May 20, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 25


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome twenty-two Grade 8 social studies students from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary School from the District of St. George's-Stephenville East. The students are accompanied by teachers Darlene Sexton and Marlene Farrell, chaperones Hayward Bennett and Sylvia Legge, by bus driver Vaughan Hefford.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; and the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate three individuals from my district, Melanie Oates of Fermeuse, Jenny Dwyer of Goulds, and Jason Noel of Maddox Cove on being recipients of an award at the fifty-eighth Annual Arts and Letters Awards.

Melanie Oates, one of twelve entrants in this category, received the Percy Janes First Novel Award for her manuscript entitled, Hanging from the Ceiling. Jenny Dwyer received the Senior Visual Art Award, which is indeed an honour, as she was one of fifteen artists chosen from 213 entries in this category. Jason Noble received an award for Senior Musical composition. Jason was one of five selected for this award from nineteen entries.

I am proud to see programs that recognize and support the exceptional work of many creative and talented artists, and the vital role they play in the continued growth of our Province's cultural industries. This year, more than $46,000 in prizes was awarded in literary arts, musical composition and visual arts. There were over 900 entries submitted from the communities throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask all hon. members of the House to join with me in congratulating Melanie, Jenny and Jason on being the recipient of these awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate twelve-year-old Jake Mitchell from Englee who won two separate events at the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games this past March in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Jake is an avid table tennis player and was selected to be a member of the Western Team. He certainly made the community of Englee very proud when he participated in two separate events. First, with a team competition where he and three of his team members were skilled enough to bring home the silver medal. Secondly, in the singles competition when Jake played a number of intense and close-scoring games, finally taking home the bronze medal with a score of 14-12.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join with me today in congratulating Jake and to wish him well in his future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Northeast Minor Hockey Association. Never before in Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador has one association won provincial championships in one division such as our Atoms did this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Northeast Avalon Atom A team captured gold medal on the Southern Shore defeating the Avalon Celtics 6-3 in the championship game. Congratulations to the team and their coaches, Peter Haring, Blair Langmead, and Colin Abbott.

Mr. Speaker, the Northeast Atom B team captured gold in Bonavista, defeating the team from The Straits 4-2 in the championship game. The team played with heart, determination and got some outstanding goaltending to defeat The Straits team whom were undefeated in the round robin. Their coaches: Glen Parsons, Geoff Moyse and Chris Browne were very pleased with their team's effort.

Mr. Speaker, the Northeast Atom C captured gold in Harbour Grace. This team needed to score three goals in the final game against Twillingate to advance to the championship. They defeated an undefeated Marystown team 2-1 in the championship game. Their coaches were: Jeff Parsons, Derek Mills and Paul Higdon.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Northeast Minor Hockey Association. This association has grown by 280 per cent; since 2004,158, to today, 439. This growth can be attributed to the new arena that we have in Torbay, the Jack Byrne Arena.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in congratulating the Northeast Minor Hockey Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize the International Day Against Homophobia held on May 17 each year.

To mark this day locally, Planned Parenthood held a breakfast in St. John's to raise people's awareness of homophobia's harmful effects, provide a positive image of sexual and gender diversity and end exclusion. Dr. Ailsa Craig, a sociology professor at Memorial University, gave an enlightening keynote address highlighting instances of homophobia inherent in our society that we may not be aware of and homophobic attitudes harboured by even the most progressively minded individuals.

Mr. Speaker, few minority groups have been as discriminated against as the gays and lesbians, but breakthroughs have been happening, and homosexual, bi-sexual and trans-gendered people are stepping out of the shadows.

From the outside, it could be construed that all problems have been solved. The media are sympathetic, public personalities come out, television shows feature lesbian and gay characters in scenes of everyday life. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. Many individuals are unable to be honest about their sexual orientation and encounter difficulties if they do, or end up protecting themselves by playing the role of someone they are not.

Despite these situations, the International Day Against Homophobia does not rest on a victimization philosophy. It is, in fact, a great opportunity to highlight positive aspects of homosexuality and celebrate the contribution of LGBT groups to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members in this House to join me in celebrating the International Day Against Homophobia and thank Planned Parenthood for their continuing educational work as we hope for a day when homophobia, in all its forms, is no longer tolerated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the thirty-eight youth from the Stephenville-Port au Port-Bay St. George area that were presented with the Gold Duke of Edinburgh's Award on April 23 in St. John's by Her Royal Highness, Anne, The Princess Royal.

Mr. Speaker, the Duke of Edinburgh program offers challenges in four categories: community service, physical fitness, skills development and expeditions at the bronze, silver and gold levels. Completing all three levels is a tremendous accomplishment. It is a certainly a program that develops the character of our youth.

This program is very strong and active in my district thanks to the dedication and commitment of the many parents and volunteers who help make this program possible for our youth.

The youth should be proud, Mr. Speaker, of their accomplishments and all the hard work that went into meeting the requirement to obtain the Gold Award.

Monsieur le Président, je demande à l'honorable assemblée de se joindre à moi afin de féliciter les 150 jeunes de la province, et surtout les trente-huit méritants du Prix du Duc d'Édinbourg de la région de Stephenville-Port au Port-Baie Saint-Georges.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating the 150 youth of this Province and especially the thirty-eight youth from the Stephenville-Port au Port-Bay St. George region upon receiving the Gold Duke of Edinburgh's Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Merci, Monsieur le Président.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise before this hon. House today to recognize Canada Road Safety Week which runs from May 18-24. Mr. Speaker, with the Victoria Day long weekend upon us, people across this Province will take to the highways to get to their cabins, favourite campgrounds, and to explore our many towns and communities. With this increase in traffic, we must all do our part to keep our highways safe.

Mr. Speaker, a key focus of our government's roads program is to maintain a transportation system that puts the safety of motorists at the forefront, and as our infrastructure vision moves forward, we continue to enhance our programs and services to best serve the people of this Province.

The Department of Transportation and Works continues to invest significantly to address road safety. Initiatives over the past few years include: the construction of four new Weigh-In-Motion sites that help detect overweight vehicles; the purchase of an Automatic Road Analyzer vehicle that identifies areas requiring rut repair and maintenance; and the installation of twenty Road Weather Information Systems that provide real-time data to our winter maintenance crews enhancing the timely application of de-icing materials. These initiatives also coincide with seventeen highway cameras currently in operation across the Province, and I am pleased to say that three more of these cameras will be brought into service tomorrow at our new highway depot sites in Labrador.

Our key investments include: new mechanical brush cutters for each region of the Province, part of an ongoing campaign that has cleared roughly 1,200 kilometres of brush to date; $2.5 million for line painting; and $650,000 for the acquisition of two new paint trucks.

These initiatives complement our ongoing summer and winter maintenance programs which covers such things as snow and ice control, pothole and shoulder repairs, equipment maintenance and purchases. Our maintenance programs, Mr. Speaker, have a combined value of approximately $111 million this year, over and above our total road and bridge investments of $235.6 million in 2010-2011.

Mr. Speaker, my department and this government is making great strides to keep our highways safe but motorists must also do their part.

I would encourage all hon. members and motorists - not just during Canada Road Safety Week but every time they sit behind the wheel - to please take a moment to step back, examine their driving habits and where necessary, make adjustments to help create a culture of highway safety that will protect all travellers on our roads.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to say that we, in the Official Opposition, also want to stress to our residents of this Province of ours in Newfoundland and Labrador that they will keep all the safety rules in mind this weekend.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but mention where the minister states: This Victoria Day long weekend, the people across the Province will be going to the highways to their cabins and their favourite campgrounds. So, I am glad to see that the Minister of Transportation is looking after their safety. All I hope is the Minister of Environment and Conservation looks after their safety up in the gravel pits.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the various initiatives seriously that the minister is referring to, but my hon. colleague when he heard you reading it, he said: I would like for you to ask the minister if he would send the Automatic Road Analyzer up on the Conche Road.

Anyway, we are pleased to see this initiative because that is what it is all about, the safety on our highways.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the minister mentioned brush cutting. One of the most serious problems we have on our highways is the moose. There is nothing I do not think can really benefit the drivers in this Province as cutting back the brush on our highways so at least the people can see the danger coming towards them. He mentioned about the speed on the highways. Mr. Speaker, as I travel back and forth the highways, and I am sure all members of this hon. House, that is something else that has to be controlled, I know it is difficult to do but people are not travelling our highways in a safe manner.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I hope, on behalf of the Official Opposition, everybody will have an enjoyable weekend and keep safety first and foremost in their minds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is a good statement reminding people that with the holiday coming up, road safety is extremely important. Also at this time, I would like to recognize the workers who work on maintaining our roads. We could not have the roads we have without the great work that they do whether it is summer or winter. I, too, join with my colleagues in wishing everybody a safe holiday weekend, to drive with caution, buckle up and do not drink and drive.

With regard to drinking and driving, I was pleased to see that in April, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada announced that it is partnering with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to introduce Campaign 911. This initiative is a campaign to place roadside signs to encourage people to call 911 - may I add, where it exists in the Province - to report suspected impaired drivers. I am also glad to see that the RNC has developed a new zero tolerance policy towards speeding and other moving violations. I think that is extremely important because we become very complacent if the regulations are not put in place. I believe that increased enforcement will make it harder for drivers to be tempted to speed or run red lights.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like to recognize Ben Sparkes, a Grade 10 student from Gonzaga High School who has a demanding task of job shadowing the Premier today.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly wish him well because I tend to do that every day, Mr. Speaker. It is not an easy job I say to my friend in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier confirmed the taxpayers would be on the hook for the environmental cleanup cost of Abitibi's former sites in the Province - and we know that could be hundreds of millions of dollars. He also stated that he knew very early on in the process that this would be the case. However, on April 27 the Minister of Natural Resources stated, and I quote, "Mr. Speaker, the polluter pays and under no circumstance will we be responsible for remediation that Abitibi is responsible for. That is the bottom line."

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources today: Were you out of the loop, or were you providing inaccurate information to the public of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this House there is only one group out of the loop, and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I will not point to them but they are on the other side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our provincial legislation states quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the polluter pays. That is the law in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have facing us now, Mr. Speaker, is the courts in Quebec saying that the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador do not apply what is more important is the financial restructuring of AbitibiBowater rather than the environmental laws of the provinces of this country. That is disgusting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say to the minister, she may think we are out of the loop but we certainly knew a lot more about what was happening with this issue than she knew, or certainly alluded to in this House.

I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker, I ask her why the Premier would state yesterday that he knew that this was the case for some time, yet she would stand in this House on numerous occasions and say that the polluter pays and that it would not be the Province that was on the hook.

I ask the minister: Why are you being less than truthful with your comments in this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the assertation that has been made by the Opposition time after time in this House, in this session, has been that because we expropriated the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor that that action put us on the hook for remediation. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Our legislation says that polluter pays. Because of the CCAA process, the courts in Quebec have now said, your legislation does not matter, it is not going to be applied because the financial viability of this company is the most important thing to us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater just went before the courts in that same process and asked that Botwood and Stephenville, two parts of their company that we did not expropriate, be put into a shell company, which they are going to collapse and we now become responsible for those two areas of remediation, Mr. Speaker. We did not expropriate either one of those, and had the mill still been with us, they would have been in the shell company as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious the Minister of Natural Resources got the same briefing book that the Minister of Environment has, because, Mr. Speaker, under questioning in the House of Assembly the Minister of Environment accused us of not understanding the principle of polluter pays. It is obvious again today, Mr. Speaker, that the person with the lack of understanding was the minister herself. She stated continuously that she could not provide any remediation plan or costing of these environmental liabilities until Abitibi submitted their plans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Is she still going to wait for Abitibi, a near bankrupt company, to submit a remediation plan or is she going to do her job and get this process started?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this morning to hear the Leader of the Opposition on CBC and she said at that time that what we did was very deceptive. Mr. Speaker, there is no deception here. We have a former Attorney General of the House, opposite of us, who is a former Minister of Justice, who full well knows how, or should know –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - how to interpret the Environmental Protection Act.

Under the Environmental Protection Act it is very clear that the person who releases the substance into the environment should be the person to clean that up. That is the basic premise that we went forward with, Mr. Speaker. However, this ended up in CCAA court, Mr. Speaker, and we would never have thought that two Quebec judges would have total disregard for the provincial law that we have here, Mr. Speaker. Now we see very clearly why they did, because they have to protect the interests of thousands of Quebec workers. That is very clear to us now. We never did suspect that. That is exactly…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister does not have the notes that the Premier has because he obviously understands what is happening here and realizes that this Province is on the hook for liability. Why the minister continues to say the polluter pays when she knows in her own legislation it states that the owner pays, Mr. Speaker, and under Bill 75 you are now the owner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When are you going to complete the next phase of environmental assessments to determine the scope of work required to clean up those sites in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a former Attorney General, a former Minister of Justice, take out the Environmental Protection Act and have a look. Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of that is the person who releases the substance is the person who has to pay. That is the whole premise that we issued those orders under section 99 of the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we had no control over what happened in Quebec, but as the Premier clearly, eloquently stated yesterday, we have to fight back, Mr. Speaker, and one of those things is considering going to the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision has very serious implications for every single province of this country, Mr. Speaker, and I will be speaking to all of the Ministers of Environment. Should we proceed with that, I certainly suggest that the Opposition should be backing us on this because it has serious implications for our provincial laws.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we could ever get to the facts of this and ever to the bottom of it and ever get a full understanding of the information, we might be able to make a decision, minister, on if we could back you or not. Mr. Speaker, the minister also knows that the polluter pays is a different concept under expropriation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What cost estimates do you have for this clean up within your department and will you share that with the people of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we have been following through a process throughout this. We have gone through the court under two occasions. We have seen what has happened there. We have seen the bias that is in those courts, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot stop there. We are reviewing all of the opportunities that are before us at this point. One of the things we are considering is going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, in the first look at this decision, this is very precedent setting for all the provinces across Canada. It is something that we all should be concerned about in this House and throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker. So until we have reviewed our options and exhausted every opportunity before us, Mr. Speaker, we are not giving up on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about doing something about it. She does not know the scope of the work out there that needs to be done, she has not done all of the assessments, she cannot give us a cost estimate on environmental liabilities. So, minister, I suggest you start doing your work at home.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources also stated on April 22 that Fortis and Enel, the third party companies also impacted by government's expropriation of the Abitibi assets, will be kept whole as a result of this action. She stated that several options were being negotiated with the companies.

I ask the minister today: What exactly was confiscated from these companies that will require compensation from the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these companies, Fortis and Enel, had arrangements with AbitibiBowater with regard to power generation on the Exploits. Fortis was a partner in one of their generating assets and Enel was their partner in another.

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to both of those companies that regardless of what happened with Abitibi, at the end of this process we would ensure that they were kept whole, that they were properly compensated for fair market value for the assets, and the PPAs that they have with Abitibi would also be honoured, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I ask the minister: What the compensation will include? Will these particular companies become partners with Nalcor in this power project, or will it be a lump sum cash payment, or will they continue to receive royalties from the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are negotiations that are ongoing with Nalcor and with these two companies. At the end of this process, we will have a good understanding of what the value of that asset is, what amount of compensation is required to keep the companies whole, Mr. Speaker, and we will live up to our obligations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that there is a bill associated with the expropriation of monies that will have to be paid out to Fortis and to Enel. Mr. Speaker, whether that is royalties, whether it is shareholder status with Nalcor or whether it is cash, we are not able to determine according to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that the government, through Nalcor, is currently providing or making the payments on a $59 million loan for Fortis, monies that were involved with the Exploits River project.

I ask the minister today: How much are those payments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that exact information and provide it to the Leader of the Opposition if I am free to do that.

Mr. Speaker, these are liabilities that these companies had in association with the operation of their businesses on these projects. As part of our obligation of keeping that company whole, Mr. Speaker, we took on those financial liabilities associated with the operation of those projects until we come to the end of the negotiation process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that government has no handle on the financial cost of this to the people of the Province. We are finding out again today more money is being paid out - the minister cannot stand in this House and even give us the figures. I can only say I hope the minister will be more forthcoming with the breakdown as she was with the $8 million breakdown that I have asked for, because we do not have that yet either.

We know the Province will not be a secured creditor in this process, but there is an option for being listed as an unsecured creditor.

I ask the Premier today: Is this an option that you will pursue, and if you do that, will this open us up to a court challenge in the Quebec courts, a countersuit in the Quebec courts regarding Abitibi's assets?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping all our legal options open. As you know right now, we are seriously considering an appeal, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to deal with the adverse Quebec rulings.

What is happening here is the Leader of the Opposition is painting a picture that is completely contrary - I do not want to use words like misleading because I am not allowed to use that. I do not want to say that she is lying because I am not allowed to use that, but in some manners, there are facts being presented by her in a manner that are not actually correct. When we talk about the environmental liabilities - because what she is trying to do is stack everything up to figures that have been $500 million, $750 million, $1 billion, completely and totally erroneous. She was on the radio this morning and she was asked by the moderator: Are we not in a net better position with the assets? Do you not agree? Well, I am not saying that we might not be. All I can say is it is a good thing we have some assets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier not to go reading from documents or newspaper items or other comments that were made, but just paraphrase and refer to the documents.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, it is a good thing that we have some assets. So she has acknowledged that. Secondly, when we start talking about the environmental liabilities, ballpark, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of those liabilities are in connection with Buchans, they are in connection with Stephenville and they are in connection with Botwood. None of those were expropriated assets. None of those had anything to do with the mill. Those are liabilities that would have been there anyway.

