June 2, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 31


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North, the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland, the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Grade 12 graduating class of Bayview Regional Collegiate in St. Lunaire-Griquet. This past Friday, I had the honour to attend the graduating ceremony at Bayview Regional Collegiate and was very pleased to watch thirteen students receive their graduation certificate. These graduates are our future and I would commend them for staying the course and achieving this wonderful goal.

The theme for the graduation was: The Key to Happiness is Having Dreams. The Key to Success is Making Your Dreams Come True. My wish for these graduates is that they will be happy and successful in whatever path they choose in the future.

Mr. Speaker, two of the graduates were from foreign countries, one from Mexico and one from South Korea. These students are participating in the English as a Second Language program which provides international students the wonderful opportunity to live in an English speaking community while attending school. I am sure that both students have enjoyed their unique experience and I commend Bayview Regional Collegiate in providing this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Grade 12 graduating class of Bayview Regional Collegiate and to wish them well as they begin another journey in their lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to congratulate the class of 2010 of Baltimore School in Ferryland. On Thursday, May 6, I had the pleasure of attending the graduating ceremony along with the graduates, parents and special guests.

The evening started with a mass service followed by the graduates and guests coming together in Baltimore gymnasium for a dinner reception and grand march. The graduating class of Baltimore represented thirty-nine young men and women embarking on a new stage of their lives and exploring all the opportunities that now await them.

Guest speaker for the evening, Jill Curran, former graduate and entrepreneur - owner of Light House Picnics in Ferryland, relayed her experiences on the realm of opportunities available in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Baltimore School provides the young people from Kindergarten to Level III, from Brigus South to Cappahayden, with a well established program of academics and athletics allowing each student to reach their full potential. The Class of 2010 will continue to contribute to the school's tradition and no doubt will embrace all opportunities which lie ahead.

It was indeed a pleasure for me, as the MHA, to share with these young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians a special night as they celebrate their successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities that await them in their future.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Baltimore graduating class of 2010 for their achievements to date and wish them well in all future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Town of Paradise on holding its annual Municipal Awards Ceremony in April of this year.

Mr. Speaker, the Paradise Municipal Awards recognize residents from the Town of Paradise in various categories. I would like to applaud the town on its commitment to honouring its residents at this ceremony, and also congratulate the nominees and winners. They have been acknowledged for their outstanding commitment to the community.

In particular, I would like to congratulate: Male Athlete of the Year, Daniel Crewe; Female Athlete of the Year, Sarah Davis; Coach of the Year, George Dupont; Volunteer of the Year, Elizabeth Butler; Volunteer Group of the Year, Paradise Thirty Plus Club; Youth of the Year, Kandace Power; Citizen of the Year, Pat Burton.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the nominees and winners, as well as the Town of Paradise on a successful 2009 Municipal Awards Banquet.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, I had the privilege of participating in the Junior Achievement of Newfoundland and Labrador's twentieth Business Hall of Fame induction ceremony. It was a ceremony that captured the optimism and vibrancy that exists today in the Province's business community.

This year's Hall of Fame inductees: Mr. Fred Cahill, Mr. Gordon Manstan, and Great Big Sea were acknowledged for their business excellence and their contribution to Newfoundland and Labrador. They also joined an impressive list of the who's who from the Province's business community - a list of more than sixty prominent Newfoundlanders and Labradorians such as the Lieutenant-Governor, John Crosbie, the late Craig Dobbin, Susan Patten, Paul Johnson, Angela Cantwell-Peters, and our Premier, the hon. Danny Williams.

Hall of Fames, Mr. Speaker, are reserved for a select few and, once again, I congratulate the inductees on their honour.

While the evening recognized their successes, it also cast the spotlight on the Province's budding entrepreneurs and future leaders. With an increasing number of opportunities emerging in the provincial economy, it is essential to create awareness of business principles and instil the entrepreneurial spirit at a young age. Engaging youth also allows them to provide a fresh perspective and new ideas in our traditional and knowledge-based industries. It also holds the long-term potential of developing leadership qualities that will better position our youth to lead the Province as it marches forward and competes globally.

As a government, we are pleased to work with organizations such as Junior Achievement that share our view of the value of engaging with youth.

Over the past year, with our support, Junior Achievement conducted multi-generational labour market research with the primary focus on the Generation Y – those under the age of thirty. This research focuses on youth recruitment, engagement issues, and techniques for employers. It also better enables Junior Achievement to work effectively with other organizations and businesses to understand, recruit, and manage multi-generational workforces.

The provincial government is also supporting the four top achievers in the 2009-2010 Junior Achievement Company Program – A Student Venture, to participate in the Next Generation Leaders Forum at Queen's University in August. Over 200 delegates will converge to build new skills and their own leadership capacities, new global relationships, and fresh new perspectives.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to continuing to advance the initiatives of Junior Achievement. Their continued development ensures the long-term success of our Province's business community.

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.

First of all I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would like to acknowledge the inductees into this year's Hall of Fame. Certainly, their business excellence and contribution to the Province is something to be acknowledged.

The Junior Achievement program in and of itself is a very good program. As an entrepreneur, I have had the privilege myself of being involved in the program at the high school level on several occasions. To expose youth to business enterprise and to help instill that entrepreneurial spirit at a very early age is a great thing.

While we want to acknowledge the support of government as being a good thing, we also want to recognize, of course, those who volunteer their time in the programs. Whether it is business people who take time to visit the schools and so on or it is organizations that sponsor the programs. Of course, those who help organize the Business Hall of Fame selection committee and help bring that function together; we would like to acknowledge them as well. We realize that Glen Barnes has been the chair of that particular committee for the past six years, I believe it is, and has helped to raise over $600,000.

Again, we congratulate all who have been involved and trust that it will be a good program for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is good once again today to see the recognition for those who were inducted into the Junior Achievement of Newfoundland and Labrador's Business Hall of Fame this year.

I am happy to once again recognize Great Big Sea for their induction because the members do come from my district. I am happy to recognize them again along with the minister today and the others who were inducted this year.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame honours individuals, as the minister has pointed out, who have significantly contributed to the growth and development of enterprise in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The programs for the youth, such as the Junior Achievement Company Program are wonderful and provide the youth of our Province with valuable experiences and point to the fact that they are already contributing to the development of enterprise in the Province. Men and women who are part of the Junior Achievement initiative are valuable role models for youth, and that is something, Mr. Speaker, that we need more of in the Province.

We need more programs where mentoring is going on between those who have already made it in the business world with young people who are coming in. I encourage the department to look at and support mentoring programs. As well, we need to look at the needs of our graduates who are coming out of post-secondary education with heavy debts, and the opportunities for them in the Province to try to keep them here. We need well paying jobs.

I look forward to see what is going to come, not from this department but from the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment as the federal labour market development programs have now been downloaded to the Province. I continue to look to see how our provincial department is going to develop targets to encourage training in areas where we need young skilled labour and entrepreneurs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair calls Oral Questions, the Chair would like to recognize a former Member of the House of Assembly who represented, I think, part of the district now known as Bonavista North and part of the district known as The Isles of Notre Dame, at that time it might have been called Fogo, Mr. Sam Winsor.

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.

Mr. Speaker, according to government's briefing notes obtained by our office, it says that the air ambulance program is overseen by the department and operated by Eastern Health. The same briefing note reveals that a meeting was held in Labrador City on August 21, 2009 between the head of the Medical Transportation Program and Labrador-Grenfell officials.

I ask the minister today to confirm that, on that day, the decision was made to move the air ambulance from St. Anthony to Goose Bay seven months before Wes Drodge's report was ever received by your government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually was not aware of that briefing note until recently when I saw it myself. I knew that there had been discussions after the incident of July 15 in Lab West and again after the incident in Happy Valley -Goose Bay around September 18. Those incidents, Mr. Speaker, along with my meetings in Lab West and the petition presented by the Leader of the Opposition led to us having the review conducted.

I was not aware of that briefing note and did not know, Mr. Speaker, until the last couple of weeks that that briefing note had actually suggested, at that point, that Happy Valley-Goose Bay was actually the better place to have the air ambulance situated. So, there was certainly no decision made. All it amounts to is independent confirmation of Mr. Drodge's report and the confirmation that this government has made the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Access to Information that we squeezed out yesterday, Minister, it shows that critical decisions were being made by health officials and people on government's payroll. It also shows that the decision to move the air ambulance from St. Anthony to Goose Bay was made back in August. It was written by Corey Banks, a government payroll employee, and it was disclosed to Labrador-Grenfell at that time.

