on, but we felt that Hydro was underutilized, significantly underutilized.

There are other models in the country, there are other models in the world, where Crown agencies like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, or other Hydro corporations, have branched out beyond traditional mandates, particularly in this case of providing least cost electricity on the one hand and the burning of oil on the other hand, and making sure that they run that regulated business to the best possible outcomes within their ability to be as efficient as possible to ensure that rates are as low as possible.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, strongly - our government, led by the Premier in developing this policy outlook, believes strongly - that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had been underutilized and can be a significant engine of growth for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

What we are debating here today is a very, what you would call, enabling legislation. In setting the policy direction for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the bill that we are debating here today - and I will just read it so people understand exactly what it is we are talking about.

The amendment itself will enable Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to comply with the policy direction, as I have outlined that we have provided, that government explore new opportunities in the energy industry, while the Hydro Corporation Act itself is reviewed in relation to the expanded role and mandate of Hydro and the Province's energy plan.

The explanatory note in the bill bears worth reading. It says that the bill would amend the Hydro Corporation Act to permit the corporation to engage in activities related to the exploration for, development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of, hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons.

The amendments would also permit the corporation to engage in other activities that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve. Currently, the corporation may only pursue objects related to the development, generation and sale of electrical power.

From that perspective, what that means in the Province is further development of Hydro resources, or the burning of Bunker C oil, so that their legislative mandate can be met, which is to ensure that electricity, from a consumer or ratepayer point of view, individual homeowners, or our industrial users, whether it be IOC, Wabush Mines, Abitibi-Consolidated in Grand Falls, the new mine in Duck Pond, for example, Aur Resources, Kruger in Corner Brook, North Atlantic Refining, these are industrial rate class.

Mr. Speaker, from that point of view, that is what its mandate is right now, but we see, as I indicated, a stronger role and a more expanded role.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would also amend the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. Section 24 of that Act presently prohibits Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from engaging in activities that are not related to electrical power generation and sale. Fundamentally, that is where were we differ and that is why this legislation is required.

I want to provide just, I guess, a sense that what we are doing here is but a first step with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the legislative changes that will be required. This is a two-tiered approach from government's point of view. The initial amendment, the one that we are beginning debate on right now, gives Hydro the flexibility to explore business opportunities on an interim basis only, Mr. Speaker, until its new mandate is more clearly defined, likely in the fall once the energy plan consultation is occurring.

I would like to talk about the energy plan consultations that occurred this winter. We have a couple left to do, because, I guess, through inclement weather and snow storms we were not able to get down into the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair's district. We hope to do that and have committed to do that once the House closes. We want to get into Northern Labrador. Mr. Speaker, having said that, during the energy consultations that occurred throughout the Province, in Grand Falls, the Northern Peninsula, in Labrador and on the Avalon Peninsula, there was a message that came through with all the presenters: Number one, that people agreed with government's approach that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remain a Crown corporation. This government is firmly committed to ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation, because the Premier of our Province, supported by his Cabinet and his colleagues, believes fundamentally and strongly that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a gem in the assets of this Province. You could compare it to the Crown Jewel if you would like to compare it that way. We believe that. We also believe that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has the opportunity, if it is unleashed within certain parameters in the new legislated mandate, to create yet further opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, government, as part of its platform, election platform - the Premier promoted this strongly and continues to do so. It is extremely important for the future of the Province, as he set out and myself as his minister in the Cabinet, in terms of going forward in ensuring that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, no matter where they live, have the opportunity to express their opinions, their points of view and their desires, Mr. Speaker, indeed their desires, for where they want to see this Province go and how Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro can play a significant role in meeting those desires and expectations.

Mr. Speaker, from our point of view, and I remember attending the Combined Councils in Labrador and listening to the legitimate points of view that were expressed by people on the coast. Acknowledgedly, people will say that electricity rates on the coast are heavily subsidized. Yes, they are. We listened to my colleague from Labrador West talk about electricity rates in Labrador, but the fact of the matter is, this is a resource where people, both in Labrador and on the Island, when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, want to ensure, number one, that the lowest possible rates can be delivered on the one hand.

Secondly, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair mentioned it and I agree with her, that electricity is as cost effective as it can be for the rate for the consumer, that we provide it on a continuous basis and uninterrupted way because fundamental to any successful economy in the industrialized world, in the industrialized nations, is the ability to have access to a cheap supply, a clean supply, and an uninterrupted supply of energy so that can be used as a lynchpin or as leverage to attract industry to our Province and to our place on the planet so that we can grow our economy, grow our enterprises and use our natural endowments, particularly hydro, as a way to do exactly that. That is clearly where the Premier has set the direction for the new mandate for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and that is clearly what we are committed to achieving for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, hydro will continue what it does right now, what it has significant experience at doing right now, but it will no longer be solely focused, I say to Members in the House of Assembly and through this place where we have been elected to look towards the best interest of the people in the Province, but no longer from our point of view will it be solely focused on the generation and transmission of electricity, but will pursue new energy opportunities.

If you look at the Norwegian model for example, just as one example, right now in Newfoundland and Labrador, off our coast, in our oil producing projects - Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose - the Government of Norway - just think about this now - has a stake as a partner in some of those projects through Norsk Hydro, their Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, we see significant opportunity, through our Crown corporation, to have an opportunity, and an excellent opportunity, not only to get into that business but to get into it in a significant way to grow our industry and for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be owners of their own house in this Province. That, essentially, would encapsulate the vision, the view that the Premier has articulated for government and, ultimately, what is articulated for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I strongly believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador support this direction, and that certainly was supported. I know as the minister responsible for the administration of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and it reports to the Department of Natural Resources and thus to government, that the people of the Province, through the energy consultation process when this was talked about, strongly supported what we were up to.

I was asked a question by a communication energy and paper's worker in Grand Falls who said how - I guess, comforted and supportive - that union was of the direction that we had taken. How strongly they supported the direction of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in ensuring the development of our resources, that those resources be tied directly to the economies and the enterprises that they are supporting. If those private interests or private enterprises were to leave the Province, for whatever reason, that those resources - that hydro resource, for example - would remain with the people of the Province and could not be taken elsewhere.

I recall at the Holiday Inn in St. John's during the energy consultation when we talked about the expanded role for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, not a single presenter, not one from a variety of different groups, individuals, organizations, non-government organizations, environmentalists to a single person, to a single organization, when talked about the expanded role for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, it was met with support and applause, Mr. Speaker, because people know, I think, the intrinsic value of the public policy direction that the Premier, under his leadership, and the government have set for this Crown corporation. I believe strongly, based on those consultations, that people support the direction, and I know they support the direction that we are headed into.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment, as I said, is an enabling amendment. It gives Hydro the flexibility to pursue new business opportunities. Further amendments, no question, will be required to the Hydro act. Once the energy plan is complete and once that plan is laid out, then those amendments will come back to the Province, through the Legislature, for full disclosure and full debate by every member to ask any and all questions related to the direction that we are headed in.

I want to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, so there can be no misunderstanding in any way, shape or form about our intention for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we are not privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and we have no intention of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. This amendment is not about that, this amendment is about expanding the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been clear, the Premier has been unequivocal and the Premier has been steadfast, in his view that the restructuring of Hydro and its mandate to support the development of the Province's energy sector is a priority for this government. We committed to developing an energy plan, Mr. Speaker, for Newfoundland and Labrador, the first plan, by the way, of any government since Confederation, so that once it is complete and one it is done from a broad policy point of view and direction, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the consumers, rate payers, industry that depends upon energy in this Province, potential industry from oil and gas or natural gas or wind energy or hydrothermal, will know where the broad policy direction is, and clarity and certainty will be provided so that those industries that depend upon the sources of our natural resources and our endowments will know what the rules of the game are.

No longer, Mr. Speaker, will we, as long as we are the government, be entering into power purchase agreements with huge industrial companies without tying them to the enterprises in which they operate. No longer, not today, not by this government, under the direction of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador supported by his colleagues and his Cabinet, will you see an opportunity whereby an agreement is entered into on the Exploits River system that allows a company like Abitibi, up until 2022 and 2032 respective, in that area, to have the opportunity to make a profit from our river systems. If they left today, Mr. Speaker, if they moved on today, those agreements that were signed in the past, they can take those benefits with them because those agreements were not tied to jobs and they were not tied to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is not the direction that this amendment sets. The direction clearly is, from our point of view, to allow Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to expand its role, to expand its mandate, to search for opportunities, to create opportunities based upon its own experience, based upon its excellent track record, to create revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador and to tie those opportunities to enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There have been questions asked, for example, and legitimate ones, and there will be some asked tonight, I am sure. There is an element of risk associated with it, some have said. You need to be careful of that element of risk, that we do not get ourselves into a situation by pursuing these opportunities. So some might ask: What will this amendment do to enhancing risk or increasing risk? Now, the question is very simple. It will not increase the risk to the ratepayer or to consumers, and here is why: Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, under its current legislative mandate, will clearly still be accountable to government and the people of the Province. The current protections and oversight mechanisms that exist that are currently contained in the Hydro Corporation Act will continue to apply, as a matter of course, to all of Hydro's activities. These mechanisms include restrictions on Hydro's borrowing power and the guarantee of loans by government, for example.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board retains oversight of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's regulated activities, ensuring that their unregulated new business opportunities and activities will not be subsidized by the consumers of the Province, so rates to consumers will remain unaffected by this view.

That is an important point. While we are moving in that direction, it is an extremely important point for people to understand. While we are trying to expand Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and setting it on that path, we cannot do so without ensuring that the individual homeowner, ratepayer, whether you live in Cartwright, or you live in Labrador West, or you live in Nipper's Harbour on the Baie Verte Peninsula, whether you live in Kilbride or the Goulds, in Grand Falls or on the Southwest Coast, that ultimately the ratepayer must be protected to ensure that Hydro's legislative mandate to continue to pay and to continue to provide the least cost power, that will remain so that Hydro's other activities, while they are looking at other activities, will not be done at the expense of providing that low cost power.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro is building on its core business - that is how we see it - and they will have the same mandate to provide safe, reliable, least cost power to consumers. That is the commitment and that is the pledge that government has made, and done so through the legislative provision that we are debating right now, and will do so again on the second tier when the energy plan is completed, when those policy directions are provided, and those policy directions find themselves in the legislation that we will debate in this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have set that direction already. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has set that direction for the government and for the people. If you look at the individuals who now are in charge of Hydro, those are individuals who have backgrounds and experiences with respect to the direction that we have set. In no way does that diminish the individuals who have gone before them who have led that Corporation, in no way, shape or form; people like Bill Wells, people like Vic Young, people like Cy Abery, all of those former CEOs of Hydro. I just single them out, because you cannot name everybody, but as representative of all the employees of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who do their jobs diligently, who have done their jobs professionally, who have taken the mandates by government and the policy directions set by government for them and done so in a professional manner, Mr. Speaker. Those individuals over the last forty years deserve to be commended for building and maintaining the integrity of a Crown Corporation that has given us, in this Legislature at this point in time, the opportunity, the absolute opportunity that we have right now to expand Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's mandate. We would not have it without them, Mr. Speaker, and I want to applaud them for their past service over the last forty years to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: In setting the direction, Mr. Speaker, that requires people who can have the experience, who have the background, who have the technical capability and ultimately the skill set to achieve that direction, we look at the senior executive today, while others retired and we brought new people in. You look at the CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Martin, former senior executive with the oil and gas industry in Terra Nova, a Newfoundlander and Labradorian from Grand Falls, a patriot, somebody who we felt fortunate, through an open competition, brings to us the institutional knowledge of where we need to go, and somebody who is taking the policy direction that government has set to do exactly that.

You look at the new Vice-President of New Business Development, Ed Keating, another individual, Mr. Speaker, from Newfoundland and Labrador, a former -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jim Keating.

MR. E. BYRNE: Kim Keating, sorry. Another Newfoundlander and Labradorian, a former VP, I believe, with Norsk Hydro, somebody who has worked within the model of where this Province has set the direction for them to take us, and all the senior executive, management team and line employees.

Just to give you a story, I bumped into a manager of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at a soccer game this summer, where my daughter was playing soccer, and we had a chat about the direction. He said: Minister, people are excited in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We have known for years the opportunities that we have had, but we are excited about the direction that your government has provided. We are excited about getting up in the morning and seizing some opportunities, because we know they are there.

When I met with Bob Clarke, who is the president of the IBEW, who made a presentation, by the way, on behalf of the IBEW, at our energy consultations, he said: Minister, finally, the direction that you are headed in is exactly where we feel it should be, and we, speaking on behalf of the IBEW, strongly support the direction that your Premier and your government are taking Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in, because it will be good for the Province, it will be good for my employees - was the message, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

That is the type of sense that we have tried to develop. The Premier has talked about pride and culture, the ability in ourselves. It is one thing to say it, but it is quite another thing, when you see today, it reflected in legislation, because that is really where it matters.

I guess the take-home message tonight to members is that we, as a government, are strongly committed to the amendment that we have put forward today. That is why we, every year, for those who may be watching, in the beginning of a new session, government always picks a particular bill each session that will highlight the importance of what direction or particular policy direction that we want to take a specific initiative in. This year we chose the amendment for Hydro because it speaks, when you think about it, it really speaks to where we see our place in the future. It speaks to using an instrument, a Crown corporation that belongs to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, it speaks to allowing that corporation to grow opportunities in our own backyard in resource sectors that are owned by us, or potentially could be developed by us, thus allowing the people of the Province to develop their intellectual capacity, to develop technology transfer, to allow a greater level, or to begin a path where a greater level of skill sets can be developed and exploited and transferred to other parts of the planet for our benefit. That is what this amendment speaks to. That is what this amendment is about.

From our point of view, we are more than happen tonight to introduce this amendment, more than proud to introduce this amendment. We are more than proud to debate it in every nook and cranny of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have done so already and promoted it, and we will so with the absolute confidence that we have in the future of our corporation and the role it can play in the future economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is why this amendment is being brought forward tonight.

With that, I will conclude my opening remarks and say thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill 1 this evening, which is a bill, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act.

Normally my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who is actually the energy critic for our caucus, would be speaking at length to this bill this evening but, unfortunately, he had to go to his district for some important meetings with his constituents so I get the great honour of addressing this bill this evening.

I listened to the minister's comments with great intent because I do, too, believe that the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation is indeed a corporation that people in our Province have been proud of as a Crown entity and as an entity that supports the move of stakeholders and the wishes of stakeholders in terms of how they want to move forward.

I guess that became very obvious to a lot of people in our Province just a little over ten years ago. That was when there was a great deal of discussion in 1994-1995 around the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I remember it very well, Mr. Speaker, because it was probably the single issue that got me more interested in politics than any other issue. I remember it well because, in the region where I had lived, there were a lot of people who were very upset, very upset, with the fact that government was moving towards privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and what that would actually mean for them as consumers and as shareholders and so on in the Province.

At the time, I was living in a region where the member of the day was a part of the government that was opting to have this done. I remember people feeling so strongly about it that all over the Province there were protests, there were people expressing their views, and I remember organizing a protest at the time that led a few hundred people in the Labrador Straits region, that I was involved with, and I remember the protest took us to the border between Labrador and Quebec where we went to make our statement in terms of having a corporation, that was a Crown corporation and one that belonged to the people, and to take a position in a very small way against the privatization of hydro. I remember it very well.

I also remember, Mr. Speaker, that although it was a very contentious issue, it was a lesson for me in the power that people have when they come together to support an issue and to lobby against an issue, and in that particular lobby there was a tremendous amount of success. I think the government of the day realized, in very short order, that they had overstepped their bounds and that this was indeed a concept, an idea, that they were pushing which was not going to fly with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In fact, that the people of this Province wanted to protect the integrity of this corporation and would do whatever it took to ensure that happened. So, I learned a lesson that time, Mr. Speaker, that when people stick together they have power and they have the power to make changes that are substantial, and in this case that was quite evident and that was indeed what happened.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister spoke he said that in every session the government has a bill that will highlight and show the direction that government would like to take. I thought that was going to be the FPI bill coming next week, but I guess it is the hydro bill that we are debating tonight. I guess the reason why it is called Bill 1, Mr. Speaker, is indicating its significance in the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt that people in this Province have a great deal of pride in this corporation and they want to see it successful, and it has been successful. The minister talks about the team and the calibre of individuals who are now at the helm in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and they are all in this glossy book that they have put out. There are great big floor-size pictures of all the new CEOs and boards of directors and all those people at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They have all their pictures in there so we know who they all are, what they are and what they do.

The minister talks about what a great team of people these individuals are, and I am sure they probably are, but I would also like to say that we have always had, in my opinion, a great team of people in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro who quite often had to make some difficult decisions that were not always popular but, at the same time, they continued to run a corporation that was strong, both financially and both in its economic agenda. They maintained a corporation that showed profits year over year, right through our history. That speaks well, I think, of all the management of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro up through the years. I certainly would commend those people for the job that they have done as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is actually allowing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that has traditionally been a producer and a developer of electricity in our Province, to expand its mandate to be a full energy corporation that would focus its attention to all facets of energy development within our Province. I guess from hydro power to petroleum development, oil and gas, whatever the necessity is required of the company from an energy perspective, they would certainly be involved. I do not think you are going to get any argument from anyone if this is a move - and I think it is a good move for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, because I do believe they should have a role in all facets of energy development in our Province. I do not have a problem with that, but the bill also says that the corporation should be permitted to engage in all other activities that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve. Now that is a very broad statement.

I do not think Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, at the same time, are going to be over setting up a donut shop or anything of this sort, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it is a very broad statement in a piece of legislation. If one wanted to, it could be interpreted in many ways but it does leave them not only with the specific mandate of developing energy from all facets of energy development but it also leaves them wide open, as a corporation, to get involved with anything that the government may see fit for them to be involved in. I just used the donuts as an example, but it could be anything. It could be a high-tech industry, it could be cable development, it could be anything of those sorts. Those things we are not entirely sure of, as it is a very broad statement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit tonight about some of the things that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been involved in, and I know the minister alluded to a number of projects. This is a corporation that is not only, as the minister has said, the fourth largest energy corporation in the country, but it is a corporation that has built up a tremendous amount of expertise and skills over the years, right from the ground level up. It does not matter if you are talking to a linesman on the ground in Mary's Harbour, or if you are talking to someone managing the technical site at the terminal facility in Holyrood, these people are high calibre people who have been trained very well, through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, to carry out the responsibilities that they have on behalf of our residents. They are very safety conscious people as a corporation, too, I might add. This company has built up a fabulous skill set of individuals who have expertise that range, as I said, from one end of the spectrum to the other, and from the front lines right to the head offices. I think that speaks well of this corporation over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I talk to a lot of people who work with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. As you know, when I travel through my district I probably pass more Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro trucks than I pass any other vehicle. That is because when you have a diesel isolated system in your area, like I have, it requires a great deal of mechanical ability, lots of lines crews and so on. So, I get to talk to these individuals on a fairly regular basis. One of the things I can say is that they are people who have pride in their work but they also have pride in the company that they work for. They are very proud to be employees of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Sometimes they have contentious battles with their employer as well.

The hon. minister mentioned Bob Carter, I met him on a number of occasions and actually joined with him in fighting some battles for employees of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I can tell you, they have heated negotiations too. They have heated negotiations with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in trying to achieve better benefits for their workers and so on, but notwithstanding all of that, they are still employees who are proud of the company that they work for. They are proud to serve the public everyday in the capacity that they do. They know that their work is valued in our society. I think that is very important, because if you have a good morale in a company it means the company has a far greater success rate than one that does not. I think that is certainly true for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just a company that is experienced already in dealing with just one facet of electrical development. They operate a terminal facility at Holyrood which provides a large degree of the power to the Province. They have large hydro development projects that they have been involved in, and have build up tremendous expertise in that particular facet. Also, Mr. Speaker, they have diesel generated stations around the Province in which they operate. They have been able to tie diesel generation into hydro generation of power. All of those things they have done. They have been involved in wind power. When you look at all of this, it is a very broad section of just electrical development already that they have been involved in, so I guess the next logical step would no doubt be to expand its mandate to look at other facets of energy development.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the Lower Churchill project, because yesterday we had a resolution in the House of Assembly that was brought forward by the Member for Gander, that talked about the government taking the lead, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro taking the lead, in the Lower Churchill development project.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who brought that forward?

MS JONES: The Member for Gander. Not the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Gander brought forward a motion, Mr. Speaker, that said that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would take the lead in the development of the Lower Churchill project. I was a little bit bemused, I suppose, if I could say that word, when I read the motion, simply because I would never question who else would take the lead in a project that was focusing on hydro development in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it was supposed to be a statement or a motion that would fall in line with the Premier's announcement that he made on May 8, but the words were different. They were very different. When the Premier made his announcement on May 8, he said: Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would go it alone in the development of a hydro project on the Lower Churchill.

When I hear that phrase, Mr. Speaker, go it alone, I draw the assumption that this is going to be a project that will be 100 per cent owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, either as shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or through the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but the motion did not say that. The motion said that they would take the lead, and taking the lead does not mean that you are going to have 100 per cent ownership.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who else would take the lead?

MS JONES: There is no one else that should take the lead in the development of a hydro initiative like the Lower Churchill in this Province only our own energy corporation and the government of the day. I do not think anybody would argue with that.

Mr. Speaker, that was kind of surprising to me, to see that the motion was worded differently than the comments to the press only a week or so ago before that. I guess we will have to wait and see what the real meaning of all of this is going to be as we see this particular project and deal unfold.

In saying that, I want to add this comment, and that is that I do have confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be a partner in the development of the Lower Churchill project and to take the lead, because I really do believe that they have expertise to be able to do that, more so probably than any other department or entity of government. Therefore, it should be their responsibility to be involved in a very major way in a project of that scale. No doubt, we are going to see that.

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill project itself is merely just an announcement at this stage, I suppose, an announcement that the government will take the lead, or will go it alone, whatever phrase we are going to use today, but I think that this particular development project will, no doubt, be probably one of the largest projects that will be undertaken in the next little while in this Province, maybe. Maybe. I should not say that it will be - maybe it will be - but it is certainly a very important development for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a lot of communities in this Province whose future will hinge, no doubt, on how the negotiations and how the project like the Lower Churchill will be rolled out. That is true.

I can tell you that there are going to be a lot of communities in Labrador whose entire future, when it comes to industry development, will hinge on how this Lower Churchill deal is rolled out. I do not think the minister will disagree with that, because he knows the area very well. He knows that there is a need for available energy in Labrador right now. He also knows that if the Lower Churchill deal is to proceed, it has to proceed knowing full well that the people of Labrador have to have access to power.

I have said to them before, you may not be able to develop the Lower Churchill project and put a transmission line right through Labrador and feed every community Lower Churchill power, and I do not think anyone expects that, but what they do expect, Mr. Speaker, is to be able to have access to power and be able to afford the access to it, and be able to get it when they want it. That would be the requirement for almost every community there. They really feel that the Lower Churchill project may be their only catalyst to see that happen in the next short while. Whether it is putting transmission lines into Lab City or building transmission lines into Happy Valley-Goose Bay to generate more power, whether it is providing alternative sources of power on the North and South Coast of Labrador through other hydro development projects or transmission even from the Goose Bay site, I do not know, but these are all things that I would hope that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, no matter what their mandate would be after today, would examine and have very careful examination of and also, Mr. Speaker, be very conscious of the fact that Labrador, as a region, has to have energy as part of its future development. If not, Mr. Speaker, there will not be any additional industry in Labrador. I know that, and a lot of other people know that. The minister is nodding, and he knows that. We have had this discussion on many occasions.

Mr. Speaker, right now, I guess most people, not just in Labrador but right throughout the Province, are going to wait to see what may be packaged as part of the Lower Churchill development project, and what they might see; because, as you know, there are a lot of people in this Province who would like to see an alternative to the thermal generated power at Holyrood. There are a lot of people who would like to see an alternative to that.

I listened to a lady on the radio back just a couple of months ago, Annette Stone, from out in my colleague's district, the Member for Conception Bay South, talking about the emissions from the Holyrood plant. She lives directly across from this plant and she sees the emissions every day, the black smoke and the soot that lays on her house, that lays on her car, that lays in her parking lot and, Mr. Speaker, believe me, these people would like to see an alternative energy source to the thermal power that is being produced at Holyrood, simply because not only do they have the fuss of black soot - I think that is the least of their worries, Mr. Speaker - I think the real issue for these people is how is this affecting our health and the health of our children?

I have talked to a number of people out there, because I know, I would say, at least seven or eight families that live on Indian Pond Road, that runs right adjacent to the Holyrood plant. I have been in their houses. I have eaten with them and I have talked to them. I know that they have legitimate concerns, Mr. Speaker. I really think that even though the government has decided, through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that they are going to burn an alternative fuel source to reduce the emissions and to cut down on it somewhat, I think there is more that has to be done. I understand - and I am no expert, I just listen to what people tell me and try my best to understand it, but I have been told that there are filters you can get to go in the stacks at the plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scrubbers.

MS JONES: Scrubbers to go in the stacks of the thermal generation plant in Holyrood that would cut down on the emissions, making the air cleaner and therefore, Mr. Speaker, probably a little bit more tolerable to the people who are living adjacent to it but also certainly reduce some of the health impacts.

I remember talking to one woman there - actually, the same woman who was on the radio that day - Annette Stone, and she told me that there were a number of people on that street alone who had developed (1) diabetes, (2) cancer. There were a number of people who had died from cancer on that street and there were also a number of people who had heart conditions. You know, Mr. Speaker, they really felt - and at a young age. One of the young girls was actually only a child of about ten years old. They really believe that these emissions are affecting their health. They have asked for studies to be completed, and there was a study completed. It was commissioned by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It was not necessarily an independent study, not to doubt the professional expertise that was gathered in that report, but basically, the report said they did not feel that these emissions were harmful to the health of the people who were living right directly across from the Holyrood plant. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the emissions itself will burn the paint off your car in the driveway. It will burn the paint off your car, and I have seen it. I have seen the paint peeled off vehicles in people's parking lots adjacent to that plant or right directly across from it. So, it can do that, and the report admitted to that.