One final example, Mr. Speaker, when they were in government, the Hope Brook Gold Mine, there is a press release that was out in 2002 whereby your Minister of Mines and Energy acknowledged that they were paying $10 million for environmental cleanup. That happens. Government end up with the liabilities when the polluters go bankrupt or they go into receivership. That is the way it is. The difference is we are protected because we all have the assets (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the difference here is that in 2008 the Premier stated that the expropriation action would not cost the taxpayers of this Province. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is what we know so far, that we will have to pay for the brick and mortar assets of Abitibi. We know that we have to pay out millions of dollars in legal fees for lost challenges in the courts. We know that we are paying millions of dollars for maintenance and security. We are paying millions in compensation as far as we know at this stage, probably even for Fortis and Enel. On top of that, we have a $500 million NAFTA challenge, and we could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

I ask the Premier today: Why not come clean with the people of this Province and tell them the amount of money that we are on the hook for as a result of this expropriation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, or are you trying to build the case for Abitibi so that they can go to NAFTA and say the Leader of the Opposition said this is worth $500 million or $600 million or $700 million? That is what you are saying; that is what you are doing.

What we do have is we have the power projects, and we have millions of hectares of land, and we have our forest back, we have our timber rights back, and we have the mill. Now that may have been an error, but it is a good thing, because the situation in Stephenville - what is going to happen in Stephenville is that we are going to end up with the mill anyway. We are going to have the environmental liability, because at the end of it, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if the person who is responsible for the pollution is not able to pay, we will have to pay.

The difference in this situation is that we have the assets, and you, yourself, acknowledge that is a good thing – and I agree with you on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government knows that this deal that they have bungled so badly on Abitibi makes the Sprung Greenhouse look like a success story, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality of what we are dealing with here. It has taken us weeks in this House of Assembly to finally get the government to admit that they made a mistake and they blundered. It has taken us weeks to get them to admit that there is going to be liabilities on behalf of the people of the Province.

So I ask the government today, Mr. Speaker, continue with the disclosure and tell the hard-working people of this Province how much money that they are on the hook for as a result of this blunder by your government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hard-working people of Grand Falls-Windsor that we paid $40 million in severance pay, an unprecedented act that has not happened anywhere else in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will tell the hard-working people of this Province that national unions have written me personally, have written the ministers personally, and written the government, and said how proud they are of the action that we have done here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will tell the people of this Province that I have letters from community leaders –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - in communities where Abitibi operates their businesses, and those communities have written and said how proud they are of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for doing what it is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is what I will tell the people of this Province!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the decision by this government to remove the air ambulance medevac service from St. Anthony continues to be unacceptable to the people of the region, and indeed by the Province, simply because it is a wrong decision on so many levels. For some time, and as late as today, the Mayor of St. Anthony has been asking for a meeting with the Premier to have the people's voices heard before the service is moved at the end of the month.

I ask the Premier today a very simple question: Will you show some compassion here and at least meet with the mayor and his delegation so they can express their views before the air ambulance assets are taken from them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been dealt with. It has been dealt with by the minister. The minister has met with the officials from the Town of St. Anthony. He has met with the group that came in, the protest group that came in. This matter has been dealt with time and time again. We have indicated, in all fairness to the people of St. Anthony, that this matter is final. This decision has been made. This has been done.

The reason it has been done is because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presented a petition and asked that this service be moved to Labrador. If that had not happened this matter would never have been studied, it would not have been questioned, it would not have arisen. I said before when I got on my feet, I was not even aware that it made more sense to put this, actually, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I was not aware that if we even put another air ambulance in the air -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If interruptions continue, the Chair will have no other choice but identify the people who are causing disorder.

I ask the hon. the Premier to complete his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that if we put a third new air ambulance in place that it would actually end up in Deer Lake. That would be the next choice. So, as a result of her actions and as a result of this study, St. Anthony has fallen far down the list.

Just a word of advice to the people of St. Anthony, it is unfortunate - the mayor is trying to do a very good job and the people are trying to do a good job, but there is a lot of nastiness coming out of St. Anthony from various groups. I would just ask the member to convey my concerns to the people of St. Anthony; things that have appeared on Web sites, things that have been said publicly. So it would be better if they tone down their rhetoric and cease that kind of action because that does not help anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the frustration is because the people have worked hard and they are prepared to come and sit with the Premier of this Province and discuss the issue with him and he has refused to do so. So, that is where the frustration is coming from, Mr. Speaker.

To suggest that this would never have been an issue, then I would suggest he might want to read the letter from the former member, the minister of his Cabinet, who suggested that he had worked hard and tirelessly within Cabinet to keep the air ambulance there for the number of years that he was there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Again, I just ask the Premier: Why in this case will he not meet with those people to hear their concerns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The matter is done, Mr. Speaker, the matter is final. Cabinet has made a decision. We have made a collective decision and that decision will not be reviewed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, DFO cuts to the shrimp quota in Area 6 continue to obviously be a great concern to the people of our Province, particularly the Northeast region which has been hardest hit by this slashing. The fishery minister's response, as he mentioned yesterday, was to write a letter to the federal Minister of Fisheries. This is simply not an acceptable representation of our concerns, given the devastating impact, not just on this region but to the Province overall, and the gravity for fishers and communities.

I ask the minister: What is he prepared to do on behalf of the people of the Province to effectively push this issue with the federal government and help get this industry through this very challenging time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that the federal government understands. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have directed staff to write a follow-up letter to Minister Shea. Immediately upon hearing that this was a possibility, a letter was directed to Minister Shea. We have a follow-up letter and, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I am doing at this particular point is having staff do an assessment of where the plants are and what impact this will have on operation.

Equally, Mr. Speaker, I have had representation from the Member for St. Barbe who informed me that he has been contacted by some individuals. So we will do some follow-up work with the plants and the processors up there to see what impact this is having and see what we need to do from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we also heard the news of fishers and community people reacting to this cut and they are discouraged about the future, obviously, in the Province. Many are talking about packing up and leaving. These people need our help.

I ask the minister again: What is this government prepared to put into place to help compensate these fishers for the loss, especially given the fact that the EI system is just inadequate to them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I heard an interview from a Mr. Dwight Spence, who I think is a very recognized individual in the shrimp industry on the Northern Peninsula. There is no one disputing the difficulty that this presents. This cut impacts some 350 harvesters, right in the member's district and along the Northern Peninsula, and it impacts the Northeast Coast in general, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, we are doing an assessment of the situation. We will follow it up with the federal minister and see what we can do to ensure that they relent on this decision or that in future, that this not be the policy that they abide by, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on December 16, 2008, when we all passed Bill 75, the Abitibi expropriation bill, we had to trust the Premier and his legal minds who drafted it. He asked us to trust him.

Mr. Speaker, in Question Period that day I asked: Who would be responsible for environmental liability with this new piece of legislation? The Premier explained at the time that the expropriation legislation would supersede federal bankruptcy law and that Abitibi would be liable.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier said in this House and I was therefore able to say yes to the legislation that was provided to us on extremely short notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, now that the Province has lost every court case trying to prove that what the Premier said on December 16, 2008 was correct, I am asking the Premier: Where does he stand now with regard to this piece of legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, you can still trust this Premier, in case she is implying otherwise.

Secondly, at the time that we expropriated, and she certainly can remember this, there was no bankruptcy at the time. This company was still solvent. We had the foresight and we took the initiative at that particular point in time to get out ahead of it because we saw and we anticipated the fact that this company could possibly go bankrupt.

The reason that we actually expropriated, as I have said time and time again in this Legislature, was to get control of the assets so that we did not end up in a situation where somewhere down the road, if the company actually went bankrupt and if there was nothing in the bankruptcy and if there were no assets - because that company's stock at that particular point in time was plummeting. We were watching it daily, so we knew exactly what was going on. If it got in a situation where it went into bankruptcy - even if we had priority in a bankruptcy and the legislation provided for the environmental liability - if there is no money there and the secured creditors happen to rank ahead of us, then we had nothing left, but if we went in and if we actually seized the assets, then we were in the driver's seat, and that is exactly where we are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, based on the Premier's answer and based on my memory of what we discussed here in this House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - on December 16, 2008, I ask the Premier: When his legal people were putting this legislation together, did they look at the implications of the CCAA and that ruling that would come into place when bankruptcy happened? Did he think about that? Did his legal minds think about that? If they did, why were they not ready for what happened in the courts in Quebec this past week?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, we had opinions from the best people we could find in this particular field. They advised us on exactly what the consequences were of various options, whether it was a CCAA proceeding, whether there was a bankruptcy proceeding, whether there was no bankruptcy, whether assets were sold. We looked at every possible avenue, and we were provided with all those alternatives.

What we probably could have predicted but we would have thought hopefully would not have happened, is that Quebec and the Quebec judges and the Quebec courts would have shafted us once again, and that is exactly what has happened in every single decision that we have had out of that Province in the last month. That Régie decision, as I said in the House, was absolutely shameful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Quebec lovers –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If we could only keep the Quebec lovers quiet, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Excusez- moi, I am going to go back there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So we had a terrible decision from the Régie which ignored all the rules - all the rules - and then we had a judge who single-mindedly wanted to make sure that Abitibi was restructured, even if that was at Newfoundland and Labrador's expense. You cannot predict that; there is there nothing you can do about biased judges.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier finally admitted publicly that the Province - that we - are on the hook for the cleanup of the AbitibiBowater sites, no matter what happens in court; we know we are going to have to pay.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier take immediate action to figure out how much it is going to cost, so taxpayers will know how much this is costing them?

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process, and we are in the process, of course, of estimating exactly what those liabilities are. As I indicated in a previous question from Mademoiselle, the Leader of the Opposition, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of this cost will actually be related to non-expropriated assets. Those assets would actually be Buchans - which is the lion's share of all environmental liabilities – Botwood, and also the Stephenville mill, which is long past but, of course, obviously which we are going to end up with at the end of the day because they have moved those assets over to a shell company in order to avoid liability.

The difference is, and I keep repeating this, that we are in the driver's seat. We have control of these assets. They are not in the hands of a receiver; they are not in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy; they are in the hands of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Tabling of Documents

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table a summary report of the activities and costs with respect to the Consumer Advocate in relation to insurance matters in respect of the fiscal year commencing April, 2009.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act. (Bill 22)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today, seeing this is the last day before the May 24 weekend celebrations, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Triton, Great Harbour Deep, Robert's Arm, Brighton, Miles Cove and Burgeo.

WHEREAS we the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have always built cabins or tilts away from our homes for hunting, fishing, berry picking, or just spending time up in the country or places around our shores, sometimes to just get away from the stress of everyday living, a place to relax and enjoy the great outdoors; and

WHEREAS your government has come down hard on the thousands of cabin and trailer owners that are out on the land with eviction notices, and forcing them to move without providing them with an alternative; and

WHEREAS Kruger Inc. has timber rights to approximately one-third of all forest land on this Island and is refusing the vast majority of applications for cabin development;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to have compassion on the citizens of this fair Province and allow them the right to enjoy what is rightfully ours. We were born on this land and should have the right to enjoy it; and

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is just another petition of many that I have presented on behalf of those people. Some of the questions they are asking: This government was elected in 2003; why did they wait until 2009 to come and evict people from the gravel pit areas? Why are they so iron fisted? In other words, listen to our rules or else.

Mr. Speaker, they are also, I guess, disappointed that not one member of their elected officials they have from the many communities that I have named over the last couple of weeks have stood in their place when they are making their speeches to just bring forward the concerns that they want to express.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government and to the minister: If you are offering campers a site that meets government's requirements, like you have done for the people in the Whiskey Pit area, help them to implement the new changes. Because those people are used to a tradition and a culture here in the Province for many, many years, and all they are asking is to help them organize with the new approach that you want them to take.

All you have to do is read the papers and listen to the people like the residents on the West Coast, like the Crewes, the Wiltons or the Brakes, how they feel about this and how upset they were to know that they were evicted from some places that they have been for years. Ninety-five per cent of the people, Mr. Speaker, have not done anything environmentally unfriendly in this Province, and some of them have been evicted while others have not been evicted.

I am asking government to re-evaluate your heavy-handed approach. Consult; work out a long-term solution to the practice that you find so unacceptable. If possible, why does the department not come down with a written policy that would be equal and fair to everybody?

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to wish a happy May 24 weekend to all those who enjoy the country, and in particular to the people in the gravel pits.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Acting Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, Concurrence Motions, 2.(a) Government Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Government Services Committee be concurred.

The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The past couple of weeks have been very informative. We had the opportunity to review the Estimates of many departments, including: the Department of Government Services, which also includes the Government Purchasing Agency; the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, which includes the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector; the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; the Department of Finance, which includes the Public Service Commission, and the Office of the Chief Information Officer; the Department of Transportation and Works, which also includes Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the ministers and their departments - I believe I did that before; I will do it again – for taking the time to allow us to review their Estimates and budgets, and also to the Committee, Mr. Speaker. The operations of government and the different departments take in a wide range of questions that might come up in any department.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to an ongoing issue for the past couple of weeks that has been coming up here regarding AbitibiBowater and also the contamination that has been, I guess, wrongfully entertained or transmitted, especially by the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition. I believe that the Minister of Environment and Conservation did her due diligence regarding the contamination into the referred areas that we talked about in the Town of Botwood. She said that there were no public announcements, that the public did not know, the people did know in the area.

Well, Mr. Speaker, on October 29, there were soil testing results available that went out in a public release available for the former rail bed in Botwood, Mr. Speaker. Prior to that, a couple of months before that, the Department of Environment notified the council in Botwood what they were going to do. They were basically going to hire a consultant to go into the community and do some soil testing in that area.

Basically, the results from the soil testing from the former rail bed in the Town of Botwood, when they were available, there were no immediate human health concerns that were identified. Although the results indicated the presence of heavy metals, the soil where the metals were detected is covered by a layer of gravel which essentially eliminates the potential of direct human contact with the impacted soils.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FORSEY: Yes, that is absolutely right, she said that we did not inform the people of Botwood and this did not go out publicly. In response to the Minister of Environment and Conservation, she did her due diligence.

Apparently, the results were part of an ongoing environmental assessment by the consulting group who did the work on the former AbitibiBowater properties in Botwood, Mr. Speaker. This is important. It is important for the people out in the Central area to realize, and especially for the residents of Botwood, to be aware that while the samples do not point toward exceedances of the recommended guideline for soil quality along the former rail bed, which is frequented by outdoor enthusiasts, this data does not indicate any immediate potential human health concerns. That was also a statement by our Minister of Environment. She also stated that our goal is to be open and transparent, and we are following up on a commitment we made to the town to inform them of the results of the testing. This was on October 29.

In September - and I have heard the Minister of Environment talk about Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, which the Leader of the Opposition still does not get for some reason, because she has been getting up in the House here the past couple of weeks asking the same old questions and getting the correct answers from the minister, but she still gets up because she cannot understand it. So, in September, the consulting group began Phase II of the environmental site assessment on AbitibiBowater's property in Botwood. As part of the assessment, samples were collected along the former rail bed, which was part of the infrastructure used to transport concentrate from the former mine in Buchans. While samples indicated some levels of arsenic, lead and zinc above Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment residential soil quality guidelines, no immediate potential human health risks have been identified. The samples which were collected did not come from exposed surface soil near any residential property.

Now, that was October 29, and the minister's department officials had met with the town a couple of months before that. How do I know that? Well, I was also at the meeting when they were informed on October 29. On November 5, there was a local paper that put out a nice bit of information on this soil testing, which I still believe that is public as well. So if it goes into a public paper, a newspaper, or local newspaper, I am sure it is very, very public. I cannot see how that could be kept in somebody's office in a drawer or in a safe somewhere. This was November 5, and the heading says, soil testing identifies no immediate dangers. The mayor of the town also noted that himself and the deputy mayor met with the firm about two months prior to that, and they were told what they were going to be doing, said the mayor. They were not just doing testing in Botwood but anywhere Abitibi had been operating.

So, Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show the due diligence of this department and the minister on her ongoing concerns with any contamination out in the Central region. The news about the results having no immediate health concerns that pleases us immediately said the mayor, but they are going to continue on with testing. That means that the consulting group and the department will continue on with the testing. We have no concern at this point in time, said the mayor of Botwood.

Mr. Speaker, this confirms that the minister has been open and transparent about what she has been talking about, but apparently, the Leader of the Opposition would rather ignore the facts and the truth and just carry on with the rhetoric that she has been getting on with and trying to scare people out in the Central region for no reason whatsoever because it has been kept open and transparent for these people out there. I think there was questions asked here today, Mr. Speaker, questions asked by the Opposition and answered very, very well by our Premier who said that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you.