I ask the minister: Will you now confirm that the decision to move the air ambulance out of St. Anthony was made months in advance in the backrooms of government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I became the Minister of Health and Community Services on October 9. Up until that point, I was only aware that we were purchasing a new air ambulance. I became aware, very quickly, of the incidents that had occurred in Lab West on July 15 and then the incident involving the Best family in September of this year.

Mr. Speaker, Corey Banks, he is the individual who oversees the provincial ambulance system. Mr. Banks, I think, indicated – my recollection of that briefing note - that he thought, in his opinion, that the better place for the placement of the air ambulance would be Happy Valley-Goose Bay as a result of the population base and the risk factors in Labrador. I know that subsequently – again, I am going by memory, Mr. Speaker – I think it was on September 15 that another meeting took place. I think at that meeting there was a discussion of a medical flight services team.

So there was no decision made, Mr. Speaker, on moving the air ambulance that I am aware of. That decision was made after the receipt of the Drodge report (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The information that we obtained in this note certainly says differently. The information obtained also confirms that the decision was made one month before the previous MHA, Trevor Taylor, resigned his position. It is one thing for a Cabinet minister to be a casualty in all of this because he did not have the guts to stand up and take what government's agenda was going to be, I say to the minister, but it is a different story when you force that upon the people of the Northern Peninsula under the guise of a false report.

I ask the minister today: How can you use the Drodge report, which is just a cheap rewrite of the Banks report, to try and verify the decision on air ambulance that government had already made months earlier?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there was no decision made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: When I became minister, I quickly became aware of these incidents. On November 27, I travelled to Lab West where I met with the mayors of the communities there and the Mitchell family. I travelled then to Happy Valley-Goose Bay where I met with the mayor and council and also met with the Best family. Then, Mr. Speaker, on December 14 I indicated to CBC that we would be conducting a review. On December 15 the Leader of the Opposition presented a petition in this hon. House of 3,000 people in Labrador asking to have the air ambulance moved to Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has gotten what she wanted. She should be thankful to government that we have listened to her and I do not know what her complaint is.

In terms of the Drodge report, Mr. Speaker, the report compiled by the Lab. Grenfell employees essentially corroborates everything that Mr. Drodge had to say and the only thing they disagree with is the placement of the ambulance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my issue with this is that the government paid $10,000 to Wes Drodge to put his name on a report of recommendations that were already written by someone within the government system, Mr. Speaker. This report by Drodge only rubber-stamped those recommendations and the minister knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the government would have known about the banks report back in August because it was indicated, minister, in your own briefing notes on September 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. member has a question I ask that she pose it now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: How could you be on the ground in the middle of a by-election in St. Anthony shaking the hands of these employees telling them that your government was supporting them when all along two incidents in your own department indicates that you were ready to cut the service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is in the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know what is in the package of materials that was provided to the Opposition, but if I remember correctly there was another briefing note around September 15 that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North referred to earlier, that in fact talks about a second medical flight services team for St. Anthony. Now, I do not know if she has that and if her selective memory or her inability to state the facts has interfered with that. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there was a September 15 briefing note that talked about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members on both sides of the House to kindly listen to the questions that are asked and the answers that are given. I ask the hon. members when they ask questions to allow for the answers to be provided back.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to complete his answer.

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

So, the issue was being examined by that department under a previous minister. What we did, Mr. Speaker, and I indicated publicly, that we would commission a report; we would accept the recommendations of that report whatever those recommendations would be. It still does not take away, Mr. Speaker, from the basic decision, that this is the right decision; that we have twice as many people living in Labrador and this is the proper decision for the best interest of the people…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not buy into the argument. The minister was in the department. There were briefing notes circulating. There were decisions being made. There were things written and forwarded to health boards in this Province back in August saying these air ambulances were going to be moved from St. Anthony to Goose Bay.

I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker: Why would you go out and hire Wes Drodge to be the forward guy with these recommendations knowing that they were already written in your department, knowing they were already being circulated, and knowing that this was the plan that government had in place all along?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the reasons that we asked for the report is because the Leader of the Opposition asked for it. Mr. Speaker, what we have, if she again looks at the briefing notes she will see that there are discussions ongoing. Mr. Banks expressed an opinion. Mr. Drodge, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, did not consult with Mr. Banks in writing his report, nor am I aware. At least I did not provide him with any materials of Mr. Banks.

Mr. Speaker, there were also - I think in mid-September there was correspondence going between departments asking for a second medical flight services team for St. Anthony. So, there are various issues being looked at here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time, I will ask members on both sides of the House to refrain from shouting back and forth. The next time the Speaker stands I will identify the people who are causing the disruptions, and the next time the Speaker will take further action.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is, at least in mid-December there is a letter from the previous minister, prior to me, asking for a second medical flight services team to be stationed in St. Anthony. So, I do not know how, Mr. Speaker, she can say a decision has been made, when in August an employee of Eastern Health says that the air ambulance should be situated in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and the previous minister, by mid-September, is asking for a second medical flight services team for…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, there are eight recommendations in the Drodge report. Seven of those recommendations are the same as those that are in the Banks report that was presented in Labrador City in August of 2009, several months before Drodge was engaged. It is obvious Drodge did nothing more than copy or paste government's own information.

So I ask the minister: Why are you using Drodge to justify your own political decision to punish the people of my district?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Member for The Straits & White Bay North should ask his leader over there why she did what she did in asking to have the air ambulance moved to Labrador. She asked to have the air ambulance moved to Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we moved it to Labrador based on the Drodge report. The recommendations, Mr. Speaker, are outlined in his report. He also looks at the numbers; there are twice as many flights out of Labrador as there are out of St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker. The population is more than twice as much in Labrador as there is in St. Anthony –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Essentially, I would say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, he should perhaps talk to his leader and they should get their act together because sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for in life, you get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, for the record, we never ever asked for the air ambulance to be moved from St. Anthony to Goose Bay. That was never on the books, obviously. It was asked to enhance the service of the air ambulance program in the Province.

Again, I make the point that eight recommendations - that Drodge has seven of them - were recommended back in August of 2009 by Mr. Banks. The Banks report shows that two medical flight specialist teams were required with twenty-four seven availability, that they would be placed in St. John's as well as Goose Bay. It recommends one centralized dispatch for the Province. It recommends single comprehensive programming and other recommendations that are identical to what is in the Drodge report.

I ask the minister: If he was going to accept every other recommendation from the Banks report, why did he not accept the very last recommendation, which was a three-year phase in as opposed to the rush job that he is making out of moving it into Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the heading of the petition was: that we the residents of Labrador ask to have the air ambulance stationed in Labrador; 3,000 people signed that. In fact, the Minister of Labrador Affairs had to affect - the misleading effect, Mr. Speaker, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, where she had –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time, I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to refrain from shouting back and forth across the House.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to complete his answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we had looked at the Drodge report. It was a pretty easy decision to make, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have not had to go and extensively examine other reports. The Lab Grenfell employees – this magic report that was going to be prepared simply confirmed that which Mr. Drodge had to say.

So, essentially, Mr. Speaker, the one point that takes away totally from their theory that there had been an earlier decision was that the Minister of Health, the previous –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If there is another question from the Opposition -

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, my conclusion is that the Drodge report is a farce. Drodge was not independent but he was told exactly what to write, he was told how to write it, and he was told when to write it.

Yet, the Premier stated on two separate occasions in this House of Assembly that the decision was made around his Cabinet table and that he was satisfied that it was the right decision.

So I ask the Premier or his representative today: Why would you support a decision that allowed this to happen in a backroom and hire a front guy in order to justify this flawed and contrived process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the petition that was presented by the Leader of the Opposition. She presented a petition which asked to have the air ambulance moved to Labrador. On a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, I said to the Leader of the Opposition: What is it you want us to do? Do you want an air ambulance in St. Anthony or do you want an air ambulance in Labrador? She presented a petition. She got what she asked for. I do not know what the problem is.

Mr. Speaker, again, I come back to the fact that the previous minister, around mid-September, had written a letter asking for a second medical flight services team for St. Anthony. So, whatever Mr. Banks - when he had met with these individuals, he had outlined what he thought should happen. Well, it appears that, independently of Mr. Drodge, they all reached the same conclusions.

There was no decision made in backrooms. I stated publicly that whatever the decision of the Drodge report, we would agree to that. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition when she presented her petition she knew what she was asking for and now she is trying to wiggle her way out of it (inaudible).