The report admitted that these emissions would indeed take the paint completely off your car. But, Mr. Speaker, it would not harm your health. That is what it said. So, I have to agree with the residents in that area. That is very difficult to believe and understand. I really think that there needs to be another study. It needs to be completely independent, at arm's-length from government and from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, to seek the expert advice so that these people can have some comfort in knowing that their health is being protected and they are not in jeopardy every single day because of where they live. If their health is being jeopardized, isn't it better for someone to recognize and acknowledge that, so that these people can move and live somewhere else? It is a very small thing to do because, in fact, you could be saving someone's life. I do not think there is anything wrong with acknowledging it, studying it to find out if, in fact, it is causing harm to people because I think that is the responsibility of the government and of the Department of Environment and Conservation, and the Department of Health, to actually do that. That is the responsibility that you, as ministers in your departments, have been entrusted with as a part of the government.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to my point. I started talking about the power being generated in Holyrood. I am sure there are a lot of people on the Island portion of the Province who are wondering: What will be the plan that will be outlined as part of the Lower Churchill deal? As you know, when the Premier ran, prior to the 2003 election, there was a lot of talk about bringing a tunnel across The Strait of Belle Isle. There was a lot of talk about transmitting power through Labrador, down through and across The Strait of Belle Isle and on to the Island of Newfoundland. I do not hear much talk about it anymore. In fact, for about a year after the election the Premier did say go out and have a study commissioned to look at a tunnel across The Strait of Belle Isle. There was a report submitted to government that outlined two or three options. I read the report. It looked at having a tunnel that would be just a vehicular tunnel. It looked at a causeway, or a bridge I should say, that would go across. It looked at having year-round ferry services as being the most cost-effective transportation that worked that the government could put there and pay for.

Since the report was tabled with the government we have not heard a whole lot about it, have we? We have not heard much about it at all since the election of 2003. Anyway, at that time there was a lot of talk about transmitting power to the Island. I know there are a lot of people still out there wondering if that is going to happen, or if it is not. Personally, I would like to see a project developed that would land all the power right in Labrador. Instead of having aluminum smelters up in Quebec, why not have them in our own Province? That is the kind of stuff I would like to see happen. Can it happen? Maybe it can. Maybe that will be the course this development will take, a project that will reserve 2,500 megawatts of power just for development right in our own Province; not have to bother with spending millions of dollars to build transmission lines through the Province of Quebec to export power into the New England States and to light up the rest of North America. Maybe that will not happen at all, but we do know that the government has already commissioned a study on availability of transmission through Quebec. I forget how much that study was now, but I remember it was announced back a few months ago that it was going to be done. I think it was in the millions of dollars at the time to study on whether they could transmit power through the Province of Quebec and export it into the New England States. I know that study is ongoing now, being paid for by the taxpayers of the Province.

My preference, Mr. Speaker, it has always been my preference to see that power left in this Province for industry development. Absolutely, because that would be the real way to go to create employment opportunity and industry for the long-term for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I do not think there is a member sitting in this Legislature who would disagree with that, not one. If they thought that we could bring the industry here and put 800 people to work tomorrow in an aluminum smelter or in another kind of smelter, I would say it would not take too long for every member here to jump to their feet and vote for it. Absolutely not!

Also, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Lower Churchill project. The government says: We will go it alone. They say the next day: We are going to take the lead. Then in the House of Assembly, we get up and we ask, where is the federal government in this, and we get a response that there are going to be guarantees.

I have the comments here, I can read them for you. I can read for you what the Premier's response was in the House of Assembly when he was asked. Mr. Speaker, he said at that time, that they had felt comfortable with a commitment - not the exact words, because I am looking for the transcript and I haven't found it. We have not heard that same sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister himself. In fact, we have not had any commitment expressed by the Prime Minister on the Lower Churchill deal; no commitment whatsoever. In fact, in a number of comments that he made and a number of interviews that he did, he fell far short of any commitment.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Premier said. He said: This particular Prime Minister came back and said that he would seriously consider a guarantee. When he was in St. John's at an interview at CBC he said, I am quite prepared to do that. Now, that is a definitive commitment and we will hold that government to that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, maybe he can find the interview, but I did not have a copy of it. What I did have a copy of was this: I had a copy of the letter that the Premier sent to the Prime Minister with regard to the Lower Churchill, and this is what the Prime Minister came back with. He said: We support this proposal in principle, and believe that it is important. In principle, Mr. Speaker! That is what he said; no guarantees there, no loan guarantees and no commitment.

In an interview on April 12, when the Prime Minister was in Newfoundland and Labrador at a press conference, he was asked by a reporter: Are you prepared to give the Province a loan guarantee if they choose a development option that exports this power out of Canada and doesn't use it for domestic consumption? The Prime Minister said: Well, I think that is a bit premature. No commitment in that, Mr. Speaker, and there was no loan guarantee there for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, I really have to question that.

The other part I want to raise in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the government taking a lead on the Lower Churchill project is, it goes back to comments that the Premier made back as far as 2002, when he was preparing for the election. He said the same thing on five different occasions, and that was: We have to seek some form of redress for the Upper Churchill, and I will not accept another position.

Those were the comments that he echoed five times leading up to the election of 2003, five times saying that we want to have redress on the Upper Churchill or we will not enter into a deal on the Lower Churchill.

We are going to have to wait and see what happens there because, since 2003, and the day the election was over, I have not heard much talk about the Upper Churchill, probably no more talk than I heard about a transmission line across the Straits or a tunnel across the Strait of Belle Isle. Those things seem to have gone by the wayside. We do not hear a lot of discussion around them any more. So, in taking the lead on this project with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its expanded energy mandate, we will have to see if there is going to be any redress on the Upper Churchill as the Premier committed to in 2002, saying that he would not accept any other position. We will have to see what happens with that, because we do not hear much talk about it right now and it seems to have certainly taken a back seat to everything else that has been going on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the Metis for a few minutes in terms of the Lower Churchill project, and I want to mention another project that the Metis have been involved with, and that is with a partner corporation called Ventus Energy. Together, they talked about developing a wind power project in Labrador.

Now, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, I do not think they have even gotten a fair hearing with the government on that project. I really do not think they have. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they were told and met at the door, and said: We are in the process of doing an energy plan in Newfoundland and Labrador and, until the energy plan is completed, we are not going to entertain any new projects.

That was my understanding from the media, and the minister can tell me if I am right or wrong. I will let him stand up and tell me, if he wants, on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, just for clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is given for the hon. the minister to reply to the comment at the moment.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the hon. member asking, just to provide some clarification, because it is an important issue.

The wind energy project that was proposed by the Metis and Ventus Energy is one of about fifteen unsolicited private sector proposals that are before the Province right now on wind energy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the hon. member for the opportunity to clarify that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, continuing her address.

MS JONES: Thank you, minister, for that explanation.

MR. E. BYRNE: I said they are on hold (inaudible).

MS JONES: They are on hold, okay.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: He informs me that these projects have been put on hold until the energy plan is completed. Mr. Speaker, that is probably fine, but on February 14, 2006, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro announced that it had received thirteen expressions of interest in response to a Request for Proposals for the development of twenty-five megawatts of wind generation on the island interconnected system.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Well, you can take note of it, if you do not mind, minister, and explain it when you get up.

Mr. Speaker, this is the problem that I have with it. Ventus Energy comes forward with the Metis Nation with a proposal for a partnership to develop a $2.5 billion wind farm in Labrador. It is good or bad? I cannot answer that question right now, because I do not have the in-depth detail that goes with a proposal like this to be able to say yea or nay, but what I do think is that there is always room, even with a full energy corporation, and even with proposals like this; these things also have to be sanctioned, be part of an energy corporation. If there are royalties required by the government, all of these things are part of negotiation.

I understand that, and I agree with that. Then, a few days later, you have Hydro out making a news release about proposals they have from other companies that they solicited to develop a wind farm of twenty-five megawatts for an island interconnected system, and it is only like a month later. Then you have to question; it begs a question.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when Ventus Energy and the Metis Nation applied to the Department of Environment to have their project registered for environmental assessment - and it is not uncommon, I say to the members of the House, to have a project registered for environmental assessment even without the support of the government. It happens. It happens on lots of occasions. It happened when we were in government; it has happened since you have been in government. It does not mean, because you accept a project and allow it to go through an environmental assessment, it does not mean that you have been given permission by the government to develop that project. So, why is it, when Ventus Energy and the Metis nation went forward to the provincial government to register this project for an environmental assessment, they were rejected?

I have a problem with that, because I read last week the announcement that came in from Inco, registering for an environmental assessment at Long Harbour for a smelter, and government had not given them permission to move this smelter from Argentia to Long Harbour, but yet they allowed them to register it for an environmental assessment. That is entirely up to them, if they want to spend their money to do this and, at the end of the day, maybe not get approval from government. That is up to them, as I understand it. So, why is it that Ventus Energy and the Metis Nation were not afforded the same opportunity to proceed with an environmental assessment process? That is all they were asking.

I would like to have an answer to that when the minister stands to give his closing comments this evening, because I think it is important to know that. If there is a standard that is going to be acceptable it has to be acceptable to all companies. If Inco can do it, so should another company be able to do it.

I am sure there are other examples as well that could be pointed to. I know of a couple of examples when we were in government of projects that were registered and went through environmental assessment, but never got government approval to proceed. That was the practice, that was an acceptable practice, under the legislation, that it could be allowed without government approval, and it was done.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we talk about putting things on hold until we have an energy plan in place, but yet, today, we are debating legislation that expands the full mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the energy plan is still not in place and the consultations are not completed. Whether that constitutes a precedent or not I guess is going to be up to oneself to interpret. All I am saying is that there are things happening and changing and moving forward in the absence of an energy plan at this particular time. One of those things is the power that was just tendered for, the 25 megawatts of power for wind power, for the interconnected system. That was done in the absence of an energy plan being completed by the Province.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I have no problem, Mr. Speaker, if the minister would like to clarify that for me, why this 25 megawatts of power was contracted for the interconnected system in the absence of an energy plan while all other proposals have been put on hold.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member has highlighted, on the surface of how she has put it, it looks like there is double standard. I appreciate the question that she has asked, because I believe it comes from an honest point of view. The answer to the question is very simple.

Even before we were the government, yourselves, as the former government, were proceeding with a potential twenty-five megawatt wind farm. The reason that we have done it this way is because there are no significant wind energy projects on the Island right now. This is a test case so that we can get a wind farm up and running, a small one, twenty-five megawatts, so that we can understand the technical engineering challenges associated with wind energy on the Island grid system. Once we understand that, we will have a better knowledge and it will provide the type of knowledge to us in the development of a larger scale or larger scale projects with respect to wind energy. So, it is providing us with some science and technical and engineering information - it will - so that, in the development of the larger wind energy plan, it will provide that basis for us.

It is a pilot test, done for a specific purpose; because, as the member would know, and as all members would know, wind is a great energy from a clean environmental point of view but it does not blow all the time and, when it does not, you need back-up systems like Holyrood, for example, to ensure that there is a continuous supply of power. So, it was done specific, for a purpose, based upon a recommendation. We did not want to do a big one. We just wanted to do enough that would give us an understanding of the challenges associated with providing wind on the interconnected Island system. Labrador is a different system all together from a generation point of view.

MR. R. COLLINS: It is not interconnected either.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not interconnected. That is the point that the Member for Labrador West makes, so it was done with that specific purpose in mind.

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

By agreement, we will add the time to her allotted speech allocation.

MS JONES: Well, I should be good until about 9:00 o'clock now, am I, Mr. Speaker?

I wanted to point that out and it was intended, I say, in a very serious nature because it is a legitimate concern for me. I understand the minister has talked about an interconnected system, but the point that I was trying to make is that it is still being done in the absence of an energy plan being in place in the Province. As I pointed out already, there are a number of projects in the Province that were put on hold until the energy plan was completed, so one would have to beg the question: Is there a double standard here, and is there something happening in the absence of an energy plan that we have been told would not happen on any account?

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to move on to a couple of other issues now. When you talk about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, you cannot help but recognize that this is a corporation that have been profitable over the years. Everybody talks about - we have heard members opposite talk about, on a number of occasions - that when the Liberal government was in power, that we would take some of the dividends from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and not always leave all of the money in the corporation.

Well, I want to say that, as one member, I sat around a Cabinet table that never had to take money out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but we also were governing in a time when there was very little money to spend. So, whatever resources you had, you had to draw up on them.

I want to say to hon. members that any money that was ever taken out of the dividends of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to put into government revenues was well used and well spent for the benefit of the people in this Province. It went to build roads, to build schools, to build hospitals, to educate our children, and to ensure that we had industry that was continuing to grow in the Province. It was not like the money was taken and mismanaged or wasted in any way.

I have to say that it was always taken without hesitation from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because they knew that, as a government, and they knew that the shareholders in the Province - of which it was their shareholders - needed these investments in their communities and they needed to have those things done. So it was never an issue, only an issue with the members opposite simply because they find themselves in a much better fiscal position than we could have ever hoped for at the time, because we did not have Mr. Martin in a minority government position willing to sign off a cheque to be able to continue governing in the country and to get the people of this Province off his back. We did not have that luxury. Wish we would have, but we did not. Therefore, we had to use ways and means that were very different than the government members opposite had. We had a difficult situation in trying to manage with no money. I say the members opposite have a different situation in trying to manage all the money they have, I say to the government.

In saying that, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has always been a profitable company, from the knowledge that I have of it. It may have been, at some point, that they weren't, but I am certainly not aware of it. In those times, Mr. Speaker, they generated good revenues and good dividends and it went to good use in the Province, but it always upset me when they would come looking for more money even in years when they had profits. We are seeing the same thing again this year.

I know, when I was sitting on that side of the House, I saw many, many members standing over here and making the speech that they would never take money out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, they would leave it there, they would not take it out because they don't think the shareholders should have to go through rate increases. The only reason Hydro is out having rate increases, going to the PUB and so on, is because they don't have the profits and the dividends that they earn, and they wouldn't allow that to happen. Well, it is only two and a half years, and what has happened, Mr. Speaker? Although the money is left in the Hydro Corporation and - I am not sure what their profit was this year. I know it was over $50 million. I thought it was $72 million or something. I am not really sure. Don't quote me on the exact numbers. It was a substantial amount of money that was earned in profit in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro this year, and what is the first thing we see? An application for a rate increase to the consumers of the Province.

I have a problem with that, Mr. Speaker, I have a huge problem with that, because it is not now because the money is coming out and going into the general revenues of the Province. It is staying in the Corporation. So, what is the excuse now? Maybe someone can tell me that. Why is it now that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is out there looking for rate increases on the backs of the people of the Province, again even when they are earning a profit? They say it is due to the increase in the price of petroleum that their costs have gone up. Well, boy, I don't know a business out there, that their costs have not gone up because of the price of fuel. I don't know an individual out there in this Province who has not increased their cost of living because of the cost of fuel. I don't know of any of them. While they are already burdened with increased gas prices, as homeowners, vehicles owners and business owners, now they are going to be burdened by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as well, trying to recover some more money to pay off their own increased cost in gas prices.

Mr. Speaker, that is not an acceptable argument to me. It isn't an acceptable argument to me at all. I really don't agree with it, and I really think if there is a way the government could intervene they should be asked to drop their application to the PUB for a rate increase. It should be dropped because, at this point in time, the people in this Province cannot afford it. We already have heard - what? In the last few months, how many fisheries workers in this Province have been thrown out of work? We must be up over 3,000 fishery workers now. We have to be climbing to about 3,000 fishery workers directly, and those with the Abitibi mill in Stephenville who are out of work. These are the same people Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are going to go to now for rate increases, or at least those who are left in the Province.

I do not agree with that. That is not right. It is not right. I really do not think that they should be coming forward - and I was surprised, I have to say, because I listened to so many speeches from this side of the House about how Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would not have to be out there filing for rate increases once they become the government. What happens? Not even three years into their mandate and the corporation is out there trying to jack up everybody's hydro rates in the Province. Is that acceptable? Absolutely not.

What makes it even worse is that they are doing it at one of the worst economic times in our history for a long time. When we have a whole industry that is collapsing before our eyes, and when people have all they can do to make ends meet, now they have to go out and beg to the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation not to increase my rates. Now, isn't that awful? I think it is awful.

I have the greatest respect for this corporation, and I hope that they are going to be successful with their expanded mandate into the development of all facets of energy that our Province has the potential for, and I wish them great success, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not support that. I do not support the fact that they are out there looking for more money on the backs of people in this Province at one of the worst economic times in our history, when they are running hefty profits already in the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I read their report. I read their book that they put out, their glossy book, but I see one of the individuals, I think, on their board of directors is from M5 Marketing Communications, so I guess they got some inside tips these days on how to put out the nice glossy reports. They all have really neat pictures taken. See all their pictures there, standing up, all in the booklet there, a pretty nice booklet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is well aware of the use of props and displays and ask her to be careful and more selective. We certainly appreciate her speech and ask her to continue.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe you can't see from way down at the other end of the Chamber, but this is actually the annual report for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro tabled by the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is well aware that the rules of Parliament do not prescribe what constitutes props, it merely talks about the fact that props cannot be used. It doesn't grant exemptions, it is a blanket statement, so therefore regardless of whether it is a prop - one can quote from reports, but one should not use them in terms of displays. I ask her to continue her speech.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am merely using this glossy, high-priced document as reference material as I go through my speech this evening. There is obviously some interesting information in the booklet as it relates to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is almost out, and there is no doubt I have a number of colleagues who want to speak on this particular bill. It is an important bill in Newfoundland and Labrador, because we are talking about a corporation that only ten or twelve years ago was at risk of being privatized in our Province, and today we are seeing it not only growing year over year with profits on an annual basis, but we are seeing the mandate of it being expanded to look at other types of energy development.

As I said, my only concern in the bill is the broad statement in the second clause of the explanatory note which talks about how the corporation would be permitted to engage in other activities as set out by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. That is very broad and it doesn't give you any specifics as to what kind of initiatives or developments that would be, and I guess that is always a concern.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister was making his opening comments tonight he talked about how passionate the government was with regard to this issue and with regard to this bill. I can only say that while it is a good bill, it is a bill that promotes an already profitable company in our Province. I hope we can look forward to the same passion and enthusiasm when we see the FPI bill coming in a week from now, Mr. Speaker, or next week, because that bill in itself will determine whether we save the entire fishing industry in this Province or whether we don't. We know that with the fishing industry goes rural Newfoundland and Labrador as well. We will have to see if that same pride in our culture, I think, was the phrase that the minister used, is going to be evident when that bill comes up for debate as we have seen from the hon. minister tonight when he brought this bill in for debate.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding my comments, I just want to say that I am going to look forward to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - with great enthusiasm, the project outlined and the steps that are going to be taken as part of the Lower Churchill deal, because I really feel that this project is going to be the catalyst for development in Labrador and I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that the future of many communities in Labrador will hinge on how that development takes place. I can assure you that, while I support the work of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I will be holding their feet to the fire, as well as the government's, as I watch that development proceed.

I am going to conclude my comments with that, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure there are other people who want to speak to this bill. I thank you very much this evening for your time.

MR. SPEAKER: Further speakers?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight to speak to An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act.

Mr. Speaker, maybe you can give me a little guidance before I start because, in my speech this afternoon on another topic, you kept asking me about the relevance. Considering that this is an Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, I want to start, first of all, by talking about the Lower Churchill deal, so I guess that is relevant to the Hydro Act. That is what I want to start talking about right off the top. I will talk about the corporation itself later on, and what they are doing with the corporation, but there has been a lot of talk, of late, by the Premier and the government about the Lower Churchill, and going it alone. You know, philosophically -

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

MR. REID: I will get into that later, too, but philosophically, I guess, a lot of people are out there tonight saying: What is wrong with going it alone?

You know, you have to ask yourself. There is nothing wrong philosophically, or from a principal point of view, about going it alone, but what you have to ask yourself is: Are we going to go it alone under any circumstances? Are we just going to say to the Premier: Yes, go for it. Under any circumstances that you wish to go for it, we are fully behind you.

Mr. Speaker, if we can do this deal on our own, and we can make money on this deal by going it alone, on our own, sure there would be nobody in the Province, in their right mind, who would not encourage the government to do that. On the other hand, if we are going to go it alone and we are going to lose money and drive this Province further in debt, then I do not think anybody in the Province would want to go it alone.

Unfortunately, I am not in the position right now to be able to say if I am in favour of the government going it alone or if I am against the government going it alone, because we do not have enough detail and we do not have enough information.

I will get into some of the questions that I would like to ask in just a few minutes, but if you remember what my colleague, the Member for Cartwright -L'Anse au Clair said earlier, even the fact of going it alone is causing some confusion. It certainly has me confused, because last week when the Premier called a press conference - a hastily-called press conference, I might add, when there was disaster happening in the fishery and he did not want to deal with it - I think he tried to deflect some attention by going back to the topic that has been of great concern to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians since back in the mid to late 1960s, and that is the Churchill Falls development. Any time you want to draw attention, that is all you need to do, talk about the Lower Churchill or the Upper Churchill.

Last week, when the Premier rolled out that hastily-arrived-at news conference, I was convinced, and I think most of the people in the Province were convinced, that we were going it alone. We were going to develop the Lower Churchill on our own. I was almost convinced that the federal government was going to give us a loan guarantee so that we could do it on our own. That was just a week ago. Yesterday, the government, on a private member's motion, introduced the motion, and all of a sudden it is changed from going it alone on the Lower Churchill to taking the lead on the Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, for anybody who wants to stop, sit down, and think about the differences in the meaning of those two phrases - going it alone and taking the lead - it is like black and white. If we are somewhat confused, and if I am not jumping up and down on my feet and saying how delighted I am because we are going it alone, that is one of the reasons. We do not know what going it alone means, especially when they say, a few days after, that going it alone means taking the lead on something.

Mr. Speaker, the other problem that I have with this government when they talk about doing things, especially on the Lower Churchill, is that, if you question the government on it, you are attacked. If you dare raise the spectre that you might not be in favour of it, you are unpatriotic. That is the way the Premier operates. He either personally attacks you or he goes out and he tries to convince people that you are not patriotic and that you want to sell out the Lower Churchill to Quebec or some other group. That is always the case. You have to be looking over your shoulder and choosing your words when you are dealing with the Premier in the House of Assembly, or if you are dealing with him in the media, because that is the way he operates.

He has himself held up now as the great Newfoundland and Labrador patriot, and anybody who says anything negative about him is somehow less than patriotic. If you dare question him, you are insulted. If you dare question him, your character is assassinated, whether it is in the House of Assembly or out by the door. We have seen hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of that, anyone who has sat on this side of the floor in the last two-and-a-half years, looking at the Premier from where we sit, because you do not always see it on television; because, right now there are supposed to be forty-right members in this House of Assembly, and those of you who are watching on television, I think, will only see me and they may see my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, sitting behind me. They do not see what happens across the floor, because when that little red light goes out, that is in front of me on that microphone, I know the camera is not on me, and every member in the House knows that, and that is when the antics start. That is when you are insulted. That is when your character is assassinated, for trying to get some information, trying to find out what is right, trying to make an informed decision as to which way you should vote on one thing or the other by asking questions.

I profess to the public here tonight, and to everyone in the House, I don't know everything. I think an individual who stood and said that he knew everything would be a fool, but how do you find out information on issues that are of vital importance to this Province? You ask questions in the House of Assembly. You find the information wherever you can.

Yesterday, we heard that the Clerk of the House will be retiring at the end of this session. He has been a fountain of knowledge for us when it comes to procedures and wranglings in the House of Assembly, and we have used that gentleman for his information and his guidance, and we appreciate that, but we do not have the wherewithal here on this side of the House to gather information that the government has, when every single soul who works for the government is at that beck and call of the Premier. So, the only way that we can find out information most of the time is to ask questions in the House of Assembly, and anybody who has watched the House of Assembly in the past four or five months will know that answers are not forthcoming. They are not forthcoming.

You might also ask yourself, why we are here at 8:42 on a Thursday night when one of the things that the Premier said when he was in Opposition was, if he ever becomes Premier he is going to make the House family friendly. I don't think that sitting here from two o'clock in the afternoon until two o'clock in the morning is family friendly. I don't think that is being family friendly about anything.

Mr. Speaker, what we have been trying to ascertain - before we go out and pat the Premier on the back and say, we are going it alone and we are proud that you are going it alone, we want some questions answered. You would be a fool, too, to follow someone blindly without asking questions. I don't want to insult any of those opposite, but I would hazard to guess that there are a lot of people on that side of the floor who know little to nothing about what going it alone or taking the lead means. The Lower Churchill and the deal to take power from the Lower Churchill to the market place, whether that be in Quebec, whether that be in Ontario or anywhere in North America, is a complicated one. Believe me, I don't understand it. I don't understand all the subtleties and the deals that need to be concocted and all the details that need to be ironed out in order to make that deal, in order to do that project and be of benefit to the people of this Province.

That is the reason, I guess, we have experts over in Hydro. That is the reason we have lawyers on the fifth floor of this building. That is the reason we have engineers. Even with that, I say, Mr. Speaker, we still very often have to go outside to hire additional professional help to help us understand the subtleties of such a deal. I would hazard to guess that the Minister responsible for Natural Resources has used, himself, outside professional expertise to help his department analyze certain things. I know, when I was Minister of Fisheries I did.

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

MR. REID: He says absolutely, and I agree with you. You have to, because if you are going to establish or get the best deal for the Province on any issue you should have the best advice.

I had the opportunity, just as an example and not to stray off the topic, Madam Speaker, and to remain relevant - I have to give you an example of attending an NLTA convention here when I was Minister of Education a few years ago. The guest speaker was Dr. Leslie Harris. He talked that night about Newfoundland joining Confederation in 1949.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Dr. Harris. I might be wrong, it may have been Dr. Mose Morgan; but either one. They were past presidents of Memorial University. The theme of his topic was literacy. What he talked about that night was when we joined Confederation 50 per cent of the people in this Province were illiterate. Fifty percent of the people in the Province were illiterate, and of the 50 per cent who were illiterate, 50 per cent of them were functionally illiterate. It meant that they had an education less than Grade 9. So, there were 25 per cent of the people in this Province with above Grade 9, and he said: We had to negotiate a deal into Confederation. He said: We were no match for the boardrooms of Ottawa, no match for the boardrooms of Ottawa where Confederation existed since 1867.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are now.

MR. REID: Yes, I say to the members opposite, we are now. We are now, but the point I am trying to make is that we are in a far better position to negotiate our own deals than we were even when Joey Smallwood negotiated the deal on the Upper Churchill. We are in a far better position, with our own brains, our own manpower, to negotiate a deal. But even having said that, what is wrong with hiring additional outside experts to give you an opinion from time to time, just to check? I know when I was doing math and doing my sums in school in homework, I would not mind getting my mother or my grandmother to check it over for me to see if it was right. I was not embarrassed to ask for help, and that is what I am trying to say. If you stop to think about it, there is nothing wrong with doing it.