Answered very well by our Premier that if there is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FORSEY: I think our Premier responded very well to the questions, Mr. Speaker, concerning the contamination and the cleanup again. Yes, we are not going to leave parts of our Province in an environmental mess, and I have heard the minister say many times that we take the environment seriously, we take the issues seriously. That is why we are up in Buchans spending $9 million or whatever it is cleaning up after some company had gone and left and never paid for it.

Yes, we may have to clean it up, Mr. Speaker, but as the Premier said in response to the questions he was asked - and I am sure that probably Tuesday when we come back, or Monday, whenever it is, they will probably ask the same questions again, although it seems fairly clear that even though we are going to look after the contamination, make sure that there is no problem out there with the environment, we now have the assets. We have the assets of the company which is going to be worth something. It is probably going to be worth more than what the environmental cleanup is going to be, but we are not sure of that. It may be less than what the environment - but whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, this government and this Premier and this Cabinet, and especially the minister, are very much concerned about the environment and the contamination out in Central Newfoundland that was left by AbitibiBowater. She is going to be open and transparent about, every step of the way, on what is going to be happening out there, Mr. Speaker.

So I just thought I would try to clarify that. I am sure that all the members in the government caucus understand it. I do not expect that that is going to happen with the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime, if we have to, next week we will still give them the same answers. If they ask different questions they may get some different answers, but where they ask the same questions all the time they have to get the same answers because it is the truth, but they do not want to deal with the truth, Mr. Speaker. That is important for the people out in Central Newfoundland that – I live out there. So does the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and also the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, Mr. Speaker, and any other member in the Central region. We live out there; we live on those grounds. Do we want to live in an area that is not safe? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.

It is fine for the Leader of the Opposition and any other members they have, that one of them lives over on the Southwest Coast somewhere, or he is from over there. I do not know if he lives there now. The Leader of the Opposition is from Southern Labrador and I am not sure if she lives there, she could live here in St. John's. So they really do not have a lot – I am not sure if they even know where some of the communities are out there because they do not understand what is going on with the issues with AbitibiBowater out there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) is to or what?

MR. FORSEY: I just said I do not know where you live. The Member for Burgeo & la Poile, if he lives on the Southwest Coast, well fine and dandy, but he does not know – maybe the other 99.999 per cent of the population over there do know, but I am only referring to one person, and that person is the Member for Burgeo & la Poile, Mr. Speaker. I doubt very much if he knows what is going on there. He might have been down there during a by-election or something and we probably will not see him any more until the next election. We will be lucky then if we do if we see him. He will probably be flying over in a helicopter with the Leader of the Opposition like they usually do.

Just for the information – and I will say this one more time, is that out in Central Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, is where I live. I live with these people and we are not going to live in an area that is not healthy, and this government will not allow it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would love to get back to some of the issues that we discussed in the Budget. We had the privilege as a committee to review the revenues, expenditures, the Estimates of a number of different departments, which I had mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker. One of them, of course, was through the Department of Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector. That is a very new department, Mr. Speaker. What is so important about this department is that the volunteers are finally getting recognized for their dedication and the work they do in their communities. Our Premier saw a need for this department to ensure volunteers are promoted and recognized.

This past year, Mr. Speaker, our minister introduced a new award called the URock Award for volunteers, which allows the opportunity for our youth thirty-and-under to be publicly recognized for their contributions to the community and the Province. I am sure it will continue because I know the minister has a passion for the volunteers. He was also involved in Fire and Emergency Services a number of years ago. He dealt with our volunteer fire fighters right across the Province. Now he is taking in a wide range of volunteers, right from minor sports volunteers to Lions Clubs, Kinsmen, Knights of Columbus and right on across the Province with different volunteers, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a minister.

MR. FORSEY: Yes, he is.

Mr. Speaker, another department that I found really interesting, of course, and always an interest, is the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. It was only recently that there was – actually, last week, there was an announcement of a $3 million investment in social housing renovations and retrofits for the Central region, Mr. Speaker.

The Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador announced last week a $3 million renovation and retrofit to work on 381 Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units, which is great for Central Newfoundland.

The Minister of Transportation, who is also responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, made the announcement last week. It says Central Newfoundland - this is another thing that really bugs me. The Opposition seem to think that we do not know anything about rural Newfoundland and Labrador; we do not know anything about it. Well, 75 per cent of our members on the government side are from rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The investments in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in the retrofits for Central Newfoundland - and I do not know, maybe you can tell me if this is rural Newfoundland or if it is urban: Summerford, Fogo, Port Union, Point Leamington, Peterview, Botwood, Lewisporte, Port Rexton, Harbour Breton, Robert's Arm, Milltown, Springdale; $3,123,000 being invested in social housing renovations and retrofit which is also part of our Poverty Reduction Strategy, Mr. Speaker.

We had the privilege this morning to actually have a multi-faith breakfast this morning here and all the different denominations got together. I believe most of the government officials, and some of the Opposition members as well, attended. This is what they were talking about, how this Province is faring in the country with regard to our poverty reduction. We, in 2002 or 2003, were at the bottom of the pile. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are third in Canada. We have come a long way in the past seven years, Mr. Speaker, and it is all to do with our Poverty Reduction Strategy and this government. This social housing investment in the Central region is part and parcel of that particular investment.

Mr. Speaker, Transportation and Works were part of our Estimates committee. It is a huge department. I recall when the minister back in March month made a release of $1 billion slated for infrastructure spending in Budget 2010. I think the minister went on to say that our government has a vision for a strong and prosperous tomorrow for the people of our Province. This, of course, is evident if you look at the investments this year. I will just name a couple quickly, Mr. Speaker, because time flies when you are trying to explain to the Opposition the facts and the truth from what they are saying.

Transportation and Works, Budget 2010 provides $367 million for various infrastructure initiatives, Mr. Speaker. Roads 2010, $177.7 million. The provincial government investment will be supplemented by an additional $57 million from the federal funding, for a total road and bridge investment, Mr. Speaker, of $235 million – the Provincial Roads Improvement Program and the improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway and our National Highway System, Mr. Speaker.

In the marine area, $55 million is provided to continue with the vessel replacement strategy, Mr. Speaker, because there was very little investment in our vessels and our ferries in the past number of years and years, and all of them, I guess, are wearing out their life and we cannot get the money in fast enough to actually get the ones on the water that we need; $12.5 million for ferry vessel refits; $5 million for maintenance and upgrades to ferry terminals, Mr. Speaker.

Eight million, Mr. Speaker – this is a nice one here - $8 million is provided for the purchase of a new air ambulance to replace the current air ambulance in St. John's; over $50 million towards the purchase of four new water bombers.

I am trying to get through this fast because this was an announcement by the Minister of Transportation, and in his announcement there was a budget for 2010: Municipal Affairs, $135 million; Education, $183 million; Health and Community Services, $208 million – this is for infrastructure; Environment and Conservation, $3.6 million for the replacement of the Crabbes River bridge; Justice, $15.9 million; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, $27 million. These are all investments in infrastructure projects for 2010.

Mr. Speaker, in our Estimates we reviewed Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, and there are some good investments in Labrador when it comes to infrastructure and roads.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member.

MR. FORSEY: Okay, yes, sure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I just wanted to clue up. There have been a number of investments in Labrador in the past couple of years, Mr. Speaker, because this government knew that it was needed, and it was needed not only in Lab West or Lab Central but also Southern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and that is evident as well by the new school investments down there in Southern Labrador, actually in the District of the Leader of the Opposition.

Aboriginal Affairs – I recall reviewing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and the challenges in Northern Labrador. I listened to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs speak in the House the other day and talk about Labrador, and the spectacular beauty in the Torngat Mountains, Mr. Speaker, and the investment, like $50,000 for recreation for the Aboriginal youth. She made mention that the first time that the Aboriginal youth travelled to national events was in 2008. That must have been very overwhelming and rewarding for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

To clue up, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly very informative and rewarding to be able to review the Estimates of the different departments. I certainly support and concur with the Estimates and I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words here in debate today. The Government Services Committee of the Estimates process has returned their report to the House, and that is the purpose of today, of course. Normally, we would have no objection to any member having leave to continue beyond the allotted time; but, of course, today we are all on a limited time period as to how long we do have to debate these Estimates, so we will certainly be confining ourselves to the time that we do have, and will not be overextending ourselves or requesting leave in that regard.

Of course, the Member for Exploits was the Chair of the Government Services Committee, and there were certain departments of government that, in fact, report and deal with Estimates of certain departments. They were: Labrador Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, Finance, Transportation and Works, and Government Services.

Now, as Opposition House Leader, I happen to be the critic for two of those, one being the Intergovernmental Affairs Department, and the other in Finance. I will have some comments with respect to those two departments, and what happened in Estimates. I also had some involvement in Justice and so on, and I will reserve most of my comments regarding the Justice piece for when we deal with that when the social committee reports back. I will also, of course, have some comments; because, even though we had that rule of relevance, it is pretty wide open when it comes to debating the Budget in general, and this is part of that process, and what the commentary can be. As we saw, for example, the Member for Exploits, probably like myself, going to be wandering from one topic to another and so on, so there is a fairly wide latitude as to what you do.

First of all, the general public love to know, for example, what goes on in Estimates. I have always been a firm believer, going back to the time that I was here in 1999, that the Estimates process should be televised, the same as we get the House of Assembly televised, because that is when you get into the nuts and bolts of what happens in government. That is when you can ask a minister and his or her officials all kinds of questions and they do not get to duck; they do not get to give you a load of rhetoric. They have to answer it; because, if they do not, they look really stupid - really, really stupid - if they do not answer it, if they try to duck it.

In Question Period, of course, a lot of times they do not answer. Then again, I said to some minister one time: How com you never answer the question? He said: Well, it is called Question Period, not answer period.

That was a pretty good response, too. That showed the kind of respect for the process that the government minister of the day had. Anyway, we plowed ahead in Estimates and we had some interesting commentary, like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for example. That, by the way, is what I call a pasture department. That is the pasture, because usually all of the negotiations between the provincial government and the federal government, of course, would take place at the executive level in the Premier's office, but when you had this IGA, Intergovernmental Affairs - that is usually a case where you have somebody who you cannot put out of Cabinet, or do not want to put out of Cabinet, so you put them over in IGA.

We had a great old Estimates discussion with the minister of the day, the Member for Mount Pearl North, I guess it is –

AN HON. MEMBER: Mount Pearl South.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - or South, and some interesting questions. For example: Whatever happened to Dr. Feelgood? What are we doing with the office up there? Dr. Feelgood, of course, that is the Premier's buddy who he sent up to Ottawa to look after things, to make sure that all of the meetings were arranged and doors were open; because, no doubt, we had such a great relationship with our federal colleagues that we just needed a door opener. Anyway, the door opener is back here in the public sector somewhere now.

We also had some indications of all the agreements that have been signed between the feds and the Province. We did not have much when it came to some stuff, like what happened to 5 Wing Goose Bay, but we did have the minister, for example, tell us, and the Minister of Labrador Affairs, they told us when this House opened back in March, they said: Well, sure, we have just been up in Ottawa and talked to the Minister of Defence about what is going on with the 5 Wing Goose and the NATO contracts.

Unfortunately, what they forgot to find out was that before they touched the tarmac back here in St. John's, NATO had given the contract to some Americans, but they did not know that. That shows, somewhat, the effectiveness of that department.

Meanwhile, we have the office up there, by the way, that Dr. Feelgood had, at a cost to the good taxpayers of this Province of $100,000 a year. The lock is on the door. There are newspapers piled up outside the door. We are paying the freight, we are paying the bill, and nobody cares about that. We do not even have anybody working there today. Dr. Feelgood came back and went into the public sector, and we do not have anybody up there even. We are just paying the rent, nobody home.

Then, of course, we had Finance. We talked about this year we are going to have a deficit, last year we had a deficit, and next year we are projecting a deficit. Very interesting. The Minister of Finance tells me, of course, and it is in the Budget documents, that our financial situation for this year was premised on the fact that oil was going to be selling for about $84 a barrel. I hope that stays true. As a matter of fact, we are probably going to have to do some make up between now and next March 31 because from my look on the TVs and reading the business section of The Globe and Mail, for example, I think we are somewhere down in the seventies in the last three weeks. We lost about 20 per cent in the matter of the last three weeks or so. Obviously, if we do not get that $84 figure per barrel, we are going to have some nasty red ink floating around come next March 31.

Given the branding exercise of this government, they will associate red ink with Liberals. They will not try to suggest at all that it was in any way caused by their Administration. They will blame that on the world markets then. Instead, if it happens, the minister knows who we are going to blame it on. We are going to blame it on false information or improper information that you had in making your estimates in the first place; they were not reliable. Anyway, we will see what happens, that is a year down the road and we will see how big that deficit is going to be.

I had some interesting stuff from the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice, of course, forgot to tell anybody that they cut out the detention centre up in Happy Valley-Goose Bay – forgot all about that. The Leader of the NDP raised it first, and he gave a little pat answer. Then, when we delved into it, sure enough, lo and behold, they spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars on it and all of a sudden it is cancelled.

Now, he uses a cute word, he says it is not cancelled, we just put it on hold until we do a review. Well, folks, for anybody who does not know it, when you put something on hold until we review it, that equals cancellation. You can fudge it, you can colour code it all you want, that equals cancellation. There is no pre-detention centre going to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, it is off the table. He can tell you what he likes. That is the bottom line. It is off the table.

The good Minister of Labrador Affairs, he was up in Labrador telling the people in the Status of Women Council: Oh no, do not worry about it, that is all on, that is coming. Here it was in the Budget documents it was scrapped. I will get lots of time to talk to that when we deal with the other Social Services Committee. I will come back to that.

In the meantime, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the Minister of Business. We had some fun in Estimates with him. There is the minister who is in charge of $32 million to invest in this Province - $32 million. Last year he had the same amount, $32 million. Do you want to believe how much they put out the door in terms of investment and attracting business to this Province last year? The total of the $32 million that he had, he put $4.5 million out the door in investments. Guess what? It took $5 million to run the Department of Business to put $4.5 million out the door. That sounds like a good bang for your buck doesn't it? We have a department that could put out $32 million, they only put out one-eighth of it, and yet, it is costing $5 million to have them up there.

Now that is the pet project that the Premier created, of course, back in 2003. That is his pet project, the Department of Business. We have not seen much of it. So far, in its existence, they have put out $10 million so far to date. Eight million dollars of it went to Harbour Grace. That is the place, by the way, where they just laid off dozens and dozens of workers last week. That is where $8 million of it is gone. So we will talk about success in the Business department, when we get to that, a bit more. Anyway, that is just my overall summary remarks.

In the course of debating all this, of course, and doing Estimates and everything, we get a lot of e-mails, we get a lot of phone calls as members I am sure, whether you are on the government side or whether you in Opposition, you get phone calls about people who have concerns. I have gotten several in the last couple of days about the Premier's rhetoric. It came from very concerned citizens and their commentary is to the tune of: Why does the Premier have to beat up on everybody who happens to have a different opinion than him? Why is it necessary to do that? Why can you not voice your disagreement, express your different opinion without having to be nasty to them? The Premier, of course, seems to be very, very physical - and I guess his history has proven that. We only need to look back - I think there was one time, before he even got into politics, he had a go at Mayor Wells. I think he said he should be taken out back of the stadium and given a you-know-what knocking. I think that was his comment back a few years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: He said take him out back of the stadium - for the members who do not know the history on it, there was a little dispute between the Premier who, back then, was in private business, a private citizen, and he made a comment to Andy Wells. He should be taken out back of the stadium and given a "S" knocking. Now, you can fill in the word that is missing.

He also had a case where he had a disagreement with this fellow who happened to run the company called Abitibi. It was back in the days of Stephenville. They were talking about Stephenville - what are we going to do, keep it going or not going? The Premier makes a comment and says he deserved a fastball up side of the head. That is pretty good. That is good rhetoric coming from a Premier to an executive of a major corporation just because you have a difference of opinion. People are asking that stuff. Why does he need to be like that? You get your point across.

Then there are some, of course, who were really, really shocked when he went out here in the lobby I think it was or out front, and somebody said about the crowd down at Eastern Health about what they did on the press release on a late Friday afternoon. Guess what he said? They should all be took out and shot. They should all be took out and shot. That is not bad – that is pretty physical, isn't it? Take them out back of the stadium, give them a fastball up back of the head, they should be took out and shot.

What did he do yesterday? There is no such thing as we disagree with Quebec, we disagree with the courts in Quebec and you can voice your opposition to what they did vociferously. You can do it, no question. What did the Premier say? He had to put it in the other language, the aggressive, physical language: I am going to get down on the ground and roll around with them, he said. Get down on the ground and roll around with them. Well, I do not think that is what is going to be necessary to resolve any differences we have with the people of Quebec. I do not think that is necessary. That is a pretty good start to say let's go out and roll around on the ground. Anyway, I guess that is his way of acting and his demeanour.