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, we are getting spin and cover up here again this afternoon in the House of Assembly. The air ambulance program provides an invaluable service to the people of this Province. Hundreds of people are helped every year. Clearly, Labrador did, and still needs an air ambulance of its own to address its needs. We have never argued against that; however, not at the expense of other people's lives in this Province.

So again, I ask the Premier: In light of your flawed decision making and the inappropriate political (inaudible) as an extent to how they are covered up, based on the information that we have received, I would ask would you reverse the decision immediately to leave the air ambulance where it belongs in St. Anthony.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of a government listening to the Leader of the Opposition when she brings forward that petition with the 3,000 names asking to have it moved to Labrador. She does not think it through. The Member for The Straits &White Bay North does not think it through. They realize the trouble they have caused and now they are coming back trying to put it on us.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, we have made a decision that is in the best interests of the people of this Province. I keep repeating, and the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has stated in this House that they have a full service hospital there. Well that is quite correct. They have four anaesthetists. They have four general surgeons in the hospital serving 13,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of a medevac system is to deal with emergency situations. Are they saying that the lives of the people in Labrador are not as valuable as the lives of the people in St. Anthony? Is that what I am hearing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There goes the spin again. Just spin around and spin around trying to point it on us and say that we believe the lives of people in Labrador are less valuable. By no means are we saying that, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated yesterday that the decision was made, the air ambulance will be moving to Goose Bay within days. The applicants have now appealed this case.

I ask the minister: Will he let due process take its course and let the plane remain where it is until a decision has been rendered?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in order for an injunction to be granted there are three factors that have to be considered by a judge. One, is there a serious issue to be tried; the second, whether or not there will irreparable harm; and third, where is the balance of convenience.

The judge said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, or two days ago, there was no serious issue. In other words, the case is without merit. We will be moving this plane. The plane will be moved.

What I can say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and to the Leader of the Opposition, you got what you are looking for, so that is the way it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works about the unreliable ferry service to Bell Island. The minister did not talk about any solutions for tackling the problems and the concerns of the residents of Bell Island, which occur on a regular basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: In his much touted Vessel Replacement Strategy released back in 2006, Bell Island was identified as showing economic potential which would justify it being given priority in terms of ferry replacement. However, during the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, the minister stated that the two new ferries would go to Long Island and St. Brendan's, then they would be looking at Fogo and the Straits, then they would turn their attention to Bell Island.

I ask the minister: What course of action will your department be taking to provide the residents of Bell Island with a reliable and consistent ferry service as quickly as possible?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: In response to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, I would just say the Flanders is back even as we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Minister of Health and the Opposition House Leader to immediately stop the conversation back and forth or take it to the outside.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to return to my response, even as we speak, Mr. Speaker, the Flanders is back on its run.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: As well, with regard to ferry replacement, Mr. Speaker, there is a plan in place. The two ferries that the member just referred to are the medium sized ferries that are not appropriate for Bell Island. Of course, we have to look at the bigger picture.

As well, as the member knows, the Beaumont Hamel and the Flanders were constructed in 1985, I believe, and 1991. These are relatively new ferries, Mr. Speaker, and certainly have a shelf life that can cater to the run back and forth to Bell Island for any number of years to come.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we often hear announcements about how much this government invests in various areas. However, what we do not often hear is how much money announced is actually spent. In 2007, the Budget was for $15 million allocated for vessel replacement. That year, $492,000 was spent for two ferries. Likewise, in Budget 2008, $33.9 million was allocated, and the expense reports indicated $9,446,000. To summarize, over two years, Mr. Speaker, $49 million was allocated, with only $10 million being spent.

I ask the minister: How does your government expect aging vessels to be replaced when the funds are clearly not being spent, just sitting in the bank?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: It is obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member on the other side does not understand that I am not a – I guess you could say that you would need to be a ferry godfather to just get a magic wand and make a ferry appear.

When we talk about –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: When we talk about putting ferries in place, Mr. Speaker, it takes any number of years to design, to construct, to test and that sort of thing, and we want make sure that the government makes the commitment, because we are not going to put a few dollars in and then only do half a job. We have to make sure that there is a commitment for the years to come. Henceforth, the money that is allocated would be allocated over a number of years.

There is a schedule in place. The announcement is made as to how much is allocated for the construction of the ferry; it is budgetary thing. Again, we are following along with the strategies. The schedule is on time, and I am very satisfied.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the MV Nonia went in for repairs this past January, the minister stated that this was not an emergency refit. However, the public tender documents stated that in fact it was an emergency refit. There is an obvious contradiction there, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: If this was not an emergency refit situation, why didn't you follow the provisions of the Public Tender Act and go through the proper process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if he read further, there is a special consideration for ferries. Ferries, as we know, provide a valuable service to people on islands to make sure that they can get back and forth in a timely fashion. As a minister, I have the flexibility to make sure that we get a ferry in and out on time.

In this particular case, the ferry was on dry dock, there were more repairs that needed to be done. I considered that an emergency and therefore proceeded to make sure that the work was done and the ferry was out back in service, so that the people that it served could get the ferry service as was necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we all know the fishery in the Province has not thrived under this government. In fact, government's own numbers show there has been a 22 per cent decline in our fishery from 2008-2009. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed nearly a year ago to help reshape the fishery to make it more viable. Two of the players, the FFAW and ASP, are now publicly calling upon government to fast track this agreement as they feel there has been little or no progress to deal with the challenges currently hitting our fishery.

So I ask the minister: Why has there not been more of a push by him and his department to ensure that the parties are vigilantly at the table and making progress on this critical agreement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take the hon. member back to a little chronology of timelines. A letter went to both parties on December 17; we met with them on December 30; had the reports on January 22; February 12 got the follow-up reports; met with Minister Shea on February 15; pushed to have the financial reports, Mr. Speaker, and received them on March 10; had the committee meet with them on March 18, and, Mr. Speaker, we had a bit of a lull then. It was called getting the price set so that we could get the fishery started.

Mr. Speaker, the steering committee met about two weeks ago. They are meeting again this week, and last week. This morning I met with the chair of the committee, Dr. Tom Clift, and indicated to him that we want to see a submission of some sort on the anniversary of this MOU, which was signed on July 11, Mr. Speaker. Up until July 11, and starting as of now, the steering committee will be meeting pretty regularly; probably on a biweekly basis, Mr. Speaker. I offered to him this morning that any supports that he needs from our department we will be there, Mr. Speaker. If he considers that non-progress, I do not know what he is thinking then.

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, the Gulf of Mexico experience has shown us that the technology of capping a deepwater oil well after a blowout is primitive and experimental. Mr. Speaker, no matter how good an oil company's and other associated industry's technology might be at this moment at pumping oil, there is no one with any ability to stop a deepwater spill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why are we continuing drilling in deep water when the worldwide industry does not have effective, timely means for capping a blowout at such depths?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government, as well as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are very concerned about what happens in our waters and on our land with regard to environmental risk. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have legislation through our environmental agencies and departments, both federally and provincially; it is why we have an independent arm's-length board under the auspices of both the federal and provincial government who monitors what goes on in the offshore and why our standards are very, very high.

Mr. Speaker, the offshore board, the C-NLOPB have laid on an extra layer of surveillance and accountability in terms of the deepwater exploration well that is currently being drilled in the offshore. Mr. Speaker, we see what is happening in the Gulf, we are very concerned. We are paying very, very close attention to what is happening in our offshore.

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 know that the C-NLOPB is putting as many safety measures in place as possible; that is not the question. We had a good briefing from them today and I realize that. However, Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem if a blowout happens. We are already reaping billions of dollars in revenue from oil production, Mr. Speaker. We now have first oil from North Amethyst and the potential of oil will remain out in the Orphan Basin while we wait until we can safely drill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why are we in such a hurry to drill in deepwater before knowing what happened in the Gulf of Mexico and before we have the technology to cap wells if an accident happens?

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, we do not have enough information coming out of the Gulf of Mexico at this point in time to be really sure, or to be sure at all or to understand clearly what caused the accident there.

This project drilling in the Orphan Basin has been in the planning stages for years, Mr. Speaker. This is not a knee-jerk reaction that took place, that we had the ability to drill so go drill. There is a significant amount of planning that goes into this activity.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently undertaking a review of our oil spill prevention regulations, rules legislation, also a review of our response. If there are other activities, or regulations, or recommendations coming out of that report that we need to modify how we are doing this work, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly going to give that very serious attention.