The point I am trying to make, Madam Speaker, is the only way, for the most part, that we have to find out information about deals, like the Lower Churchill that the Premier is talking about going it alone or taking the lead, is to ask questions. In doing it, we are personally attacked or we are scorned for being unpatriotic because we do not agree with the concept.

I do not want in thirty or forty years from now, if I live that long, my children or my grandchildren asking me: Why did you sign off on a deal that wasn't good for this Province? Because I do not know if the people of this Province know. I do not know if every member in this House of Assembly knows that when Joey Smallwood cut the deal on the Upper Churchill, it was unanimous approval in the House of Assembly; unanimous approval. All we hear from the Tories, if I can call you that, in the Province - and I am not talking about just in the House of Assembly and I do not think all of them believe it - is what a rotten deal Joey Smallwood's Liberals got on the Upper Churchill.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, I never said - the Member for Kilbride is saying he never said it. I did not say you said it. I said there are Tories out there who say it all the time. It is a commonly held belief that it was a Liberal government that did a rotten deal on the Upper Churchill. I do not want my children or grandchildren telling me one of these days because the Premier of this Province is going to try and beat us into submission or trick us into voting for something that is not going to be a good deal when it is viewed down the road in thirty or forty years from now.

The only way, as I keep saying, to find out the information is to ask the government. To be truthful with you, I do get some answers from some of the ministers opposite. The Minister of Natural Resources is one of them and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is another, but I have not had too many answers from the Minister of Education, certainly none that I could understand from the Minister of Finance, even when he was forthcoming with the answer. It was so convoluted that you did not understand what he was talking about anyway and I did not know if he was bluffing me or telling the truth.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is we are going to make an informed decision before we sign on, and if I am called unpatriotic because I do not jump in line and hold the Premier on my shoulders, that is not going to bother me. I have to say, one thing that I noticed here tonight - I have the greatest respect for the Government House Leader, the Member for Kilbride, I have the greatest respect for his abilities. I have the greatest respect for his ability to debate in the House of Assembly and I have the greatest respect for him as an individual, but I listened to his speech here tonight and the Premier sat next to him, he spent more time praising the Premier than he did addressing the issue. I know you talked about it, and what my colleague from Bellevue told me in a fifteen minute speech, because that is about what it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay, longer than that, a twenty minute speech. He said he gave up counting after twenty, the number of times you mentioned the Premier. I say to the member, give yourself more credit because I know you are working on that file. Once in awhile take some credit for yourself rather than give it to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: That is what I say, take some credit for yourself, rather than giving it to the Premier. I do not prescribe to hero-worship. I do not think anyone should be held on a pedestal any more than anybody else. I do not hero-worship anybody to the point that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Another thing, like my colleague just said, he gives all the credit to the Premier when things are going well, but what happens when things go badly? Who is trotted out then in front of the cameras to take the heat from the general population so that the hero remains the hero? It is the minister responsible for the department. When things are going well, who takes the credit? The Premier.

It is not just me who has noticed that, because I read it in an editorial in the newspaper last week. People have noticed that. So, I say to the members opposite, you do not have to buckle over backwards and do cartwheels to praise the Premier when he is in your presence in the House of Assembly. You are all individuals, and some of you are intelligent, and you should take some credit for yourself.

We are not going to sit here and be browbeaten into voting for something or taking about something that we do not have the answers to. I am going to go through a bunch of things that we do not have the answers to, at the fear of being condemned tomorrow by the Premier for being unpatriotic, or Gerry Reid stood in the House of Assembly last night and he said we did not think we should do the deal. I am not saying we should do the deal. I am not saying we should not do the deal. All I am saying is, I want the opportunity to make the informed decision as to whether or not we should. I want to be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not we are taking the lead or we are doing it on our own. It is rather confusing to people out there. Are we doing it on our own, or aren't we?

Let's look at doing it on our own, because that is what the Premier said last Monday. There are a number of questions I would like to know before I could put my name, or rise in the House and say, yes, we should do it on our own. I hope that you opposite, who are freethinking individuals, before you jump up and say we should do this on our own, you should ask yourself some questions: Why should we do it on our own? We would do it on our own, I assume, if it makes economic sense and is going to be of benefit to our Province. Does anybody know that over there yet? Do you feel sufficiently secure in your beliefs right now that we can take that project on our own and do it, and it is going to be of benefit to this Province?

In my teaching days, now, I would ask you to raise your hand. How many of you feel comfortable enough in your skin, as they say, to be able to stand tonight and tell me: Yes, I am 100 per cent certain that we should do it alone, we should go it on our own.

Here are some of the questions I have to answer. When the Premier said he was going to do it alone, the first thing he mentioned was a loan guarantee from the federal government. If there is anybody out there watching, asking, what is a loan guarantee? well, if my son went to buy a vehicle today there is no bank in this Province going to give him a loan, a student with a summer job, but if Gerry Reid co-signs a loan for him down at the bank so that the bank knows that if my son does not make the payment on the car they are coming to me for it, they will give him a loan. That is a loan guarantee. It is as simple and straightforward as that. You are co-signing a loan. Now, the Premier talks about a co-sign or a loan guarantee from the federal government, and led everyone to believe that he had a commitment from Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of the country.

The Premier wrote a two or three page letter during the election, to the federal minister, and he listed sixteen questions. The first one was: Do you support an early retirement package for fisherpeople in this Province? I think he said today that was the number one question. It is a paragraph, about that much in the letter, and the Prime Minister responded to the sixteen questions. The Prime Minister responded with an equally long statement about whether or not he was going to support an early retirement package for fishermen and fisherwomen in this Province, and it was that long, and in that what did he say? Did he say that he supported an early retirement package? No. He talked about a retraining program.

If you read what the Prime Minister said when asked: Would you support a Lower Churchill project? - what did he say? Have any of you read the comments, what he said? Because, to me, there was no more in that paragraph that the Prime Minister wrote back to the Premier, that was published in the paper - and we have a copy of it. Read it, I say to those opposite, and tell me: Are you certain in your mind, comfortable in your own skin, that the Prime Minister has said that he is going to give us a loan guarantee to do that Lower Churchill? Because I am not, and I do not think that anyone with two clues in this Province would read it as such.

I know that our federal MP from Labrador, our federal Liberal MP from Labrador, stood in the House of Commons last Thursday afternoon and asked the Prime Minister a question, if he would support the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with a loan guarantee to do the Lower Churchill project. Guess what? The Prime Minister was in the House, just like the Premier is in the House sometimes when I ask him a question and he doesn't feel like I'm worthy of an answer; he doesn't even stand up. Somebody else stands up and answers it for him. Guess who stood up? Gary Lunn, L-u-n-n, Minister of Natural Resources. Here is what he said: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Minister of Energy in Newfoundland and Labrador, we had a very positive discussion. This government is committed to working with them on the Regulatory Reform to ensure there is full cooperation between the federal government and the Province, and that this project proceeds as smoothly as possible. That is what he said, the Minister of Natural Resources for the Country of Canada. Does that give you comfort that there is a loan guarantee coming to do the Lower Churchill? It certainly doesn't give me any comfort. The words weren't mentioned. He talked about Regulatory Reform and cooperation between the federal and provincial governments.

Sure, you would never get a federal minister, in any government in Canada, say that he is not going to give full cooperation to a province. Would you? Would you ever see a federal minister - have you ever known a federal minister to stand in the House of Commons and say, in answer to a question, are you going to give a loan guarantee to the Province of Newfoundland - what did you expect him to say, no, we are not going to give any cooperation to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? How silly! What else could he say? Is there anyone in there comfortable that we are getting a loan guarantee? I am not. That is the first thing, a loan guarantee.

Here are the questions you have to ask yourself, because those of you opposite, if we go down that path one of these days and we go it alone, and you are all so eager to praise the Premier now about doing it alone, and it backfires on you, it is going to be your children and grand children who are going to ask you one of these days - because some of your names will go down in the history books, by the way. Some of your names will be written in the history books. All of our names are going to be written in some book, because we are on the record here as being members of the House of Assembly. Someone is going to pick up a book one of these days and say: These are the fellows who voted for this and these are the fellows who voted against it; and ladies. So, you better be comfortable with it yourselves.

That is the first thing: Is there any loan guarantee? I don't know. That is one reason I won't be saying, go it alone, because if we are not going to get a loan guarantee from the federal government that raises another question. Do we have the ability, do we have the financial ability, to go it alone? Are the banks and the financial institutions - maybe the Finance Minister can rise, because I will sit down for a minute. Do we have the financial capacity and the financial ability to go it alone, and go to the bond markets and go to the financial institutions in Canada and the United States and raise - what? What is it going to cost, Minister? $6 million? $7 million? $8 million? $9 million?

MR. JOYCE: Billion.

MR. REID: Between $6 billion and $9 billion. Do we have the financial capacity in a Province that this government said a year-and-a-half ago was bankrupt? Are the financial institutions going to loan us $6 billion to $9 billion when they have the Minister of Finance on record a year-and-a-half ago saying we are bankrupt?

MR. SULLIVAN: We turned it around, though.

MR. REID: You turned her around? Well, rise and tell me, I say to the minister - the Minister of Finance says: We turned her around. Well, maybe the Minister of Finance can rise now and - on what we know about a Lower Churchill project - tell me: Have you talked to the financial institutions, I say to the Minister of Finance? I am asking you a question. I am trying to figure out if we should go it alone. I said I am all for the principle of going it alone but not at any cost.

I just asked the Minister of Finance, has he been in touch with any financial institutions or lending agencies that are prepared today to loan us $6 billion to $9 billion to do a project on our own? Now, he says he talks to them regularly. So, I guess the answer to that must be no, they are not going to loan us the money. Because I will guarantee you, if he had talked to the financial institutions and they said they were going to give them $6 billion to $9 billion, he would have been on his feet long before this. Okay, if we cannot do it alone financially, if we cannot raise the money ourselves, and the federal government is not going to give us a loan guarantee or if they are going to give us a loan guarantee we would like to know. That is another reason I cannot stand tonight and say I am for this deal or I am against it.

Another problem, not a problem, a question that I need an answer to - and I am hoping someone is going to give me the answer to these questions because I am going to ask them again in third reading. The next question is, in order to take our power from the Lower Churchill to the marketplaces of Ontario and the Eastern Seaboard - Quebec does not want to buy it off us because they have their own. So, it is going to be from Ontario West or down into the Eastern Seaboard. The only way we can get that power there right now, as far as I am concerned, is through a transmission line that already exists in Quebec. Unless we are going to go with the other idea the Premier has, and that is to drive a line down through Labrador, down into The Straits, under the North Atlantic in the Gulf, down the East Coast, down the West Coast of Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, can you tell them to be quiet a little bit over there, please?

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, I thank you for trying to get order because I am asking questions of ministers who are supposed to be in the loop, in a Cabinet that is making a decision to spend somewhere between $6 billion and $9 billion on a project that we want answers to, and they are over there laughing and carrying on with their backs turned to you, reading papers, doing crossword puzzles and we still get no answers. If I come out tonight and say I am not voting for this, I will be something less than patriotic tomorrow morning in the Premier's eyes, but they will not answer questions.

The only way that we can conceivably put power into the Eastern Seaboard right now, without building an underwater line down there or put power into Ontario, is to take it and wheel it through Quebec. We can do what they call freewheel power through Quebec right now on Quebec's grid, on Quebec's transmission line that comes out of the Upper Churchill, I take it, minister. We can do it, if there is capacity. If there is capacity on the line and there is a fee attached to it - and I will ask the minister later, maybe he can write down the question and give it to me when he stands up to close debate on the bill. What is the fee? How much will that cost us?

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not determined yet.

MR. REID: Not determined yet. Exactly. I would imagine, minister, if we are going to go to a financial institution and borrow money, they are going to need to know what that fee is going to be. Another question they are going to be asking you as well minister: Is there room on the Quebec lines for our power? We do not know. Does the Quebec transmission lines out of the Upper Churchill have the capacity to carry our power from the Lower Churchill to the marketplace? We do not know. I will tell you the reason we do not know. We do not know if there is enough there today but it is my understanding that Quebec had the environmental impact study done on another major project in Quebec for hydroelectric power. Full steam ahead.

In fact, if what I read in the Globe and Mail is correct, they have somewhere in the area of $650 million spent on that already. Maybe the minister can correct me on that later tonight if he thinks I am wrong. They already have $650 million spent, and guess what? They have not turned a sod on the project. They have not turned a sod on their big power project and they have $650 million spent. That is what they have spent. That is on environmental studies and all kinds of studies that they have to do before the project even goes to the construction stage, which could be two or three years down the road. I am getting a little sidetracked, because once that project comes on stream, and I assume that it will probably come on stream before the Lower Churchill or at about the same time. There is a good possibility that the capacity, if there is any today on the Quebec Hydro lines, will not be there. So, I assume then, minister, that means - and if that is not there, how are we getting the power through Quebec and into the marketplace? Well, I would assume - and I can only assume because we cannot get the answers - that we would have to build a transmission line through Quebec, or we would have to pay Quebec to build a transmission line for us. It is as simple as that.

That raises the question: If Quebec has $650 million spent on environmental impact studies and things like that and they have not turned the sod yet on their hydroelectric development plan and they already have the lines to take their power to market, we are going to have to do the environmental impact studies and all of that and then we are going to have to pay to build an existing line down through Quebec. What is that going to cost? Are the banks going to say: Yes, this is viable and we are going to give you the money then?

The other thing - and I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should maybe know the answer to this. Will we be required to do an environmental impact study on a power line through Quebec? If we are going to build transmission lines down through Quebec, who is going to pay for the environmental impact study that is going to have to be carried out, because Quebec is not going to let you build another transmission line through their province without doing an environmental impact study? Sure, we cannot even do it as a government in our own Province without doing an environmental impact study.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to the minister responsible for this bill: Is that factored into the $6 billion to $9 billion, the cost of doing the project? Is the building of a potential transmission line through Quebec included in this $6 billion to $9 billion? No answer. Is the cost of an environmental impact study that we would have to carry out through Quebec included in the $6 billion to $9 billion?

The next question I have to ask is this. We know, and the Premier has talked about it and the Minister of Natural Resources has talked about it, in order for us to build the Lower Churchill we are going to have to deal with Aboriginal groups and land claims in Labrador. That is true. We are going to have to have negotiations with Aboriginal peoples in Labrador over land claims agreements. The question now I have to ask is this: Are we going to have to have negotiations and strike deals with the Aboriginal people in Northern Quebec if and when we have to drive a transmission line through their lands? I would assume, even though no one is speaking over on the other side, that we are going to have to do that.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No? The Minister of Natural Resources said no, and I would like to hear the explanation. So, will the Quebec Government deal with the Aboriginal people in Northern Quebec? If that is the case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Is that a yes, the Quebec Government will deal with the Aboriginal people in Quebec?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All right, good.

I am glad because, like I said earlier, I respect the minister, and there are couple over there who answer some of your questions, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Some of them, sometimes. There are others who will never answer you. He is one who will answer you sometimes.

So, now we are talking about: Do we have the capacity on the Quebec lines to take our power? We do not know. Who is going to pay for an environmental impact study if we need to build a transmission line through Quebec? Obviously, we are going to have to pay for it, right? Are we going to have to do negotiations with the Aboriginals in Northern Quebec, either us or the Quebec Government? I do not know. That is a question we are asking you.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) give it all up now.

MR. REID: All I am saying, Minister, is that the principle is fine and I hope we can do it and make money. I mean that. I hope we can do it and make money, but these are questions that are being bandied about out there, not just by me but by others, and I would like to have some sense of comfort that all of these questions that have been asked have been answered and that the project can still be viable.

The first thing that I do when someone suggests something to me - maybe you say I might be negative. When someone says we should do this, this and this, do you know what I always think of? What is the downside? What is the downside? I guess that comes from being a politician and having been a minister, because sometimes things sound so good. I think we are warned every day by the police and other agencies in the Province that if someone phones you up and tells you that you have won a trip and it is free, think about it. Think about the downsides of giving someone your credit card over a phone. That is what I am saying. That is what I am saying. We have to protect against it, and I am asking questions. I do not know if they are out - but I think they are reasonable questions that we need answers to before I am going to sign on to anything.

Mr. Speaker, once all of this is done - a lot of ifs - once all of this is done, and if we can pull it all together, there is still another question. If we can do the Lower Churchill on our own, we can either use Quebec's lines to go across Quebec or we have to build our own, and we do the environmental impact study, we deal with the Aboriginal people, we get all of that put together and we have the power, we have the lines, and we are taking our power to the marketplace, guess who is competing with us in the marketplace for the sale of electricity? Who? Quebec. We are dealing with Quebec in the marketplace. We are competing with Quebec in the marketplace to sell our power. Now, I think - the minister said tonight that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is the fourth largest in the country. Who is the first? Who is the largest?

AN HON. MEMBER: Quebec.

MR. REID: Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro-Quebec.

MR. REID: Hydro-Quebec is the largest electrical power generator in Canada, and we are going to compete with them head to head in the marketplace. That is like in any other industry. We cannot compete in the marketplace with fish processing, according to the minister, with China. I am asking that, once all of this is done, are we going to be able to compete in the marketplace with Quebec?

What happens - and I do not mean to be facetious, Minister, but anyone who knows anything about the aquaculture industry and the fish farms in Bay d'Espoir will tell you that one of the biggest problems in making a go in this Province or in Canada or in North America with aquaculture is Chile. Chile is one of the largest producers of farmed salmon in the world.

MR. E. BYRNE: Salmon is not hydro.

MR. REID: No, I know that salmon is not hydro power, but I am just giving an example, Minister.

Any time that we start to make some progress to move forward and build in aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador, guess what happens? It is not just us they do it to. Chile dumps a lot of salmon on the market for less than we can feed the fish for, less than cost. They actually dump it on the marketplace for less than cost. Do you know why they do it? To drive people like us out of the market. That is true. It is true.

There are fluctuations in the marketplace on any given day. Two years ago today, crab was $2.40 a pound to fishermen. I was told tonight by a fisherman it could go to eighty-four cents next week - in two years. So, are we going to be able to compete with Quebec? Not only that; if we go it alone, we have the vagaries in the marketplace on any given year. When Joey Smallwood did the Upper Churchill deal, you know what it was called? I guess some of you are old enough, most of us are old enough, to remember what the bill was called when you got it into your house. It was called a light bill. Why was it called a light bill? Because that was the only thing that you had in your house that ran off electricity. Do people realize that? In most of this Province, at that time, we did not have refrigerators, at least not out in the bays. We did not have refrigerators. We certainly never had electric heat. I certainly did not have it when I woke up in the morning and had to blow on the window to get the frost off it.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The Minister of Human Resources and Employment knows what we are talking about. It was the light bill. I can remember when the average light bill was $6 a month, and where are we today? So, we are talking about spiking, and I hope it continues. I hope it continues to go that way, because we are a power generating province and, according to the minister, Newfoundland Hydro is the fourth largest power generator in Canada. So, we are going to be competing in the marketplace with Quebec, and the question I have to ask, Minister - and, has anyone thought about it? I am talking about negotiations with the federal government, because you know the position that Quebec holds in Confederation. We have all talked about it and we have all said it. We have seven seats in the House of Commons; Quebec has seventy-five. Is it seventy-five? I think it is seventy-five. When we go with cap in hand and talk to Stephen Harper about giving us a loan guarantee -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, and I hope we do not. When I said the phrase, I said I should not have said it; but, when we go to negotiate a loan guarantee with Stephen Harper to do a Lower Churchill project, don't you think that Jean Charest might be up there saying to him - the Premier of Quebec saying to him - why are you giving the people of Newfoundland a $9 billion loan guarantee to compete with us in the marketplace?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay, well, I don't know that see, right? If you tell me all of those, I would not be up making a fool of myself probably.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: That is what you are saying, right? If you would answer a few questions over there, boy, I wouldn't ask you the question any more, right? I am telling you, I got an answer tonight from the minister. We are not looking for a $9 billion loan guarantee.

Well, here is the next question. How much are you looking for? Seriously, Minister, how much are you looking for?

MR. E. BYRNE: All will become clear.

MR. REID: All will become clear! There you go; all will become clear. Well, excuse me for not feeling very patriotic tonight, I say to the minister. This is not funny. I know we are having a few little jests across the floor here, but it is not funny. I think these are legitimate questions.

Is the Government of Quebec going to go to the Prime Minister of the Country? As you know, and it has been noted in the media a lot in recent times, the Premier of Ontario has - what? - had a five-minute meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada, and Jean Charest has had four or five very lengthy meetings with the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Prime Minister has only been Prime Minister of three or four months. You know what he is doing. He needs Quebec to form a majority government. If he is going to form a majority government he is going to need Quebec in the next election. He has even aligned himself with the Bloc in order to hold onto his minority government.

I think you should be cognizant of all these facts when you go to meet with him, because he has dodged the issue so far of whether or not he is even going to entertain it. He has dodged it. It will be interesting to know that if he is not forthcoming with the loan guarantee, will the Premier put up the same fight? Will this be the battle that is worth fighting? We have asked him about the battle for child care. That is not worth fighting in Ottawa. You have to pick your battles. The Premier said it here again in the House of Assembly today when I asked him, is an early retirement package for harvesters and plant workers in this Province a battle worth picking with Ottawa. Basically his answer to that was no, that wasn't worth the battle. Nice to have, but that wasn't the issue that he should take on the federal government with.

The next question is going to be: Is this one going to be? If Harper says, no, you are not getting a loan guarantee, does the flag come down then? Does the Canadian flag come off the pole in front of the building then? Do we run up the tri-colour again? But, I hope all of this works out.

Then the other question is: If it all works out, we get the money, the loan guarantee from the federal government, we build a project in Labrador, we either find space on Quebec's existing grid or we build our own down through Quebec after we do an environmental impact study that is going to cost us money, after we deal with the Aboriginal peoples in Quebec, after we get it to Ontario or into the U.S. and we are going to be able to compete, if all of that happens and we are making money, is there a line going to the South Coast of Labrador? I do not know. I know that was a big issue in every other deal that was tried to be done on the Lower Churchill. It was always a big issue.

I know that when we looked at it, my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair certainly demanded a line to the Lower Churchill. I know my colleague, the Member who represents Torngat Mountains, wanted certain conditions met for his people he represents, and rightfully so, because the argument of the people of Labrador is, it is their power. They are adjacent to it. They should get the primary benefit, because that is the same argument that we use on the federal government about our fish resources. We are adjacent to it. We should have the first dibs and we should get the most out of it.

What is in it for the people of Northern Labrador? What is in it? Are we going to have a power line to Southern Labrador? The question is also asked in Lab West all the time and my colleague, the member who represents Lab West, will talk about that later: Is there going to be surplus power left so that we can generate businesses and employment in Labrador? Is there going to be a line across the Gulf onto the Island portion of our Province? Because, when the Premier was campaigning and he went to the Northern Peninsula in a by-election back in 2000 and looked across, for the first time in his life being up there, the first time in his life when he went up to campaign in St. Barbe and St. Anthony, driving up the coast, looked over and said: What is that? What is that right there? That is Labrador.

Boy, when you look at it from right there, it is not very far; it is not very far across the Strait. You look at it and you say, yes - like the Premier did - why not build a tunnel? Let's face it, being a Rhodes Scholar and a lawyer and an astute businessman, when he came out and said we are going to do that, that is certainly what we are going to have a good close look at - you know, think about it. An astute lawyer, a Rhodes Scholar and a very prominent businessman looks over and says: Yes, that is going to be done. What do you expect the people to believe? What do you expect the people to believe? Because they believed him. They believed him.

MS FOOTE: They believed a lot during the election campaign.

MR. REID: Didn't they? By now, I would have expected to be able to drive to L'Anse au Clair the summer and at least have half of the constituents in my district up working on that tunnel, instead of going to Alberta. I would have thought, by the time the Lower Churchill was ready to be done we would be driving that power right through that tunnel, because that is what he said: Not only are we going to take people through that tunnel, we are going to take power from the Lower Churchill. Where has that idea gone now, folks, seriously?

I don't know if it is true, but I worked with the late Walter Carter, who was a member in both the PC and the Liberal governments, and he told me that in 1970 or 1972 or 1973 or 1974, some election when Frank Moores was Premier, they actually went up to the Northern Peninsula, dug some holes, filled them with flour, filled them with dynamite - the Minister of Natural Resources shakes his head that it is true. I have heard the story and I have no reason not to have believed Mr. Carter, because he was an honourable gentleman and I learned a tremendous amount from him.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was eleven at the time.

MR. REID: The minister says he was eleven at the time. They went up there, they dug holes, I think on both sides, on the Labrador side and on the Northern Peninsula side, dug holes, filled the holes with flour, stuffed them with dynamite, and, bang, we have started the tunnel. When I heard the Premier say that in the last election, that was the first thing that came to my mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cream of the West flour?

MR. REID: Robin Hood. What is the other one? Not Sally West.

MS THISTLE: Cream of the West.

MR. REID: Cream of the West.

MR. RIDEOUT: Do you know who the minister was?

MR. REID: Who was it?

MR. RIDEOUT: Leo Barry.

MR. REID: Leo Barry was the minister. That is what the Minister of Fisheries says. Now, if he is looking, I am quoting the Minister of Fisheries. He says it was Leo Barry. Just in case, I am not going to be implicated in this, Madam Speaker.

MR. RIDEOUT: I can say that now because I am not practicing law.

MR. REID: Okay. The Minister of Fisheries tells me he can say now because he is not practicing law. He blames it on Leo Barry and the Frank Moores Cabinet.

MR. RIDEOUT: I am not blaming him.

MR. REID: Okay, not blaming him. He says he was responsible for it.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: He was the minister responsible for it. All right. We don't want to besmirch anyone's character, so we have to be careful. Anyway, some minister in Frank Moores Government. I would assume that any minister who did it did it under the direction of the Premier of the day, because I am sure that none of you fellows are going to the Northern Peninsula, digging a hole, filling it with flour and blowing it up without the permission of the Premier.

I am losing track of where I have been going. What I asked was, if we get all the ducks lined up in a row and this all looks good, do we get power to Southern Labrador and do we get power to the Island portion of the Province?

If we had an abundance of cheap power, we could, like Iceland did, attract businesses. Iceland, as you know, generates a lot of power from its geysers, in the hot water. They have aluminum plants being built over there and everything.

In fact, I have been to Iceland. When you check into a hotel over there, all the hotel is heated with hot water from the geysers, and for towel racks on the wall even. It is silly what you think about sometimes, and what you remember. All of the towel racks on the wall are stainless steel pipes that run that way and that is where you hang your towels, so that when you get out of the shower you have a warm towel and you hang it back up there and it dries during the day.