Now, the other thing that the people of this Province have witnessed in the last few weeks is how blindly certain ministers toe the line and say what they are told to say absolutely – sometimes absolutely blindly. I will give you a couple of examples. We have the Minister of Natural Resources, she was asked repeatedly in this House over the last three weeks different questions about this Abitibi piece, particularly the environmental costs, the cleanup of it, who pays the bucks, who pays the freight on that, and so on. We were told repeatedly by this Minister of Natural Resources the polluter pays – the polluter pays. We kept saying repeatedly back: Minister, are you sure about that? We do not think that is the case, Minister.

Then along comes a Quebec case, right or wrong, the judge comes along – I think the Premier referred to him as The Great Gatsby – Justice Gascon who is in charge of looking after the bankruptcy proceedings that Abitibi is involved in. He is the overseeing judge. He said he had his opinions. Again, somebody who had a difference of opinion with the Premier, but he was biased, he was everything else. In fact, it was even referred to - the Premier's disrespectful behaviour they figured. That is what they called it. They classified it as disrespectful behaviour that found its way into the brief that went to the Court of Appeal that was put in there by the lawyers for Abitibi. So, what we say here in this Chamber gets heard and seen in other places. I would suggest there is no need for it. Anyway, it happened.

Then we have the Minister of Environment, of course. Now, we have had some issues over the years here repeatedly. For example, we had the good people of the Province, the municipalities, who were told by this minister at one point: Shut down your teepees. Then we get the Minister of Municipal Affairs who has not figured out what they are going to do with their waste, but anyway, that happens. We have tires by the millions piled up down in Placentia, I do believe. We do not know any plan of what we are going to do with them. We do not have a clue from this Minister of Environment what we are going to do with those tires. We do not hear a peep out of her when it comes to the caribou getting slaughtered up in Labrador. We do not hear a peep.

When it comes to Abitibi, of course, she is the one who stands on her feet every day and says: Mr. Speaker, we take the environment serious. We are very concerned about the environment, Mr. Speaker, very serious. Well, no doubt she is. She also got up and spouted this off about the polluter pays. Lo and behold, the Premier comes out yesterday and says: We pay, we pay! Now, that is a big about-face. All of sudden we have two Ministers of the Crown, the Premier's hand chosen people, who were out for two or three weeks telling the people of this Province: Polluter pays, polluter pays, polluter pays. The Premier walks out yesterday and says: Polluter does not pay, we pay. Then the next question is: Well, how much do we have to pay? We tried to get that question answered for weeks here as well. They still never had any answers on that. We went back again today. At least the Premier told us today we are trying to get an estimate done on that. We are trying to get that information compiled. We are trying to get that compiled. So, hopefully, we will see that shortly.

Of course, that is not the only two ministers who said that. They are not the only two. I was reading a quote this morning. I happened to see - I got a copy of The Packet and that is covered off, of course, by the member who is the Minister of Business. He did a report to The Packet saying: Don't believe that Opposition crowd. Everything that they tell you, you have to take it with a grain of salt. You cannot accept what they tell you. Lo and behold, hidden away in the letter that he wrote to the editor - it was not any newspaper misinterpreted what he said, folks, this was the Minister of Business, the Member for Trinity North, wrote a letter to the editor of The Packet and outlined where all of these falsehoods were being spread by the Opposition. One of them was this thing about the cost of cleanup of Abitibi. Do not believe them, he said, the polluter pays. Now, you talk about parroting what someone else says. Blind faith -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has given a great deal of latitude on debate, but it is my understanding we are debating the Government Services Committee and I would ask the hon. member to try to refer to the subheads under that particular committee - the departments under that particular Committee.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and right now I am dead centered under the Department of Finance, because everything that I just referred to when it comes to cleaning up the cost of Abitibi is going to come square and fair under the Department of Finance. We might not know, Mr. Speaker, what it is today, but I can assure you the people of this Province will know soon enough who is going to pay the bill on this one. If that is not relevant, I do not know what is. The Department of Finance fits here pretty squarely, Mr. Speaker.

That brings me to the case, as well, that comes under Finance, and that is the Régie ruling. There you go again. A Minister of Natural Resources put a motion in this House, Monday past, for private members' debate, this Wednesday, saying we are going to talk about what they did in Quebec and the Régie; how they did us again. There is only one little problem, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to figure out the ramifications of what that is going to cost us. We know from what the Premier told us and some officials told us of Nalcor in a briefing what it said. We said just a minute now; excuse me, because we were accused one time before. You listened to Bill 75 in a briefing so you should know all about it. The minute, of course, that they bungle on Abitibi they say: Well, you read it. You were there. You saw Bill 75. We said, well even though it was not our fault – by the way, they had the best legal brains in the world that did that for them. We just took what they fed us, and we never had much time to eat it by the way. We only had about an hour from the time they told us to the time we were in here taking it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Régie ruling. We said: Isn't it pretty logical that you think we should have an English version of this? I am unilingual, I do not read French. No, the Minister of Government Services said we do not need that. He went on Open-Line and told everybody. We do not need to read the English version before we can go on to talk about it because the Premier or somebody told us what was in it. Well, needless to say the Open Line host tore strips off him, and no doubt he should have. How could anybody possibly suggest that you come into the House of Assembly and debate a 130-page ruling that nobody has had the opportunity to read?

Well, fortunately, while the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was on the Open Line saying that and while the Minister of Business went right on behind him and backed him up, guess what, Mr. Speaker? While all that was happening the Minister of Natural Resources was on the phone with the Leader of the Opposition saying: Can we take that off? We do not want to debate that because it is not in English. That is pretty good. So, you had two on the radio saying let's go ahead and debate it. You had the Minister of Natural Resources saying we cannot do it because it is in French, the same as we were saying. Anyway, they withdrew it.

Mr. Speaker, I only get twenty minutes. I would not dare ask for leave because I am sure I would not get it. Based on that, Mr. Speaker, I have forty-five seconds to clue up here.

I think I have made my point here, that all of this comes back to cost, Mr. Speaker. Everything comes back to cost on the Abitibi piece; what we are not doing, for example, in the environmental piece that we should do when it comes to the tires, it all comes down to a cost. When we figure out what is going to happen in the Lower Churchill situation, this is all cost factors. As time goes on we will continue to probe. We will lift the peels on this onion and find out what stinks beneath it, and as we peel back the onion, Mr. Speaker, we will find more and reveal it to the people of this Province.

I will be back when I get another opportunity in the other Estimates committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I make my comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a moment today to express my deepest sympathies, and I am sure everyone in this House, to the families of three missing teenagers from my district, the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the communities of Charlottetown, Cartwright, and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We had a terrible tragedy, Mr. Speaker, at Muskrat Falls a few days back and it is so sad that we lose these three youth who were doing the millwright program in Happy Valley-Goose Bay at the College of the North Atlantic and they were to graduate tomorrow. It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, a sad time for Labrador and for our communities, because we are all intertwined. We all know each other, and indeed - and I want to also take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to thank publicly the efforts of the RCMP Ground Search and Rescue and to the many volunteers who are out, as we speak, searching for these three young men.

Mr. Speaker, to my comments this afternoon, I do want to talk about a number of issues. We just heard from the Opposition, and I will say, they stand on the other side so righteous, but let me say this: they have been clued out - I say clued out - of what is happening in this Province and that is why, Mr. Speaker, in 2003, the people of this Province made a very clear decision. That decision was to give the royal Liberal Party, the hon. royal order of the boot. That is why they are over there and we are over here.

As I said many times in this House, why did the people of this Province do that? Very simple. They wanted change. They were sick and tired of the policies, the lack of governance, and the lack of leadership that they were seeing by the governing party of the day. They saw in Premier Williams and this government as an opportunity for change and an opportunity to move forward. That is why, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the polls the people of this Province have given this Premier and this government overwhelming support when it comes to the big issues in this Province. We have many challenges, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that I think we are taking these challenges, we are taking them seriously, and we are taking them head on. It is not easy to govern, and it is easy to give it away. We saw too much of that in the past.

I remember those days, Mr. Speaker. I was in municipal politics for almost twenty years, and I remember former Premier Brian Tobin coming into Churchill Falls, going to do a deal with then Premier Bouchard and had everything all printed up. Well, guess what? He forgot one very important group of people to consult with - the Innu. He never even talked to them until they showed up and shut her down. I saw Premier Tobin sitting on the flatbed of a truck on the corner of the Trans-Labrador - or then Churchill Falls Road, as we call it back home, and Hamilton River Road. Oh, going to build the Trans-Labrador Highway. Well, I can tell you what, Mr. Speaker. We did not see any of that being done, I can tell you, under that Premier.

Then, I remember the days of former Premier Grimes when they wanted to take the $97 million out of the Transportation Initiative Fund and put it into General Revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HICKEY: That is what they wanted to do. They wanted to take it. They did not want to build a road up in Labrador, as they were, yap, yap, yap about it, but I can tell you, they were good at yapping, as I have often said, Mr. Speaker, but they were not very good at doing. That is the difference with this government.

I want to take a couple of minutes to say, Mr. Speaker, to talk about what we are doing in this Province. One of the areas that I have a great deal of interest in is the area of education, Mr. Speaker. Education, and the education of our youth, is one of the most important investments that we as a government can make in the youth of our Province. The investments we are making in 2010, Mr. Speaker, is certainly a tribute to our commitment to educating youth in our Province.

As the hon. Minister of Education said recently, quality education is vital to our youth and for the prosperity of our Province. Our government has made tremendous advances in education in recent years and we are continuing to make the right investments in Budget 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member - we are debating the Government Services Committee and I would ask the member to try and tie his comments to that particular committee.

MR. HICKEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward there are a lot of things that we can talk about here in the relevance of it all. I can tell you on education; it seems to be an opportunity to again just say that we have invested a tremendous amount of money into that. We have a tremendous amount of money invested in the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, and all aspect of health care and that in our Province, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is too bad they don't value the teachers in Labrador.

MR. HICKEY: Well, I thank my hon. colleague for raising that, because I have to say, Mr. Speaker, a few days back we heard the Leader of the Opposition make some comments here, and I have her in Hansard here. She says one of the schools in St. Lewis, for example, kids between the ages of Kindergarten to Grade 6 were going to be left in a classroom with one teacher. Mr. Speaker, because parents lobbied against that, that change was made. So I say minister, the infrastructure is a huge bonus.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing more in education. We have a new school in the hon. member's District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. We have a new school in Port Hope Simpson, another one in L'Anse-au-Loup; tremendous investments, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to education in Labrador. When we look at the College of the North Atlantic in Labrador West and the investment we are making over there for post-secondary education. When we look at the new francophone school, Mr. Speaker, that we built in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for our French community there in that particular region.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are doing great things throughout this Province in education. I will say, when I listened to the hon. member getting on with some of the trite that we listen to here in the House of Assembly, without question the hon. members across do not have a clue as to what is sometimes happening in this Province and where we are moving.

Mr. Speaker, we have now one of the greatest opportunities of any province in this country to move forward, but it will take great leadership. It will take us in which we are going to have to stand our ground. For instance, with the Province of Quebec, with Abitibi, and there may be others down the road.

I can tell you, as the MHA for Lake Melville, I am not one bit too happy with Voisey's Bay Nickel and what is happening with the strike up in Labrador, as is my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains. We are very concerned about what is happening in Labrador. Having said that, on the other side we have the expansion of the mines in Labrador West which has been a great help and benefit to the economy over there; great investments are going to be over in Labrador West. We have two new mines going to be looking at operating up in Schefferville.

So there is great wealth coming to this Province, Mr. Speaker. I want to say, I think it is because of this government and because of our leadership that the message is out there. The time of giveaways is no longer, no more. We saw enough of that from the crowd on the other side when they were there. If we had not taken over the reins when we did, Mr. Speaker, I would say she would have been gone, but we got her back. We got her back because of the calibre of our Premier, because of his leadership and the leadership of this government and this Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the people of the Province that there are good things coming. We have seen the rough roads in the past; we have gone over the bumps. I can tell you what; this Province has a bright future, as bright as any in this country.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I was not scheduled for today but I guess you fill in when you have to fill in.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with regard to the Government Services Committee. I am hoping to remain relevant, if at all possible, even though the Minister of Labrador Affairs only spoke on education, mining, and I think that was about the extent of it, so forgive me if I should stray on the wayside from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned, I think, by my hon. colleague, that the Government Services Committee was under the Chair of the Member for Exploits and took in the Departments of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, Intergovernmental Affairs, Finance, Transportation and Works, and Government Services, and also various components that go along with those departments. I will just reference one - Transportation and Works - we looked into the situation of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help – and I guess it all falls under Finance – but go back to the speech last week that my hon. friend, the Member for St. John's South, had when he got up, when he had the red and the Blue Book, talking about the finances back in the early days of 2001-2002 versus what they are today. He made some pretty good comments, I will agree with that, but he referenced when the next election is called. I think that was the first election speech I heard leading into October, 2011.

Mr. Speaker, he mentioned about the equalization, what we were receiving from Ottawa in 2002-2003, in the vicinity of $1 billion-plus for 30 per cent of our finances, or a proximity to that, versus today, 2010-2011, of $662 million, approximately for 10 per cent. Like he was saying, there was less and less dependency on Ottawa.

He mentioned some very interesting issues, like the reduction in the personal income tax. He mentioned what we were putting into health care back then versus today, and the municipal infrastructure of $65 million versus $275 million. That is all accurate. Even with all of this new revenue coming on stream, we have heard it said that you are looking after the funds properly. I will go along with that to a certain degree, but there is one thing that he left out, and I do not know why the hon. member would leave it out, and that is where all of this wealth came from. I agree the wealth is here, you are spending it in wonderful ways, helping every district in this Province with infrastructure, water and sewer and the whole bit, but it all came from projects that came on stream many years ago by different political parties. I am not saying that it was only the Liberal Party - the former Tory Party as well. That is where the money came from to bring us to the point where we are today, and I think that is very important. I do not think the hon. member left it out just for the sake of leaving it out.

Hopefully, the work that this government is doing today, in years to come - we have spoken about Hebron, the finances that will come into – seeing we are talking about the Department of Finance – the money that will come from Hebron, whether it is fifteen or eighteen years from now, will be the same thing. God forbid if someone else should be in power here at that time and just think, for instance, that they are the ones that brought it on stream. No, it was the groundwork that was done today that will make all that happen.

Mr. Speaker, under the Committee of Government Services there were two departments that I was involved in, attended the meetings, being critic for Government Services and for Transportation and Works.

MR. O'BRIEN: Great departments.

MR. BUTLER: Great departments is true, I say to the hon. minister.

There are many questions asked when we go to those meetings. It is too bad it is not televised, because sometimes it can get boring, I guess, like the House of Assembly, and more people love it, but we go through the line-by-line items; what is being spent in, say, the minister's office or various divisions of any department, but we also go into questions on different issues that come forward from time to time.

I remember that today we had a statement on Canada Road Safety Week. That was one of the issues we brought up during the Estimates, in regard to the motor registration computer system. I think it is very important, not altogether for highway safety, but to know when something goes wrong on our highways, those people are insured so that whoever is involved in that accident has the proper insurance policies in place to not only protect themselves and cover the cost of their vehicle and the other people, but also the passengers and the driver in the vehicle that was also involved in this accident.

We know that this is a costly venture. We were told that this could cost in the vicinity of $14 million to $20 million. It is being considered, but it is going to take some time to implement. So, we were glad to hear that this is still being considered, but I have to say it is a crucial issue with many people. I can assure you, I think there are many people in this Province who are driving around today with no insurance on their vehicles, and even though we want safety on our highways I think that will make them all that much safer, because if there are people out there who have no more interest in their own public safety and having a policy or something to fall back on, I think that something has to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, another issue we brought forward during the Government Services Estimates was with regard to the winter tire safety. We know that is an issue that has been ongoing for some time, and I did bring it up just to see what the response would have been, but the minister stated very clearly that his mind is not as open on it now as what it used to be at one time. He said that the information coming in from Quebec was very slow forthcoming. I suppose we can understand that, with our relationship with Quebec on many issues. Maybe they do not even want to give us the information on the statistics that they have with regard to the winter tires.

I have to say, the minister did provide us with information after the meeting where he gave us the statistics from this study that was done here in the Province. You take people sixty-five years of age or older; 84.6 per cent of them have stated that they do use winter tires, and that is very encouraging. I think people with regard to – the survey also looked at people with one vehicle or families with two vehicles. Of people who only had the one vehicle, 82 per cent of them were driving with winter tires, and those with more than one vehicle, some 62 per cent had winter tires on all of their vehicles; 23.7 per cent, I think it was, just with regard to the use of one vehicle.

Again, it comes down to, and I think government is doing this, we have to look at – the main reason here, why I think this is to the point that it is today, even though I stated many times that I believe all season tires – I do not know if there is such a thing as an all season tire, even though we do have them by that name. I still think that for the winter conditions we have, you have a job to beat the winter tire when it comes to certain conditions.