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 say to the Deputy Premier, Mr. Speaker, that we have plenty of information coming out of the Gulf of Mexico. The thing we know is that if a blowout happens in deepwater, the industry does not have the technology to stop that blowout.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons, an NDP Opposition motion was passed unanimously to review federal offshore drilling regulations. Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons will be conducting a thorough review and revision of all relevant federal laws, regulations and policies regarding the development of unconventional sources of oil and gas, including deepwater oil, in the broadest possible consultation with all interested stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If he will recognize the need to participate in this review and commit to represent our concerns regarding deepwater exploration as this review takes place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for the Leader of the NDP to recognize who holds jurisdiction over the offshore and how the work is done. If there are legislative changes that are going to be required to the Atlantic Accord Act and with regard to safety and environment, Mr. Speaker, it requires the involvement of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because this is a joint responsibility shared with ourselves and with the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Before the Chair continues, the Chair would like to recognize the Mayor of Wabana, Bell Island, Mayor Gary Gosine to the House of Assembly.

Welcome, Sir, to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and present a petition on behalf of the residents in my own district, actually, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the air ambulance services. I will read the prayer of the petition:

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

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to residents in Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to call upon the government to maintain the air ambulance service in St. Anthony area and provide a third air ambulance service to Labrador to ensure residents of the whole Province are provided with adequate and essential health services.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate what is happening here, because government tends to leave the impression in the public that the decision regarding air ambulance only came as a result of a petition that I presented in the House of Assembly. Nothing could be further away from what has really transpired here, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, if you want to go back, back in July and August 2009 there were several incidents in Labrador that stemmed, or should have stemmed, government to have a serious look at our air ambulance service in Newfoundland and Labrador, and how that service could be improved.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, a meeting took place on August 21 in Labrador West that really designed a new system of air ambulance in this Province. The briefing notes that were circulated indicated that the service would be moved from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, that was confirmed in a further briefing note within the minister's department, which was released on September 4. In that briefing note it said, Mr. Speaker - it referred to the meeting of August 21; it referred to other initiatives that government would have to undertake with regard to this service.

Mr. Speaker, the government campaigned in that district in the fall of 2009, all the while knowing that they were preparing to cut the air ambulance services in that very district. Mr. Speaker, how can you walk into a town, shake people's hands, and tell them that you are there to support them and that they can depend upon you, all the while when there are notes circulating in your own department, circulating within the health authorities themselves, indicating that this has already been designed and devised and this is the new strategy for air ambulance?

Then, Mr. Speaker, government goes out and pays $10,000 to an individual by the name of Wes Drodge to what? To rubber-stamp the recommendations already provided by Corey Banks back in August 2009. That is exactly what this was, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what it was. How could a government who is supposed to be representing the (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to stand in the House of Assembly to present a petition on behalf of the people of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who again have supported our District of The Straits & White Bay North in the remaining of the air ambulance service in St. Anthony. I would like to read the petition. It says:

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to the residents in Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the government to maintain the air ambulance service in St. Anthony area and provide a third air ambulance service in Labrador to ensure residents of the whole Province are provided with adequate and essential health services.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. It is dated May 13.

Mr. Speaker, again, I have presented this petition many times in the House of Assembly over the past months. There has been so much argument put against this process - legitimate argument against the process, legitimate argument against Wes Drodge's report - and, of course, as of yesterday, to get the information that we got that shows that Mr. Banks presented the exact same recommendations, pretty much almost a blueprint, one to the other, of what Wes Drodge did some seven months later is so disgusting, to be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker.

As this process has unfolded, there have been two statements that have been in my mind often. The first one is the statement of the Premier, who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time in 2001, when he visited the districts of The Straits & White Bay North and St. Barbe, and has been quoted many times in the past weeks in that infamous statement that he made, that: We will not forget the people of the Northern Peninsula.

He certainly has not forgotten; that is for sure. We wish he had, actually, to be honest. We wish he kind of went asleep on that and forgot us.

The other statement that keeps reverberating in my mind is the one that the Minister of Health made just a few moments ago when he said, in pointing his finger: Be careful what you ask for.

It is very unfortunate that those would be the philosophies or the approach that government would take to dealing with a very important issue. This is a very important issue. While there is emotion attached to it in terms of the move and so on, yet it is so important that we have a good health care system, and that we have good response times when it comes to our air ambulance program.

What we have taken are a couple of incidents, a couple of very unfortunate incidents, and we have tried to build a case around that to move the air ambulance legitimately from St. Anthony to Goose Bay. Well, I want to tell you that the people of this Province are not buying into that, Mr. Speaker. This government has been criticized, and it will continue to be criticized. This minister has been criticized for what has taken place.

Again today, I just stand to make the point clear to the people of this Province that this move is a wrong move, it is poor information, and again that it obviously is something that was planned, concocted, and prepared many months in advance.

It is my pleasure this afternoon to be able to stand as the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and be able to speak on behalf of the people of my district, on behalf of the people of the Province, that, again: Reconsider what is being done. It is the wrong move.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have another petition with regard to the air ambulance services, Mr. Speaker, which says:

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to residents in Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador to call upon the government to maintain the air services in St. Anthony area and provide a third air ambulance service to Labrador to ensure residents of the whole Province are provided with adequate and essential health services.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this particular issue is one that has been –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair hates to interrupt when members are presenting petitions on behalf of constituents, but I say to hon. members that they cannot stand one after the other and present the same petition.

The Chair heard from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; the Chair listened to the hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North. While it was the same petition, the Chair allowed the hon. member to present the petition, but the Chair is certainly not going to now repeat the same process with the Leader of the Opposition again.

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if she has another petition, when petitions are called, fine, but she cannot keep repeating the same petition.

Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I cannot present another petition on the air ambulance, I certainly have lots more here to present. This one is on the roads between Red Bay and Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, and I will read the petition into the record:

WHEREAS the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a section of the Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and

WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving for Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS the residents of this region deserve a similar standard of road as the Island portion of the Province;

WHEREUPON the petitioners ask the House of Assembly to lobby government to provide funding to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret, the condition of the roads in my district, and it is certainly no secret that there is no plan by the government at this stage to move toward paving these sections of roads. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labrador Affairs was actually asked about this on the radio, he said that they would not make any move to do anything until after the other sections of road were all paved. We are talking 2015 or 2016 before we actually start seeing government even looking to put together proposals to solicit funding for this section of highway, Mr. Speaker, and that is really unfair and unreasonable. It would be different story if the government themselves would commit to do it, but we know that is not the case. They will be looking to the federal government for the money to do just this.

Mr. Speaker, every weekend I drive over this section of highway to get to my district. Yesterday, I gave to the Minister of Transportation and Works a number of photographs that have been taken with regard to the gravel roads in that area, along with the sections of paved road. There is probably no other section of road in the Province in as bad a condition as what this one is. I might qualify that by saying maybe the one in Conche; there might be a toss-up there.

I talked to an operator who actually grades those sections of gravel road and he told me from the middle camp on the Red Bay road up to the bridge on the St. Mary's River it is absolutely the worst piece of road that he has ever worked on in all of his years in being an operator in grading roads. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he told me that there is not enough stone left on the road right now to even fill those potholes, but yet, there are probably about 200 loads of stone stockpiled up in that area and none of it is being used on this section of road. I do not know why that is because that should be happening. I have people calling me because they are beating up their vehicle. They are ruining the undercarriage on their vehicle. They are losing tires. They are losing rims, all of these things. Therefore, they feel that something should be done. I mean this is not some frivolous issue. This is an issue where you are expecting 20,000 people in Labrador to be driving over a section of road that today is nothing only potholes and be driving over that all summer without having any crushed stone put on the road.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware of the issue. He said that he is going to look into the issue. I can only urge him and encourage him to do it in as soon as time as possible and to respond to the people in that area with a solution as to how they are going to put some crushed stone on that section of road this summer and be able to make it a safe and drivable road for the people who have to use it. Mr. Speaker, we know that since the road opened into Goose Bay there is a lot more traffic on this section of road. The road is over ten years old. It has not had any crushed stone on that section since it was built. I think anyone who understands gravel roads realizes that at some point you have to put crushed stone on it. You have to maintain it and keep it to a certain standard. So that is what we are asking (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, being Wednesday and Private Members' Day, we call from the Order Paper the motion that was put forward by the hon. Member for Bonavista North.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and begin debate on our private members' resolution with respect to the Lower Churchill hydro development project. I will begin briefly by just going over the WHEREASes in the resolution.

What we are saying and what most people know that Newfoundland and Labrador does have one of the greatest, clean, green hydro resources anywhere in the world. We are also saying that we have much potential for market for the end product of this development. We have potential in Ontario, the Maritimes and the Northeastern States of the United States.