I tell you, if we can get that power, if all the ducks are lined up, are we going to have it here? I was expecting by now, not only could I drive to Labrador in the tunnel but the power was going to be flowing through it at the same time.

These are some of the questions that I would certainly like asked, and there are others, but I want answers. I have asked the questions, but there are a hundred on the table right now. I think there might be over a hundred that we have presented to ministers opposite for answers and we are still waiting for answers. I have not had any yet. I did get one answer tonight. I have been standing here now since - how much time do I have left, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Six minutes.

MR. REID: Six minutes.

I have been standing here now for fifty-four minutes asking questions, and I got one. I got one answer when I was talking about a loan guarantee. We were asking for a loan guarantee for $9 million, and I said: Is that correct, Mr. Minister. He said no, but he did not tell me how much we were looking for from the federal government.

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before I am going to stand and pat the Premier on the back and give him my approval, even though he does not ask for it and I am sure he does not want it. Before I go out and say publicly that I fully support doing this deal alone, while I believe in the concept that we should do it alone if we are going to make money on it, and we can do it alone and make money on it, before I say that I am signing on to anything, I want to know the details to those questions. I am sure that my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, who is the critic for this department, I am sure that he is going to have a lot of questions. He is going to have a lot of questions that he is going to want answered. I think that the general population of the Province need to have some answers, because a lot of people in the Province, unfortunately, accept things on face value. They want to accept it for face value, when the Premier of the Province tells you that this is good. We all know, and we have all done it. I guess we have all, at some stage in our life, followed somebody blindly. We had too. The Minister of Municipal Affairs shook his head and said no. Well, I would assume, boy, that maybe when you were four or five years old you probably followed your mother or your father blindly -

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

MR. REID: No?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: - if they told you that you should not be down on the head of the wharf or you might fall in.

I would say that, unfortunately, some people will accept what the Premier says as the gospel, as they say, and follow him without asking the questions. I know I will be criticized by some people on Open Line tomorrow as being something less than patriotic because I am not supporting the Premier until he gives me the answers, because they think that I should follow him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) believe in the tunnel.

MR. REID: Yes, they believe in the tunnel, that is true. When we ask questions on the tunnel, it could be done. I am glad, though, to see that the Province did not go out and spend a lot of money on flour and dynamite on the tunnel.

Madam Speaker, I think I am just about out of time. What I am saying is, I would love to see a Lower Churchill project done. I would love to see it done by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, using our own resources, using our own money and at the end of the day making a lot of money so that in twenty years from now, or thirty, when the project is done, our kids will not be sitting back and reading that we made a bad decision, like everyone assumes a bad decision was made in the Legislature upstairs in the 1960s when the entire House, every member in the House of Assembly at the time, Tories and Liberals - we did not have any NPD at that time - Tories and Liberals alike stood and said, we support this deal, and signed onto it, and today we find it was not such a good deal. That is all I am asking for, the information so at least when we are asked to decided if we should so this, at least in my own mind I will be able to say yes or say no, and if I sign on to it I will be able to look at my kids or grandchildren in twenty or thirty years from now and tell them, we did the best deal. Right now, I do not know the answer to that.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will sit down and let someone else have a few words.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

AN HON. MEMBER: Madam Speaker, (inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Oh, I sorry.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am very pleased to be able to stand and make some comments about Bill 1.

I want to remind people that we are talking about Bill 1. For the last two hours, anybody listening to the debate in the House tonight would have thought that we were debating the development of the Lower Churchill. I want to remind everybody in the House, and outside, who may be listening to the debate, that tonight the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are not debating the development of the Lower Churchill in the House of Assembly. That is not what we are doing.

What we are doing here tonight, we are talking about Bill 1. Just so that everybody understands clearly what it is we are really talking about, Bill 1 - and I just want to read a couple of things. It says it is An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, two amendments to some two pieces of existing legislation.

When we introduce bills in the Legislature, one of the things we get distributed among all people who sit here is a copy of the amendments that are about to made, and inside there is some explanation of what it is we are really trying to do. I want to just read into the record, for those who want to get an understanding of what it is we are trying to do here this evening, I want to read into the record the explanatory notes that on the front of this bill.

Madam Speaker, this bill would amend the Hydro Corporation Act to permit the corporation to engage in activities related to the exploration for, development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of, hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons.

Secondly, the amendments would also permit the corporation to engage in - and this is the operative thing, I think, that we are talking about here tonight - other activities that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve.

Currently, as the explanation goes on to tell us, the corporation may only pursue objects relating to the development, generation and sale of electric power.

The same thing applies to the Electrical Power Control Act. There is a section, section 24 of that particular act, that also prohibits Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from engaging in activities that are not related to electrical power generation and sale.

Fundamentally, what we are doing here this evening is, we are debating Bill 1. Bill 1 is asking this House to make amendments to two existing acts that basically restrict Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, restrict its activity to focus only on the generation and sale of electricity. That, Madam Speaker, is fundamentally very different than the vision that we have as a Province for the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I think, as the minister in his introductory comments clearly stated, that we have heard clearly from the people of the Province. In fact, I think I have even heard members of the Opposition comment that they endorse, generally, the change in role and mandate for Newfoundland Hydro to expand its role, to expand its mandate well beyond that of the generation of electricity.

So, fundamentally, that is what we are being asked to do here tonight. We are not being asked to debate the merits of the Lower Churchill. Not at all. What it will do - and this is the connection to the Lower Churchill and this is the only connection that this bill has to the Lower Churchill. If this House passes this bill this evening, or sometime in the future, it will give Newfoundland Hydro the ability, it will enable Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to, fundamentally, comply with what government has already said is a general policy direction. It will allow then Newfoundland Hydro to explore opportunities in the energy industry, whether it is petroleum or other forms of energy.

So, fundamentally, what this bill is doing - it is almost like an enabling piece of legislation - is amending the current legislation to allow Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to start engaging in a process to talk about the Lower Churchill. That is the only real connection to the Lower Churchill. This is not giving Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro a particular direction or mandate to conclude a deal on the Lower Churchill. It gives them the ability, as a corporation, to go out and have that kind of discussion, and, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, negotiate and plan and do the necessary preliminary work and develop a business case and develop a strategy for the development of the Lower Churchill. That is, fundamentally, Madam Speaker, what this bill is all about. I think we need clarity to have that put in perspective because this is, fundamentally, not a debate around the development of the Lower Churchill project tonight. That is not what this is about.

The minister, in his introductory comments, talked about the new Energy Strategy. The Province has engaged, in recent months, in a discussion. People who have had an interest in the provincial consultations that took place, people who had an interest in this issue were able to come out and share with the minister and his staff some of their vision, their thoughts on what might be an expanded role for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a role that would see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro become an instrument for economic development, a corporation that would have the ability to assist this Province in furthering its economy, building and growing its economy well beyond where we are now. It is not a unique situation.

There have been several references here this evening about Quebec Hydro, a classic example. A good comparison of where that government had a vision, some time in the past, to allow Quebec Hydro, gave it a mandate, gave it a role to do things beyond just generating electricity. That is exactly what we are doing here this evening, debating a bill that will give Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that same kind of power, that same kind of ability and, hopefully, generate the same benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as Quebec Hydro has done for the people of Quebec.

This is not about changing fundamentally, as the debate was several years back, who owns Newfoundland Hydro. It is still going to be a corporation owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not throwing away or relinquishing the power of the Legislature in having some control of Newfoundland Hydro. There is nothing in this bill tonight that would allow, in the future, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to go out and borrow beyond what they now can borrow. Their borrowing is still controlled by the Legislature. The PUB will still have a role to play in establishing rates in those areas where there will be some regulation required for the protection of the consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those powers will still exist.

This is not changing the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the extent that it now becomes no different than a private corporation and can do what it wants and function totally independent at the direction of their directors. There is still a connection to this Legislature. There is still a requirement and a linkage to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and a requirement that there is a control of borrowing. They will still need the appropriate approvals of government before they can proceed and borrow, no different than what they do now. They are not going to encumber the assets of Hydro beyond that which government may want them to do. So, there is still that provision in here.

Government has not lost any control of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro beyond what it now has. What it has really done is enhanced its future, made it much more viable and much more consistent with what government's general policy framework would dictate and that we want to have an instrument like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro having the ability to negotiate arrangements with other companies, negotiate investing in interests in other business ventures and activities that would generate some prosperity for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and fundamentally that is what we are trying to do here. I think we need to focus on that, I say, Madam Speaker, as we debate this bill tonight, and ask ourselves: What is it we are trying to do here?

As I have said, this amendment will allow Hydro the ability to pursue business opportunities beyond what it now is engaged in, and do it in a very competitive fashion. If you are going to be giving a corporation the mandate to invest, to pursue other interests and maybe pursue interests in the petroleum industry, buying interest in, or developing things on their own, if you are going to give them that kind of ability, you need to make sure you create the legislative framework and the regulatory framework that gives them the ability to be competitive in the marketplace today, in an international marketplace. So we need to be able to amend the legislation that gives them the authority to be able to do that.

Right now, Madam Speaker, technically, I guess, today with the current legislation the way it is structured, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does not have the legal authority or the ability to go out and negotiate on our behalf, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a deal for the development of the Lower Churchill. There has been some preliminary work done, as directed by the Province, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been the lead in that, but clearly, we need to ensure that these amendments are made to the current two acts that exist on our books. These two acts do need to be amended to give Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the kind of power it needs to negotiate on our behalf. The Lower Churchill just becomes one piece of this.

One of the other fundamental things about this bill, too, Madam Speaker, is that it recognizes and acknowledges, as we talk about it, that this is an evolving process. We are looking forward to, as a government - and I believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are looking forward to - a new energy strategy evolving out of this government.

The Minister of Natural Resources has started a process. It is well along, as I understand it. Some time, in the not too distant future, the minister will present to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a broader energy strategy for the people of this Province that will see us, hopefully, become much more prosperous than we historically have been. We will have the ability to have a Crown corporation like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro ensuring that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are the principal benefactor of the resources that we have; whether it is electric power, whether it is wind power, whether it is petroleum, whether it is oil and gas, regardless of what that might be, whether it is within our Province, within our boundaries, off our shore, or internationally, all for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have had a lot of comments tonight about allowing Hydro to keep the profits that it has had in the last couple of years rather than returning it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to spend on education and roads and health and other things. I say, Madam Speaker, it is all a part of that strategy. If we are going to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a vibrant company, one that has the ability to be an economic driver in this Province, we need to give it the legislative framework that allows us to do this.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, several years back, vehemently told the government of the day that we need to keep Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro wholly owned by the people of this Province and we don't want to privatize it. A great decision! It needed to be done, and I commend the government of that day for recognizing the response they got from the people of the Province and not moving forward with that action.

At the same time, we are finding ourselves in a position today, Madam Speaker, where that action preserved Hydro as it was at that time. We are at a different point in our history now, I say, Madam Speaker, in the year 2006, with what is happening around us and the potential that exists within our Province, in other forms of energy and other forms of economic investment that are necessary to ensure that we get the kind of return on our resources that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve. We need to now take that to another level. We need to take a step that could modernize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, take a step to ensure that it can be a player in the energy field, an international player, have the ability to do, as I said a moment ago - and it has been referenced in this House many times. I think, as this House has debated issues around Hydro development over the years, we have always referenced Quebec. We have always referenced what it might be like to deal with Quebec. The reference has always been to Quebec Hydro. I think we need to look to Quebec Hydro and an example of what has happened with that corporation in that province, when that province had a vision many years ago to take their corporation to make it an instrument to drive their economy.

That is what this bill is all about, I say, Madam Speaker. This bill is about taking Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and giving it the legislative power and creating a regulatory framework that will allow it to invest itself in other industries, in other forms of energy development and to lead the process. The first project that it will have to undertake with this newly redefined mandate and with its newly redefined and amended legislation, the first priority that it has been given, is to pursue the development of the Lower Churchill. At some time in the future when the process has moved along, many of the questions that have been posed over the last couple of hours will become much clearer. Many of these questions will be answered, and will be able to be answered, but until such time as we give the authority and create the legislative power for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to do this, it will not become a reality.

So I say, Madam Speaker, as we debate this tonight, let's stay focused on the bill. Let's stay focused on what the bill is asking us to do, and to recognize the benefit of having Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro a new entity, a new driver of economic development and prosperity in our Province, and let's not get caught up in trying to debate and talk about the what-ifs, the probabilities and the mights of what they could or possibly might not do in the future on some future deal.

I almost talk to you hypothetically about what they might do with a partnership they might form with a company from the Mideast in ten years' time. It is that kind of hypothetical debate that we are having, and we are posing questions that cannot be answered tonight, but let's at least have this legislation passed so we can amend the appropriate acts that currently exist to allow the process of developing the Lower Churchill and exploring development opportunities, talk about the method for doing it, who is going to finance it, who is going to be involved with it, all hypothetical questions. If we do not give Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the kind of structure that is necessary, they will all be academic anyway because we will not have an instrument to pursue it on our behalf.

Madam Speaker, I call upon the people in this Legislature tonight, who are going to be participating in this debate, to stay focused on the bill, what it is we are trying to accomplish with this amendment, and not start talking about the first priority that Hydro will have, only after we pass the legislation, not today.

I say, Madam Speaker, that is what I ask the people of this Legislature to do, and I thank you for the opportunity to have these few short comments about what it is we are trying to achieve tonight. I implore everybody in this House to focus on the issue and support the bill as presented by the minister.

Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speaker.

MR. REID: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

When I stood and gave an hour speech a short while ago, I told the Speaker the bill that I was addressing, and at that time I asked him if I could discuss the Lower Churchill contract, and the deal, and if that would be relevant to the topic that was being discussed under this bill tonight. The Speaker at the time nodded his head yes, the minister responsible for the bill, the Minister of Natural Resources, nodded his head yes, and now we have the poster boy or the centerfold for Trust magazine up telling me and my colleagues that what we had been talking about wasn't relevant and it had nothing to do with the bill. Madam Speaker, I think you should inform him, or someone should, that he should listen and maybe pay more attention, and he would have known that what we were talking about was relevant, was ruled on by the Speaker and was ruled on by his House Leader.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Speaker, there isn't a point of order. I think, at best, it is a difference of opinion between two hon. members, but there isn't a point of order.

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune,

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few minutes, and I want to say to the Member for Trinity North that in the House everybody speaks according to what they think is relevant to a piece of legislation, and I don't think that we should be dictated to by any person here who wants to. I won't go there, Madam Speaker.

I remember back in 1994, Madam Speaker. We were talking about Newfoundland Hydro at the time and privatization of it. Earlier tonight I was talking to the Government House Leader and talking to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, and when we were talking about that there were nine of us in the House. There was the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Baie Verte, the Minister of Finance, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for Waterford Valley, the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Bellevue, and myself. I remember that particular debate very well. In fact, I was the Chair of the Liberal Caucus at the time when the former Premier, Clyde Wells, brought that to caucus. That is the first time, I think, I fully realized the difference between government and caucus.

At the time, one of our people in the back benches said something about being a part of government, and the Premier said: Wait a minute. There are two boxes. The inner box is the government, they are the Cabinet. All of you fellows are in the second box. You are part of the party, you are part of the caucus, but you are not government. I realized at that particular time that, as a member of the caucus -

AN HON. MEMBER: Beth knows that.

MR. LANGDON: Beth probably knows that. Anyway, as members of the caucus we sometimes supported the decisions that were made by Cabinet, and when they were made by Cabinet they were told to us after. Regardless, I guess, of any government, that is the way that it works.

I remember the impact at that particular time. The Open Lines were all filled with people who were against selling off Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I guess the Premier of the day at that time came to be leader of the Liberal Party, coming directly as President of Newfoundland and Labrador -

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland Power.

MR. LANGDON: Newfoundland Power.

So, he brought a certain bias, probably, to that particular position as well. I can tell you that, being a part of the caucus, the caucus, at the end of the day, did have influence and did influence the government and, as a result of that, it was never privatized and we see it today.

Today we see the piece of legislation that is coming before the House to expand the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is probably a good thing but, for me, when I think about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I think about, as a young person from the South Coast, even before going to university, getting some money so I could go and then, after being in university for a few years, getting some extra money to go back. I was privileged and had the opportunity to work on that particular Bay d'Espoir project driving a big dump truck; a rock wagon they were called. I remember doing that summertime, and it wasn't very cold during the summer, operating one of these machines, but many people did it for a livelihood.

I had the opportunity not only to be in Bay d'Espoir, to work in North Cutoff, but I had an opportunity to be in (inaudible). I had an opportunity to be in Pudops Lake, and to work with different companies - it was called Foundation Lundrigan at the time - to get some dollars to go to university. As a result of that, the Bay d'Espoir power development today lights practically 80 per cent of the Island part of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the last number of years we have seen a number of these projects to expand the Bay d'Espoir project, and there is one more not done. I have talked to the Minister of Natural Resources about it, and probably one of these days it will; it is Island Pond. There are thirty-eight megawatts of power still to be developed there, and if it is ever done it will open up a number of resources for the people to operate in Bay d'Espoir in forestry and other resources. I make that comment because I think that I might be the only person who has had the opportunity to work on that particular project.

Tonight we are talking about expanding Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro so that particular company can, with an expanded mandate, if they so desire, go out and be able to look at a possible deal to develop the Lower Churchill, and probably Muskrat Falls or whatever, to

bring more dollars to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it was the Member for Trinity North who said it is enabling legislation to give them the right to be able to do it.

We will all see where that will lead us to, but let's hope, for all of the people in the Province, and all of our children and their children, that it will give dividends to them because, in a sense, we need it as a Province.

Also, I think, as a part of this legislation as well, we are giving Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro an expanded mandate to be involved in hydrocarbons and oil and gas offshore. I was thinking about it, and sometimes we, as a Province, and people in our Province, think that we are really flush with oil. We do have three projects. We have the Hibernia, we have the Terra Nova, and we have the Husky, along with the Voisey's Bay. I believe it gave the government, last year, a billion dollars in royalties so that we can do some things in education, in health and other services that people so much enjoy.

Yet, when we think about what is out there, if, for example, today all of the oil in the world's wells stopped producing and there was nothing in Nigeria and nothing in Russia, nothing in the Middle East, nothing in Alberta, and we just had the Hibernia, the Terra Nova and the White Rose, do you know how much oil that we have to supply to the world? Do you know how long it would take to use up all that we have? Three weeks. Three weeks supply for the total, for the world.

That is only a small amount. Do we hope to look for more? Obviously, we do. That is why, like, I think, earlier tonight I was watching the news for a few moments and the guy Steve McLean, I think, who is president of the engineers and the geoscientists people of Newfoundland is urging the government to be involved in doing a project, Hebron-Ben Nevis, because what he is saying is there is nothing new out there and all of the younger people that we have, that we have trained, there is a possibility that they might leave the Province and go elsewhere.

For example, in Alberta, our minds cannot fathom the work that is being done there, the number of people they are looking for over the next number of years. They have more oil than what Saudi Arabia has. Now, do I hope that through the expansion of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that our company can be a partner, in a sense, with the ExxonMobils and the Chevrons and the Norsk Hydro companies? That we can go out - I do not know if it is the expanded role. Probably the minister will tell us later on, or we will find out, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be involved in the drilling, for example, in the Laurentian Basin. I do not know that.

Probably we will be taking the risk.

When I think of the Laurentian Basin, I was very happy, I guess, to be part of a government that challenged the line between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and we were successful in getting the boundary moved farther in for us, so that hopefully in the future, when the companies go in to drill in the Laurentian Basin, that we can find oil and gas that will benefit our people. There is nobody in the Province who would not be happy if they did because we need the particular money to be able to look after the social programs and what we have. So, that is where we are going.

I am hoping, as I said, that in the long-term this particular company, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, made up of capable people from our Province, will be able to take the company, expand it and be able to do some of the things for us, and in the long run, be able to improve the quality of life for the people that we represent.

As I suggested earlier, in 1994, just twelve years previous to this, there were only nine of us out of forty-eight in the Legislature who were there. We are into a profession and we are here at the blessing of the people that we represent. We can never take for granted that we can come back here as long as we want to, that is entirely up to them. People who form government, my philosophy - and I have said to the people that I was representing, I could never be minister unless you elect me as an MHA. Therefore, in that sense, we are responsible to the people who put us here. It is a privilege to serve here. Twelve years from now, the people who are in this Legislature - there might not be six of us around twelve years from now. There might be another group of people who will look on what is being done here and be able to praise or to criticize us on decisions that we have made.

For example, I was not in the Legislature when former Premier Peckford decided that they were going to take the headquarters for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and put it into St. John's from Bay d'Espoir. There are close to 100 people working with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the Bay d'Espoir region, but if that headquarters had been there, then probably 200 or 300 more would have been there. I am sure that the people who sat around the Cabinet table thought it was a great idea and they did it.

It is the same thing when we did the rail for roads agreement and we received just about $1 billion. It was a lot of money at the time, but the thing about it, there was no money in the deal for maintenance and upgrading. As a result of it, the money is gone. Really, in a sense, when we get involved and we do things at the particular time, regardless of how good we are and we think that we are infallible, there are always mistakes to be made.

It was the same thing with Smallwood when he did the Lower Churchill. I read an interview about that and realized that BRINCO, the company that was doing the Churchill project at the time, went bankrupt. Smallwood went to the federal government for help and they did not give it to him. He was at the whims of the Province of Quebec. As a result of that, we see the particular situation on the Upper Churchill, but one of the good things about it is that the resource is renewable. I think it is in 2024 or 2044, then that particular -

AN HON. MEMBER: 2041.

MR. LANGDON: 2041 - comes to the end and there is a new agreement. I might not be around, I am hoping that I am. I will be ninety-seven at the time, but chances are that I will not, but the thing is that it will benefit my children or my grandchildren and we will hope to get a much better deal at that particular time when that rolls around.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to carry on the conversation from my point, but I see what is being done. Time will tell if the expansion of the role of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be beneficial and will make dividends for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Time will judge it to see if it is or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to have a few words to say on Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act. I guess, Mr. Speaker, there is probably no corporation or Crown corporation in Newfoundland and Labrador that holds within it a lot of hopes and expectations for the people of this Province. One within recent political history, Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years - in fact, a little over ten years ago - a corporation that was at risk.

In the last few days I have been asked a number of things by reporters, considering the fact that my leadership of the NDP will expire very shortly. Someone asked me what was the most significant thing that - highlight of my time in the House of Assembly. I had to say that probably the most important thing that we did - and I say we, because we who fought on the side that I was on won the battle in the House of Assembly - was to save Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro from privatization.

As the Member for Fortune-Bay Cape la Hune said, there were only a handful of us who are here now there then. The Leader of the Opposition at the time was Len Simms; he is not here any more. He was a significant player in that. The then Member for Humber East, Lynn Verge, was here; she was a significant player in that. The battle to save Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro started before the election in 1993.

When I asked a question of the then Premier, Clyde Wells, was there something going on with respect to the privatization of Newfoundland Power - of Newfoundland Hydro, rather - because of rumblings that we had heard about, that I had heard about, I was told in no uncertain terms by the then Premier that I was dreaming in technicolour, that I must be making - not making things up, but that I was somehow or other being very alarmist.

Well, by August of that year, after the 1993 election, there were talks started between the new Chair of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Angus Bruneau, and the Premier about some merger with Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and then, later on that year, an announcement that there were plans to actually privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and put it up for sale. The obvious buyer, of course, was Fortis or Newfoundland Power.

That battle was won, Mr. Speaker. It was not an easy battle, and I am glad to hear the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, who was Chair of the Liberal caucus of the time, reveal - it is not really a big secret, I guess, but - that there was a significant role, in the end, played by the Liberal caucus, after the battering that they had received for the previous year in the House and in the media and on the open lines, because a lot of people worked together to defeat the notion of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

At that time, what I said was that we should not be privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We should, in fact, be nationalizing Newfoundland Power, creating a single entity that had control, not only of generation but of all distribution of Newfoundland and Labrador electricity, because that would give us the power to have energy policy, conservation policy, other policy, but an organization that could, by itself, and with a lot of energy and ideas, become a powerhouse for this Province, train our engineers, develop an expertise. It is something that we could export, not just export the electricity but actually export the talent, the same as Hydro-Quebec has done with the creation of SNC-Lavalin. That comes out of Hydro-Quebec. If it was not for Hydro-Quebec, there would be no SNC-Lavalin.

The idea that is incorporated in this bill - and I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this bill. Let me read you something from a document, and I will tell you what it is afterwards: Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is moribund, with a limited mission. Self-defined even more narrowly, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro does not appear to have a vision suited for the Twenty-First Century in tune with the changes and technology, dynamic and flexible and ready to take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. There is no question that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro needs to be reinvigorated. There is no question that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro needs to pursue a vigorous, clean environment and conservation agenda. There is no question in our mind that we need to maximize the advantages of a public policy vehicle of sufficient critical mass to be able to implement an integrated energy policy for the Province, one that is a sufficiently large player, to be able to develop for our needs and market for export the power potential of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I do not think anybody opposite would disagree with that. I do not think a single person opposite would disagree with that.

That comes, I will tell you, from a paper issued by the Leader of the New Democratic Party on June 2, 2003, so I have no hesitation in supporting this bill -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - because I see, in this bill, the implementation of the things that we were standing for at that time, because that was the unveiling -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Am I what?

AN HON. MEMBER: A visionary (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am not saying the legislation is visionary, but it is a part of the implementation of the vision that was talked about back in June of 2003. This was a statement on energy policy and the creation of what we call the Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Corporation.

What we talked about in this is the similar things that we are hearing now. We had four main areas. We proposed the creation of a new public corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador energy corporation, to include the following: The existing Newfoundland and Labrador hydro generation and distribution assets; all the assets related to the Upper and Lower Churchill; the generation and distribution assets of Newfoundland Power; and four - get this one! - a Newfoundland and Labrador equity stake in offshore oil and gas developments starting with the existing Government of Canada share of the Hibernia project.

Then we followed that with saying: This would clearly involve the acquisition of considerable assets and require significant commitment. It is a major public policy initiative that would be as important for this Province as was the establishment of Hydro Quebec as the major player of the Province of Quebec forty years ago. It will require significant planning, commitment, timing and imagination to bring it about, but we believe these are questions of how not if.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that this government sees that there are advantages and a vision that is similar to the kind of thing that we talked about in 2003, and I am delighted that the corporation is not only being given the power to engage in oil and gas development but being given a general power. You know, we can mock that and say, well, maybe you should use the power to buy FPI or something, but that is not what this is about. This is energy related activity.