I explained to the minister during our Estimates a position I found myself in this year with new all season tires and I could not go where the people went, for safety on the road. I was going back and forth the road; I just had to pull in and not continue on the journey. It all comes down to education and communicating with the public, not only with the winter tire issue, which is ongoing, but I think also with the registration computer system.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that I cannot say, I suppose, I was totally disappointed with, but I was somewhat set back, is with regard to the ATV regulations. This is an issue that is very important to many people throughout this Province. I think I heard on the radio today – and I do not want to state some statistics that are incorrect – but I thought I heard it said that in this Province, and I can be corrected, there were some 400 incidents in the last year, the last 12 month period, that involved some form of an accident with all-terrain vehicles. I thought it was eighty or eighty-five of those accidents happened with children who were under the legal age. That is correct; an hon. member is saying that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, that is startling. I am not bringing up the ATV regulations just for that reason, but in the Conception Bay North area we used to have what we call the Run for the Janeway, where we would have an all-terrain vehicle ride every year. We had as high as 600 and 700 bikers who would register for that ride.

Even though we knew the regulations were there for one person on a bike, two people were allowed on - it was a family venture. The RCMP would block the roads for us, and I guess they knew the regulations as well. We know that certain accidents happen throughout our Province where someone gets killed and then the old saying goes the water changed on the beans. Everyone gets concerned about it. The law has to step in and try to bring about changes to whatever can bring about a safer environment for all those concerned.

I know back at that time I spoke with the minister and some of his officials. They said that they were looking at the possibility of bringing in ATV regulations. I know they are still looking at this. They were supposed to go and consult with different stakeholders throughout the Province. The minister stated, and I agree, that safety is paramount with this, but to date there is still no legislation. With the figures that I heard today, I am just calling upon the minister, or the government through the minister, that hopefully this new regulation can come into play sooner rather than later. I know there is going to be good news for people and there is going to be bad news for others when it comes into play.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Well I am glad to hear that. The minister just stated he has 50 per cent of it now so we will probably hear it – we might get that legislation put through in the fall of this year.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, was the TODS program. It comes under two or three different departments but it came under the Government Services for the Estimates, as well as through the Department of Transportation. We all know that we have been informed that it is going to take a couple of years to implement this program - totally implement it throughout the Province.

One of the things that I find very disheartening, and we get many calls on it from people who had their signs taken down off of the highways. Many of them, it is true, did not have a legal permit, and I can understand that. Many of them did have their permits and we hear stories today that those signs were taken down as well. Like I said, I know they have the rules and regulations there.

We are trying to bring in this program because we know that it worked fairly well in other jurisdictions. Many people have expressed concerns. I saw an article the other day I think it was from the West Coast - the mayor of Stephenville or Stephenville Crossing. They felt that with the signage that was on the highways, they saw more people coming into their communities and I guess doing more business there. They have concerns about it.

Mr. Speaker, the startling thing that I found out - I think I went to the Government Services Estimates Committee first and learned a lot about it, but then I went to the one for Transportation and Works. I had a gentleman call me from the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde some time ago about all the signs that he had, and they were not those plywood painted signs. They were the steel signs with the lettering probably a foot or two feet high. This was the type of business he was in. Regardless if he had them at the time, whether it was on Crown land or on private property, I think the process that was gone through was not appropriate. I mean those signs cost an awful lot of money for the gentleman. Anyway, he went out this day – and he probably got a notice on it, I do not know; he probably did get a notice from somebody. Anyway, those signs were taken from the highways and he was trying to track down his signs only to be told - he received a call from a worker with the Department of Transportation and said if you want to see your signs come to such-and-such a depot, they collected them, they dug a hole and they buried them.

I think that is unfair for that process to go through. Those signs could have been taken down, laid to one side, called the gentleman and said: Look, come and pick up your signs because his business could have carried on. He could have put those signs up on private property, and I think that is unfair. I have to say the Minister of Government Services, I told him the story and he agreed that if this gentleman wanted to call he would meet with him. Now whether he called or not, we did call him and gave that information. It was discouraging to hear, through the Department of Transportation, that that is what is being done with the signs. We take them down, we destroy them or burn them rather than call the individuals to come and get them, and they could be used again probably on private property.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that came up that we get a lot of calls on - I call it the review of the review because it goes back to Class 4 roads. In this Province for many years Class 4 roads were looked after, and I know there are different designations put on them if there are so many livyers there and what have you. There are two roads in the district that I represent that go back to the country - and yes, it is true there are cabin owners on them, legal cabin owners there, two or three them live year round; the majority do not. There are six or seven farms, various types of farms on those roads, and at one time those roads were not graded or kept up on a yearly basis day in and day out. What would be done when the spring of the year would come, they would send a grader in and do the roads and again in the fall of the year. Back a few years ago, between the Department of Transportation and the division of agriculture with the Department of Natural Resources, they put their resources together and did up the road so those people could go in and carry on their business. I know the now Minister of Municipal Affairs, when she was Minister of Transportation and Works, she agreed to do a review to see if they would take those roads back, knowing that there were businesses that depended on them.

Mr. Speaker, that review was started. Then I was told by the minister who was filling in for awhile that the review was being reviewed. So anyway we go to the minister again this year, we asked about the Class 4 roads, and that process is still being reviewed. Now, that is about two years of reviewing it, whether they are going to take it back or not. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that is an issue that is very important to a lot of people, not only taking people back to their cottages far back in the country.

The other issue that comes up fairly often in my area, and I have had calls from other districts, being the critic for Transportation, and that was the closure of highway depots. I know it went through the appeal process, then it went through the court here, the Newfoundland court, and now it has gone on to the Supreme Court. I know that cannot be discussed because they are saying it is still before the courts.

Mr. Speaker, summer maintenance on the roads in many areas – yes, there is some work being done, but the work that should be done is not being carried out because the workers, when they come off of the winter maintenance system, many of them are let go and they go other places working and they come back again when the winter maintenance starts. They will tell you – the workers themselves will tell you – that the work that they should be doing on the roads, whether it is ditching, what have you, to protect the roads and keep them up to a good standard, should be carried out more than what is being done now with regard to the condition of the roads.

So, Mr. Speaker, there were many issues that we discussed. I will not go into the other departments because I did not attend the Estimates meetings, but I know, I am sure, there were issues brought forward, whether it was with regard to the Department of Labrador Affairs, Aboriginal Affairs - my colleague referenced Intergovernmental Affairs and the Department of Finance. I guess it call comes down to what happens with regard to the funds that come into our Department of Finance, the work that is being carried out.

Hopefully, through the Estimates Committee, hopefully through the few comments I have made here today, those issues can be dealt with. They are very important to the people, not only in my district; they are very important to the people in each and every district that is represented here, and for the residents of our Province.

One other issue I will touch on, I do have a minute left, and that was the issue that came up in the Auditor General's report with regard to radiation equipment. I have to say that the minister handled that one fairly well for us. He came back and told us, and I am sure what he told us to be true, that this was not a safety issue. People did have major concerns about it when it was brought forward by the Auditor General's report, and it was more or less to make sure that this equipment was installed properly and it was not a safety issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I just want to thank the chair of the committee, all the members of the committee who took part, the various ministers and their staff, and to say that I believe the process of the Estimates Committee is a way where we can go back to the ministers and their officials to put issues forward that we believe government should be looking at on behalf of the residents of this Province, and it is another means to inform us how the funds are being spent on behalf of the people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand up here today to discuss the issues with the Government Services Committee, of which I was a member of. That committee, Mr. Speaker, review the Estimates in relation to the Government Services Department, the Government Purchasing Agency, Intergovernmental Affairs, and for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector, the Departments of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Finance, and the Public Service Commission, along with the Office of the Chief Information Officer, the Department of Transportation and Works, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, the Chairperson of our Committee was the hon. Member for Exploits, and the committee members consisted of the hon. Members for Port de Grave, St. John's East, The Straits & White Bay North, Kilbride, myself from Bay of Islands, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Burgeo & la Poile, and Baie Verte-Springdale.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my little speech today, I would like to acknowledge our breakfast we had this morning with MHAs and the ministers, with the multi-faith breakfast. It was very interesting to hear some comments made by the various ministers, pastors from various - every religion, I think, in the St. John's area was well represented. Of course, being of different religions they stated – I guess, a little bit funny – is that they always do not agree with their practices when it comes to the faith.

There is one thing they do agree on, Mr. Speaker, and that is our youth; the poverty that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador and throughout Canada. They acknowledged the situation of what we had there in 2003 and the long ways we came to this present day, to the point that we are third in the running. Hopefully, we will be first in the not too distant future.

They also stated one other thing; that they want to get involved with us. They want a committee to meet with people from their organization and MHAs. It is great to see our Premier acknowledge that that may take place because we do go looking at our budgets, pre-budget hearings with the hon. minister there for Humber East. We go out there, and when we are talking about budgets, we are talking to all the people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, giving us some ideas as to how we could strengthen our Poverty Reduction Strategy to bring us up to the level that everybody who wakes up in the morning has something to eat. Hopefully, if our economic developments keep going, everybody will be able to go to work and be self-sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, I shall go now to one particular comment made by the hon. Member for Burgeo & la Poile. He was on that committee of course, and he brought up one particular point there involving Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector to the point where it really upset me, Mr. Speaker. He looked at it as asking questions to the minister and the answers did not come back as they should. Actually, he said something to the effect, it looked stupid.

Then he went on to say that department – or he refers to it as a pasture department. I could not understand what he was saying. Is he saying that the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector is not worthy of a minister? Is he saying that it is not so important as health or education? What is he saying? I do not understand. Is he saying that these people who volunteer in our volunteer fire departments and councils - whether it is municipal or further down the line, if it is smaller community councils, if it is VON, if it is the legion, which he has in his district. Is it the Mayor in Port aux Basques, in his group of people? Is he saying that they are not worthy of having a minister to represent them and support them and be able to speak to them and get their knowledge from their past experiences?

I know, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector was going around Newfoundland and Labrador and at one point he had a forum struck, and I was at that meeting at the Glynmill Inn this past spring. We had representatives from every volunteer branch throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. They were brought in - there were representatives from the Lions Club, the community councils, fire commissioners, fire departments. You name it, they were represented; from the heritage people with the museums, parks and recreation. They were there, and they were giving opinions on what they expect or what they would like to see change within the departments and what they would like to see come forward to help relieve the financial pressures that they may have, or go out and probably get more involvement of our young people to come in and get involved with the fire departments or whatever. Anyway, that did take place. So, I do not understand the comment made by the hon. Member for Burgeo & la Poile that that department is not worthy of having a minister or even having it in its effect. That is one thing that really upset me.

Mr. Speaker, I will go now to a couple of departments that I think should be honoured for their work completed to date, like every other department. Under our committee, of course, one of the bigger ones was transportation. Of course, transportation goes a long way and affects everybody throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We had a recent announcement today, how we came a long ways and what we are spending our money on when it comes to the Trans-Canada Highway. The safety aspects of more cameras; the importance of the automatic road analyser; the purchase of new equipment, such as shredders, which takes the trees away from the roads, of course, making our highways much safer. Of course, we know about the moose problem we have there and we are working towards that.

Mr. Speaker, one other area. I realize now that our time is almost up for this, but I would like to comment on the transportation that is ongoing in our district today when it comes to our paving, for last year's paving. I received a phone call to our office today from this lady in York Harbour who was quite pleased with the work ongoing today with the new equipment and the new paving. She was quite impressed with the work that is being taken. In actual fact, we are doing it the right way, we are putting new culverts in, we are putting the sides on the driveways, and quite impressed with it.

Mr. Speaker, with the time allotted, I thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak on the Estimates.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the Government Services Committee. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of departments that come under this particular committee of the House of Assembly, and over the course of the last number of weeks since the Budget came down all MHAs have had an opportunity to discuss the expenditure in each of these departments, and had the opportunity to speak with the minister, with her officials and ask questions. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a very valuable process. In fact, you get better answers and more answers in the Estimates Committee than you could ever hope or imagine getting in Question Period in the House of Assembly. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that I would like to raise today as part of this particular committee. I guess, first of all, we need to consider the fact that finance comes under this particular committee, and therefore all of the expenditures of government across every department is relevant for debate. Right now, today, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly we have been having a lot of discussion around what the financial liabilities will be for government and for the people of the Province around the AbitibiBowater expropriation deal in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of a history lesson, I suppose, because if you go back to when expropriation of the assets actually occurred in Grand Falls-Windsor, at that time we were assured that there would not be any liability costs, environmental liabilities costed to the people of the Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we were told by the government in the sessions and the meetings that we held is that when we expropriate the assets, the assets being defined by the actual hydro development project and the timber resource, Mr. Speaker, that there would probably be a cost required by the Province for those particular assets. We were assured that there would also be a cost that would be obligated by AbitibiBowater, around the environmental liabilities, and at the end of the day what Abitibi would have to pay would probably balance out to what we would have to pay, and it would be a net zero, were the exact words used by the Premier of the Province in defining and explaining that particular situation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that was what we voted on in the House of Assembly, or so we thought. So we thought that was what we were voting on. That is what was explained, those are the answers that were given to us, and that is what we were told. Now we find out, Mr. Speaker, back in February, through a press release that was sent out by the Minister of Natural Resources on a Friday afternoon, while the Premier was down in Florida undergoing heart surgery, we get a press release sent to the public saying that Abitibi has given back or they have taken back the assets of the mill from Abitibi. No such thing, Mr. Speaker, as we have inherited them because we have made a mistake in expropriation. There were no details like that attached to this particular press release, I can assure the public of that. In fact, it left a very different impression in the minds of many people as to what was going on here.

Well, Mr. Speaker, not only did that press release come out in February, with very little detail on a Friday afternoon when the Premier was out of the Province in the US, but it came out ten months after the government knew that they had expropriated this mill. They knew back in May that they had expropriated this mill; yet, the Minister of Natural Resources kept the information hidden for some reason, probably because they did not want to own up to the fact that they had made a major blunder in all of this, and they had done the very thing that they said they were not going to do, and that was they had expropriated the mill and along with it all the environmental liabilities that were attached to it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the history on that piece. From there, the government launched into court cases. As you know, in the House of Assembly we stood every day putting pressure on the provincial government to pay out the severances for workers at the Abitibi mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. The government had us led to believe that they were going to be able to claim back this money, just like they were going to be able to force Abitibi to pay for the liabilities, Mr. Speaker. Every day we stood and we convinced them that they should pay the severance benefits for these particular workers, and the workers themselves were asking day after day that this would be done.

So it was done, Mr. Speaker. It was good that these employees got this severance money but we are finding out now, of course, that there is no way to claim that back either. Mr. Speaker, that is whole different argument.

Mr. Speaker, then they launched into a court case. One of those court cases were to be able to claim back things such as severance, it was called the data case, the data collection case. The government lost that case in the Quebec courts, but what they did not tell us, when they were asked about that case they said they would not pursue it. The Minister of Justice said they have chosen not to pursue it. What he did not tells us was that they had already launched a case on data collection, had lost the case in the courts and really what they were doing was not appealing the case any more. Again, Mr. Speaker, a shroud of secrecy. Information not fully disclosed but rather kept hidden.

Then there was the other court case, Mr. Speaker, which they had fabricated to try and get on the list as a secured creditor so that they could be paid out for the assets of Abitibi. They did not file as an unsecured creditor. The Premier did not answer the question in the House today. They did not file as an unsecured creditor because to do so could have left them in a position for a countervailing lawsuit in the Province of Quebec from Abitibi. So, Mr. Speaker, as he said yesterday we did not file because we missed the deadline. It was a strategy on our part not to file. The strategy, without them admitting it yet, the strategy no doubt was not to file because they were afraid of a countervailing lawsuit from Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, in the Quebec courts, but they are not telling anybody that at this stage. We will find out if that is the case. Eventually, they will tell us if that is the reason they did not file as an unsecured creditor.

What they did, Mr. Speaker, they fabricated another story to go through the courts in Quebec under a constitutional argument to say that we should be a secured creditor. Guess what? They lost the right to even make a case. In losing that court action, like the first court action, they were ordered to pay all of the legal bills of AbitibiBowater in addition –

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

MS BURKE: Yes, a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the Leader of the Opposition using words like fabrications or to fabricate, to say that we fabricated a story - Mr. Speaker, according to Beauchesne §492, that certainly lists it as being unparliamentary language and we would like to have that comment withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to reconsider the term she used - withdraw.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never knew that fabrication was unparliamentary but if fabrication is unparliamentary, I would withdraw the word, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I cannot use the word fabrication, maybe I could use another word.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me.

MS JONES: I have withdrawn the word. If members were listening they would have known that I have already withdrawn the word, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

So, Mr. Speaker, where was I? I was on the court cases.

What they did, Mr. Speaker, is that they provided a case to the courts trying to make an argument based on the constitutional right that they should be a secured creditor. They lost the opportunity to even present a case and in doing so, they were ordered not only to pay for our own legal bills but also to pay the legal bills of AbitibiBowater.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, they decided to appeal that. So they went to the Quebec Court of Appeals and in the Quebec Court of Appeals they asked for an opportunity to appeal their case. They asked for an opportunity to present their particular case, and once again, Mr. Speaker, they lost that case in the Quebec courts as well.

So, all totalled, this is three cases that they have lost. Three times they have been ordered to pay – not only do they have to pay our own legal bills but they have been ordered to pay the legal bills of AbitibiBowater as well.