We also know that just recently the Régie de l'énergie in Quebec made a decision rejecting a request by Nalcor to use the transmission lines that go through the Province of Quebec in carrying that power to the Northeastern United States.

We also believe that as a government that this ruling by the Régie in Quebec is contrary to any rules of fair, open and competitive access to the hydro market. We also believe and we confirm that our government will still continue to pursue the development of the Lower Churchill.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly affirms its full support for the approach of Nalcor Energy and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue plans to develop this extraordinary clean, renewable energy project, including two alternative routes to market, including the Labrador-Island link, the Maritime route as well as the pursuit of a separate 724 megawatt transmission service request into the Maritimes and the New England States.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important resolution. It is very timely as well because of the fact of the decision made by the Régie de l'énergie in Québec just recently. I just want to mention that when we refer to the Régie de l'énergie in Québec, we are talking about a corporation that is similar to our own public utilities corporation, or Public Utilities Board here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, hopefully, at the end of the debate, Mr. Speaker, we can show everyone in this country that our House of Assembly is totally in support of the action and the process that our government is taking.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by first of all making some comment with respect to Nalcor Energy. As is known, pretty well everywhere throughout Canada and in North America, we have, in the Lower Churchill Falls, an unprecedented resource potential. We also have major potential in terms of oil and gas on our offshore. We have potential in wind energy and other energy sources, which we call, certainly, Newfoundland and Labrador an energy warehouse. Mr. Speaker, because of all of this potential and because of the development stages that we are currently in, we felt as a government, that it warranted as much hands-on and as much direct attention as possible.

So, Mr. Speaker, in 2007, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador created an Energy Corporation, and it is now named Nalcor Energy. Nalcor Energy, as most people are aware, their foundation is built on the transmission and generation of electrical power. Over the past three years, that company has expanded into the broader energy sector, where they are now involved in the offshore oil and gas. They are also involved in industrial fabrication, in wind energy, and in research and development. So, Mr. Speaker, we do have the best expertise that we could find in terms of developing our energy potential in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, what do we have in terms of energy potential? Well, we know that we do have the Churchill Falls generating station already in the Upper Churchill. This is one of the largest underground hydroelectric powerhouses in the world. The plant has eleven turbines with a rated capacity of generating 5,428 megawatts of power. In 2008, the operation produced more than thirty-four terawatt hours of clean energy, with the majority of that energy, as we all know, is going through a contract that was signed years ago with Hydro-Quebec. I do not need to comment on that any further.

There is also power from the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, that is going to feed the mining operations in Labrador West and also the Hydro Labrador interconnected system through Twin Falls.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland and Labrador has developed renewable energy resources currently totalling just over 6,700 megawatts. This consists primarily of hydroelectric power from the Upper Churchill and some wind projects that we have been developing recently.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the undeveloped renewable energy potential exceeds 11,000 megawatts of power. We also know that in our Province currently, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that our domestic need, our domestic demand for power is in the area of 2,400 megawatts – far less than what potential we have, Mr. Speaker.

Now we have the Lower Churchill Falls proposed development that we are currently proceeding with. Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill project includes, as some people know, two sites. The larger site is called Gull Island and that site is capable of producing 2,250 megawatts of power. The smaller one, Muskrat Falls, is capable of producing 824 megawatts of power. These two projects, Mr. Speaker, can be done independently of each other. They do not need to be done together. That total project, Mr. Speaker, is predicted to generate 80,000 person years of employment – 80,000 person years of employment – and it is supposed to inject approximately $5.8 billion into the economy of the Province, and other provinces in Canada as well, but mainly in our own Province.

The project is also projected to provide significant taxes to our two governments. To our own government in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is expected to contribute approximately $440 million in tax revenue, and for the federal government, approximately $1.5 billion in federal revenues. So, Mr. Speaker, it has major potential, for not only our Province but for Canada in general.

That project, as well, Mr. Speaker, engineers say that it could displace over sixteen megatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year in our Province. To look at it in simpler terms, that 16.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emission would be the equivalent of 3.2 million automobiles. What it would mean with this project in full development, is it would be the same as taking 3.2 million automobiles off our streets in the Province, which would go towards the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, also this project, the key feature of the Lower Churchill project is the development of a transmission link that will transmit power from Labrador to the Island. This will allow us for the closure of the Holyrood Thermal Generating Station. This link also could facilitate the development of the maritime subsea route and increase wind development, both in Labrador and on the Island. That subsea route is certainly one that we are pursuing more and more now after the decision that we had received from Quebec recently.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what has been done up until now, every now and then we hear comments from the Opposition, from both parties, saying that very little has been done, this is going nowhere and these kind of comments. Well, Mr. Speaker, in respect to generation alone and environmental assessments, let me give you a brief review of some of the things that have been done.

The generation project has been registered with provincial and federal environmental agencies and has started significant consultations on the project as required by the environmental assessment process. The federal and provincial governments issued the draft environmental impact study guidelines for public review on December 19, 2007. In September 2007, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency announced the payment of $50,000 to some groups in Labrador who would have the opportunity to intervene in the environmental impact study. Some of these people are right in the Leader of the Opposition's own district, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Métis Nation Association, and also the Inuit of Labrador. A copy of the draft guidelines were provided to these groups back in 2007.

Also, Mr. Speaker, on July 15, 2008 the federal and provincial governments issued the final guidelines for the preparation of the environmental impact study. A five member joint review panel was appointed on January 8, 2009. Nalcor has submitted an environmental impact statement and the panel some time ago had initiated a seventy-five day public comment period on the EIS. Aboriginal groups, the public, governments and other interested parties have reviewed these documents and provided comments on these documents to the panel and Nalcor Energy.

Mr. Speaker, also with respect to the Labrador Island Transmission Link, the proposed link represents a key component of the development of the Churchill Falls project, also a major portion of the Energy Plan for our Province. This Labrador Island Transmission Link was registered for environmental assessment in January, 2009. So following public debate, public intervention, the government review of the project's environmental assessment documents, after review of that our Province determined and announced that an environmental impact statement should be done. The procedure for that was later implemented.

With respect to engineering, Mr. Speaker, an RFP for engineering support services for technical expertise in the areas of geotechnical, hydrological, mechanical, electrical, submarine systems, as well as project management, was issued in December 2006.

On February 20 Nalcor issued an Expression of Interest to six engineering companies to take part in the early design of the Lower Churchill Project. Some of these companies were: Hatch Energy, SNC-Lavalin and Fugro Jacques. Also, Mr. Speaker, there were other engineering firms that –

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

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

MR. HARDING: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do have the opportunity, at the end of the debate, to come back with some concluding remarks, so I will sit and wait for the debate to continue, and close off the debate at the end.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 with regard to this private member's motion today. The Leader of the Official Opposition does, indeed, intend to speak to this motion as well; however, she had to step outside for a media interview so I will get things rolling on this side.

I will say right off, I appreciate the motion. The members of the Official Opposition will be voting against this particular motion - just so there is no surprise in what is coming – and we will also be proposing an amendment to this resolution before I sit down, just so there are no misunderstandings.

First of all, it is a bit late in coming. We thought we were going to have this motion two weeks ago, until the government realized that, in addition to themselves and their own members, very few people in the Province read French. We have a French element here, but certainly not the majority. Albeit some Members of the House of Assembly are bilingual, most of us are not. Anyway, the government, in their wisdom, decided to delay this until we actually got a translation. The Member for Gander was prepared to go ahead, even though I understand he is unilingual; he wanted to get it debated. The Minister of Natural Resources, in her wisdom, overruled that and thought it best that we all might have an English version of it before we stood here on the floor of the House to debate it. Anyway, we find ourselves here. I guess it goes to show that even the government can make mistakes from time to time and sort of rush to judgement.

Mr. Speaker, after the Régie decision was provided in English – and we did receive an English version on the evening preceding a briefing that we got from the officials of Nalcor, Mr. Martin and his senior management team. We had it here in our caucus room; it lasted quite a while. It was very informative, a very informative meeting, because you have to understand both sides of an issue. If you just go out on one side and do not understand the facts of the other, it is obviously not doing justice to the issue that you are debating.

Now we appreciate as well, and as this member said to Mr. Martin in the course of that meeting: We realize that you cannot make political statements. It is not your role to decide what the policy is. You are an executive, a business management personnel who works for Nalcor, the shareholder of which is the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I did put a question to him, and it was interesting - I guess he knew what he could and could not say - but I gave him the analogy of what happened here; because the Régie in Quebec, this regulatory tribunal which is similar to our Public Utilities Board, had made this decision, of course, which was not in favour of this Province. The Premier, quite viciously, I would suggest, attacked the Régie in his comments, the Province of Quebec, Hydro-Quebec. We know he has attacked judges before, in Quebec, and the judges of the bankruptcy courts in Quebec. We saw that here on another occasion, and he was quite vehement in his comments.