I will give you an example of the kind of thing that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could be doing. I would like to see us acquire Newfoundland Power because we could do a lot of good things. Why couldn't Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, for example, engage in the kind of program that is engaged in, in New Brunswick; not through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Let me give you an example: The Government of New Brunswick gives out $10,000 interest free loans to people for energy retrofit of their houses. They have done 528 so far in the last two years. The average saving for those households in energy consumption is 37 per cent, and that is being done with an EnerGuide assessment of your house, a plan for making your house energy efficient and a $10,000 interest free loan. Why couldn't Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro engage in a program like that with some of their money? By generating that much savings, you are actually generating that much electricity, because that electricity that is not now being used to heat someone's house can be used for industrial development, can be sold to somebody else, can be part of other activity or can postpone the need for new generation a greater expense. That is one thing that this new corporation could do.

There is another thing that this corporation could do, Mr. Speaker - this corporation could do a lot of things. This Province could be a leader in the development of renewable energy technology through research and development. How would be pay for that? Well, there are ways to pay for that. I would ask that serious consideration be given to something like this, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador, according to the latest statistics from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's 2005 annual report, in the year 2005 there were 39,181 gigawatt hours of electricity produced. Now, a gigawatt is 1 million watt hours; 39,000 million kilowatts of electricity produced in Newfoundland and Labrador. You know, we could put a very small tax on that. It could be two mills, it could be three mills, it could be five mills, it could be ten mills. Ten mills is a cent, one cent per kilowatt hour. You can put a tax on all electricity generated in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The money generated from that could provide a pool for research and development, conservation programs delivering the kind of results that I am talking about in New Brunswick on a household basis giving people an opportunity to save money on their electricity, invest in the research and development, invest in wind power development and do all sorts of things to try and take a leadership role in Newfoundland and Labrador and in North America in the promotion of energy activities.

Now, some might say: Well, how can you do that? I mean, the member talks about 39,000 gigawatts of electricity. That is all very well, but 28,000 of that is produced by CF(L)Co and exported out of the Province. How can you tax that? How can you tax power produced by Churchill Falls and exported? Well, I say to hon. members, that there is absolutely no reason why you can't tax all power generated in Newfoundland and Labrador as long as you tax them equally. That is something that is provided for by section 93A of the Constitution of Canada, something that was negotiated back in 1983, Mr. Speaker. When the constitutional changes were being made, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was brought in, there was a power given to the provinces to engage in both the direct and indirect taxation of electricity generated, as long as you did not discriminate. Generated for export or otherwise, as long as you did not discriminate between that which is exported and that which is used.

That power to tax, Mr. Speaker, can be used to generate a fund in this Province to engage in energy conservation. As along as all power was taxed equally, to be passed on to the consumers, then yes, consumers would pay a little bit more. Everybody would pay a little bit more, but if you also had a vigorous program of energy conservation and a vigorous opportunity to engage in the development of renewable alternatives, then you would have the ability of people to save energy costs and we could be a North American leader in renewable energy. The ability is there to do that.

What I see with this legislation, someone has called it an enabling act. Yes, it is an enabling act, but it enables, it opens up the power of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be an important player, to be a larger player, to engage in offshore oil and gas development.

Someone suggested, I think the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune talked about, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro get involved in drilling in the Laurentian Basin. I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that is the role of a public energy corporation like this, to engage in spending money on exploration. I think we should be involved in production activities. I think we should develop that kind of expertise, but in terms of the kind of high-risk stuff that is involved in exploration, I do not think that is something that we would necessarily finance through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That seems, to me, to be something that is better left to those huge corporations who are engaged in that.

Some people would say, well, if you are going to be involved in the business you have to take the risks. There are enough risks, I would say, Mr. Speaker, being engaged in a project like we have seen in Terra Nova and Hibernia. There are enough risks in that, I would say, for a public corporation.

I just want to share something with you. I know my time is limited. I wish I had an hour, because I would sure be happy to use it. There has been a bit of a debate about the role of the Province demanding a share in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a lot of people think that there is something wrong with that: What is Newfoundland doing, insisting on playing a role in the offshore? Who do they think they are?

I think one newspaper in Canada took to referring to the Premier as Hugo Williams, I believe, referring to the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. So, I want to share with you a little comment, and I will not mention the paper. A local paper decided they would check this out. They wanted to find out, what is the Venezuelan policy, anyway, on all this stuff? They decided to contact the Venezuelan Embassy in Ottawa to see what they thought of Newfoundland's policy of getting a percentage of the offshore resources. The question was put - this is from a local newspaper. Here is the question: What can we learn about negotiating with international oil companies from the experience of other countries like Venezuela? That question led to a telephone conversation with the First Secretary of the Venezuelan Embassy in Ottawa. Jose Rodriguez had not seen The Globe and Mail editorial and was not familiar with the failed Hebron negotiations.

He says, it was explained to Mr. Rodriguez that the Province wanted a 4.9 per cent equity position and Williams says that ExxonMobil would not agree. What? Mr. Rodriguez asked. The Province wanted a 49 per cent equity position? No, no, Mr. Rodriguez, the Province wanted a 4.9 per cent equity position. What, a 4.9 per cent position? - he replied, laughing - ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That kind of says it all, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

The article is very interesting; I would encourage you to read it. It is an interview with this fellow who thought it was quite the joke that Newfoundland only wanted 4.9 per cent interest in the offshore.

As other speakers have said, you know, there is a trend in countries that want to have control of their own resources and their own future. I am not going to get into a debate between what they are doing in Venezuela and what ExxonMobil wants or does not want to do there, but, you know, Mr. Chavez, to his credit, wants to have - he is not filling his own pockets, like some of the tinpot dictators in other countries are doing. He is using that money to improve the lot of the people, the poor people, in Venezuela. He is using it to build social programs. He is using it to change the nature of the society in Venezuela.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Community infrastructure.

MR. HARRIS: Community infrastructure, all of those things that the Government of Venezuela, previous governments, were not able to do.

So, you know, let's not be too holier-than-thou about what other countries are doing. The reason we want to participate in offshore is simply because the oil under the ground, through the provisions of the Atlantic Accord, we feel is our resource and we should be full participants in obtaining benefit from that.

I will repeat what I said. I wasn't convincing able to laugh the way the First Secretary of the Venezuelan Embassy was, but when I was on tv talking about this 4.9 per cent, my position was it wasn't enough, that sure we should have 4.9 per cent but we should have more than that. We should work very hard to convince the Government of Canada that they have made their take, they have gotten their money back and more besides on the 8.5 per cent Hibernia share, and that should be part of our portfolio of offshore interests. We do need vehicle to own that percentage in the offshore, and this legislation gives Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro the power to be that vehicle, to take that position and to work with the other partners in the Hebron-Ben Nevis field to develop that project.

I think the Minister of Natural Resources and I were amongst those at a dinner with, I think it was the Canadian President of Norsk Hydro. I believe you were there, were you, Your Honour? The Norwegian Ambassador to Canada and the President of Norsk Hydro were at a dinner down at the Newfoundland Hotel a few weeks ago and the comment I made was that we are having an issue - this was long before the Hebron-Ben Nevis talks brown down. I said to the fellow next to me, the President of Norsk Hydro: We would like to have at least the kind of share in our offshore that Norway has through Norsk Hydro. There was obviously nothing wrong with that kind of public policy for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we obviously support that fully. It is the kind of thing that we, as the New Democratic Party, put forth in our energy policy a few years ago. And we talked about the significant developments that have taken place giving, in the last number of years, since 1983, the provinces power in relation to electricity generation, management and taxation - never before taken advantage of by Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a new North American energy market regarding the energy regulation in the United States and the wheeling rights have changed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time for speaking has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may have leave for a few more moments to continue?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: We have now, Mr. Speaker, a maturing oil and gas industry off our coast and we have the potential of using natural gas for generation of electricity in our Province. We now have, because of our improving financial situation, the ability to participate with an ownership stake in developments in our offshore. We have flexibility. We also have these opportunities to be involved in alternative energy generation, such as wind and solar power, and the kind of aggressive conservation programs that we talked about, not only to save our environment and to prevent environmental degradation but also to save money, to generate work. When you look at the kind of program a conservation program would bring about with energy retrofits, it generates employment, it saves people money, helps the environment, pursues the Kyoto aims and it is a win, win situation all around.

I see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a vehicle for much more than the generation of electricity. It can be involved in the generation and distribution of electricity, the kind of research and development activities that we are seeing taking place to some extent already and being the kind of vehicle that it can be to provide a future, a flexible, high-tech, high-skilled future for our young people who can stay here and be a part of something important, of something exciting, something interesting and different, and I agree, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the people, the engineers and the young people who work at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are very excited by the idea that they can be more than just generators of electricity in a very rigid, narrow outlook as to what their role is, but, in fact, can see that there is potential for a lot more to be done at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a very positive step and I hope that the government is successful in developing and urging Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in some of these new directions. I obviously have a great deal of interest in the ability - I would prefer, obviously, to have Newfoundland Power a part of that because I think the kind of demand-side management that should be undertaken could more easily be undertaken by a unified distribution and generation outfit, but I guess this government is not there at the moment but that is obviously something that can be considered in the longer term.

We seen, a few years ago, some cost-benefit studies done by the Consumer Advocate of the day, Dennis Brown, produce some figures showing that the duplication of services, the duplication of management expertise, the duplication of administrative costs were in the order of some $30 million or $40 million, or more, per year. Our calculations, at the time, was that by nationalizing Newfoundland Power at its cost, it could actually pay for itself in a reasonable period of time with the savings that could be generated from the profits that were obtained, plus the efficiencies of scale that would occur if those two organizations were put together.

So, there are opportunities, Mr. Speaker. There are greater opportunities that have not yet been realized. We need an organization that is flexible and dynamic, that is vigorously pursing opportunities and ready to be dynamic and pursue these objectives with a good business sense and with some caution, but obviously with a vision and with a purpose.

I support this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is extremely successful in its future ventures. We look forward to seeing a successful conclusion of negotiations with the offshore oil companies, with us as a partner. It is all very well to see the negative press from the media after the failure of the Ben Nevis talks, but it was interesting to see the annual meeting of Petro-Canada, which occurred some couple of weeks later. The President of Petro-Canada was not talking about Hebron-Ben Nevis as if it was a dead duck. He was not talking about it as a dead duck. He was talking about it as a future option, important option and important project for Petro-Canada to be involved in.

So, I am hopeful, Mr, Speaker, that we will be able to participate fully in our offshore as partners, once we get over the hurdle and breaking the mold of total control by the large oil companies. If Norsk Hydro is a competent partner and player in these offshore ventures, well the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, should also be a competent and welcomed partner in offshore oil and development off our coasts.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. We would like to see its passage in the House so that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro can get on with trying to improve the opportunities for not only its organization, but for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for our young people and skilled workers, and people who want to have a future in this Province and who are going to be around in 2041 when we have total control over the energy resources of the Upper Churchill as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now he will close debate on second reading.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the participation of all members in the House in speaking to what we see as a pretty significant piece of legislation in moving Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in a new direction, with an expanded mandate, a mandate to pursue objectives within the oil and gas industry and other energy related projects, a mandate that will build expertise - and I believe my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is aligned, I think, with the philosophy that we have undertaken here, and he has demonstrated that tonight with his own actions and words - but the opportunity to develop expertise, and export our expertise, and develop that for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the direction that we set tonight - sorry, before I move on, the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the Lower Churchill are all legitimate questions in terms of asking where we are, and what process, and this and that. Just let me tell him for a moment that many of the questions that he has asked are impossible to answer at this point, and I will explain why, and we acknowledged that when we made the release.

If you look to the process that we established eighteen months ago with respect to the Lower Churchill, it was a process that had not been tried before. Recognizing the world-class asset that we have in the Lower Churchill, we went out with an Expression of Interest; we announced a four-phase process. The first phase was an Expression of Interest to the world, inviting those groups, organizations and companies who would have the capacity or the ability to put together the capacity to develop that project, invited them to participate in an Expression of Interest. They did that.

Coming out of Phase 1 of that process we had, I think, twenty-five proposals that were forwarded to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the government.

Now, moving from Phase 1 to Phase II, the commitment we made was that we would look at, study, analyze, scrutinize those specific proposals, those twenty-five individual proposals, and then we would choose, based upon our own due diligence, and based upon our own analysis, economic and otherwise, with the appropriate references to understand that those projects that would have the ability to move to Phase II for serious consideration would be chosen.

Out of those twenty-five proposals there were three chosen and one option always left open. The three that were chosen, that we felt had the capacity to deliver the project, were made public at that time. So, it was commitment to an open, transparent and accountable process as we move through each phase of the process that we announced. What occurred after we got into Phase II was that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in concert with the Department of Natural Resources, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's Board of Directors and the government generally, assessed all of those proposals.

We have always, we meaning the government and the Premier of the Province, articulated over this period of time that we had always reserved the right to do this project on our own, but there were two criteria that would have to be met. One obviously would have to be good public policy, and our own intuition and sense was that this was good public policy all through this process. Equally important was that it had to be based upon best business practices. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we were going to make a decision in moving from Phase II of the process to Phase III of the process and make the decision that we were going to do it ourselves, then we had to be confident in our ability to do it on a best business practice.

It is fine for any of us to say that we would like to do it alone, but nobody in the government, certainly not myself as the minister, not the Premier of the Province, not my colleagues, Cabinet colleagues and Caucus colleagues, want to move down a direction by where going it alone, so to speak, would put the people of the Province at risk from a financial perspective, and burden the people of the Province with more debt that we have now. The prudent approach from our perspective was simply this: Yes, we felt it was good public policy but on a best business case practice, did it make sense, what was the risk associated with it?

The Lower Churchill project is different than an oil and gas project. You have a river system like any hydro project. You can feel it, you can touch it, you can see it, you can measure it, unlike Hibernia or Terra Nova or even Hebron or White Rose. There are huge risks associated with the development of these projects, fractured in terms of the geophysical work and the geology associated with it, getting that oil through a variance of structures at different levels and the cost in terms of drilling a well. It is probably $70 million US today to drill a well just to see if you can find something. The risks are much lower, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, because he asked the question about exposure of debt. The risks are lower because we can measure it, because we can touch it, because we can see it. We can put a plan in place that, with absolute confidence, can look towards the project proceeding, mitigate the environmental consequences, all of that. Because of the type of project it is, and the nature of the project that it is, the risks are minimized to a large degree.

What we announced on May 8 was that, based upon the process that we established, Phase I, international call, we had twenty-five proposals. Three were chosen out of that. We reserved the option for ourselves to go it alone if those two conditions were met; and, based upon our analysis, we felt we were the best option. We felt we had the expertise and the best business case in terms of the analysis that we did, that, yes, we could mitigate the risk, we could handle the project, we had the expertise, so that was the decision we made.

When we announced it on May 8, we were very clear in saying that today's decision does not mean that we have a sanctioned project. There are many other steps along the way that must be analyzed.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about: Are we going to have to deal with the Quebec Innu? Mr. Speaker, our project is on an Aboriginal land claim for the Innu. We have the responsibility, the obligation and the duty, to deal with the Aboriginal Innu, or the Innu people, in Labrador.

With respect to Quebec, and the impact on their system, as the members would know, we filed with TransEnergy, which is the ownership of Quebec's energy system, because we are operating in the deregulated marketplace, because the marketplace in all of North America is open to all - so we do have access, it is open-market access - Quebec Hydro, I say to the member opposite, if they were to, in any way, shape or form, act unreasonably to stop a project, they could suffer some fairly serious market consequences.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't say they would do that.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I know you didn't. I am just giving a response. There could be some very serious market consequences.

So, when we announced that we made application to TransEnergy Limited, it was to gain the information on what would be the impact on their system.

Now, under the FERC rulings and under the market access options that we have, Quebec have, right now, undertaken studies, which they are obligated to do, to come back to us at specific points in time - not just us, it could be anyone who has applied through the system - to indicate what the impact will be, or potentially will be, on the wielding of X number of megawatts; in this case, Gull Island.

Once that assessment is done - that is another step in the process - once that step is done we will have an acute understanding, an intimate understanding, of what the impact will be. Then, judging what the impact will be in terms of the cost and mitigating measures associated with that, whether in Quebec or for ourselves, it will be rolled into the cost of the project. Now the $6 billion to $9 billion amount that we have talked about - some would say: Well, that is a huge variance, $6 billion to $9 billion. On the surface that seems to be very true, but that involves three separate components. It involves Gull Island, it involves Muskrat Falls, further down potential development, and it also involves transmission lines.

Depending on if we get to a project, if we reach an agreement with our Innu brothers and sisters, if it passes the environmental assessment process, if we can mitigate all of those measures, if we can build a capacity and construct what is known as the Lower Churchill that is acceptable to the people of the Province, acceptable to the people in Labrador, that we get to a point in about 2009 that we have a project, then we will know, but there are a number of hoops that we have to jump through or walk through first.

We were very clear on May 8 in announcing that this is yet another step and that we have made the - it is right in the press release, I can read it for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I can only tell you what we put out there, what we said, both the Premier and myself. I was in Labrador and the Premier was here, and we made it abundantly clear from our point of view that this was a step in the process, it does not mean that we have a project. There are a number of other steps along the way that we have to accomplish; absolutely upfront about that.

What was important about the announcement on May 8 is that this approach has never been attempted before, and based upon our own analysis, upon our own due diligence, we felt this was timely and this was the way to go. So, that is from that perspective.

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself, that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talked about in terms of his support for it, we see this as a pretty significant opportunity in setting a new direction that he talked about in 2003 that meets a vision for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in the 21^st Century. With this amendment empowering Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with the direction that government has set, what will come out of our energy plan process and the impact on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and how that will proceed through legislative changes that are required or may be required - and I cannot predict what those will be because we have been true to the process. Once it is complete, we will be able to study the impact and get it before the Legislature for open, frank, freewheeling debate. From that perspective, we believe that we have chartered a course that provides a vision for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that ultimately, as our institution, as our Crown corporation, can realize significant benefits for the people of the Province.

I do appreciate the support by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and compliment him on what has been a long-standing view of his anyway - and I want to acknowledge that - and one that over his time here, while I have been here with him, I have heard him articulate on many occasions. I do appreciate the support from that point of view.

One final comment, because the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair mentioned she wanted some answers to her questions with respect to Ventus Energy and how she felt we were somehow dealing with them differently than anybody else. That is just not the case. I was very clear. I met with Ventus Energy, as with other wind proponents, about their project and said, we didn't say no to that project, we said it was on hold until the energy plan process was in place. We need to decide, for example, on public-private partnership. We need to understand that wind blows forever, it is a renewable resource. What sort of royalty system do we want to put in place with the development of wind resource, if we want to enter into private sector proposals? What are the industrial benefit opportunities that we may want to have, Mr. Speaker, associated with wind?

For example, and this may not be the case, but if we were to set a target of say 600 megawatts of power - and I use that ones as an example because that is about what we are burning at Holyrood. It is not this simple, but for the sake of illustration I think it is important. If we were to set a target that we wanted 600 megawatts of energy derived from wind and we wanted to do that over a period of say eight to ten years, 60 to 80 megawatts a year, we need to understand that in setting that type of direction we could also, because we are moving in that direction, be legitimately creating some pretty significant fabrication and assembly opportunities for places in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I don't know of anyone has had the opportunity to see these windmills or to be in them. I have. These are giants. The most cost-effective way to fabricate or assemble them is on tide water in ports that have the infrastructure in place to take advantage of industrial opportunities. It just so happens we have those industrial opportunities and industrial sites to take advantage of the development, potentially, of a secondary, tertiary processing opportunity adding more value all because we may have chosen an option on X number of megawatts over a specific period of time that says to those who are interested in coming to take advantage of those opportunities, that this government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are serious about and committed to the development of wind energy.

So, before we rush into proposals that talk about 2,000 megawatts and X number of jobs, whether it be with Ventus Energy or anybody else, I think we have an obligation to the people of the Province, and a duty to the people of the Province, to do our homework, to understand what royalty system we need to put in place, what are the fabrication opportunities that need to be put in place; because wind, like water, like oil, is a resource that is renewable, that belongs to us, not to a private sector company. It is for us to decide - all of us to decide - on what terms and what benefits that resource must be developed. If we are committed to that, which this government is, and I believe the people of the Province are as well, then we have an obligation not to talk about such huge projects without understanding the impact of those projects.

Our shareholders are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; they are not on Bay Street. Ventus Energy shareholders are across the country and they operate out of Bay Street, and that is not a bad thing. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but we are protecting our shareholder because that is what we were elected to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say, once again, thank you to all members for participating in the debate on Bill 1 for the legitimate and bona fide questions that came forward. As this process unfolds, from the questions the Leader of the Opposition asked with respect to the Lower Churchill, as we get to those markers, understanding the wielding of electricity through Quebec, when we get that, that will be made public. We will share that with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a commitment we have made.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with some level of pride and conviction on behalf of the government and certainly myself as the minister, I am proud to move second reading of Bill 1.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994." (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 1)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to ask a few questions of the minister, because we are talking about two clauses here: one which specifically refers to oil and gas activity, and a second one, which is pretty open-ended, which could allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to let Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro be involved in any kind of activity.

Now, I understand that there is probably a need for some flexibility, because you might engage in activity that requires assurances from various regulators or others that the specific power and authority to engage in a particular activity is necessary, and you may want to be able to articulate all the specifics of any deal, and all the powers that are related to it, so I can see why you would need that as a general power, but I am asking, first of all, whether the intention, with respect to the oil and gas clause, is it the idea that this would just be enabling legislation to allow Hydro to be the entity that holds our 4.9 or 49 per cent share of offshore developments? Is that the idea of (inaudible) with that power specifically, or is it intended to be a broader power? Because I know there are proposals around, and ideas around, from various sources that suggest that there may be a role for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in getting involved in natural gas developments and possibly seeing the development of Labrador gas, even, with a hub in Newfoundland, and the possibility of extracting natural gas liquids, and all of these things. So, is it intended to be broader than that, and, at this point, are there any plans or any considerations beyond obtaining or having a vehicle to hold the provincial share in the Hebron-Ben Nevis project, for example, which is the one on the table right now?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The intent is for it to be broader. The intent is to not only indicate in terms, potentially, the holder of equity interest in hydrocarbons and oil and gas but the potential of natural gas, the potential wind energy, geothermal alternative energy sources. So, the intent is, when we talk about an energy corporation, the intent is Lower Churchill, for example, which we have just announced in terms of being led and driven by our entity, but the intent is absolutely for it to be an energy corporation, as you said, of the Twenty-First Century but not limited to hydrocarbon only but the broad view, and it is tied into part and parcel of the energy plan in terms of how we develop those other energy sources that we do have an abundance of.

If you look at the rationale that has been generally applied in looking at the development of those resources, the rationale is probably the single biggest reason why we are not into wind energy, why we are not into geothermal, because burning Bunker C has always been a cheaper option, frankly, and the legislative obligation on Hydro was to provide least cost power, which really meant to continue to burn Bunker C.

So, from our perspective and to answer your question directly, it is meant to be broader than just a holder of interest. It is meant to look at all energy sources that are owned by the Province, or resources of the Province, both renewable and non-renewable.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that some of these questions will be part of the broader energy strategy to be developed later on.

In terms of engaging in other activities, though, strictly from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I guess I will relate to him one of my frustrations in seeing the potential of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro over the years. I remember a conversation, talking to a young engineer who worked - this was a number of years ago - at Seal Cove. I said to him: You know, it has always struck me as being a very strange thing that here is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro generating electricity out in Seal Cove and producing an enormous amount of what is called waste heat, thermal energy - you make steam and you use that to run the turbines - and then all the heat goes away and dissipates. In fact, I think they raised the temperature of Conception Bay in the area near where they were.

While this is an offbeat example, I said: Well, you know, if someone did a proper job, you could probably heat the Sprung Greenhouse with heat from waste water instead of propane. It might even have worked.

When I talked to the engineer, I said: Listen, in actual energy loss, how much are you actually...? We are not allowed to talk about that. Were not supposed to talk about that. Did not want, really, the public to know that there were options there. They did not really want to look into it because there was always an excuse. The excuse was: Well, we cannot guarantee a source of heat, so we could not really supply that heat to anybody.

Of course, the reality is that over the last number of years there has been a constant sort of heat. It has not been running year-round, I guess. There are probably times when it does not run at all.

I guess, in exploring options or different possibilities with even things like the waste heat that might be generated out there, is that something that the engineers, and the people whose ideas may be now freed up, could explore under this new kind of power that you are giving them?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The short answer is, absolutely, yes. I will give you an example. There is an integrated sawmill owner in Central Newfoundland who has thermal technology. He heats his buildings, heats his kiln, heats his shop, and excess heat is out in the harbour. It has saved him, personally, in terms of his operations, thousands upon thousands of dollars in electricity bills.

It is a technology that works. Certainly, from Hydro's perspective, any and all options in trying to position the future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a variety of technologies, a variety of alternative energy sources, certainly is open for discussion and development.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 is 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'.

Clause 2 is 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'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 1 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 1 carried without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report that Bill 1, An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, pass without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall Bill 1 be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to move to Motion 6, which is that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco, Bill 6. Before I do - I moved the closure motion already - I believe we will be operating under closure, which every member has twenty minutes, up to 1:00 a.m. After that, when that is over, I wanted to give notice tonight on the amendments to the Fishery Products Act. We can just give notice so we will have it ready for debate on Tuesday, once we conclude the debate on Bill 6.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting imposition of taxes on tobacco and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The Committee is ready to hear debate on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, and the Resolution that accompanies Bill 6.

I remind all hon. members that the Committee will be operating under the regulations according to the Closure Act and Standing Order 47.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

All members will be recognized by the Chair and each member will have a maximum time of twenty minutes to speak with the debate closing at 1:00 o'clock, 1:00 am, if not before.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can say, Mr. Chair, to the Government House Leader, not one second before 1:00 o'clock will this bill pass. Not one second, because for those of you out there who do not know what closure means, it means that the government is stopping debate on this bill at 1:00 o'clock. That is something unusual that happens in this House. When closure is brought in, debate is stifled, you are not allowed to talk about that which your constituents are interested in.

I am going to have to start again because we are going to have the Member for Trinity North, the centrefold for trust magazine - I got up, Mr. Chair, on a previous bill and I talked about relevance. Right now, for anyone who is listening out there, because this bill deals with money, the taxes collected from tobacco, we can talk about anything the government collects money on or spends money on in the Province. Is that right, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. REID: Good. So, I hope the Member for Trinity North heard the Chair when he said anything that I want to talk about on which the government collects money or spends money.