Mr. Speaker, all of this was an exercise that has really gained absolutely nothing by the people of the Province because, first of all, we are still not a non-secured creditor. We are not going to be added as a secured creditor. We have expropriated a mill that we did not want. We are on the hook for the liabilities associated with it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we had two ministers in the House of Assembly – even though all of this money is adding up, there are two ministers in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, in the last two to three weeks when I continued to ask the questions around this issue, who stood in their place and said: No, the polluter pays.

The Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker - and I have dozens of quotes. Mr. Speaker, she stood up in the House at one point and said: What the hon. member is saying, she is saying it is "…an expensive error. Please tell us how it is an expensive error…" is what she said in Hansard, Mr. Speaker. She said, "…the polluter pays and under no circumstance will we be responsible for remediation that Abitibi is responsible for. That is the bottom line." That is what the Minister of Natural Resources said when questioning her on environmental liabilities and how much we have to pay.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when I asked the Minister of Environment - another dismal answer. When she stood up and said the Environmental Protection Act is clear. Before she said that, of course, she made her famous quote about how we take the issues of the environment very seriously. She said, "It is based on the principle of polluter pays…" Well, these two ministers spent the last two to three weeks saying that in the House of Assembly, and what happens yesterday? Yesterday the Premier comes back, walks out to the foyer, goes before the cameras and said: We know we are on the hook for liabilities and we have known for some time.

Why would two ministers of the government be in the House of Assembly standing up every day saying that we will not be responsible, it is not our responsibility, it is the polluter that pays and as soon as the Premier is back, Mr. Speaker, he is before the microphones saying we know we are on the hook, we know we have to pay the costs and we have known it for some time? I take great exception to that, Mr. Speaker, because somewhere in the midst of all of this there is someone who is spreading and saying the wrong thing, Mr. Speaker, and I am not sure what it is. I am not sure which side to come down on here. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, of the information to balance all of this out because there are two extreme views of the spectrum. Two ministers who say: Oh, no, the polluter pays. It is not our responsibility; stood every day in this House and said that, tried to say it with conviction, Mr. Speaker, even when I would ask the question over and over again, knowing that according to the legal cases, according to the judgments that were passed down in the courts, according to their own act that they could not be assured of the information that they were providing. Every day that I stood this is what they said; every single day, Mr. Speaker.

Then the Premier comes back in the Province and he says – an admission again, Mr. Speaker, like when he admitted they had made a mistake after weeks and weeks of drilling. He finally admits yesterday that yes, we are on the hook for the liabilities; we have known this for some time.

So, Mr. Speaker, where does this leave us now? It leaves us adding up the bill, but before we can add up the bill, Mr. Speaker, we need to know what the costs of the environmental liabilities are. In order for us to know that, we need to have a full assessment done. We have a Level I and a Level II environmental assessment process somewhat completed. We finally got to review those documents, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister of Environment. After we asked enough times, she allowed one of our researchers to come into her office to look at the document; 15,000 pages of environmental assessment reports, was not allowed to photocopy a page of that document, was not allowed to download any of the information and, Mr. Speaker, when we tried to get some of that information we were denied.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the minister allows the media in. Then she decides that she is going to release it and block out some of the information, but before she gets to do that, all of the information is posted on the Internet by the courts in Quebec. We actually went in and got our reports off the Internet from a courtroom site in Quebec with all the information in it. When the minister was refusing to give it out to the public, here it was already on the Internet. That will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they have no idea what they are doing, absolutely no idea.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we cannot add up the total. We do not know what it is going to be in the line estimates in the Budget next year for the Department of Finance and for the people of the Province because we do not have it all added up yet. What we do know is this, that the minister has to create - has to commit to complete the assessment work, the environmental assessment work in those areas. She has to do a remediation plan, both of which she has been refusing to do and standing in this House trying to convince the people in the public that Abitibi is to complete a remediation plan.

This is a company that is nearly bankrupt and the minister stands up every day expecting that this company is actually going to go out and complete a remediation plan on the environmental work in Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and Botwood and the logging areas. Mr. Speaker, how sensible is that? The only one who believes what the minister was saying is the minister herself, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, because why in the world would Abitibi, who is nearly bankrupt, could not care less - as the ministers and the member knows. They could not care less, Mr. Speaker, what happens out there right now, and that is the truth of it. She actually stands here in this House and thinks she is going to convince me that Abitibi is going to do a remediation plan and they are going to do all of this.

Mr. Speaker, how silly. The law is even on the side of Abitibi. That is the unfortunate part in all of this, I say to the members opposite. The law has come down on the side of Abitibi in this, unfortunately, and that has left us in a worse predicament than ever. That is the sad, unfortunate tale of all of this, I say to the members opposite.

So the minister has to do her job. Now, we know she did not do her job in the court case, the first court case in Quebec, because she failed to provide, under her ministerial orders, the information that was required in the case. The judge wrote it right in the document when he passed down his sentence. How did the courts get the information? They got it from a legal firm, Mr. Speaker, in Toronto, who was preparing the case for NAFTA. That is how they got the information because the minister failed to provide it.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what else was it she failed to do? She failed to provide the information to the public, when she, under her own act, under the Environmental Protection Act, was required to disclose it publicly. The minister thinks that because environmental damages are not of a human safety concern, then they do not have to be disclosed as the act outlines them.

That is not true, Mr. Speaker, because under the act that the minister is governed under in her department, that is what she signs onto when she becomes a minister in that portfolio, it clearly states that any contamination in the environment whether it is of an environmental concern or a human safety concern, has to go through a process. That process states that those individuals have to be provided in writing from the minister the situation or the areas of contamination that exist, that they have to have public information sessions or it be posted to the public, neither of which occurred. A public session occurred in the case of Buchans, but it did not occur in the case of Grand Falls-Windsor, and in the case of Botwood.

The Member for Exploits and the minister likes to stand up and say we met with the town council and we informed them, and we gave them a copy of our assessment. Did they give them the original documents that were done by Jacques Whitford? The ones that we could not even get them to release to us, Mr. Speaker, day after day in the House of Assembly. It was two separate documents - one of them was provided. Why were those people not informed?

Maybe they think that is okay, but Mr. Speaker, the law is the law. When you become a minister of the Crown in this Province, you have certain obligations as a minister, you have an act - every one of you in your department - that you are obliged to follow. That act lays out the code of conduct and the responsibilities that you have as a minister. That minister failed to meet the obligations and responsibilities that were outlined by the act in her own department.

I can see how other ministers over there can defend that. I can see that. I can see how they can defend that, how they think it is perfectly alright as a minister to take that act and look at it as hogwash that we do not have to follow it if we do not want to follow it. I can see that. I can see that because that is the level of arrogance and attitude that I have seen portrayed by a number of them.

Mr. Speaker, the minister did fail to follow her act and whether they want to whine about it, or support it, or allow it, or do something about it I guess it does not make a row of beans at the end of the day, but the reality is when you sign on for the job you also sign on to certain responsibilities and one of those key ones, as a minister, is to follow the act that governs your department.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we are on the environmental piece. Until we know what those environmental liabilities are, it is hard to add up the bill. What I do know, Mr. Speaker, is before the expropriation act ever came to the House of Assembly there were numbers out there in meetings, there were discussions around $200 million in liabilities and $300 million in assets. We know that in Abitibi's own documents that they filed under the NAFTA case that they are looking for $500 million under that particular case. So let's start adding it up, Mr. Speaker.

We know now that as a result of the expropriation - and yes, I agree, we have two assets. We have the Exploits River project and we have the timber resources. We know from the minister in Estimates the other day that there is no demand today in the Province for that power. The minister said that we have no forecasted industrial growth in this Province. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the industry growth for the use of that power right now in Newfoundland and Labrador is absolutely flat - absolutely flat. There is not a customer out there, according to the minister, who is looking for that power today. In fact, we are spilling water. We are spilling water in Bay d'Espoir because there is no power consumption, no demand in the Province to use it.

That does not change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have the asset and hopefully some day there will be enough vision and foresight in this Province to do more than close pulp and paper mills but actually to open some industry. If we can ever get to a point where there is some vision to open some industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we may have a demand for that power. If we do, we may make some money on it, I say to the members opposite.

Similar to that, Mr. Speaker, we have the timber stands and we do know that there are some requests out there from the saw millers in the Province for extra fibre. Will the demand in the milling industry be able to meet the demands that were in pulp and paper industry? Will we have utilization of all that wood and will we get a return on it? Will it take us five years or ten years to get that return? It does not really matter, we have the resource and that is what is important.

What the public needs to know, Mr. Speaker, is that while we have those resources and while some day we will have enough foresight in this Province hopefully to bring industry here to use it and put some demands on it and make money on it, that it is not going to happen tomorrow or next week or next year or the year after I say to the members opposite.

So, Mr. Speaker, having said that, let's add up the cost. We now know that we are under a NAFTA challenge. We do not know where that is going. We know it is in a negotiation. It could be $100 million; it could be $500 million at the end of the day. We know there are environmental liabilities that could be $200 million, at a minimum. We know that we are paying for the maintenance and the security at the mill that we were not going to expropriate. We know that is already there, that bill is there. We know, Mr. Speaker, as well that we have legal costs racking up every single day. Not only that, we are paying for all of the Abitibi lawyers as well. We are paying all of them. In addition to that, we find out now that Fortis has a $59 million loan that they took out on their Exploits River project and the people of the Province are paying that loan today. We do not know how much we are paying because the minister does not know how much we are paying. She could not tell us today in Question Period, but we are paying the loan because it is all in the Fortis annual report. It is written right out in the Fortis annual report that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador through Nalcor is paying our $59 million loan. So we know they are paying it, we do not know how much.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we know that we have to settle up with Fortis and Enel, the two companies on the Exploits River that have interests in this particular project –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: She is right, I knew this from the beginning, but I do not know, Minister, is this: I do not know if these two companies are going to be shareholders with Nalcor. I do not know if they are going to be equity stake owners. I do not know if they are going to get royalties on this reserve. I do not know if they are going to be bought off and be out of it altogether. They are the questions that we do not have answers to, Mr. Speaker. Those are the questions that we do not have any answers to, because if those two companies are going to be stakeholder interests in this Exploits River project and they are going to take home equity, Minister, that is less equity you are taking home. Let me just say that to you.

Mr. Speaker, what the government did not tell us in all of this is that they were going to pay off the $59 million loan that was out there outstanding on this particular property. When you add it all up, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be fun to look at the Estimates next year in the Budget.

Government does not want to talk about this. They stand up and they say: Look at the people in Grand Falls-Windsor; nobody has a problem with that. We were the ones who stood in this House every single day asking you guys to pay down the severance benefits for those workers out there – every single day. When the member for the area would not say peep, Mr. Speaker – would not say peep - we were standing in here asking that it be paid.

Mr. Speaker, what the government failed to do in the very beginning was to secure an industry in Grand Falls-Windsor because they would not deal with Abitibi from day one. The company folded; the workers were out of a job. They acted rashly; they went out and expropriated all of this. They did not do due diligence, they did not do their homework, and now they are ending up, Mr. Speaker, with a noose around their neck for millions and millions, and hundreds of millions, of dollars that the people in this Province will have to pay for years to come.

Then they stand up and talk about the Upper Churchill deal. Mr. Speaker, this is the worst deal of any government since the Upper Churchill deal forty years ago. It is like I said today, Mr. Speaker, this particular deal makes the Sprung Greenhouse deal look like a business success story. That is what it does. Sprung was a $20 million loss to the people of this Province. It was a loss that was unbelievable, and people's eyes opened; people are still talking about it today, but Sprung Greenhouse is nothing compared to what is happening today with the Abitibi deal under the watch of this government.

Do you know what is even more shocking, Mr. Speaker? The fact that, out of forty-four members, there are hardly any of them who know what is actually going on. That is the sad and unfortunate part about all of this, Mr. Speaker. Many of them hardly know what is going on. Do you know what they know? They know what they are told. They know what they are told in their fifteen or twenty minute round-session around the caucus table before they walk into the House of Assembly. They know what they are told and what they are fed, Mr. Speaker. That is what they know.

It is just like today: the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment still do not have the updated briefing notes, Mr. Speaker. They still do not have the new information on all of this because they are given the same lines they gave a week ago, Mr. Speaker, but the story has changed. Everything has changed.

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor, she is over there like something on hot rocks. She is on the edge of her seat and she is shouting, but the minister knows - the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor knows - that every effort was not made to save that mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. She knows her government did not make every effort to save that mill. She knows they did not make every effort to save those jobs. Right now, Mr. Speaker, they are out there trying to buy the support in the community to keep people on side, but one day the people will see. One day, Mr. Speaker, the people will see. They will see the real blunder that has occurred in all of this, Mr. Speaker. They will see how industry has failed under the watch of this government in the Province, and how it has cost us money.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other departments that I want to discuss before I finish up my comments, a couple of issues I want to discuss before I finish up this evening. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to talk a little bit about the Régie decision that came down this week. What that is, Mr. Speaker, let's just say this: the government went to court; the Province went to the public utilities or the energy corporation in Quebec. They went to the energy corporation in Quebec. They tried to get access to transmit power. Once again, Mr. Speaker, they failed. We do not know why they failed. All we know is, it was a technical reason. No one will tell us what the technical reasons are that it failed, but we have seen some emotional out-lashing from members opposite and from the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Big, bad Quebec is pounding us again. That is all we ever hear from the members opposite. Where are the facts? Where is the reason that you lost the case to the energy corporation? Why was it thrown out on a technicality? What was the technicality? No one will talk about it, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wants to talk about the real reasons; all they want to talk about the emotional issues about how we are going to go toe to toe with Quebec and we are going get down and we are going to fight them on the ground, Mr. Speaker. This is what we are going to do.

Well, Mr. Speaker, tell us why; tell us why it got thrown out. Tell us why you cannot get anywhere. Tell us why you are not able to access that transmission capacity. We cannot find out the real reasons and, Mr. Speaker, the only copy of the decisions is in French. We have been seven days now – seven days -waiting for the government to get the translation done and provide an English version of the verdict to the House of Assembly. Now, we have translators inside of Executive Council. They are on the payroll. The people of the Province are actually paying people to do translation in this government, and in seven days we cannot get a document translated, Mr. Speaker. It is unbelievable. It is absolutely unbelievable. They know that we do not have the resources to do it, because they cut our resources. They cut the funding to the Opposition Office. They tried to stifle us, Mr. Speaker, tried to shut us down so we cannot do our jobs, we cannot do research. They tried to take – if they could take away every cent of money that we have, Mr. Speaker, they would take it.

In fact, they gave themselves an increase of $100,000 and, guess what? They took $100,000 that was scheduled to go for an increase for the Opposition Office. Now, how sad and pathetic is that, Mr. Speaker? A big message in that, there is a big message in that. The insecurity, the lack of a backbone, that is what it speaks to, Mr. Speaker, the fear of being able to allow people to do their job properly and giving them the resources. So, we have been a week now, and in a week we have not been able to get a copy of the decision.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West, and the Member for New-Wes-Valley, or Bonavista North, I believe it is, brought a motion into the House of Assembly. They brought a motion in, Mr. Speaker. They were going to bring a motion in to really support the government's and Nalcor's position in all of this, and we did not even know what their position was. We had not even read it, Mr. Speaker, but they were bringing a motion in. Every clause in the motion, Mr. Speaker, had to do with the Régie decision out of Quebec, by the energy corporation in Quebec. Yet, neither one of them had read it, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying someone did not tell them about it. I am sure they were told. They are told all kinds of things, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they never read it. I even turned to the Member for Bonavista North and asked if he could read French, but he said no, Mr. Speaker. So I knew then, I knew then, but they were going to bring in a motion, debate it in the House of Assembly, when they had not even read the material.

That was not the bright spot. The bright spot was when the Minister of Government Services and lands, whose department we are debating here today, Mr. Speaker, or Government Services, calls in to the Open Line show and says: Well, we do not need to read it. I do not need to read it. I am going to vote for it anyway. I do not need to read it. We do not need to read anything.

This is a minister of the Crown, Mr. Speaker, a minister of the Crown. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen ministers on the other side before who did not read their briefing books, and we have seen ministers who did not need any briefing books, but I have never seen a minister who would go on the public airways and say: I do not need to read anything. Well, Mr. Speaker, these are the members who are making the laws in this Province. They are the forty-four people who can say aye or nay to every single law in this Province and have every other 500,000 citizens in this Province abide by that law and they get on the public airwaves and say: I do not read. I do not need to read. I am going to make up my mind anyway.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I could take from that was that every single one of them is told what to say, when to say it, how to say it and that is the bottom line. That is the reason they do not need to read. That is the only thing I can figure out. That is so disappointing because I know there are ministers over there that do read and do make decisions based on the information they have and draw their own conclusions. I do know, Mr. Speaker, after the other day that the Minister of Government Services is definitely not one of them.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, the Minister of Business had to call up right behind him on the open airwaves. The Minister of Business had to call up right behind him on the open airwaves and say that he is going to support the member, he thinks it is a good motion. He is going to clarify it for everybody in the public. When he went to read the motion he left out two or three clauses, Mr. Speaker, too cute by half I would say. Too cute by half on the radio, I would say to the Minister of Business. When he went to read the motion he left out the little relevant parts that should have been in the motion, but he was going to clarify. The calming, soothing previous Minister of Health, he was going to clarify, Mr. Speaker. He was going to let the public know it was perfectly alright to bring a motion into the House of Assembly and debate it when nobody read the material, nobody could understand it but that was okay because of this, this, this and this.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was not okay because he no more than had the phone hung up when the Minister of Natural Resources, in her wisdom, I must say, had enough sense to say that we have to withdraw this motion today because we have not had an English copy to read. Well, Mr. Speaker, I said to myself thank the Lord. Thank the Lord there is someone over there who feels that they should read and that you should have information before you make a decision. It was a sorted day of affairs, I can tell you that, for the government opposite. Not only did they confine it to the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, they wanted the whole world to know about it, so they got on the open airwaves.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Business also wrote a letter to the paper, to the editor. It came out today, actually. I forgot this when I was talking about the Abitibi piece on the polluter pays, but he maintained the same argument as his two colleagues, so I figure that bears mentioning.