So I put it to Mr. Martin who, by the way, I think everybody in this Province respects as a very intelligent business person, particularly when it comes to matters in the energy sector, no question about it. He has a great deal of experience at the helm of our Energy Corporation here, not only for Lower Churchill type projects, of course, but the offshore industry and so on. People have a lot of respect for him, and he has gathered around him a very experienced, good team to see that the Lower Churchill, if it can possibly be done - what are the technical pieces of it, what is the distribution piece, the transportation piece, the generation piece – all the different facets that go into developing such a major project.

I said to him: How do you feel about what has happened here in the Régie? I put it to him in the form of an analogy. I said: It is like our Premier, who is always comparing a lot of stuff to a hockey team. I said: I will put this to you; you seem to be the coach on the bench. We are in a hockey game and you are the coach, Mr. Martin. You have a great team in front of you – for example, your vice-presidents of technology and so on, all your different facets that you need, engineering departments and so on. You are the coach and you have a great strategy in your head as to how you want to bring this game called the Lower Churchill to a successful victory. I said: You have devised that strategy, no doubt, being the CEO for Nalcor, and you have a great team of players on the ice, but you happen to run into a referee in one game – one game, a very important referee - called the Régie. What happens? He makes one bad call against your team, and your general manager is hanging out of the stands telling the referee what a fool he is.

The general manager, of course, I refer to being our Premier in that analogy. I said: How can you, as a coach, expect to do your job, with your team, if while you are trying to do it on the ice with the referee there, the Régie, the general manager is hanging out of the rafters calling the referee everything? How do you think that referee is going to feel about you? Wouldn't a bit of common sense dictate in that kind of game that maybe the GM might at least keep a little bit quiet until the process involving that referee - maybe there is another series, maybe there is another game comes about - so you do not pretty well guarantee that you lose the next game?

No, that is not what we had here. Obviously, Mr. Martin did not want to comment. He said, that is not my place to talk about my GM. He is a very wise man as well. Besides being very experienced, he is a very wise man.

It is not a game, Mr. Speaker. This thing called the Lower Churchill is not a game at all. It is a very serious endeavour that has been on the books, the minds and the thoughts, of a lot of people in this Province for a long time – a long time – and not only this government; lots of previous governments have had thoughts about doing something with the Lower Churchill. Nobody has been successful to date in delivering it. Some people have come very close to having deals. The Grimes Administration was very close. It went off the rails on that one. Before Grimes there were also deals negotiated; for various reasons it did not happen. It did not happen for various reasons. Sometimes it was technology reasons, sometimes it was money reasons, and sometimes it was transmission reasons, the same as we seem to be having now.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this Premier, I would submit, has one major file, one primary, principal file, on his agenda, and that is the Lower Churchill. It is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, that we are a long ways from seeing an end to this series. By his own admission he says to the media this week, in the foyer of the House of Assembly: There are no definite timelines now on the Lower Churchill.

In fact, we, in the briefing from Nalcor, had a better idea and were given a better perspective, actually, on what the timelines might be. We just did not hear a clip on the 6:00 o'clock news as to no definitive timelines.

Mr. Martin, I asked him, I said: What is the process from here? Well, the first thing he said we have to do is we have to go back to this very referee, the Régie, that just made this decision and appeal to them. I asked how long that would take. Well, obviously he did not have a definitive answer. It could take months. It could take even a couple of years, it depends. First of all, of course, the decision has to be made to appeal. That is the first step the government has to make. Now, I am assuming the Premier in his comments subsequent to the decision in saying that we have not given up on any options, I would assume that option is still alive and well and that we will be hearing shortly from the government that they do intend to actually appeal the decision of the Régie.

Then I asked Mr. Martin, I said: What happens after that? Assuming we appeal, assuming we lose again – and it is pretty obvious that the Premier thinks we will because he already said the Régie is biased. So if, of course, they stay true to what the Premier says they are, we are going to lose at the Régie, and the second time around. So then I said: Where do we go from there? He said: Well, then we have to go to the Quebec Superior Court to ask them to overrule the decisions of the Régie. I said: How long is that going to take? Again, years is a better word to use than months – years. I said: Okay, what happens if we lose at the Quebec Superior Court? Then we have to go to the Quebec Court of Appeal. How long is that going to take? Again, it takes years to get a matter to and through a court of appeal. I said: Well, what happens when we get there? What if we lose there? Because we are still in Quebec, and according to our Premier we are never going to get a fair shake out of Quebec.

Now, mind you, I think these judges in any courts in this land are pretty fair-minded and balanced if you give them the right facts, if you give them the right information. I do not think anybody sits upon any court in this country that is biased, to start with, and to suggest that somebody is obviously patently biased – well, even if you think so, it is not a very wise thing to do if you have to be going through their courts, I would think. We saw it here, our Premier is already out there on that.

Now, assuming the Court of Appeal in Quebec decides we are going to turn it down, too. Meanwhile, we are gone through the Régie once, we would have gone through the Régie twice, we would have gone through the Quebec Superior Court, the Quebec Court of Appeal, and then our final court of appeal is going to be the Supreme Court of Canada. So I asked Mr. Martin, I said: How long is it going to take for that process? Now, that is just to get through that process, the appeals process. We are talking years.

The average case to go from first level to the Supreme Court of Canada in this country on an average type case is about eight, nine years. That is on a case that is average, not complex, average, eight to nine years. That is not my words. I mean he knows the same thing. Ask anybody here; ask the Minister of Justice, he knows himself. You do not get to the Supreme Court of Canada overnight, a couple of weeks. It takes years.

So that is years on that process, but then the real thing that knocked the wind out of me when I asked Mr. Martin, I said: Assuming we go through all of that eight, nine, ten-year process and the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decides in our favour on some of the issues, on all the issues that we had before them, where does it leave us? He said, the problem is then we have been knocked out of the queue. What he meant by that was, the decision that the Régie has now made means that by the time this ever gets heard eight or ten years out, we are so far back in the queue anyway when it comes to accessing the Quebec Hydro lines to transmit our power that there are a host of people lined up ahead of us. How do we get onto lines that are already then used up again?

That is what I read from the briefing. That is what I was told from the briefing, that we are dead in the water on a Quebec route even if we win at the Supreme Court of Canada level, ultimately, because you can be sure, by the way, if we win on the Régie end, if we win at any level of this appeal, you can feel certain and sure that we are going to get Quebec Hydro appealing. So, ultimately, it is always going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. It would be great if we could appeal to the Régie, get a decision and Quebec Hydro laid off, but I do not think any of us are naive enough to think that. Whatever we win they are going to appeal, whatever they win we are going to appeal. Bottom line, the Supreme Court of Canada eight, nine years out.

The reality of the Lower Churchill being done on this Premier's watch, unless he is going to be seventy-four, seventy-five years old, he is not going to be around when this happens, if it happens. That is the reality, certainly not through a Quebec route. It is just not on. If it is, he beat Mr. Smallwood's record in terms of longevity as a Premier. Now, he has already told us he is not running the next term. He is running the next time but not after that.

So, I guess if you put A and B together, we are progressing along quite nicely here. It is not getting done on his watch. That is the bottom line. Using his own words, what he has told us himself, he is not running in 2015, and we all know the facts that in order to go through Quebec following this route it is eight, nine years out. This Premier is not going to see the Lower Churchill done through Quebec unless - and this is what we would advocate - there is a change of approach. Instead of trying to beat people over the head with levers to get your way, you have to negotiate.

This is a gentleman who came into power because of his negotiating abilities as a business person. We have seen very little of that. This approach with Quebec is certainly not working. My advice would be, let's change the style, let's change the approach if we ever want to see this good project come to fruition and make the necessary changes of style and approach.

Now, that brings me to my amendment, which is we absolutely disagree with the approach, and that is what this motion calls for. Therefore, we would move an amendment to that.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that we amend this resolution after the resolve clause, to read: BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly affirms its full support to develop this extraordinary clean, renewable energy project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take a few moments to review the amendment and allow the other parties in the House as well to review the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the House Leaders ready to proceed?