Mr. Chair, before I start that I would just like to compliment the Government House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources, I got two answers out of him tonight. That is a record. The first question that he answered me, and it was only half an answer, I said that the government was going to go out and borrow $6 billion to $9 billion dollars, and you said no we are not.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Were you looking for a $9 billion guarantee and he said no. He said no, but when I asked what he was looking for, he wouldn't tell me, so we got half an answer on that one. He did say - I have to give him his credit - he did say, regarding the eight or ten questions I asked him about the Lower Churchill contract, he got up and the first few words of his speech in closing debate were that the questions I asked were impossible to answer because he did not have the answers at this time.

Now, I consider that an answer, and a good one and a telling one, because when the Premier and the minister announced what they were proposing to do with the Lower Churchill on May 8, he said tonight that they did not say that they were going to go it alone and they did not say that they had a project. He made that categorically clear across the floor fifteen or twenty minutes ago.

Well, I can say to the minister right now that, if that was his understanding at the press conference that he and the Premier had, then they should look at doing something with those people who handle their PR for them, because they left the impression with everyone in this Province - everyone in this Province - that there was a deal and we were going it alone.

Why else would the media come up and stick a microphone in my face, or that of any member in this House, and ask - and we have all been asked - what do you think about the fact that the Premier announced today that we are going ahead with a Lower Churchill deal and we are going to do it alone?

Now we hear tonight that the minister said that we do not have a deal and we are not going it alone because we need to find out the answers to all of those questions that you asked tonight.

That is telling, but it is not unusual, because every time we enter a polling period what is rolled out? What is rolled out in the press conference?

MS THISTLE: The Lower Churchill deal.

MR. REID: The Lower Churchill deal.

What was rolled out every time there was a press conference last year around this time? The Atlantic Accord. So, it is not surprising.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk long on that because I will get another opportunity -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Member for Trinity North, he will be given an opportunity to speak. I didn't heckle him when he was on his feet. I didn't say a word. I waited for him to finish, and I got up on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to talk about something else now, and we will leave the Lower Churchill, because I think right now there are far more important issues on the table and around this Province.

One of those issues that I think is of more importance today is what is happening in the biggest industry in the Province, but one that seems to be forgotten by this government, and that is what is happening in our fishing industry. I call it the forgotten people - the forgotten people - because that is exactly what it is. The people who are involved in the fishing industry in this Province have been forgotten, there is no doubt in my mind.

For two years now we have been raising issues concerning the fishery. Eighteen months ago, we started talking about what the plight of the people of Harbour Breton was. We were accused of fearmongering, and all of that was going to be fixed. Shortly after that, we were talking about what was happening in Fortune. Again, this year, we are talking about what is happening in Marystown. Yesterday, we were talking about what is going to happen in places like Port de Grave and Anchor Point and in St. Joseph's, and what do we hear from the Premier? We are going to hold a summit to discuss the issues in the fishery. We need to talk to the people.

They think it is so important now that the Member for St. John's Centre was up today, or out today on an Open Line show, saying that the fishery is so important that we have to hold a summit, and go out and talk to the people.

Now, I have been sitting here listening to the Member for St. John's Centre for two-and-a-half years and never heard him mention the word fish of any kind in the House of Assembly, unless he was talking about going on a trouting trip somewhere on the twenty-fourth of May.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabour the point on that. I am not going to belabour the point, because my colleague, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace just talked about the irony of this summit. This summit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, can I have some protection?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask all members for their co-operation. The Leader of the Opposition has been recognized. I ask members for their co-operation, and to allow the member to speak in silence.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I say to those who are watching and wondering why I am being interrupted, I will tell them who is interrupting me. I will tell them who is interrupting me: the Member for Mount Pearl.

Now, do you wonder why I am being interrupted by the Member for Mount Pearl when I am talking about the plight of whom here tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another fishing community.

MR. REID: The fisherpeople of this Province.

The Member for Mount Pearl -

MR. DENINE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a point of order.

MR. DENINE: Mr. Chairman, the Opposition Leader is insinuating that I don't care about the fishery. I was the Mayor of Mount Pearl when the cod fishery closed down, and when the cod fishery closed down a number of industries in Donovan's Industrial Park who depended on the fishery were closed down with it, so I do care about the fishery, Mr. Chairman!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point I was making about the Member for Mount Pearl is that this is a very serious issue and I don't need heckles and laughter from him when I am trying to discuss it, because I am sure there are people out there tonight who are involved in the fishing industry and want to know what is going to happen to them tomorrow or next week or next month. That is what I am taking about, Mr. Chairman, and I was talking about irony.

The Premier went out yesterday, or the day before, and talked about a summit. We are going to have a summit, now, to decide what we can do to fix the fishery. The ironic thing about that, is that he has told us that we are supposed to be debating changes to an FPI Act on Tuesday - something to fix what is happening to FPI - and we are going to hold a summit on how to fix the fishery on Wednesday. On Wednesday.

Don't you think that maybe if this summit is such a serious issue, is of so much importance and you are really going to listen to the people affected in the industry, don't you think you should at least have the decency to listen to the people, ask them what they should do with the FPI Act to strengthen it so that the people who are employed by FPI might find their way back to work in the next little while?

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that we have talked at length, time and time again for the last three years, about what is happening in the fishing industry. It was only up until Monday that those opposite did not stand and accuse me of fearmongering, and accuse my colleagues of fearmongering, when we brought issues before the floor about the potential closure of the Marystown plant, the potential closure of the Fortune plant, the potential closure of the Harbour Breton plant. Finally, after there was a bankruptcy in the industry this week, it jolted those opposite into the realization that there is a problem and maybe it is worthy of discussion.

What people opposite do not realize is that it is our most important industry. Not to downplay the mining industry or the forest industry or the power industry or the oil industry, but, to me, the fishing industry has always been the most important industry in our Province because it is what brought us here, it is what has sustained us for 500 years, and it is a renewable resource, just like the Lower Churchill could be a renewable resource if we develop it. Because it is a renewable resource, we should be paying more attention to it.

Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, regardless of how much oil is out there, it is a finite resource and some day it is going to be all gone. If we do not have a fishery and have people in this Province to prosecute a fishery, what are we going to live on in this Province? Are we all going to be able to sit back and live off the proceeds of a Lower Churchill deal? Are we all going to be able to sit back in this Province and not work, sit at home and enjoy a lifestyle that we would all love to enjoy because of the proceeds that are coming in from a Lower Churchill? No, we are not going to be able to do it. We have to be able to do something for our fishing industry.

I am not going to condemn previous governments, but I will tell you one thing: we talk about investing in an oil industry and taking an equity position; we talk about doing a Lower Churchill, an electricity project, we talk about that, going it alone and investing somewhere between $6 billion and $9 billion in it; and we have a fishing industry, and previous governments have invested in our fishery. The current Minister of Fisheries knows, because he invested in the fishery. I tell you, I think he was the Minster of Fisheries, if I am not mistaken, or one of his colleagues or his predecessors, who built the marine centres in this Province.

For those of you who do not know what they are, I tell you, they contribute a lot, not only to the fisherman who needs some repairs done on his boat and he needs his sixty-five foot, $1.6 million boat pulled out of the water and to get a repair done on it, not from that perspective, but it also provides employment in the areas in which these buildings are located.

I think the current Minister of Fisheries built the mid-distance vessels, some of the greatest vessels that were ever built. Now, there is a debate as to how much we paid for them, and should we have gotten them built somewhere else, and stuff like that, and I am not going in to it.

There was a time when we spent more money; we made more investments into the fishery. We can all be blamed for cutting back on that investment, but it seems today that the government is like the bank. There is no bank in this Province that wants to invest in the fishery.

MR. RIDEOUT: No bank in this country.

MR. REID: No bank in this country, the Minister of Fisheries says, that wants to invest in the fishery, and that is a fact. That is a fact.

I have constituents on Fogo Island, in Joe Batt's Arm, who went out two years ago and built a vessel. Do you know what it cost? One point six million dollars. That is their investment, a crew in Joe Batt's Arm, $1.6 million. The only way they could get that loan and put that investment in there is because of a program that has been ongoing in the Department of Fisheries for many years, and it is a loan guarantee.

In other words, these individuals go to the bank, they put their business plan on the table, and the bank says yes; but, the only reason the bank says yes is, guess what? If they default on their loan, the Department of Fisheries and the provincial government picks up the tab. Basically, that is all there is left to government investment in the fishery today. That is pretty well it. We have a few dollars down for a loan guarantee program in aquaculture.

I am not condemning the current Minister of Fisheries, or his predecessor, or myself, because I was there, and my colleague, but somewhere along the way we have lost sight of this very important industry.

We are not investing. When we were talking about an equity stake in the oil field out there a few weeks ago we were talking hundreds of millions of dollars, and we were ready to invest and take a gamble. We could have invested, if we had gotten the deal or if the Premier took the deal that he was offered. We could have invested and lost money on it. We could have lost money on it, because the minister was talking tonight about how much it costs to drill a well.

Well, I happen to know, from the people I know in the industry, when they were drilling a well out there last year, the year before, they lost three ball bearings down in that drill hole that they were putting down that pipe. It cost them $1 million to retrieve those ball bearings, three ball bearings. They had to get them out because, once the oil started to flow, it had something to do with the pressure cap or something that they have on it and it could blown that off.

There is a big investment; there is a big risk. There is a big investment and a big risk involved in the Lower Churchill, but we are willing to do the oil, we are willing to take the risk, we are willing to put the money in. We are willing to do the Lower Churchill, we are willing to take the risk and we are willing to put the money in, but what are we willing to do for the thousands of people who are employed in the fishing industry who are finding it today very difficult, very difficult, to make a living and survive? What are we doing for them? The banks will not touch them unless we co-sign a loan for them. That is all we will co-sign, a loan for them. We are not giving them anything. We may be giving them - if it is still in place - a break on their diesel fuel, but how big of a break is it? What are we doing for them? What are we doing for the plant workers today in Anchor Point and other areas who, through no fault of their own, are out of work? Who is speaking for those people?

We are going to have a summit now in St. John's, Newfoundland, at an undisclosed location and at an undisclosed time, on an undisclosed day, as far as I know, and in private. We are supposed to be out again - like the deal - we are supposed to be patting the Premier on the back for the Lower Churchill, going it alone, when, all of a sudden, we realize there is no deal on the Lower Churchill, there is no project, there are too many questions yet to be answered before we do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is like the tunnel.

MR. REID: It is like the tunnel.

You know, if you are really serious about doing something, I say what I always say: Put your money where your mouth is. Put your money where your mouth is. Why not invest into the fishery?

I am not saying yet, like my colleague, the Leader of the NDP, that we should go out and buy FPI. I am not saying it yet; but, I tell you, under certain conditions I would. Rather than see Bill Barry take half of the company on this side, and let Risley and the other group take the other half, the American division, split it up and have no governance in this House of Assembly regarding FPI or the assets of FPI again, under those circumstances I would, yes, say buy it. There are other situations where I would say buy it, but we need to get a grip on what is happening in that industry, and the thousands of people it employs, because we do not want to be reading articles in The Current - a local newspaper here - entitled: Mexicans with Sweaters. What is the reference? Does anybody get the reference here? Mexicans in Sweaters. Who are the Mexicans with Sweaters? Who are they? They are talking about Newfoundlanders going to Fort McMurray to find work and they are talking about their primitive skills, their primitive resource and trades-base skills. That is who they are talking about, Newfoundlanders; grey-haired Newfoundlanders with their primitive resource skills. What are they talking about? Who are they talking about? They are talking about fisherpeople. This is an article in The Current. I would suggest that you all read this. There is a free copy for everyone in the House just outside the door here; a free copy. It is sad, very sad to read.

We are Mexicans, and if anyone has listened to the news coming out of the United States these days, the biggest problem they have in the Southern States now are Mexicans coming out of tunnels and crawling on their fences trying to get out of Mexico and into the United States. It is such a problem down there that George Bush is going to send the Militia down there to stop them from coming over the border because the Mexicans -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: They are going to build a wall because the Mexicans are so poor that they are digging holes under fences in the United States to get into that country because they think there is a better way of life. Now we are going to be considered Mexicans in sweaters going to Alberta, in a country like Canada, in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador where the Minister of Finance and the Premier are constantly patting themselves on the back for the Atlantic Accord and all the money they got and talking about investing in oil, investing in hydroelectric projects and not investing in an industry that has sustained us for 500 years, and looking at these people who keep that industry alive and have kept them alive through the tough times of the Depression and through everything else. What are we going to invest in those people?

What I am asking government to consider at their summit or wherever they want to consider it, is: What can we do for you to sustain this industry? What can we do? Are there any breaks that we can give you? Is there some way that we can give you a hand up but not a handout? Are there some programs available to tie you over until another year when the fishery may be better? Because that is one thing about the fishery, that is what kept us here. That is what kept us here. Every year, the fishermen said: I will try and hold out until another year. The price might go up, or the fish might come in - and, it might. It might, I say, Mr. Chair, it just might come in, and the prices in the industry may change, but right now they are experiencing serious troubles and what is the government doing about it? Turning their back on them. The Premier is out saying, about FPI: Well, we might have to look at the board of directors but we can't be too intrusive.

What does that mean?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his twenty minutes is up.

MR. REID: By leave, Mr. Chairman, just to clue up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. REID: Thank you.

As I was saying, he said, you can't be too intrusive in FPI. In other words, let's run FPI and the fishing industry like any other business.

The Premier says that because, in his psyche, he is a businessman. That is what he has done all of his life. He is a businessman. If it doesn't make dollars and cents, and if it doesn't make good sense, you don't do it; you cut your losses. All you are interested in is the bottom line, and making more and more profit every year.

He is treating the whole industry like it, and if it can't float on its own then you let it go. You let it go. If it is just static, if it is not making any money this year, get rid of it. We need higher profits; we need more cash in the ass pocket.

I think it is time that we were all serious about this. I will give my speech at the summit, for what good it is going to do, because the Premier, reluctantly, invited me there the other day, and the Leader of the NDP, and then had the gall today, I think, to insinuate that the reason it was being held in St. John's, Newfoundland, rather than Harbour Breton or Englee or Fogo or Twillingate - had the gall today to insinuate the reason he was holding it in St. John's was so that he wouldn't inconvenience myself and the Leader of the NDP.

Well, I can tell the Premier tonight, for me, and I am sure the Leader of the NDP can tell the Premier tonight, himself, he doesn't have to inconvenience me because, wherever he holds that summit in the Province, I will be there, because I believe in the fishery of this Province and I certainly believe in those who try to find a living, and I no longer want to see Newfoundlanders being called Mexicans in sweaters.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate tonight.

I want to, I guess, first of all, deal with some of the remarks that Leader of the Opposition made about the Lower Churchill, and how the government needs to have a look at our communication directors, he said, because what we said on Monday, May 8, was not what we said here tonight: go it alone, Newfoundland led. There has been a change, he said.

Now, I am going to tell the Leader of the Opposition and give him some unsolicited advice. It is not our communications people that need to have a talk to. There has been no change in the view from May 8 when the Premier spoke. So my suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition is that had he been watching and listening to what the Premier said on Monday, May 8, and had he read the press release on Monday, May 8, he would know that the statements he is making now are not true. Now, to confirm that I am going to read the speaking notes. I am going to read word-for-word right now what the Premier said when he announced the development, this process on Monday, May 8.

Here is what he said: Good morning and thank you for coming. I am joined here in St. John's by Ed Martin, the President and CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and through video conference, Minister Byrne and Lake Melville MHA, John Hickey are joining us from Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

He went on to say: We have invited you here for what we believe to be a significant announcement on the potential development of the Lower Churchill hydro resource. As you are aware, just over a year ago we embarked on a process to identify the best possible option for the development of the Lower Churchill, including the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls resources. We initiated an international call for Expressions of Interest and Proposals, the EOI process. That signaled a new approach onto this project - and I am quoting word-for-word what the Premier said. Over the years there have been various unsuccessful attempts to develop the Lower Churchill due to any number of reasons, including a narrow focus on what potential options existed for this development.

In our election Blue Book, and since we have formed government, we have been very clear. We have been very consistent on our objective in developing our natural resources. Any exploitation of those resources has to be achieved by reaching that objective, and that is a very simple objective, to maximize benefits. There will no more giveaways. That message does bear repeating from time to time.

It is within that context that we put into action the process to reach one of our government's priorities, the development of the Lower Churchill project, in which there will be real and tangible benefits, not only in the near term but for generations that will come after us, for our children and for our grandchildren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: We do not want them waiting out the expiration of a sixty-five year deal. When we initiated the process we knew that the timing was right, our neighbours to the west and south need energy and the Lower Churchill project remains one of the best undeveloped hydroelectric resources in North America. What has become a challenge for other provinces and States has emerged as a tremendous opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador. An opportunity to develop a project that will reap benefits for our Province. An opportunity to assist marketplaces hungry for clean, renewable energy and an opportunity to provide some stability on energy pricing and supply in Eastern North America. Our government wants to ensure we optimize that opportunity, and the path we have chosen to achieve - here is the key phrase, I say to my colleagues and members opposite, here is what he said on May 8.

The Leader of the Opposition does not need to remind us to talk to our communication directors. I would advise him, for his communication director to put this stuff in front of him so when he speaks he does not swallow himself whole in the future, I say, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Here is what he said. Here is what the Premier said: ...and the path we have chosen to achieve that is to lead the potential development of Lower Churchill - to lead the potential development. I am announcing today, here is what he said: I am announcing today that we have decided that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is now the lead proponent on the project. We will control and lead this development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, how the members opposite - the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, very narrow in their focus. Looking for any opportunity, a nuance to say: Oh, they changed their minds. They are not being positive. They are not being truthful with people, but what does that mean? Oh, the Premier said on Monday, May 8, it was going it alone. Yet, the Member for Gander said: We are going to lead. Why has that changed? No basis in fact or truth, Mr. Chair.

This is what the Premier read at that press conference: Following the assessment of the options that were presented through the EOI process - he went on to say - it became clear that a Newfoundland and Labrador led development is best suited to meet our objective to develop the Lower Churchill. It is our view that this option represents the right opportunity to maximize benefits and returns for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The decision was approached from - as I talked about earlier - both a public policy and business case perspective. In light of this decision, we have advised the proponents whose proposals offered to build, own and operate the Lower Churchill on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador, that their proposals are no longer under consideration and will not be subject to any further review or analysis. Proponents who offered potential market access alternatives will be considered in greater detail as we move forward to develop market opportunities within a Newfoundland and Labrador led development.

Those are the words of the Premier - consistent, same words, same language, fabrication to some degree, by members opposite, but they need to read. It is fine to stand up here and criticize - and we take it, that is what governments are supposed to do. We are challenged on subjects, on public policy issues, on decisions we make, and so we should be. I am not afraid of that. I do not think members on this side of the House are afraid of that, but what gets disturbing, what really gets disturbing, and this is what gets people's dander up, is when you sit and listen to a criticism that has no basis in fact, that represents a spin or an opinion.

MS JOHNSON: Completely out to lunch.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde is absolutely right when she says that is completely out to lunch and does not represent the views or the opportunities or the press statements that the government has made.

The Premier also went on to say: I also want to be very clear that thus - here is what he said. Here is what the Premier said, Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I also want to be very clear, that this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Premier went on to say that morning: I also want to be very clear that this does not mean a final decision has been made to proceed with the development of the Lower Churchill. This is definitely a significant step forward in the process, but there continues to be a lot more work and assessment before this project gets the green light. That is what the Premier said. However, in light of the fact, we want to concentrate our efforts on the Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and here it is again, the fourth time in his statement that morning. There could be no reason for anyone to have an impression other than what was real. For the fourth time here is what he said: However, in light of the fact, we want to concentrate our efforts on the Newfoundland and Labrador led development.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I listened to you. I sat down, I never said a word. I let you have your twenty-odd minutes. I am just trying to put our point of view out there.

For the fourth time the Premier said: In light of the fact that we want to concentrate our efforts on the Newfoundland and Labrador-led development, the prudent course of action was to inform the proponents of this decision and to focus our attention to what we believe is the optimal development plan.

We will continue to assess the project configuration, the transmission routes, markets and various financing arrangements. The proposals may be off the table, but our options as to how this is developed remain open and under consideration.

We will move this development forward with the Province having a significant ownership. We will be assessing the potential roles for the proponents in the context of a Newfoundland and Labrador-led development. As such, there remain opportunities for the individual proponents in the EOI process to participate in the development potentially as an equity partner, purchaser of power, transmitter of power, engineering or construction contractor, or others. We have not closed the door on any of the proponents, and we look forward to having discussions with them that could prove to be of mutual benefit.

We will continue - the Premier went on to say - our discussions with the Innu Nation of Labrador and we will continue to engage and consult the people of this Province, particularly Labradorians, who are key stakeholders in this development.

We realize, he said, there are many challenges on the path before us. It is, after all, a huge construction project. It is very expensive and, historically, market access has been a stumbling block.

This project will not go ahead - this is what the Premier said Monday, May 8 - unless we can overcome each and every one of those challenges. We will not do a deal for the sake of a deal. We will not be pressured to reach arrangements that are not in our best interest. We will not put our Province's future at risk. We will ensure we capture what we believe will be the appropriate return on investment.

He went on to say: To that end, we believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the purpose of the press conference?

MR. E. BYRNE: Someone said: What was the purpose of the press conference? I can send it over to you. You can read it. That would be my advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: We can send it over. You have to stop listening to the radio. You have to stop listening to people on the street. If you want to participate in a debate about the facts of the matter, read what comes out. Get what we are saying and then challenge us on what we are saying, not on what you believe we are saying, I say to the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier said: Before I conclude - he wanted to publicly commend Ed Martin and his team at Hydro who have been spearheading the process on behalf of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition again: Continue to interrupt; that is fine. People see you for what you are doing; that is fine. We sat down and listened to you. I certainly did.

The Premier said: We have full confidence in our ability to execute this project in a way that will ensure that we maximize the returns while mitigating the risks. At Hydro, we have the experience, we have the knowledge, the capacity, to take on a project of this magnitude. Hydro is a recognized world leader in hydroelectric operations and development. After all, Hydro operates the eighth largest generating station in the world, and is the country's fourth largest utility.

This is about doing it by our ourselves, for ourselves, the Premier said. We are on a path to be masters of our own destiny, a path that our Administration started from the day we formed government, and the successful development of this project will be a significant step forward in reaching the ultimate objective for this Province.

Now, that is what the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador said on May 8: that this was going to be a Newfoundland and Labrador-led option. He said it five separate times. He outlined clearly what the process was going to be, who could be involved. He has kept all options open, which is the prudent and wise thing to do. We have not stepped into a process by where our thinking was so narrow, so narrow that, boy, it could only be done with Quebec, and Quebec only. We are not going to be able to do it otherwise, because we do not have the capacity to do that ourselves. There is too much risk associated with taking on the cost of the project. We just do not know - we do not want burden anyone so we are going to deal with Quebec only.

We may historically have thought that way, but this government does not think that way. We have certain geographic realities that have been present and have probably dictated the situation with respect to the wielding of power between ourselves and getting our power to market, but we are not confined right here by those geographic realities and we will not be confined right here by those geographic realities, because other options exist. Other opportunities exist, and we are exploring each and every one of those opportunities that exist in a Newfoundland and Labrador-led option. A Newfoundland and Labrador-led option that means we will be in control of financing, that any discussion or debate that occurs, or disagreement on financing, will be subject to the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador, not like the agreement that they wanted to sign in 2002 that made the financing agreements associated with Quebec subject to the laws of Quebec. These are the options that we have explored, Mr. Chairman.

My point in all of this is to say to the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite who wish to continue to spin a yarn that is not true, that has no basis, in fact, that, oh, something has changed, it is not based on fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is absolutely parliamentary, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is this: If you are going to stand up and debate a subject, then do it from a point of fact and not from a point of opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I can give you mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will give you my opinion, and my opinion is based on fact, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I can tell you, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, if I am going to give you an opinion it is going to be something that is based on fact and reality, not some myth, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not going to be something that is cooked up to the political advantage designed only and solely for the political advantage of a narrow-minded thinking group of people who have never thought beyond the borders, who have never thought about existing opportunities, whose only thought when it came to these types of developments was Quebec and Quebec only. That is the opinion I will offer to the House, and I will stand on mine. If they are not right, and they are not based on fact, then I will be the first one to apologize.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Chair: When the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says something has changed, it has gone from Newfoundland-owned to Newfoundland-led, when he did not even read the press statements that came out on Monday, what does that tell me? That, in entering into debate about the Lower Churchill development - he asked eloquently today many questions that deserve answers, some that cannot be answered at this point, but one I can answer him now - if you are going to enter into that debate, do your homework. Understand what was said, when it was said, so you do not cast aspersions on individuals, or try to create a perception that is not real.

The fact of the matter is this: We are the first government to try this process. We are committed to ensuring that it will work. We are being led by a Premier who had the vision to put in a place a process that we believe will work. Mr. Chairman, we will not stop, we will not be impeded, we will answer everything honestly and up front, but in the end, Mr. Chairman, if this deal is going to get done for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, this is the type of process that will get the best arrangement for them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to take the time I have this evening to get real, because I have just listened to the Government House Leader and I cannot believe that he has just taken twenty minutes to read a press statement. He has taken twenty minutes to read a press statement, trying to correct what he considered to be inaccurate remarks by the Leader of the Opposition.

Here we are, we have a Province in crisis when it comes to the fishing industry. We have people in my district and in other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador, who do not know where the next dollar is coming from. They are looking to the government, I know in my district, to ensure that the quotas that have been traditionally processed at the fish plant in Fortune continue to be processed there, and we have a Government House Leader up talking about a project that may or may not happen. There have been no answers that we could get tonight because, really, there are no answers at this point, which he admitted, that the questions that the Leader of the Opposition raised were impossible to answer at this time. Here we are, with people in this Province not knowing where to turn, and the Government House Leader gets up justifying this project, or non-project, or whatever we are talking about tonight, at the discretion and to the detriment of the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now we have the government talking about a summit. We are going to have a summit to discuss what is happening in the fishery. Well, I think the Government House Leader and the Premier talked about bringing in amendments to the Fishery Products Act, to the FPI Act. I think they talked about bringing in amendments to that as early as Tuesday. Now, I assume that the summit is not going to happen before Tuesday. Does that mean that we are going to be passing amendments to the FPI Act without even having an opportunity to have the discussion at the summit or the town hall meeting with people who are in the know about the fishery?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: The problem I have, and I am sure other people have, with all of that, Mr. Chair, is that we have people out there in the know when it comes to the fishery. Why aren't we taking advantage of those individuals when we are talking about a summit or a town hall meeting, whatever it is, and bring them on board to discuss possible amendments to the FPI Act? Why is that taking place in advance of the so-called summit? Why are we not engaging people in the know?