Mr. Speaker, what other departments do we have here? We have the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. This is an interesting department, in fact. This was a department that was started when we were in government. When we started the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs it was with the intention that the department would have some role inside of government in terms of representing the issues and the people in Labrador. Unfortunately, today, Mr. Speaker, they have become a secretariat or an advisory capacity and that is the extent of what they do.

There were a couple of programs out there in Labrador that were being delivered by non-profit groups on behalf of the government, but they decided to take those files back from the non-profit groups and put them in the Department of Labrador Affairs because if they did not the department would have nothing, Mr. Speaker, there would be nothing for them to do. They took back the trail grooming programs, they put them in the Department of Labrador Affairs. They took back the food subsidy program and they put that in the Department of Labrador Affairs. So they have those two particular programs now in the department.

What else is done through that particular department because I have no idea? What I do know, Mr. Speaker, is this: It costs nearly $5 million to the taxpayers of the Province to run the Department of Labrador Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It costs nearly $5 million a year to run those two particular departments. They have two ministers –

MR. HICKEY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, it turns my stomach to listen to the tripe across the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member is misleading this House, is making false comments in this House. The Department of Labrador Affairs is very much engaged in the business of this government and every department in it. We have now over thirty employees with the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, fifteen in Labrador and fifteen here on the Island. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, when she was – I do not know, maybe she was parliamentary secretary, I am not sure what she was there –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: I can only say this, Mr. Speaker, that department never had any say in what was happening inside of government.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comments just made by the hon. minister opposite just shows the calibre of an individual that he is - the kind of language that he would use in this House of Assembly. It certainly speaks to the character of the individual.

Mr. Speaker, let me continue because the reality is it is costing the taxpayers of this Province nearly $5 million to pay two –

MR. HICKEY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible) the hon. member the investment that is made in the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, with $2.4 billion after being spent in Labrador from March of 2003 to March of 2009, I say to the hon. member across the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I will just say one thing to the hon. Member for Lake Melville. It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

MS BURKE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on a point of order that to refer to another member in the House as a fool is certainly unparliamentary language and we would like the comment withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. It has been ruled both parliamentary and unparliamentary, and in this case it is a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the point of order made by the Government House Leader. I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I refuse to withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: For the second time, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the comment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: For the second time, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: For the third and final time, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the comment.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: For the third time, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully refuse to withdraw the remark.

MR. SPEAKER: I name you, Kelvin Parsons, and I ask you to leave this hon. House.

[Mr. Parsons leaves the Chamber]

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue with my comments because it is obvious that the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs got a very –

AN HON. MEMBER: He got a very weak stomach.

MS JONES: He got a weak stomach, you are probably right, but he does not have a tough skin either, I say to the hon. member. He does not have a tough skin that is for sure, and he cannot handle the facts and he cannot handle the information that is being portrayed here today around his department.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs, back in 2008-2009, were spending $2.8 million in grants and subsidies in Labrador. Today, they are spending $1 million less through that department in grants and subsidies. So, Mr. Speaker, not only has the department not broadened and developed and taken on a larger role and scope in carrying out the affairs in Labrador, but they have a lot less money for programs and services today than they had two years ago when they were in that department.

Mr. Speaker, we have two ministers in that department, two ministers being paid on the public purse, and the only thing they can refer to is the Northern Strategic Plan. They like to get up and talk about the fact that they are spending all this money in Labrador. Well, do you know what the Northern Strategic Plan is, Mr. Speaker? It is an accumulation of all the money that is invested in Labrador, but it is money that has been invested successively by every government to run diesel plants, to run airports, to clear snow, to do all of those things, and you add it all together and you call it a northern strategy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I Googled that strategy to see what was in it on the fishery. I read it; I did not see anything on the fishery, Mr. Speaker. I read it and I seen nothing on the fishery. So I said I have to Google this and see; I must have missed the sections on the fishery. I typed in the word fish, and guess what? The word fish was not in the Northern Strategic Plan; not in there, Mr. Speaker. One of the bigger industries in Labrador, employing over 2,000 people in my district, seven of the nine fish plants across Labrador, processing plants, are in my district and then they tell me this is the Northern Strategic Plan. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, we are paying out $5 million for a department and government does not want to give this department any clout whatsoever, because they have not done it. They do not have any say, Mr. Speaker, in what is going on in the larger files. They do not have a hands-on approach to the issues in Labrador. They are not part of developing an economic strategy for Labrador communities, and unfortunately that is what we need today.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we did hear the minister talk about economic development at one point when he went to Ottawa to meet on 5 Wing Goose Bay. He came back and gave an interview to the media. Him and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went up, came back and gave an interview to the media saying that everything is looking good on these files. Everything is looking great. We are optimistic about getting the contracts. Well, Mr. Speaker, before the paper went to print the contract was awarded to a company in the United States. So this is the handle that they have on the files and what is going on in the department, Mr. Speaker, which is really unfortunate at this point.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to have a Department of Labrador Affairs at least give it something to do. Give the department some substance. Give them some role in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, because they do not have that now. That does not exist at this particular time, and that is unfortunate because the whole intention of the department itself was to be able to serve the needs of the people of Labrador first and that is definitely not what is happening.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my comments for today on debate on the Government Services Committee. There is certainly a lot more that I could say. Transportation is also one aspect of this particular department and there is no doubt that there are many of these issues, many transportation issues that exist in my district, Mr. Speaker, but I will not get into that today.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed today when the Minister of Labrador Affairs did get up to speak he acknowledged the terrible accident that happened in Labrador in the last couple of days and I certainly would join him in offering my prayers to these families at this time. Of course, I have spoken with both families in my own district, and I do not know the family in Lake Melville, but I do know that this is a very difficult time for all of these people and I am sure if there is any parent out there in this Province today, that they are wishing their very best for these families and that they are praying for the recovery of their children, and I am sure hon. members in the House would certainly do that and I ask them to do that over the weekend.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A good closing comment, thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and have a few words in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today the Leader of the Opposition shouted across the House to me: You don't know nothing. I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right because a double negative is a positive. I don't know nothing, I know quite a bit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I am happy to share some of that here today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to what the Opposition House Leader had to say here in debate this afternoon and also to the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, they do not practice what they preach. They talk about wanting the facts put out and they talk about wanting an open and clear debate about what is happening in the bankruptcy proceedings that are taking place in Quebec, and the Régie hearing that took place in Quebec, and the subsequent impact that will have on our planning around the development of the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker. Time and time and time again we have stood in this House and put the facts on the table but the facts do not work for them you see, Mr. Speaker. They are into a dirty little political game that works for them but works against the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the pulp and paper industry worldwide is in a great deal of difficulty. It was when we came to government; that turmoil had already started. Mr. Speaker, this government, over 2006-2007, put over $40 million of support to Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and to Abitibi. We worked with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper to try and support them as they went through some very difficult challenges. Mr. Speaker, we tried to do the same thing with Abitibi. It all worked as long as we were handing out money, but when it required some kind of negotiation, some kind of co-operation, Abitibi was not interested. Mr. Paterson said that to us at certain points as events unfolded. They had bigger fish to fry. Their company was in big, big trouble, not only in Grand Falls-Windsor but all around the world where they had pulp and paper mills and where they had markets.

Mr. Speaker, Grand Falls-Windsor was only a very small part of their operation, and not where they were going to concentrate a whole lot of effort. Despite our best efforts, and our innovative thinking to try to put some resources in their hands, to maintain that operation in Grand Falls, and to keep the people of that community and surrounding communities employed. Mr. Speaker, it got to a critical point. We knew that mill was going to be closed. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we knew that this company was in big, big trouble, and if we did not move quickly, they were starting to sell off their assets. They were at a place with Star Lake that they had just about concluded their negotiations to sell off that asset, and Mr. Speaker, they were going to sell of other assets, and we have seen them do that in the rest of the country.

We made a conscious decision that we would not allow our assets, the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to be sold off and used for economic generation to some other people outside of this Province, even outside of this country. We took an action that we had been asked for by the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and Central Newfoundland generally, that had been asked for by the people who worked in the mill. We took that action, we went to the Opposition parties and we said we feel it is really necessary to do this. This company is in grave danger. We think it is going to collapse. We think we are going to lose the assets, and we do not know what kind of a mess we are going to be left with at the end of the day that we might be responsible for.

Now, we have legislation here in Newfoundland and Labrador that says the polluter pays. That is not just our legislation. That is a concept that has been enshrined in legislation here for quite some time – during the time, also, that the members opposite sat in government. It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, to sit here day after day, after day, after day, and hear them go on about polluter pays. Mr. Speaker, if they did not think that was a principle that was legitimately enshrined in the legislation of this Province, why didn't they do something about it when they were in government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Why did they not do something about? They did not do something about it because they, like us, felt that our laws here in Newfoundland and Labrador meant something, not only here, but they meant something in the rest of the country. What a rude awakening for us when we received the rulings out of Quebec in the CCAA process.

They are big on reading the findings of the courts. I do not know that they have read the findings of the latest leave to appeal, which we lost, because the judge in his ruling says the restructuring of this company and the economic viability of this company is more important than the environmental responsibilities that they have in Newfoundland and Labrador. That should send a shiver of fear down the backs of every province in this country. The economic viability of AbitibiBowater overrules the law of the land in this Province and the law of the land in the country. That is disgusting, Mr. Speaker. That is almost unbelievable in this day and age.

Instead of the indignation that we should be hearing from members opposite, Mr. Speaker, they are almost advocates for Abitibi. They want to let them off the hook. They never had the responsibility. You were misleading people when you were saying that the polluter had to pay. Despite it being the legislation of the land here and now, it was the legislation when they were over in government. It is absolutely scandalous, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we set all of that aside. The Leader of the Opposition now is assigning value to remediation, to assets and nobody knows on what basis. She is shouting across at the Minister of Environment on a daily basis – tell us how much, tell us how much, tell us how much. Then she is out in a scrum saying it is $500 million, it is $750 million, the next morning it is $1 billion. Where is her accountability? Where are you getting your information? You put your facts on the table if you know how much all of this is going to cost.

Mr. Speaker, another point that she ignores – totally ignores. Mr. Speaker, we expropriated the mill, inadvertently, but we did expropriate the mill. We expropriated their timber lands and we expropriated their generating assets. We did not expropriate Buchans. We did not expropriate Botwood. We did not expropriate Stephenville, but there is where we will pick up the majority of costs for remediation. Mr. Speaker, Abitibi went before the bankruptcy court, asked for permission to put Botwood and Stephenville in a shell company, a numbered company. They clearly stated to the court that their intention was to collapse that company so it would free them from their remediation responsibilities here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, that is scandalous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: They were allowed to do it, Mr. Speaker. Those companies have now been put into that numbered company and, Mr. Speaker, if we did not the mill, the mill would have been in there too. Now anywhere from 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the cost of remediation that the people of this Province will have to pick up, because we insist on having a clean environment, comes from the three properties that we had nothing to do with at all in the expropriation process, a fact that they constantly ignore.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we stated quite clearly when we did our expropriation back in Bill 65 that while we were expropriating the hydro assets and assets of Fortis and Enel that our intention always was to keep those companies whole. At the end of the day, when we got through all of these processes, that those companies would be in the same position at the end of all of this process as they would have been if we had not expropriated. We have made that commitment time and time again to the companies, and we will honour that commitment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are also in a process where we have a NAFTA challenge coming before us and value needs to be assigned to the assets that we have expropriated. That is a very delicate process, Mr. Speaker, and what do we have? Instead of somebody on the Opposition thinking that through and keeping in mind the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we actually have somebody over there who could not be a better advocate if they were paid, for Abitibi. Again, Mr. Speaker, it takes your breath away.

David Paterson, the President and CEO of Abitibi, assigned a value, publicly, to the assets that they held in Newfoundland and Labrador that we expropriated at around the $300 million mark. He said that publicly. In negotiations involving the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, he assigned a value much less than that. We have the Leader of the Opposition over shouting, $500 million is what it is worth; $600 million is what it is worth. I want to follow that, Mr. Speaker, with something that the Opposition House Leader said today. He said: People pay attention to what the Premier says. The Premier's behaviour even made it into the judge's ruling. He talks about the CCAA process; the judges involved in that case talk about what the Premier said.

They are over there playing cheap politics with this very serious issue, not thinking at all of any consequence their remarks might have on valuation and other processes that are taking place concerning Abitibi - absolutely scandalous. They proclaim themselves as the fighters for Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the protectors of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and then, the Leader of the Opposition has the nerve to stand up here today and say that we paid severance to buy the support of people of Central Newfoundland. It takes your breath away, Mr. Speaker. The hard-working people of Central Newfoundland who gave their skills and gave their lives - some of them gave their health to promote the interests of the different companies that owned that operation, particularly Abitibi - who gave their life, their hearts and souls to that company, who helped build this Province and who were left standing with nothing – absolutely nothing.

The government of this Province, the people on this side of the House and our hon. colleagues opposite, stood up for them and said, we took the assets, we have the assets and because we have those assets we are going to look after our own people. We will do the honourable thing if Abitibi will not do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: She has the nerve to stand up and say we were buying votes – scandalous; an accusation against us that we would even attempt it, a worse accusation against the hard-working people of Central Newfoundland that they would accept it - how insulting.

Mr. Speaker, we are used to one rule for them and another rule for us. They are making such a big deal of the Régie hearing and the fact that they do not have an English translation, Mr. Speaker. I will try to say to the hydro, good luck with it. Good luck with understanding the English translation is all I can say, Mr. Speaker, because Nalcor came here with the lawyer's interpretation and remarks. They were given a full briefing last week on the ruling and our lawyer's remarks with regard to the ruling.

There is no reflection of that, Mr. Speaker. They might as well have gone out and gave that to the moon because it means nothing, it is not reflected. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot to say the last few days about not having to read documents, and how scandalous it is that people on this side of the House, that we have to be spoon-fed, that we are not under any obligation to read documents and we should be chastised for that, we should be criticized for that.

Mr. Speaker, again don't do as I do, just do as I say because I just remind everybody when Mr. Grimes was getting ready to give away the Lower Churchill, one more time, there was an agreement negotiated. The Premier said to the then Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, who is now the Opposition House Leader: Have you read the agreement? Have you read this agreement that is so fundamental and so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? No, no, when they get it all signed and everything I will read it then.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be here in this House of Assembly, but I am telling you sometimes, sir, the hypocrisy in here is hard to take. It truly, truly, is. I am glad in some ways that they are stating clearly how they feel about what we did in Grand Falls-Windsor because some of them had to be dragged screaming and shouting to the table - maybe we will get a chance to talk about that a little further one day – but we will stand and defend the rights of the people of this Province through thick and thin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: The one thing that you can depend on with the people opposite is that when the thin come they go. When the going gets rough they are out the door. Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can rest assured while there is breath in anybody on the government side of this House that will never happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very happy to get –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very happy to have a chance to speak this afternoon under the work of the Government Services Committee. Unfortunately, I cannot use all of my time today because I have an engagement that I have to go to, but I am going to use as much as I possibly can. What I do not get to say today hopefully I might get to say at another time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Yes, right.

As the only member sitting in the House representing my Party, I obviously have quite a big task when it comes to Estimates because I do take it upon myself to try to sit into almost every single one of the Estimates discussions.

Under Government Services, I certainly did do that. There were one or two that I did not get to, but I think it is extremely important that I am there, that all parties are part of the discussions that go on in Estimates because it is an extremely important process in this House. It is one of the few, I would say, democratic processes that we have where we actually can sit together, that we can ask questions of the minister and that we can actually discuss issues. It is so much more fruitful than when we are here in the House taking part in Question Period where we do not always get answers and taking part in debates which, for the most part, really are not debates. So I find that the Estimates time, the time when our three standing committees actually operate at committees is extremely important.

The only thing I wish is that we had our standing committees that stood all the time, that our standing committees actually met all the time and that we could sit together in committee and talk about the issues that are affecting the people in the Province. So during Estimates time, even though it is quite intense and even though for me in particular, because of my trying to attend every single meeting, it means very long days. At the same time, it is a very exciting time and it is a time where I really feel that I am engaged in the process of government, that I really feel that I am able to ask questions and have things considered by ministers, and really get some discussion going and feel that your ideas are probably being listened to a bit when you sit in committee.