The Chair has reviewed the amendment as put forward by the Opposition House Leader and has determined the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to get on my feet here today in the hon. House to have a few minutes to talk about this private member's motion. I want to just go over the motion, as my colleague for Bonavista North laid it out, because there may be viewers in the audience who did not hear him and to reiterate as to what this motion is about here today. The motion basically says:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador is home to one of the best undeveloped clean, green, renewable energy projects in North America at the Lower Churchill River in Labrador; and

WHEREAS Ontario, the Maritime Provinces and the Northeastern United States are in need of affordable, clean energy sources; and

WHEREAS last week's ruling of the Régie de l'énergie in Quebec on a transmission service request by Nalcor Energy once again demonstrates the province's arrogance and discriminatory business practices, in particular their determination to see the Lower Churchill proceed only on their terms; and

WHEREAS this ruling is deemed by this Province to be completely contrary to the rules of fair, open and competitive access; and

WHEREAS this government is determined to proceed with this project in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly affirms its full support for the approach of Nalcor Energy and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue plans to develop this extraordinary clean, renewable energy project, including two alternate routes to market, including the Labrador-Island link, the Maritime route as well as the pursuit of a separate 724 megawatt transmission service request into the Maritimes and New England.

Mr. Speaker, this particular issue I say holds, for me, a very important part of my life having grown up in Churchill Falls, educated in Labrador. I grew up all my life there. My father, as I have said in this House before, worked early in the 1960s on the Twin Falls power development - that was before even Churchill Falls was even thought about – to supply power to the communities of Wabush and Labrador City and to the iron mines that started there back in the early 1960s.

Then, in the 1970s the community of Twin Falls was moved to Churchill Falls. All of the families were moved out of there. I think it was fifteen, sixteen families were moved out of there to Churchill Falls. Of course, Churchill Falls has been there for some time, almost over forty years now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you having grown up on that project – as a matter of fact Russell Wangersky from The Telegram might be interested to know that I use to deliver The Evening Telegram in those days up on the construction sites as a paper boy. I think they were paying ten cents for the regular paper and twenty cents on the weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are older than I am.

MR. HICKEY: Not quite that old.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the construction of the Churchill Falls. I have watched where Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were taken off jobs, shipped off on the next plane only to see replacement workers coming in from Quebec and other parts of Canada and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we have never gotten our fair share of the Upper Churchill. I can tell you what, under the leadership of Premier Williams and this government, we plan on getting our fair share out of the Lower Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about what is after happening over in Quebec in the last number of weeks - I will say today is very much different from the days of Premier Peckford, Premier Tobin, Clyde Wells, and Roger Grimes when they were in power, very much different.

I listened to the hon. member across the way and he made some comments to the fact that we should change our style and approach. Change our style and approach he said just now. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are changing our style and approach. We are sending the message loud and clear to the people of Quebec, to the Régie, to the Quebec government, to Hydro-Quebec that this Province, under the leadership of Premier Williams and this government, we are going to get our fair share from our resources in our homeland for the best benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: When we look at the whole Quebec regime and the Régie and their ruling, there are a couple of points I just want to highlight just so that people can understand a little bit about what is going on. There are three major issues here, Mr. Speaker, that I want to touch on here today which I think are very important for us to look at. There are three major points as I see it. One is the availability of transmission capacity. I have had some twenty-five years with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I am very familiar with hydro developments and I am very familiar with transmission lines, powerhouses and the technical piece of this.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, what we have watched over the last number of months and years is Hydro-Quebec in a flurry to develop hydro projects within the Province of Quebec. There has been a huge push. We saw it down in Labrador main. They are trying to push one there and in other places, Quebec with the Manic projects, in James Bay, in LG-2, and every single bit of electricity, wind, that they can get onto their lines they are trying to do it. Why are they doing that? It is very simple why they are doing it. They want to choke off the capacity from our Province to transport through the Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker.

You do not have to be an expert here to understand what they are doing here. Then, of course, they feel that if we choke off the capacity on the transmission lines to Quebec, then, of course, we would have pay now for the upgrades if we want go through Quebec. That is fine, as long as it is reasonable.

Let me say this – and I thought it was very interesting when we looked at the availability of transmission line capacity, Mr. Speaker. First of all, Hydro-Quebec transmission is required to disclose available transmission capacity on the transmission lines that connect Churchill Falls to the Quebec grid. These transmission lines, Mr. Speaker, would obviously be the less cost transmission and thus quite valuable to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Under the open access regulations, Mr. Speaker, regulations in Quebec, Hydro-Quebec transmission was obligated to provide a customer, like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nalcor, with a calculation of this available transmission capacity. Hydro-Quebec transmission did not do the calculation and thus offered Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro none of this capacity, Mr. Speaker.

Just to prove my point, the Régie backed up Hydro-Quebec transmission by saying that these lines were fully utilized by Hydro-Quebec transmission based on all of the power that has flowed historically – a very important point – but what the Régie failed to distinguish, was that only a portion of that power is firm. Under the 1969 Upper Churchill contract – and the balance should have been made available to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro – non-firm power is not supposed to be included in the calculation of the available transmission capacity, Mr. Speaker.

The second point, which I just want to relate here, which is a very important point also, is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was required to declare its intentions to Hydro-Quebec transmission within forty-five days of receipt of a system impact study in order to proceed with the next phase of the process. Mr. Speaker, even though Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro advised Hydro-Quebec transmission that it saw deficiencies in the study, it notified Hydro-Quebec transmission by letter of its intention to move the next phase into the prescribed timeline in order to preserve its place in queue, Hydro-Quebec transmission responded by saying that the process had been aborted by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and bumped Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro out of the queue. How convenient, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro asked the Régie to reinstate its place in the queue but the Régie sided with Hydro-Quebec transmission. The Régie argued that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should have completed a framework for the next set of studies within the forty-five days. This finding does not accord with our understanding of administrative law principles and fairness, Mr. Speaker.

The third point, Mr. Speaker, which I want to speak about for a second, is accessibility to New Brunswick and to New York, and to the Northeastern United States. The third point, when Hydro-Quebec transmission had provided Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro with the system impact study, it indicated that there was adequate capacity to move power into New Brunswick and to New York. Therefore, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro asked for these routes to be made available. Of course, Hydro-Quebec transmission and the Régie refused, because they argued it was a new request and such a request for partial service cannot be granted. Of course, we disagree with that, Mr. Speaker, especially because since the service was operated by Hydro-Quebec's production company for its transmission service request. So those are the three main points, Mr. Speaker, that we feel we have certainly been done wrong by.

There are a couple of other points too, that I just what to make, because as we look back on the history of the Upper Churchill - and I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am proud that I have both of these projects in my district, the Upper Churchill and indeed, the Lower Churchill. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that certainly, from where we sit, from a Labradorian's perspective, from our major towns in Labrador, we would like to see this project move forward. You know, when we looked at the translation of the Régie decision, there were a couple of things there which were very glaring, and Premier Williams has already identified these, but I think it is important for the people of the Province that they can hear them again.

What the Premier said at the time, and this was on May 26, he said, "It reached certain conclusions without legal justification to support same; It ignored express factual evidence and denied existence of some; It made findings of fact while ignoring the weight of the evidence; It contradicted itself and put aside its own previous decisions; It used unsupported conclusions to pre-empt legitimate related arguments; It ignored established principles of open access; It engaged in significant misinterpretation of evidence; It justified unsupported statements on the basis of "discretion"; It supported suppression of necessary evidence and working papers to assess System Impact Study; It engaged in a major misinterpretation of the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) which has no legal ground in civil administrative or common law rendering the entire complaint process ineffective; It breached principles of fairness and natural justice.

"The overall result is to deny access to Québec facilities for the benefit of fellow Canadians while expecting open access from our American counterparts when requesting similar access south of the border," said the Premier. "It is behaviour which should not be tolerated by Canadians or Americans who believe in fairness and competition in the market place for the benefit of consumers."

While the hon. member across the way just made the comments that we need to change our style and approach, I fully disagree, Mr. Speaker. We have gone down the road under the Grimes Administration and the Tobin Administration in which they tried to develop this particular project, and each and every time, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition does not like to hear the truth. I will take my leave and sit down.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not about wanting to hear; it is the fact that every member has fifteen minutes to contribute to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that government brought the motion back, now that they have had an opportunity to read the actual report.

Mr. Speaker, let's go back and look at the history around this Lower Churchill development project, because this is the hallmark of the government opposite. They came into power on a soapbox that said: We are going to do the Lower Churchill. We are the government to do it; we know what they are doing.