We are not talking about the Premier, or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or the previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or the federal Minister of Fisheries, or the Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of the NDP. We are talking about people who actually know the fishery, who live and breathe the fishery, who work the fishery, the fisherpeople themselves who go out and fish and make it possible for those who work in the fish plants to have a product to process. We are talking about the harvesters, Mr. Chairman.

Why are we not looking at a summit that involves all of these individuals? Why are we not looking to those people and their experience to try and get the fishery back on the right track? I think that is what the Premier should be talking about when he is talking about a town hall meeting or a summit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear what the Minister of Finance said?

MS FOOTE: I am not surprised, what the Minister of Finance would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: The Minister of Finance is suggesting that, as the Official Opposition, we should have a summit for them. We should have a summit for those people who really have the experience in the fishery.

Well, guess what, Mr. Chair? Maybe we will do just that, because it looks like it is the Official Opposition who is really concerned here, along with the NDP, about the fishery in this Province. It is the Official Opposition and the NDP who are speaking day in and day out about what is happening to that industry that helped this Province get where it is today, that one sustainable industry, while we listen to the government talk about oil and gas, talk about megaprojects, instead of focusing on that renewable resource, our fishery.

Maybe the Minister of Finance is right. If you are not going to do it, maybe we should do it, because we want to hear from people who have been involved in the fishery for years and years and years, people who know what the fishery is all about, people who can help us turn this around and get us out of the crisis situation that we are in, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is on the Burin Peninsula, the Connaigre Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula or the Northern Peninsula. Maybe it is time we did just that, because, from what I am seeing and from what I am hearing the Minister of Finance say, they are certainly not interested in doing it.

Then we have people in Labrador, people in Labrador - because we have fisherpeople throughout this Province who really do not know where to turn, do not know what the future holds for them. That is why is was so important, and that is why for - I guess as long as this House has been in session we have been asking questions, we have been trying to make the point about how important it is to recognize what is happening to the fishery in this Province.

That is why, as a private member, I introduced a private member's motion calling for some way of looking at the management and operation of FPI but, no, the government would not buy into that. I guess it was because it happened to be a private member's motion from someone in the Opposition. So, it did not happen. Where are we today, now that Harbour Breton is closed, now that Fortune is closed, now that they are looking at cutting the workforce in Marystown? Now we are going to have a summit. What is that going to do for the people in Fortune, or the people in all of the communities who worked at the fish plant in Fortune? What is that going to do for the hundreds of people from Harbour Breton who have moved to Alberta, to Fort McMurray? We saw them again on the news last night. What is that going to do for the people from Fortune and other communities who moved to Alberta and to PEI? I do not know. I am hoping beyond hope that there will be something that will come out of that which will be applicable to those individuals, something to help them when we look at restructuring the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you that as I listened to the Government House Leader tonight, not a mention of the fishery; all about trying to explain how this project, or whatever is going to unfold, having admitted that they did not have the answers.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Of course, I am interested in the Lower Churchill, I say to the Minister of Finance. Sure, I am interested in the Lower Churchill, but tonight and today and last week and next week I am concerned about those people who are leaving this Province on a daily basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: They are leaving this Province on a daily basis, I say to the Government House Leader and to the Minister of Finance. They want to know what tomorrow holds for them, not 2010, not 2016. They have to feed their families. They have to try and somehow pay the mortgage. We have not heard any explanation other than we are going to have a summit, but the summit is going to come after we introduce the amendments to the FPI Act. You have to beg the question, the amendments to the FPI Act, from what I heard the Premier say and read, was that it is going to focus on governance. What about the other issues? What about quotas? What about the privative clause that they wanted to take out, that FPI wanted them to take out of the FPI Act? A really important clause. Hopefully, because the Income Trust did not go through, that that clause is still in there, and that is a good thing. But, if the government had its way it would have been out of there, I say to the Member for Trinity North. If the government had its way it would have been out of there.

AN HON. MEMBER: They voted, don't forget.

MS FOOTE: I tell you, he voted to take it out of there. There is no doubt about that. I voted, but I voted with my heart and not my head. You had a Premier who misled the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: He could not vote for it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

If members keep interrupting, the Chair will have no other choice but identify the member who is causing the disturbance in interrupting the person who has been identified by the Chair.

I ask all colleagues for their co-operation, please.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that because it is really difficult when you are here trying to represent a serious issue, speak to a serious issue, and represent constituents who are going through a very difficult time, to have members opposite make light of what is happening in this Province; make light of the turmoil in which people find themselves today as a result of the crisis in the fishery and the inaction by this government to deal with it. What do we get? We get a summit.

We get a summit when we have people not knowing where to turn, when, in fact, if this government had held FPI accountable, we would not be in the position we are in today. We would not be in the position we are in today if this government had held FPI accountable. But, no, we have a callous company who has just rode roughshod over the people of the Province, particularly over their employees and ended up terminating employees with a letter in the mail on a Friday afternoon. It would never, ever have happened under the previous administration. They shipped fish off to China to the determent of the very people who helped the company survive over the last number of years. A company, by the way, that came to be because of taxpayers' dollars; a company that was formed to have a social conscience; a company that was formed for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We know only too well what that company has done, only too well that it is that company which is responsible for what is happening today in rural Newfoundland and Labrador by large measure.

Now we know there are difficulties in some of the other fishing companies, and we are not suggesting that FPI be held accountable for everything that is going wrong in the fishing industry, but that is a company over which we have control. That is one company where there is a piece of legislation which governs that company and we do have control over that company.

As I have said time and time again, if the government does not believe that we can use the FPI Act to force FPI to have the quotas remain in the communities in which they were traditionally processed than speak to the federal Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, ask him that instead of renewing FPI's licences and giving them a quota again, tell them no. The quota is not for the benefit of FPI as a company. The quota is for the benefit of the people. As Minister Hearn has said time and time again: Fish belong to the people. It is a common resource. It is not the property of any company. With a federal Fisheries Minister who thinks like that, then why can we not make it happen? Why isn't it possible for us to make it happen for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I say again tonight, if the will was there it would be possible. I think that is what is absent from this whole debate. That is what is absent from this whole debate. I do not know why. I have tried to understand why the government has failed to move on this. Day in and day out we have been asking questions. The answers just have not been forthcoming. They were prepared to give FPI all the time in the world while a crisis unfolded.

I have another potential crisis in my district and that is with Clearwater. I am hoping beyond hope that we will not see happen to Grand Bank Seafoods what has happened to FPI in Fortune. We watched as Clearwater - who owns Grand Bank Seafoods - shipped one product line to China. We are watching as they build a new boat to replace the two boats that have been landing the product in Grand Bank. Now that boat that they are building will not be landing the product in Grand Bank.

All of the local businesses that benefitted from doing the maintenance work on the boats, from grubbing the boats, providing other supplies, it is not going to happen. The product will be landed elsewhere and supposedly trucked to Grand Bank. Just think about it. How long do you think that Grand Bank Seafoods, or Clearwater, is going to truck that product to Grand Bank to be processed? That is the fear that has been expressed by the more than 300 people whose jobs are connected to Grand Bank Seafoods. As they watch plants close day after day after day they live in fear that Grand Bank Seafoods will be next. That is why they want to meet with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. That is why they want to sit down and explain the predicament they are in to him and see if somehow some pressure can be brought to bear, or some discussion can be held with Clearwater to try and determine what their plans are. Maybe they do plan to keep on trucking the product to Grand Bank. Maybe they are going to ensure that that plant survives. But, I can tell you today, the individuals who work at that plant and the businesses that benefit from having that plant there are living in fear that that may not be the case.

We have a crisis in the fishery, and as much as oil and gas matters, and as much as the Lower Churchill matters, we all know the Lower Churchill is down the road; a wonderful initiative if it comes to fruition. We all know that we are benefitting now from the price of oil. We are seeing increased wealth in this Province as a result of oil, but the reality of it is: How much of that is filtering down to our smaller communities?

When I say to people: Well, you know, the wealth that we are realizing from oil and gas is helping to improve our roads, is helping to improve our health care, our education system, but the reality of it is that people are saying to me: But, Judy, I still have to put food on the table. I still have a mortgage to pay today. I still have a car payment to make today. That is the reality of it for people who live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador who are now impacted by the crisis in the fishery.

I stand here tonight to support them and to try, again, to impress upon the government the importance of recognizing that we really do have a crisis in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is on the Northern Peninsula where they are calling for an all-party committee, and where the Leader of the Opposition today asked the Premier if he would, in fact, put in place an all-party committee at the request of the people on the Northern Peninsula, and it was refused. In fact, I think the Premier said: Really, in this House, we are all an all-party committee.

Well, I do not think you are going to take forty-eight members up to the Northern Peninsula. I am sure they would not mind if we did, but the reality of it is that you cannot take all of us there, the cost would be prohibitive, but there is nothing to stop the Premier from agreeing to the request from the people on the Northern Peninsula to put in place an all-party committee. You know, the all-party committee could also go to other areas of our Province where people are in desperate situations.

People just want to be heard. They want to know you care. They want to know you are going to try and make a difference. That is why the people of Fortune, or the people who worked at the fish plant in Fortune, are asking the government: Where is the support that was promised? When can we expect it? Because, you know, people are coming off the EI system daily.

Over the next three months I will have 196 people, who worked at the plant in Fortune, without any income whatsoever. To suggest that they leave this Province, or go away to work, there is a cost associated with that, in getting there. There is a cost associated with living, once they get there, accommodations and food. Then, how much money are they going to make? Because most of these people have medical bills, as well, and there is no insurance program for them. If you add up - just do the math and you will soon find out -

MADAM CHAIR (Osborne): Order, please!

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

MS FOOTE: Leave to clue up?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Just a couple of minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Just do the math. What I am being told is that, for those people, it would be better for them to go on social services. You know, the people who work in fish plants and the people who fish in our Province are proud people, hard-working individuals. The last thing they want is to go on social services. I tell them, well, you know, that is why it is there. It is there to help you through tough times, to get over the rough spots. They cannot accept that. They cannot accept that, because it is not their fault they are in the position they are in.

We really need to recognize the crisis in the fishery and to do something about it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Chair, I have sat here patiently, somewhat quietly, for the last twenty minutes, but actually I was tempted many times to stand on a point of order.

To listen to the member opposite stand in this House, so pompous and sanctimoniously preaching to us as if we do not care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador; we do not care about what is happening in rural Newfoundland; we are not sensitive to what we are witnessing in rural parts of this Province; we are not sensitive to what we are hearing in Harbour Breton, seeing in Harbour Breton, Fortune, and other communities. She stands here and tries to tell us that we do not care, and she is the only one, and the crowd on the other side are the only ones, in this Province who really care and understand what is happening in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

How hypocritical can you get? A crowd of people who just finished thirteen years of government, who made a mess of the Province, and if we had not come in, in the fall of 2003, where would we be today?

I mean, I could probably stomach it to some degree from some other people over there, but for the Member from Grand Bank, who stood in this House - I do not know what date is on this Hansard, but it was back a few years ago - when she was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, a person who was supposed to be attracting business to Newfoundland and Labrador, an ambassador abroad - Lord knows she spent enough on travel, with her and her family, she should have been able to bring enough business to the Province - but she stands here tonight to lecture us when, back then, she stood in this House and let me tell you what she said. She said - listen to this - that, as the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, as much as we want to attract investment to rural Newfoundland, as much as we want to diversify the economy, it is not easy to do. But, tonight she has all the answers. How times have changed.

MS FOOTE: A point of order, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WISEMAN: How times have changed.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have listened to that a number of times now, Madam Chair. The reality of it -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get directly to her point of order, please.

MS FOOTE: I would love to.

Madam Chair, I have listened to that now, time in and time out, especially in Question Period, and I would not take time away from Question Period to correct it.

The reality of it is that - and the Government House Leader knows this - I was speaking to a private member's motion that he introduced about the possibility of TAGS coming to an end. Look at it! Look at it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: Madam Chair, it talked about the people coming off TAGS, and he knows it. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, if she has a point of order, to get directly to it. At this point, there does not seem to be a point of order, merely a disagreement between two members.

If you have a point of order, get to it directly because the members have twenty minutes each to speak.

MS FOOTE: I do have a point of order, Madam Chair, that I am being taken totally out of context. The Government House Leader knows it, as does the Member for Trinity North, and I am not going to sit in this House and allow that to happen any longer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

That is not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is one thing to accuse us of not understanding, but to take the House out of order, no respect for the Chair, and be a sook in the process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - because she does not want to be quoted out of context.

I won't read the rest of the garbage that she said, but I want to conclude by reading the last point that she made -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - when she said that people do not have the skills that are going to be required to attract them there - with reference to rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: The same people, the night that (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Chair, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people in this House, have a lot of understanding, a lot of empathy and a lot of sympathy for what is going on in many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, but the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the people who are experiencing difficult times, do not need the Opposition standing in this House and taking cheap shots at their misery -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - and exploiting the difficult times they are going through, to gain political points by accusing us of not understanding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: When they stand in this House and belittle and prey on the plight of people having difficult circumstance, for political gain, they should be embarrassed, they should be ashamed.

I mean, it becomes such a frustration to listen to that garbage coming from the other side, particularly from the Member for Grand Bank -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - when she stands and takes that kind of sanctimonious position that she is the only one who understands, when the reality of it is, she is exploiting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are having a difficult time for her own political gain and those of the members in her caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I say to you, do not stand in this House and try to lecture us on what we do and what we don't do.

If you remember, back in July of 2000 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Madam Chairman, back in July of 1992 former Minister Crosbie made a big announcement. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador remembers that day. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador remembers what happened. When he made that announcement he did not say the fishery is closing down forever; it is done, it is gone, we will never fish again. What he said is, we have to close it so it can be rebuilt. He was relying on the leadership of the provincial government to provide the leadership in rebuilding that fishery. What happened? It did not happen. It did not get the leadership. Who was in power at that time? Was the Member for Grand Bank in that caucus? Was she in that Cabinet? Was she in a senior Cabinet position? Was she one of those people who they looked to for leadership? I would say she was for a fair bit of that time, Madam Chair. She was in the Premier's office, the most senior office in government. She sat as an aide to the Premier, providing advice to the leaders of the day.

What happened when we came to power in 2003, some thirty-four or thirty-five months ago? They expect us to have changed and revitalized the fishery, turned it around in some thirty-four or thirty-five months, something that they could not do from 1992-2003. Now they are assuming that they are standing here tonight criticizing this government for not having changed all the woes in the fishery. Everybody in this Province, everybody in this House, fully understands that the fishery is going through a very difficult time. Newfoundland and Labrador is going through a very difficult time, particularly those communities that rely heavily on the fishery.

We have a real shift that is occurring in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Everybody recognizes and appreciates what they see on TV every night about people moving out of this Province. We really feel for them. It is tough stuff to see. It tugs at your heart. There are times in our caucus when we debate this issue that it becomes an emotionally charged issue because it is personal. We all have people, or friends and families and we all know someone who has been touched in a very personal way by what we are witnessing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not going to do any of us any good, particularly those people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if members of this House come in this Assembly, in a televised debate, in full public view and try to make political points and use the plight of what is happening for political gain. I think this is a time, a time for all of us, people on this side of the House, people in the Opposition, people who are not in this House at all - the leaders in communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador need to start coming together collectively and talking about what it is we need to do.

The Premier has proposed a summit for next week. This morning I listened to the Leader of the Opposition say we do not need a summit. It is time for action. We do not need to talk. Tonight we come in here and the Leader gets up and talks about he is now proposing an agenda, saying: What should the questions be? He now has the answers about how the summit should actually function. This morning he did not think it was necessary.

We had the Member for Grand Bank standing up and talking about it being too late. We should not be bringing in the amendments to the Fishery Products Act until we have had the summit and asked for the advice of all these expert people who we are actually bringing in to get advice. If we had listened to them we would have brought in the changes to the Fishery Products Act six months ago without any advice from anybody.

I say, Madam Chair, as we stand here in this House to debate and talk about what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador I think we have a collective responsibility. Yes, we represent political parties and yes, we campaign every four years and ask people to elect us as individuals and have our party form the power and our leader become the Premier. We do that in a partisan way, but we have a higher responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to deal with fundamentally sensitive issues that are important to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to do it in a responsible way, in a non-partisan way and stop trying to make cheap political hay out of what is a very difficult time people are experiencing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If you just look at this session - we are winding down now tonight. There is going to be another hour-and-a-half or so. We are going to be finishing up this session, with the exception of the Fishery Products issue we are going to deal with next week.

When you reflect on what has happened in this session of the House, we have had some very productive discussion in this House. We had a Budget - for the first time, we are now talking about surpluses. We have money to spend. We had announcements of some massive capital infrastructure, investment in health, schools and education programs, teacher allocations. The list goes on and on and on. Poverty reduction strategy, violence prevention strategies, major stuff - stuff that in any other day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador everybody would be applauding what is happening. But, what do we get here? We get in the House and the Opposition stands to talk about what we are not doing just for the sake of being critical; offering no suggestions.

We have even witnessed for the first time, for the first time since I have been following politics - before being elected, and since - that I have witnessed in the House of Assembly where members who have a direct benefit coming out of a Budget, enhancement in health facilities in their districts, enhancements in education in their districts, standing up in concurrence and voting against it.

Now, if you want to vote against the main motion then do it, fine. If you want to be party politics, do it then, but to come in a concurrence discussion and then vote at that point, to vote against dialysis services for your region, to vote against improved education for your region, that is unheard of. That is taking the politics out of - that is what gives politicians a dirty name. Make no wonder that people become cynical of politicians when you see the likes of that happening in this good news budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: We have had a major announcement in the recent past by this government. Look at the deal we struck with the federal government. Instead of recognizing it for the value that it was to the Province, what we have heard is criticism: we would not have gotten it had there not been a minority government in Ottawa.

We now have finally taken control of probably one of the next major natural resource developments in our Province, the Lower Churchill. What have we heard? Since that announcement was made a couple of days ago, all we have heard is the naysayers throwing up all the red flags about why it will not work, why it cannot work, and we should not be doing it.

We spent a couple of hours tonight debating a bill on creating a corporate structure and a governance structure for Hydro to facilitate a process and all we heard for two or three hours tonight were negative comments about why we should not be going alone to develop the Lower Churchill - major developments for the Province.

I understand fully that we need to be realistic; we need to understand that there are challenges. We are not saying, as a government, that we have all the answers to all the issues that are facing this Province. We are not saying that every single thing that we have done and will do for the remaining number of terms that we will be in, that it will be ideal and it will be the best thing since sliced bread. We are not saying that. What we are saying, though, is that, in the last thirty-four months since we have been in, this Province has made tremendous progress, progress like it had not witnessed for any similar period in our history, I say, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: What have we heard? Nothing but critical comments from the members opposite in a very irresponsible way to undermine other people's confidence in what this Province is doing, and the potential that it has for the future.

I say, Madam Chair, as we come to the conclusion of this debate in this session, I beg the members opposite, once and for all, put this partisan politics behind you. The Province, in some areas, in the fishery particularly, is going through a major crisis right now. We have not witnessed this kind of change - even the 1992 announcement. At the end of the day, when we reflect on what is going to happen over the next three or four months, what happened in 1992 will probably pale in comparison to what we are going to witness. We are not, in any way, diminishing the significance of what we are going to be witnessing in the next three or four months in the fishery, but we cannot afford, as a Province, and we do every single resident of Newfoundland and Labrador a grave injustice if we continue - and members in this House continue - to play petty party politics for cheap political points on the eve of a party convention or because you are in disarray over a leadership and you do not know who is going to be guiding you in the next twelve or thirteen months. You cannot blame that on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and you cannot take it out on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to you.

I say, once and for all, why don't you now start to look at some of the positive things that are happening in this Province and give - because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are going through a difficult time are looking, unfortunately, I say, Madam Chair, they are looking to all of the people in this House for strong leadership, to give them a sense of confidence that yes, there is a future in Newfoundland and Labrador and there is a role for them to play in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there will be a future for their children and their grandchildren in years to come.

They will not get that sense of confidence by listening to the people on the other side continuously scoring cheap political points on the backs of their misfortune. I say, Madam Chair, that if we, as a Province, are going to pull up our straps and move forward with a diversified economy, and continue to grow on what we have already done in the last two-and-a-half to three years, then everybody is going to have to be pulling on the same oar and expressing openly and celebrating the kinds of successes that we have, acknowledging that yes, we have some challenges, acknowledging that we need to do some things to improve on that, but let's build on the strengths that we have.

We have some wonderful things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the proposals that are happening with the Lower Churchill development, and the prospects that brings. We are redeveloping a new energy strategy for the Province, that should bring new life to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which we hope, as I said earlier tonight, will be one of the engines that we will use to drive our economy. Look at the potential for offshore development, looking at a second refinery, we have done some wonderful things.

We listen to debate in the House tonight about this Hydro bill, and all we talked about, as I said a moment ago, were the negative things around the development of the Lower Churchill. If we had, a couple of years ago, that same kind of due diligence as we have witnessed here tonight on the Voisey's Bay deal, we would not have had the Minister of Natural Resources out the other day telling Inco: Boys, listen, you have to put this in Argentia. We do not accept what you are telling us.

Had there been more thought, and a more thorough kind of discussion gone into it, and had members opposite participated in their caucus back then more vehemently in asking the kinds of questions that were necessary back then about Voisey's Bay, we would not have that kind of issue. We would not have that issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WISEMAN: Yes, I say to the member, I was there. I left over that very issue. That was the time that I left.

I say, Madam Chair, that these are the kinds of things that people in this House have to start getting their heads around because we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, have a tremendous amount of potential and we are a proud people. We are supportive people but we need, collectively, to be supporting what is happening in those parts of the Province that are going through difficult times, and it is not happening in this House. We are not seeing it from the irresponsible actions of the Opposition. I say, Madam Chair, if that does not change, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will send an even stronger message next fall when we go to the polls because what they will be comparing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - I say, Madam Chair, is the commitment that we made in 2003 to have a change and real leadership demonstrated for the people of this Province. That is what they will evaluate. That is what they will compare, in what they are witnessing with us and what they are witnessing with the members opposite.

I do not like citing or quoting members opposite very much, Madam Chair, but I recall a former Minister of Finance, who sat in this House representing the members opposite, who always talked about the need to look at a glass half full rather than half empty.

I say, Madam Chair, that the members opposite of today can take a lesson from that former colleague of theirs, that they need to start looking at the potential that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We understand those regions that are having difficulties, but the thing that separates us on this side of the House from members on that side of the House is that we have the vision, we have the leadership, we have the understanding of the potential that Newfoundland and Labrador has, and the potential it has for continued growth, but, more importantly, I say, Madam Chair, we have the confidence in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to recognize the real potential that we have, to recognize and see through the shallow criticisms -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. WISEMAN: - and the shallow insights of members opposite, I say, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do want to say a few words in this debate. I have to say, first of all, though, I find it pretty amusing to hear a politician give a political speech in a political forum, the main thrust of which is to accuse other people of being political. That is what I heard from the previous speaker. For some reason it is a crime to be political if you are a politician and you are in a political forum, making political speeches. I do not quite understand it. I do find it amusing, though.

I will say, I wanted to join in the debate because I think a lot of important issues are being discussed, but I will say this sincerely about the member's opposite speech. The Member for Trinity North accused, presumably, the Leader of the Opposition and others in the Liberal caucus of doing nothing but tearing down the idea of the Lower Churchill project. That is not what I heard, I have to say.

To be perfectly honest, what I heard said was that, just because a decision has been made that we should go it alone or take the lead does not mean that we should all assume that everything is going to go smoothly, and that we should all go away and be quiet and let you guys go about your business, because it clearly is a situation that, if you - I have been here a long time, and I remember when you folks, or some of you, were sitting over here and said: Let's see what your deal is; let's examine the deal. We want to look at it. We want to judge it. I remember the Premier sitting over here, and the Minister of Natural Resources: Let's put the deal on the table; let's have a look at it. Let's examine it before we support it.

I don't see anything wrong with that at all, and I don't think anybody sitting over there can see anything wrong with someone on this side saying: Let's see the deal. Let's see what the options are. There are a lot of risks involved. There is a lot of money involved.

I know the Member for Topsail is not going to buy into something sight unseen. She is not going to go over there and just bah when someone asks her to bah. She is going to want to look at the deal. She has a brain. She was the Auditor General for ten years. She understands figures. She even understands accrual accounting. She probably understands accrual accounting more than most people opposite. I am not saying everybody. The Minister of Finance claims to know it better than anybody else.

MR. SULLIVAN: You claim that I claim.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I claim that you claim.

The Member for Trinity North was accusing members of the Liberal caucus of scoring political points, but at least he acknowledged that they scored some. It wasn't just lobbing political insults; they actually scored a few points. Nevertheless, I think it is fair game for people here to ask those questions.

I also want to say something else about the Leader of the Opposition's speech today. He raised a very interesting point, and I have to say it was probably one of the most non-partisan points that he raised in debate, because the Leader of the Opposition can be fairly partisan, too, and very political.

One expects people here to be political - we don't always expect them to be partisan - but the Leader of the Opposition tonight raised a very non-partisan point. He said something about the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, and he acknowledged - as previous Minister of Fisheries in his government - and raised a question: Well, how much money do we, as a government, actually spend to support the fishing industry?

I think that is an extremely legitimate question. It reminded me of some items in the Budget Speech, and I am going to talk about a couple of them because we are talking here about a money bill and, as has been pointed out previously, we can talk about any way we raise money and anything we spend it on. He said, well, there are not a lot of programs in the Department of Fisheries to support the fishing communities and the fish harvesters and the plants in this Province. He talked about one or two of them, some support, some loan guarantees for some plants, although the Minister of Finance was against it when he was over here. They were going to cut out any more loan guarantees for fish processors. There are loan guarantees for people building boats - that is there - and there is not a lot else, I will say this.

I remembered this figure, and I had to look in the Budget to get it, to make sure I was right - when we talk about our fishery, and I listened to the Fisheries Broadcast today, people say, well, the real difference between today and many years ago is that there is no fish. There is no fish.

Well, we all know we had a cod moratorium and we know we are having trouble with cod recovery. We are doing okay in the South Coast, in some areas, and there are some interesting developments in the bays and also, believe it or not, amongst Northern cod, but one of the most significant programs and possible projects identified by the Royal Commission, by the way, which we have not heard much about lately, but one of the primary recommendations of the Royal Commission on our place in Canada and our future in Canada was that there ought to be a full-scale, no-holes-barred, plan for the recovery of the cod stocks. Remember that? That was pretty important. That was one of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission.