While, as I said, it is a very intense time and a time when one is very busy, it is a time that I really appreciate. If we did have – I have been asked by somebody: What if the committees were meeting all the time, how would you manage? Well, you know, I would manage. They would not be meeting as intensely as they do during the time after the Budget and it would not be daily meetings, but it would be really exciting to be able to sit and discuss in a committee regularly the issues that come here to the floor, the issues that we ask questions about and the issues that are covered by new pieces of legislation; that we could sit and actually work through legislation together and have a more complete involvement than we have in legislation now in how we operate here in this Legislature, which is not the way that all Legislatures operate.

The Legislatures, which are the majority – I think almost all of them across the country that have standing committees, actually have draft legislation come to the committees outside of the House, even before they come into the House. They get discussed, they get looked at, there is input into legislation in a way that we do not have here.

So, the Estimates process is an extremely important process. During the Government Services Committee, attending the different Estimates meetings at that time, it was extremely interesting and extremely important. I am not going to cover all of the departments because I do not have time, all the departments that held Estimates meetings during the process, but there are a few that I do want to concentrate on.

One of the areas that I have been quite concerned about, and continue to be concerned about, of course, and I have spoken about it in the House, is the issue of housing, and our lack of affordable housing here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. A lack of affordable housing, not just in St. John's, for example, where we are having quite a boom going on, but booms are happening in other parts of the Province too. Another place where it is happening is Labrador West. We really do have a critical situation with regard to people not being able to access affordable housing.

A few weeks ago I was in Corner Brook, and I met with the coalition of groups there in Corner Brook with regard to housing and found out the situation there is also quite critical, both in terms of emergency shelter, as well as affordable housing. Here in St. John's, groups have, for a long time, been working on the housing issue. Going back many years, the City of St. John's, for example, actually got involved in housing, and there is a whole load of housing in the downtown of St. John's that was put up under the auspices of the city, not under the auspices of the Province. That infill housing - of course, we all know that housing. The design actually won awards; the design of the infill housing in St. John's. Right now, St. John's has recognized the needs, again, around housing and now has a co-ordinator of affordable housing, have set up a committee that is going to look at affordable housing that will be a combination of the community and the city.

I now know that they have started the same type of thing in Labrador West. I have been speaking to groups up Labrador West who are extremely concerned about housing. I have spoken to the minister responsible for housing, where I know there is a commitment because he made that commitment to me and I have relayed that information to the people in Labrador West. A commitment for him to go to Labrador, to go to Labrador West to meet with the coalition that is similar to the coalition that they have here in St. John's. The mayor is involved, the co-ordinator of the women's centre is involved, the staff from the shelter for women are involved, IOC, a major corporate body up there, is involved, and a number of other groups. They, too, are recognizing people are going to have to put their heads together to see how to deal with this issue.

My concern is that the Province does not seem to be taking it seriously. That is why I am really happy that the minister has made the commitment to Labrador West, to go when the House closes, to go up to sit and meet with them and to join that conversation. I would suggest that the Minister of Labrador Affairs probably should be in on this as well because I have not heard from the minister the concerns about the lack of affordable housing in Labrador West, which is of a very serious nature.

This is one of the issues I was really happy to be able to speak in Estimates with the Director of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and get a good handle on what is going on, but we all know that they do their work dependent on the money that they get from government. I think they do a really good job to use the money and they are very accountable for what they are doing but they cannot do anything if the government has only given them the money to put four new units of social housing in Nain and that is all the new housing that is being developed this year in the Province. That is all Newfoundland and Labrador Housing can do. They cannot come up with new money; the government has to give it to them.

The money that is going into housing this year – and there is a lot of new money going into housing this year but it is money to keep up the stock that is there because a lot of the stock is very old and is needing a lot of repairs, and the repairs that are going on are really wonderful repairs. People have seen the repairs, I am sure they have, here in St. John's. It is happening in other parts of the Province as well with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. You have to repair, you have to maintain, and that money is going in but we have to have new stock.

The fact that up in Labrador West, for example, here you have a place where in 2002 - so eight years ago - you had Newfoundland and Labrador Housing selling off a load of units up there because they did not think they would need them again. That is really short-term vision, that is short-term thinking. I think the current leadership of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing probably really does rue that decision that was made eight years ago, but the decision was made. Now here we have people up in Labrador City without affordable housing; people looking for even, for example, trailer homes to live in, and these trailer homes are being rented for $3,000 a month.

So, it is a serious issue. I was very happy to be able to discuss these issues in Estimates, which we did. As I said, I am very happy that the minister is recognizing that we have a serious situation in Labrador in particular. I am speaking about Labrador, of course, because I am dealing with the Government Services Committee and Labrador Affairs comes under this committee. I look forward to the meeting with the minister up in Labrador when that time comes. I know that I will not be disappointed in that. There are so many things I could talk about, and I just have a few more minutes left. It is my fault.

The other thing I would like to talk about, also relating to Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the fact of the strike that is going on at Vale Inco, a strike that has gone on now for way too long. A strike that has gone on because we have a company up there – which is not the fault of anybody in this room – but we have a company up there that is trying to bring in conditions for workers that are below what we are used to having here in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not acceptable. The thing that concerns me is that in the situation we are in now this company is saying, even though they are going back to the table this coming Monday to meet with the workers, they are saying that if they do not get a resolution they are going to be bringing in replacement workers next summer.

Mr. Speaker, I really question, again, the minister responsible for Labrador Affairs, because he and I, in 2007 when this same company had a strike going and were using scab labour up in Labrador, was at the same demonstration I was at and led people to believe that he cared about their issue and led people to believe that – he probably did believe, as I did, that we should not have scab labour. Yet, he certainly has not pushed that, as far as I can see, at the table that he sits at, in the name of the workers in Labrador, because we do not see this government moving on the scab labour issue.

Oh yes, thank you very much. The House Leader is reminding me, she knows that I have to leave. She is showing me her wristwatch.

So, it disturbs me that we have two ministers in Labrador, and we have some major issues happening up there, but I do not see the government showing that they have input that is really affecting government decision making. If so, we would have anti-scab legislation and we would have had some plan put in place for the people in Labrador West with regard to housing.

Mr. Speaker, I have to leave it at that. I will get a couple of more opportunities to speak during the process, and I thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very happy to get up in this House today and have a few words in regard to a concurrence. I certainly sat here in my seat all afternoon, as I sit in my seat most days in this Legislature. I listened intently in regard to some of the remarks that were made, and some of the profound remarks that were made by the members across on the opposite side of the House, the members of the Official Opposition and the NDP. They make some profound, real remarks in regard to the foresight that this government has in regard to where we see Newfoundland and Labrador, where it is today, where we brought it from, and where it is going to in the future.

I must compliment the Deputy Premier and the hon. Minister of Natural Resources in regard to putting that all in perspective here this afternoon, in regard to what she addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I have seen many passionate speeches in this House of Assembly by former members of this House, I have been elected since 2003, but that had to be one of the most passionate speeches that I have ever heard in this House in the last seven years that I have been here. It certainly puts it in perspective in regard to what we see in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know from legal advice, and by the legal minds from some of the finest in the land, exactly what the rulings were and decisions made by the Régie in Quebec. So, in saying that, Mr. Speaker, I will stand in this House and I will debate any motion, and I mean any motion that comes before this House in regard to standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador, any time, any day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I will tell you something else that I have heard this afternoon. I have heard people over across the House reference Labrador. I heard them reference Labrador Affairs and Aboriginal Affairs in regard to their input in this House of Assembly and input at the Cabinet table. Well, let me put that in perspective too, Mr. Speaker. Let me put that in perspective. Here is how effective they are at the Cabinet table. They are effective to the tune of $2.7 billion into Labrador over the last – $2.4 billion, to be exact, over the last seven years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Now let's go through that, Mr. Speaker, let's go through that in regard to some of the investments that they have garnered for Labrador – and I envy them. I envy them in regard to the work that they do. Education - since 2004-2005 Budget - $369,561,188 gone into Labrador in regard to Education. Now let's take Environment, $13,851,100; $13 million gone in there. Let's talk about Fisheries and Aquaculture, $25 million gone in; $25 million gone into Labrador.

Well, let's look at the real ones, the nuts and bolts of it all. Transportation and Works, $179,900,000 gone into Labrador. Now, I tell you –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I tell you, when I read those figures, and I am a part of Cabinet - yes I am, and I know about those figures, but when I read them it puts in perspective in regard to just how effective the two members, and the two hon. members, the two ministers of Labrador are at that Cabinet table, I can guarantee you. I see that day by day. So it galls me to hear members across the House reference Labrador in regard to the ineffectiveness of the MHAs there - and the MHA, let's talk about the MHA.

Yes, absolutely, as the hon. member there, the Leader of the NDP referenced, he has housing problems, in regard to affordable housing. Yes, and we are quite aware of that. We are absolutely quite aware of that. Yes, the minister is going to go up there and have a look at it first hand –

MR. WISEMAN: Labrador West.

MR. O'BRIEN: At Labrador West, absolutely, I say to the hon. Minister of Business, that is why I am talking about it. Absolutely!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I see time and time and time again in regard to my own department and every department, I have seen that MHA represent his district in a very professional and profound way. He is always after something for that district. Why does he have that housing problem? He has that housing problem because he has economic growth. That is what he got it in. He got economic growth!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That is not a bad thing. That is not a bad thing. In the meantime, yes, he has challenges. No differently than some of the challenges that we have on this Island, I have in my district, and everything will never be perfect, I guarantee you that. I have been in countries, very rich countries, the Middle East and around the world in my business life and that kind of stuff, and they have been rich and flush with dollars, but I am telling you, we seen a province in this country, Alberta, flush with dollars, but I always saw challenges too, as well. I heard about their challenges. They still have challenges, regardless of how flush they are with dollars. So we are up for that challenge, and we will address and try to address those challenges, but let's talk about them. Let's talk about housing in regard to the Leader of the NDP; she was talking about housing and those issues, just like we have never invested in housing over the last number of years.

As a matter of fact, I can only speak for my own district, and we had a number of units in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in deplorable, and I mean deplorable condition when I got elected in 2003. Most of them, now, are under a modernization program, because we have $28.2 million along with – which includes $10.6 million, which is $17.6 million from the Province to modernize 2,300 units in this Province right now. What does that mean to the people who requires that program and requires having social housing? It absolutely means that they can live in some sort of comfort and luxury. That is exactly what it is. That is the reason why we investing $17.6 million, and leveraging $10.6 million out of the feds for a $28.2 million investment in regard to modernization. Then we have a maintenance budget of $1.4 million as well. We even have a heating allowance for low-income tenants of $1.2 million. All that adds up to $28.2 million invested into social housing.

That is not speaking of first when - I cannot remember exactly when we brought in our Affordable Housing Program, but I think it started off, and do not quote me, because I am not that minister, and I would not want to speak on the minister's behalf. I think that number was around $4 million when we first started and brought in that program. That is tripled now, it is $12 million. It is absolutely $12 million, affordable housing grants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: That enables non-profit and for-profit organizations to get a grant from government to construct numbers of units, twelve, fourteen, sixteen units in regard to affordable housing, that particular program, in their particular communities. I have one in my community, Mr. Speaker. I have one in my community. I think, as a matter of fact, I am not sure exactly what the dollar figure is, but I know they are putting in sixteen units in Gander now on Memorial Drive. So I am quite proud of that, and I thank the minister for that. It certainly is needed, I guarantee you.

I will talk some about the concurrence of committee too. I enjoy Estimates, as well, actually. It gives me a time to really brush up on my department, make myself sharp in regard to what is going on internally – not that I am not up on it everyday, but it just sharpens your tack again in regard to exactly what is happening there.

I speak of some of the things in Government Services too, what we are doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in providing services. We have opened offices, a new office in Marystown, we have consolidated the office in Goose Bay, we have strengthened our office in Stephenville, we have strengthened our office in St. Anthony and we have Government Services and Motor Registration under the same roof now in Gander and Clarenville, providing good services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we do. We provide good services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we make it as easy as possible as we can.

One other investment that we have made is in regard to, I believe, seven weigh scale operators – I cannot remember exactly what their classification is - that we will be putting on the Trans-Labrador Highway. The reason why we are doing that is because we have $179 million invested in there, and this government wants to protect its investment. That is exactly why we are doing it. So, along with the Minister of Transportation and Works, who will actually build the facility there and have it ready probably sometime this fall, well Government Services mandate is to provide the human resources and the protection that that investment needs. That is something else that we are doing all over this Province, is protecting our investments. We do it day in, day out.

I have been here – again, I am back to where I started here this evening. Seven years here, and I have seen and heard some things in this House of Assembly that throws me for a loop in regard to some of the things that the Opposition might say to cloud the issue and actually then it makes me question in where there focus is to, or where their loyalty is to in regard to Newfoundland and Labrador. To listen to them, sometimes, I believe they would love to have Abitibi win. If it was a fistfight or whatever it may be, they would love to have them win, just to say that the government of the day lost. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we lose, they lose – but we are not going to lose, because we knew exactly what we were doing, and we expropriated those assets, and those assets now belong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is who they belong to.

In regard to the Deputy Premier and the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, in regard to what she said, here is the Leader of the Opposition saying that we provided the severance package, which they had nothing - the company left them with nothing, absolutely nothing. You imagine that, with nothing, and they were looking at mortgages, they were looking at children going to university, children going school, whatever it may be, left them with nothing, and this government came to the table and provided that severance package. Then, this hon. member, the Leader of the Opposition, she puts it out there that we did it just to buy votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful.

MR. O'BRIEN: Shameful! It is absolutely shameful in my mind. It is absolutely shameful. I have never seen the likes of it in this House of Assembly, I guarantee you that. No respect for the people, and I do not know where this is all going.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: No, we are not into it. Absolutely, no doubt about it, I say to the hon. member. Then we see - if anybody does not know out there in the world of TV, in this Government Services Committee, Finance is represented, Government Services, Transportation and Works, Labrador Affairs, and Intergovernmental Affair; all very, very important departments.

As a matter of fact, I will say it here now in this House of Assembly - and I listened intently to each and every one of the members of the Opposition. I say there was very little of their speeches on that particular concurrence motion, very little. Do you know why? Because they can see that those departments are working quite fine, doing and bringing great services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not find anything in Estimates. They did not find anything to talk about in Estimates. They did not find anything to question in Estimates. I have not even seen any questions in Question Period from Estimates. I have not seen it because, as the hon. member said, you are running a great department. You know your department well. Yes, absolutely, we were asked some questions with regard to some of the legislation and that kind of stuff.

I heard the hon. member, the Leader of the NDP reference some legislation and when are we going to have it and that kind of stuff. Actually referred to, I think the two ministers for Labrador for not pushing along the legislation. It is easy to know she does not know what goes into developing a piece of legislation. She doesn't have a clue, not a clue. It takes a long time to develop a piece of legislation with regard to whatever you are doing.

I hold, in my department, as the Minister responsible for Government Services, just about one-third or a little over one-third of the total legislation in government. So I know what legislation is. I know what it takes. I know what it takes my department and my officials with regard to developing legislation, bringing forward amendments to existing legislation, developing new legislation, whatever it may be. I know what it takes. It takes a long process with regard to that, but the hon. member thinks that you are going to draw it up on a weekend, on a Saturday evening. You sit down to the supper table, you have a bite to eat, you clear the table and then you write up a piece of legislation and then you table it on Monday. It is too foolish to talk about. That is exactly what it is; it is too foolish to talk about.

That is the way they used to do it. That is why we have ourselves in such a mess, is because that is probably the way they used to do it. That is the way they used to make decisions. Sign off on anything. Sign off on anything is what they do. I tell you, if they really get me going I will talk about some of the things they actually signed off on that cost this Province and cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a fortunate; an absolute fortune when they signed off on it, and it is still costing us a fortune. Some of the things they signed off on, is going to happen in the future, is going to cost us a fortune, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: That is two fortunes, I say to the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works. I know exactly what a fortune is, I will tell him too; I guarantee you. I will put it in perspective for you.

I will say it and I do not mind saying it in this House, that you cost us a fortune. They talk about knee-jerk decisions and all that kind of stuff. We never made a knee -jerk decision in the whole history that we have taken government. We carefully have strategies - and they talk about strategies. They talk out of one side of their mouth one minute and they talk about having a strategy and not needing a strategy. Then they are back and forth, back and forth. That is the way they go.

I think I am getting to the end of my time because I am getting (inaudible) watches as well. I was really on a roll; I was ready to stay here all night. I know everybody is hanging onto every word.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House and I will let debate take its course in this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): If the hon. the Member for Exploits speaks now he will close the debate on the motion presently before the House.

The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the committee members for their contribution. I thank the hon. members who spoke in the House on the Estimates today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude debate on Government Services Estimates. As the Chair, I move that the report be concurred in by this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Government Services Committee be concurred in.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.

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

MS BURKE: With that, Mr. Speaker, with the time on the clock, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Tuesday.

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