We have not heard a lot about it lately. In fact, Mr. Young and his fellow commissioners, Judge

James Igloliorte and Sister Elizabeth Davis, they came out with this recommendation that is so important, we would like to see a plan and we would like to have an evaluation in a certain period of time - I think it was a year or two - as to what progress has been made.

Well, very little progress has been made but what do we see in our Budget his year? This year, for the most important and significant industry in our Province, the industry that made Newfoundland Labrador, we have an expenditure - actually, it is in one sentence with something else. Let me read out the sentence in the Budget that deals with the cod recovery. Let me read it out: We will also invest -

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you find it?

MR. HARRIS: I found it. I had to look. I found it.

We will also invest $100,000 for a sealing industry communications strategy to counter the fiction and fabrication with facts - a little alliteration there - we are going to counter the fiction and fabrication with facts, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It is not amusing, I have to say to the Minister of Fisheries.

- and $300,000 a year over five years to implement the cod recovery strategy in partnership with the Government of Canada.

Now, I figure that, at $300,000 times five, is $1.5 million, over five years, to assist in the recovery of what was the greatest single protein resource in the world - in the world - twenty-five years ago, and that is what we are committing to it, as a Province.

I am not pointing fingers and saying this is a Tory plot, but I am trying to amplify what the Leader of the Opposition said. How much resources do we actually put into supporting our fishing industry in trying to overcome and recover from the tragedy, the ecological tragedy, that occurred in Newfoundland and Labrador in the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s, and it continues to this day.

When I look at other parts of the Budget - and I am not saying that any of these expenditures should not be undertaken, don't get me wrong, but when I look at other expenditures that are considered very important, the strategic cultural plan, five years, a five-year plan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: A three-year plan, excuse me. This Budget commits an investment of $17.6 million over the next three years to implement this plan.

Our culture is important, and I have every respect for the intentions and the desire to build our culture and communicate our culture and encourage our culture and encourage our arts, and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is very interested in that. The new minister, the old minister, everybody is interested. We are all interested, everybody here. There is not a person in this House who is not interested in preserving and promoting and developing and enhancing and exporting our culture - it is very important - but $17.6 million over three years compared to $300,000 a year for five years, $1.5 million stretched out over five years, less than one-tenth of that amount, and stretched over five years, instead of $17 million in three years, for cod recovery. That passed by. Somehow or other, I didn't hear anybody comment on that. I didn't comment on it. I didn't jump up in the middle of the Budget Speech and say: What is going on here? What is going on here?

We are all guilty, I should say, when we look at a $4.5 billion Budget and see new expenditures of that kind, priorities being decided by government - because budgets, after all, are a financial plan. Budgets determine how we are going to spend our money.

If you look at government departments, how many people in this Province depend on the fishing industry, in the harvesting sector, in the processing sector, in the supply and services sector? Whether it be - lawyers depend on the fishery. Accountants depend on the fishery. Service centres depend on the fishery. Even the Town of Mount Pearl, as the Member for Mount Pearl said, had a number of businesses go under as a result of the cod moratorium in 1992.

You look at the gross expenditures by department. In the $4.9 billion of expenditure, current and capital, found in the Budget, we see, in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, $15 million. Fifteen million dollars for the Department of Aquaculture. Environment and Conservation, $30 million. Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, $45 million. Natural Resources, $87 million. Tourism, Culture and Recreation, $45 million - three times as much on tourism, culture and recreation than on fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Natural Resources says, look what is in natural resources. We understand that there is a lot of activity involved in natural resources, and a lot of return on our natural resources as well, but I am -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where do you propose we put the money?

MR. HARRIS: Where do we propose to put the money? I just told you that we are spending $300,000 on cod recovery -

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you make cod recovery?

MR. HARRIS: How do you make cod recovery? Well, you know, if you want to get into how you make cod recovery, I would invite you to talk to the scientists. You were there when George Rowe gave the speeches to one of our all-party committees. You were there when Dr. George Rowe talked about what had to be done to help the cod recover. Some of those things probably cost a lot of money. In fact, preserving some of the grounds from use by trawlers would cost money because you might have to compensate people who are going to lose a little bit of livelihood. That might involve a little bit more expenditures of $300,000. There are all sorts of things that can be done. No one here has explained why we are only spending $300,000 over five years, but it does show -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Look, I am not - the former Minister of Fisheries wants to get into finger pointing here. I want to say to the former Minister of Fisheries, that I was here in 1990 just after the new Liberal government came in and they spent their first four or five years finger pointing at the previous Conservative government. So, if that's what you think is the best way to spend your time and say: Well, any problems, we will blame it on these guys. Blame it on those guys. We see that in Question Period everyday: What did you guys do? You ask a question - somebody over here has no right to criticize because the answer is: Well, you guys were in power and you messed it up or you didn't solve the problem, why should we? So let's not talk about finger pointing here. I was not in either government and that's fair enough. I am making points that have been made, and the Leader of the Opposition, who was also a former Minister of Fisheries, is acknowledging here in this House that we might have a problem here. Maybe we are anxious to spend money to solve problems in other areas.

Let's take a recent example, and I know you can explain it away. The Premier tried to explain it away today. The government was very happy back a few months ago to talk about spending $150 million in Stephenville because there were 300 or 400 jobs in a mill, very good jobs in a mill, at stake. Now, granted, it was spread out over a number of years, but they also talked about expropriation a couple months before that. Now, how much would it cost to expropriate the Stephenville mill? I don't know. They say they spent $300 million on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) if we had a buyer.

MR. HARRIS: Well, if you had a buyer or whatever, but the government was prepared to invest that kind of capital in taking over an operation, trying to find another solution, doing that kind of money if we had a buyer.

When we look at FPI, how much is it going to cost to take over FPI and reinvent it? We may need to reinvent FPI and re-privatize it in some other form. Meanwhile, while we have it in our hands, we might be able to put in some very, very good and very, very solid conditions on any quota that FPI holds. If we had that in our hands, even for a minute, we could put in place very stringent controls and conditions on any use of, disposal of, or plans to deal with quota. That could be a solution, but we cannot dismiss any of these things out of hand.

We not only have a crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have a serious problem that needs to be solved. We have to look back at our history and see whether there are some lessons to be learned. The lessons of the fishery - some of them are pretty obvious. You will hear people say the fishery is a hard business to be in. Well, it is a hard business to be in but it is an awful lot harder to be in if you build up debt. If you are trying to carry a fishing company with debt. The Daley Brothers operation did not go bankrupt because the price of crab fluctuated or the dollar fluctuated. They went bankrupt because they could not handle that fluctuation because they had too much debt.

We had a gentleman, an industrial management consultant, say the other day that if FPI was not carrying the debt that it took on in the last three or four years and paying the interest on it, they would have made a profit last year instead of having a loss of $14 million. So, these problems are not new. That was the problem that led to the restructuring in 1983, that the companies were carrying too much debt, they could not handle the fluctuations in the market. Very similar problems to today. So we have to talk about a longer term solution that involves trying to solve some of the problems that exist. The problems have to do with debt, they have to do with erratic marketing, cutthroat marketing. They have to do with - you cannot engage in cutthroat marketing in the market and expect the harvesters to pay the price in lower prices for their fish and their product and expect the people working in the plants to take salary cuts, like they were planning to impose on the people in Anchor Point. A two-dollar-an-hour salary cut was on the table and they were going to vote on it because they were desperate to keep their jobs. Why is that? That's because the fishing industry has not been operating properly enough to give them a descent return to the fish harvesters and a descent return for people working in the plants.

These are significant problems in our Province and we have to look collectively at how willing are we as a government - I heard people on the fish broadcast today, I could not believe it: They should stop putting all this money into the fishery. Well, where is it? Where is all this money that government is putting into the fishery? It does not show up in the Budget. So, I don't know where it is. Now maybe people do go running to the government for solutions but the government seemed pretty shy of solutions in the last little while. I do not say that in a partisan way - and I think the Premier is engaged, I have to say that. The Premier is engaged. That is a good thing. I am not sure the summit is going to be the full solution but I will go and I will participate, whether it is in St. Anthony or anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador. It does not have to be here to suit me.

We went all over this Province in our all-party committee on FPI a couple of years ago. Everywhere there was an FPI operation we went and heard what people had to say in those communities, and I will go there again with a heart-and-a-half to hear what people have to say if they have solutions and proposals that we need to consider to improve our fishery and make it more stable and give people a chance to save their communities. We have to look at that collectively but we have to be willing to pony up. We have to be willing to step up to the plate, I think is one of the other cliches. We have to step up to the plate. We have to put our money where our mouths are. We have to be willing to invest and put the same kind of commitment into our fishery as we are prepared to put into Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as we are prepared to put into Hebron-Ben Nevis, as we are prepared to put into the development of other industries, whether it be cultural or otherwise. This is, obviously, a very important thing. I think the Premier is now engaged. I think the government is engaged. I think they are genuinely trying to find solutions, but I think in pursuit of that we cannot throw out options without considering them. We cannot, out of hand, say that FPI is not something that we can see as a vehicle for solving some of the problems. We cannot have narrow ideologic binders and say the only solutions that are going work are the ones within this narrow framework.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Just thirty seconds to clue up.

Having said that, Madam Chair, I think we have to have a more open mind and a greater willingness to commit resources to solving this problem, and I don't mind being political but we don't have to be partisan all the time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

We spent two days talking about Bill 6, about raising the taxes to deter young people from smoking, and it has been working. The rate is going down. The Lung Association asked us for that. When I went around the Province and budgeted, numerous other groups asked for it. Here we went and had to introduce a closure on a bill and all evening here, I don't think anyone ever talked about it hardly.

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said he talked about it. He also talked about debt. He asked: What are we going to do about debt? I said what we are going to do about debt is we are going to stop adding to it first. Step one is to stop adding to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Also: What is your long-term plan to get rid of debt? We want to get a surplus. It is the only way to get rid of debt, and then you should spend it on social programs.

The Member for Grand Fall-Buchans stands up and says: You left $76.5 million on the table. The reason it is left there, the reason there is a surplus is because we can have less interest to pay so we can fix more potholes on the Buchans highway, so we can put cancer clinics in more parts of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this government came in - you wouldn't know but they travelled the road to Damascus since the change in the last election. That's right.

A person said, I think Woodrow Wilson said: The way to stop the financial joyriding is to arrest the chauffeur and not the automobile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, on October 21, 2003, the people of this Province arrested all the chauffeurs and they put them in jail and they are serving their sentence now. I don't know if they will ever get back because the financial joyriding was so great. They put so many people in this Province in misery, have left potholes on the Buchans highway, have left a cancer service in Grand Fall-Windsor. We had to turn it around to get these services out there. It left a deplorable state in the Province. That government got elected - and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talks about the fishery. In this year's Budget we have almost doubled the budget on the fishery since last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: In addition, the single, largest increase in proportion to any budget - proportion-wise of any department is in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the most significant increase in the fisheries budget in the history of our Province. That's what is there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Not only going from $7.7 million to $13.8 million, we have over $7 million in the financial assistance fund in the Department of Finance. That could very well be used for initiatives in the fishery over the course of the year, whether it is in INTRD and other business, or either in the fishery. There are options out there. By the end of the year I predict that we will probably, very likely, spend more than double on the fishery budget than we did in the last fiscal year. He talks about: What are we doing for the fishery of our Province?

We inherited a situation - when the former government got into power they went around with reckless abandon abdicating their responsibilities to put sound management and planning for the people of our Province. They said: We are going to give multi-species to every fish plant; double the crab licence; increase shrimp licences. Out there now they gave over capacity. They gave false hopes to people. Now people are coming to the reality with the false hope that that government did a (inaudible) season, gave a licence to get them by the next election. Get them elected again and to hell with the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's the attitude they took!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Dwight Morrow said: If you're going to accept responsibility and take credit for the rain, you had better be prepared to accept responsibility for the drought. When all that side wants to do is all the great things they did in the Province; all the phenomenal things they did.

Madam Chair, that government had fourteen-and-a-half years in and went out of power on November 6, 2003. They had an opportunity to provide a cancer service and a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor and that did not happen. They had fourteen-and-a-half years to do repairs on the Buchans highway and they didn't do it. They had fourteen-and-a-half years to provide -

MS THISTLE: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans on a point of order.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I feel it is my duty to inform this House and the people who might be watching, that I already, when I was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, announced a $4.1 million cancer clinic. I already announced the cancer clinic, and the Buchans highway was in perfect condition while I was the minister.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

A former Minister of Industry and Development here in our Province talked about Italian sweaters and Mexico and make those comparisons. The very same -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. REID: Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance rose there a few minutes ago and he talked about how this government just cut the licencing fees. Well, guess who raised them last year? Guess who almost quadrupled them last year? This Minister of Finance. So, he cuts them back a little bit this year...

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: I ask the hon. member, if he has a point of order get directly to it. If not, it will be ruled as a disagreement between two members.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, it is the responsibility of this government to lay on the table the facts and not only create hope for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but to follow it up with action. When a minister who is responsible for the development and setting opinions and standards in our Province - the minister said a few years ago, she said back in 2000 - just a little while ago she stood and said - and this is a quote. She said: If you are looking at Lourdes Cove, if you look at Lamaline and the Burin Peninsula, you are looking at Point May. They are not going to go there. They are not near any type of infrastructure. The people they need, in terms of starting up a business, are not there, Mr. Speaker.

She went on to say: But, more importantly, the people do not have the skills that are going to be required to attract people there (inaudible), and then stands up today and talks about Mexicans and sweaters and that, setting an example. That is not the type of attitude you want to send out to the people here of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We send some of the most highly skilled people all over the world. In offshore, I was in Germany and they talked about the skills. They tried to get our people who work with Aliant and other companies there. They want to get them to work there, they have skills. They have gone to the U.S. They have gone all over the country.

I know people out now earning $70 and $75 an hour in Alberta with skills that people want here. We have a workforce in this Province that is a very high-skilled workforce. We do have a certain number of people, granted, who do not have the skills, but it is incumbent on governments to help develop those skills, to help do a transition and educate people.

Back in 1992, on July 2, when the moratorium was announced, there was a program followed, with NCARP and TAGS, there was readjustment, and I know a lot of people moved out of the fishery then - in particular, a lot of plant workers more so than harvesters - and they moved out of the fishery and got training. They went to work in parts of the Province. They took numerous courses. A lot of these courses were very beneficial and there were positive effects. Some may not get a result, but they worked at skills and got jobs here in our Province and they went out of our Province. When the oil started here in our Province they came back and they are occupying a significant number of jobs. I know that many in my district went out in the hundreds back in the 1990s when that side was in power here, landed jobs in Alberta, and they are superintendents now, they are rig managers. They are operating numerous aspects of the operation here, in that.

The Member for Bellevue might talk. He did absolutely nothing to help the situation in his district until this government took the initiative to buy quotas here and put people to work out in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Went out in the last election, out there, going down through his district, and almost got run over with a spreader and so on, trying to (inaudible) some pavement to get him the fifty votes he needed to get him into office. That is what happened. That is what he did. That is the type of politics they play.

We have laid out fixed elections. We are not going to manipulate them when the poll is high. We are not going to manipulate them when the poll is high and run to the polls. We said that the people will have four years to judge us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: They will judge us in four years' time and they will render their verdict and, I can tell you, by the way the people over there are behaving, they are going to render a verdict and it is not going to be favourable by the actions they get on with, the utter nonsense and political nonsense they get on with, here in the House. Absolutely, it is a shame. No wonder the people of the Province do not have confidence in them. No wonder they kicked them out in a strong fashion back on October 21.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We talk about tobacco tax. I have listened to people around this Province talk about health care.

Many people in this Province have died from the effects of smoking. The untold cost associated with smoking in the Province, not just in cancer but in COPD, in emphysema and numerous lung diseases, the impacts of smoking, affecting not only individuals but other people around them, the second-hand smoke. All the carcinogens and all of the contaminants that are found in there are taking a toll on people's health in this Province, and we wanted to increase - they spent two days and today beating around nonsense that we wanted to move on and enhance people's health, give them better opportunities here in our Province. What did they do? Three days. They will try to pass a one- or two-clause little bill, to increase one cent a cigarette, five cents a gram on fine-cut tobacco, and they filibuster and spend three days trying to get it through the Legislature, wasting hours and hours and taxpayers' money here in our Province. We should be going on, doing the work of the Province, not running it into debt like they did when they were there.

Nine hundred and fourteen million dollars in the year that we took over this government, that is what happened, and then we got it down to four hundred and eighty-some. Now we have it to a situation where we are not going to pass more debt on to our children, and the Finance critic stands up and says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - you left $76.5 million on the table. What a disgrace, what an insult to our children and grandchildren who are going to pay the interest on those taxes!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What do we do for health care? This bill was all about health care. It is all about stopping young people from taking up the habit. We know it is difficult for people who are addicted to smoking to give it up. It is a tough thing to do. It is really difficult to do.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) take the $9 million (inaudible).

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) the Leader of the Opposition to stop yapping over there, and behave like a little cracky rather than a saucy, vicious dog over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: What we have here, Madam Chairperson -

MR. REID: All we want is the nine million bucks. It has nothing to do with (inaudible). We want that $9 million.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, we have a cancer clinic. Because of this government, we have a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor that the former minister would not put there. She would not put it there. What did they do? They offered the people of the Province the moon, going to the polls. They knew they would not deliver because the people of the Province had lost confidence. They offered them everything - every single thing they offered - and still people did not elect them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Madam Chairperson, there was no promise made. There was a promise to look into the feasibility aspect. That is what happened.

There is the truth and there are distortions of the truth, and the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is yapping again over there, Madam Chairperson.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Can somebody give him a sandwich and send him out on a leash?

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

If he is hungry, give him something to eat. Don't we have some donuts or something out there in our caucus room? Give him a coffee, give him a sedative, whatever you have to give him.

We let them speak for twenty minutes and now they are trying to interrupt and take the few minutes we have left here.

Health care in our Province; you will see the reduction in the next election with that party over on that side of the House. You will see it over there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You talk about reductions! You will see a reduction all right, because the way you are going you will see it reduced. The leaderless party.

My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Works, told about ferry rates and told about the cost in our Blue Book. You didn't even have the common sense to be able to read it and understand what our commitment is that is illustrated here. All they did was yap and yap across the House -

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask hon. members to please keep the noise down. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member speaking.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

If the Opposition would like me too, I can certainly speak louder if they want to hear it.

The people on that side of the House had fourteen-and-a-half years over there and they took us from 1989 to a net public sector debt of $4.8 billion. Now we are at a net debt of almost $12 billion, $11.5 billion when we took over and we got rid of that quickly. We kept piling it up so much that we were in serious jeopardy as a Province here and now they cannot stand success. He yaps over there still. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo is over there yapping and yapping and yapping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not see him. I thought he was after going home and going to bed there for an hour, but at least he is awake and he has seen the light now by a government that is on the move; a government that is going to do things. Madam Chairperson, they cannot stand the success. They cannot stand success!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to my right to please keep the noise down.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

They are not used to dealing with success. They do not know how to react to it.

When we announced a $310 million infrastructure, the most they could scrape up was $100 million-and some. They don't want to see a $2 billion infrastructure program. They don't want to see hospitals in Labrador West; long-term care in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. They don't want to see that. They don't want cancer clinics in Gander or Grand Falls-Windsor. They don't want to see that. A long-term home care facility out in Corner Brook, they don't want to see that. They don't want to see a Lewisporte long term care. They don't want to see any advancements in this area. They don't want to see any of these things at all.

Madam Chairperson, that government is going downhill fast. They are leaderless. They cannot even agree for two months. They cannot even agree on something for two months.

MS THISTLE: You're calling us the government.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, I will apologize for calling them that. I would like to use the word disgrace, if I could substitute it with your permission, because that is exactly what you are here in this House.

The Leader of the Opposition said we are setting some example. He gets in and he yaps and yaps and yaps the whole time when someone is speaking. It is time for him to get a bit of sense now. It is time for him to get a little bit of sense.

Madam Chairperson, you hit a nerve with him. You hit a nerve with that guy because he likes to get down deep, dig down and get on with his utter nonsense there because he has nothing good to talk about from his record in government. A Minister of Fisheries who led us down a path, built up false hopes, doubled the number of crab plant licences, increased the number of shrimp licences. False hope and expectations for people, while your predecessor - and you were a part of it. You were a part of it when you did it, and went out - they will get you by the next election. They will get them by the next election. That did not happen. They wanted to get them by the next election. That is what happened there.

I can tell you, Madam Chairperson, that when he was the Minister of Fisheries he neglected and abdicated his responsibility. That is why he is over there now sitting down, and he will never be in this House long enough to ever see their side back here again in his lifetime. I will make that predication because you have not earned it, you have not deserved it, you have not lived up to your responsibilities. All you are doing is yapping and yapping and yapping. Show some leadership and responsibility here and get on with the business there and be a co-operative Opposition instead of three days trying to do something to reduce the health costs in our system and help people stay away from buying cigarettes because cigarettes - it is price sensitive for young people buying cigarettes. If we could stop young people from buying cigarettes in their early teens, we could lick that problem and hopefully have a longer and healthier life for these people in the Province.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco."

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act." (Bill 6)

CLERK: Clauses 1 and 2.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall clauses 1 and 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

MADAM CHAIR: Shall I report the bill passed without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

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

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

MADAM CHAIR: It has been moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM 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 (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West and Deputy Chair of Committees.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report a resolution and Bill 6 passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed her to report that the Committee have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a first time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A resolution, "That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco."

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this resolution be now read a second time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The second reading of the tax resolution.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move first reading of Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 6)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce the bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act," carried. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 6)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move second reading of Bill 6.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a second time.

It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 6)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Bill 6 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 6 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 Amend The Tobacco Tax Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, has now been 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 Amend The Tobacco Tax Act," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 6)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are just a couple of matters to conclude before I put the adjournment motion.

I want to give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Notice is given.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to also, by leave, if I may, move first reading of the bill so that we can facilitate the debate immediately on Tuesday, the next sitting day.

By leave, I now move a bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, be now read a first time.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has asked for leave for first reading. Leave has not been granted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, we were just trying to get the bill circulated and, in order to do that, to facilitate the debate which everybody wants to occur on Tuesday.

Fair enough, we will move first reading on Tuesday, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment motion, in accordance with Standing Order 11, I do move now that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.; and, in accordance with Standing Order 11, I do further move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday.

MR. SPEAKER: Notice has been given.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I do now move the adjournment of the House until -

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been called by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what happened there a few moments ago, but I understood the Government House Leader to offer to make the amendments to the FPI Act available to hon. members tomorrow, which would give us some time over the weekend to have a look at those amendments and to give us a chance to prepare responses or see what we think of them.

Am I to understand now that those will not be available tomorrow, or is that dependent upon first reading being given here tonight?

MR. SPEAKER: The member would know that, by tradition in our House, after first reading the bill can be distributed. It has also been our practice, without the consent of the House, usually the bills are not distributed until after first reading has been given.

Barring any arrangements by the hon. the Government House Leader, I assume that the bill cannot be distributed until first reading is given.

MR. HARRIS: To the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I guess there are two questions.

It will not be distributed in bill form, but there is no prohibition against the government making copies of the proposed bill available - the text available - to members opposite. I presume that can still happen tomorrow, even though first reading has not taken place tonight. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: There isn't any prohibition; however, the parliamentary procedure is - and it is the custom and practice not only of this House but all other Houses - that bills are distributed after first reading has been given.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: You are saying that, if we do not give you leave to introduce it, we will not get the amendments tomorrow?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to just step back from this for a second, all we have asked - we are not trying get a one-upmanship on anybody. I do not understand the Leader of the Opposition. This something we have done -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, you know, I listened to you intently. I am just going to give you a response. You are not going to choose how I respond, no more than I am going to choose how you ask a question.

As a matter of course and practice since we have opened the House, we have always given notice and first reading to allow the distribution of bills to members in a timely fashion so they can study them.

That is all we have asked for; we are not trying to provide one-upmanship. If you allow the bill to be read for the first time tonight, as soon as it is ready tomorrow we will get it to you. That has been standard operating procedure. Not to allow it is beyond me to provide an explanation why. I can only tell you that the attempt tonight on my part to give notice, to provide first reading, is an attempt to get the bill in everyone's hand as soon as possible so that, when the debate begins on Tuesday afternoon in second reading, which it normally does, everyone will have the opportunity to be informed about the issues of debate and the time to research and provide a positive point of view, or a point of view, on it so that it is an informed debate.

That is all we are asking, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a discussion as to when this bill might come before the House of Assembly with the minister last night, he could not tell me if we would have the amendments to the bill on Monday, or when they were coming. At that point, he did not know if we were going to be debating the FPI Bill on Tuesday and now I find that you are saying the amendments are ready and that we are going ahead with them on Tuesday. Is that the case?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will advise the Leader of the Opposition to talk to his own House Leader.

I said to his own House Leader yesterday, and himself, that I would be in a position today to talk about the amendments, to give him when we would be speaking to it. Clarification and direction was provided today. I just provided notice on the bill. I asked for first reading so we can get the bill distributed. Cabinet is meeting tomorrow. As members know who have been in Cabinet, that before a bill can be distributed it needs to be signed off by Cabinet. That will be done tomorrow and as soon as that is done we will get it to everybody. This is not an unusual request. I am completely lost for an explanation on why members will not provide leave for what they say is the most important debate that should be occurring and we are trying to facilitate that for every member's benefit.

That is all, Mr. Speaker, and I will not be saying any more on the matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand what the problem is. I understand from talking to other members on this side, there is nobody going to object to second reading debate on this bill proceeding on Tuesday since it is a matter of great concern, but obviously to have that bill -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I understand that that will not be a problem but if that is not going to be a problem on Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it really will not be a problem to have first reading done if we have assurances we are going to get the text of the bill tomorrow afternoon, even though the House is not in session.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will ask again if there is consent for first reading of the bill for which notice has been given. Is there consent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: There is consent.

It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act," carried. (Bill 32)

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

Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited Act, has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 32 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With today out of the way, I wanted to appreciate members for the vigorous debate on a number of bills: An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act, the Hydro Bill Act, and the Tobacco Tax Act.

I wish everyone a happy Victoria Day Weekend and look forward to seeing members back on Tuesday to discuss and debate what is clearly an important and significant issue in the Province related to amendments to the FPI Act.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do now move the adjournment and we will see everyone back here at 1:30 on Tuesday.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until Tuesday, May 23, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House now stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 23, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

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