The first comments, Mr. Speaker, even before the Premier took his seat as the Premier of the Province was that he was going to have redress on the Upper Churchill before ever there was a deal on the Lower Churchill. Those were the first comments that he made, Mr. Speaker. In fact, that was on August 2, 2002. I have a copy of it right here in my hand.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in November of 2009 he had a very different approach when he turned around and said in the House of Assembly that the Upper Churchill redress is a separate issue from the Lower Churchill and we are proceeding on both. So, all of a sudden that has changed. No longer is redress on the Upper Churchill a contingency of doing the Lower Churchill project. That is the not the first time we have seen the flip-flop on this whole deal. This has been nothing only a soapbox and smokescreen for this government opposite for the full seven years that they have been in power.

Let's look at when they came out and made the statements they were going to go it alone. We are going to go it alone they said on the Lower Churchill project. Well right after that, Mr. Speaker, they went out and they called for Expressions of Interest to develop the Lower Churchill. That was the first thing they did. They did not get any Expressions of Interest that met their satisfaction, so they went back to the next step. The next step was go it alone with federal guarantees. You remember back in the federal election, the Premier was out waving the paper around, getting a commitment from every federal leader that they were going to sign on to the Lower Churchill project because go it alone, Mr. Speaker, meant that the federal government was going to have to put up the money. That is what it meant.

Outside of that, they never ever declared or explained or defined what go it alone actually meant. Catchy little phrase, like redress on the Upper Churchill, that was going to grab the attention of the public out there and they were going to swarm at the feet of the government - on what? False prophecies I say to members opposite - false prophecies.

The next issue, Gros Morne Park - let's not forget Gros Morne Park because the government was determined to put a transmission line down through the UNESCO World Heritage Site, the crown in the cap of Western Newfoundland and Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism industry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is what he said, he would prefer not to have to put the line through the park but going around it would add more than $100 million in cost to the project. We cannot just carve out those kinds of dollars without even having a proper costing. It is wrong to oversimplify. Then he went on, on July 7 he said, he is willing to risk losing Gros Morne National Park's UNESCO World Heritage status if the cost of preserving it is too high. That was on CBC.

What happened in less than a month after that? Less than a month after that when every environmentalist in the Province was on their taps, Mr. Speaker, when the people on the Northern Peninsula in the district of the Member for St. Barbe was out protesting this is what the government - this is the irresponsible message that came from the government: I was only kidding. We were just testing your mettle, that is all, but we would like some financial help to go around the back of the park. That is what they said.

Can you believe it, Mr. Speaker? A government who is trying to convince people that they are seriously trying to do a deal on the Lower Churchill out one month saying that we have no other choice, we are going through the park and this going to happen, and then less than a month later have the face, Mr. Speaker, and the gumption to go out there and say to people: We were only joking. This was only a joke. We were kidding. That is some of the history that has occurred.

Let's talk about the Rhode Island MOU – another big platform day on the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker, when they rushed home in the Province, called the big press conference back in 2007. We have signed the MOU with Rhode Island on Lower Churchill power. We have signed an agreement. No, we cannot give it to you. No one can access the agreement, but we have an MOU with Rhode Island. Well, I called the Government of Rhode Island, Mr. Speaker, and they faxed me up the agreement. Guess what the agreement said? It said that the State of Rhode Island, at some point, will need power and it said that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, at some point, might be able to give it to them. That was the MOU on Rhode Island. There was a process to get there. They had to meet certain targets in a certain period of time. Guess what? None of them could be met and the reason they could not be met is because there was no project on the Lower Churchill and the MOU was out the door. There was no press conference to tell the people of the Province all about that. That did not happen, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let's talk about the next chapter in the Lower Churchill because it reads like a Newfie joke book. That is what it reads like. It reads like a Newfie joke book. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what Newfoundlander and Labradorian publishes those joke books, but maybe he should get the proceedings from the House of Assembly on the Lower Churchill and he could have a whole new book for himself, Mr. Speaker, because the Williams government's treating of this file is like one joke right after the other.

Let's look at the next joke: the New Brunswick Power option. Again, Mr. Speaker, in 2007, Nalcor declined a bid for transmission capacity with New Brunswick Power. Mr. Speaker, government claimed that the 300 megawatts of power that was offered would not provide the needed capacity that they needed. They wanted 740 megawatts, Mr. Speaker. It was premature, the minister said in the House of Assembly. Government had not determined the optimal transmission route. Government had not determined the optimal transmission route they were going to take. It was premature. They were not going to tie their money up in bidding for that capacity.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that if they had have bid, which they did not do, they may have gained access, and in gaining access to that capacity, they could have leased it out to another operator, and they would have reserved the capacity for when they needed to use it. Now, we know there is no capacity left through New Brunswick. There is not enough room on the line in New Brunswick today to run even the 300 megawatts that was there then. There is no capacity left in New Brunswick and they know that there is no capacity left on the lines in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, that brings us to the next fiasco which has to do with the Régie board.

Mr. Speaker, in reading the decision of the Régie, I had to blink at least ten times because I could not believe what I was actually reading. As complex as a document it is, it is very simple and very simplified. That is that the Government of Newfoundland had no factual case in which to argue to the Régie with, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason that when the Premier came back and stood in the House of Assembly he could not give us any technical reason why it was rejected, he could not give us any sound facts on the reasons it was rejected. All he could give us was a homily, Mr. Speaker, a full homily on a great fight with Quebec. That was all I got out of his speech.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, he stood up in this House of Assembly and he said that the ruling that came out of Quebec was one of the most horrendous, absurd rulings that he had ever seen and he could not give us not one reason why that was, not one reason, Mr. Speaker. I can stand here any day and bash any province, any premier, any issue, but if there are no facts around it, what is it? It is just that, Mr. Speaker, it is another series in the book that the government is writing on the Lower Churchill project. That is all it is.

There were three pieces that they appealed: the availability transmission capacity; they looked at the completeness of the system impact study; and they looked at the accessibility to go through Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, New England and New York. In fact, the decision of the Régie board, regardless of what the members opposite would like the people of this Province to believe, they can sit down and they can read it for themselves even in the expert testimony, the expert testimony that was brought in by Hydro-Quebec transmission, there was not even a clip in the report that was counteracted by Nalcor Corporation. Mr. Ed Martin told me himself that they tried to counteract it. They tried to bring in their own people but, unfortunately, they had no facts to base it on. The regulations were the regulations. That is the reality of what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Speaker, the issue around the transmission lines, which Nalcor requested, are the very same ones that were already in use by CF(L)Co, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when I asked Nalcor, who wanted to be able to boot CF(L)Co off the power lines to access that capacity, I said to them: Where are we going to run the power for our winter availability? Because that was one of the customers that you would have booted off the system, which happens to be ourselves, Mr. Speaker, which happens to be ourselves. We are bringing in money; we are bringing in money today on winter availability being transmitted, Mr. Speaker. What he said to me, Mr. Speaker, in the briefing, because I give no credence to what the minister is saying, but I will tell you what Ed Martin said. He said, yes, we would have had to boot that off the system, but we would have had the ability to keep it back on until we were prepared to use the lines and use the system.

Mr. Speaker, the government's claim to the contrary was that the decision does not say anywhere that CF(L)Co is owned or otherwise the property of Hydro-Quebec - nothing wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. What the decision does indicated is that CF(L)Co's power feed is historically integrated into and synchronized with the Quebec grid. Mr. Speaker, therefore, CF(L)Co is a designated resource, because this is the reality on the ground. So, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor had to make a technical argument that CF(L)Co did not deserve the status in order to displace the historical feed from CF(L)Co with the hypothetical feed from the Lower Churchill.

That was the argument they had to make, I say to the minister. It is written in black and white in paragraph 15, Mr. Speaker, and continued on in the briefing, and this is what Nalcor had to argue, Mr. Speaker – but the Régie held that CF(L)Co was a designated resource, and that they would take priority over future Lower Churchill projects for the transmission lines, based on the historical electricity flow.

That was the perspective, Mr. Speaker, that was outlined in the report, and that is a synopsis from Hydro-Quebec and from Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. The minister will have an opportunity to get up and brief us on Régie when she is ready.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, was a request for transmission access. Mr. Speaker, within forty-five days of receipt of the System Impact Study, Nalcor either executes a service agreement or they had to confirm its intention to execute a Facilities Study Agreement. Mr. Speaker, they are getting awfully worried over there. I am reading all of this right out of the book, actually.

Mr. Speaker, a System Impact Study is a survey requested by Nalcor, of Hydro-Quebec transmission. Now, Mr. Speaker, apparently, from what Nalcor told us, they did not have an option. Hydro-Quebec transmission has to do this study, and they have to do it according to information or specifications that are provided by Nalcor themselves.

It looks, Mr. Speaker, in terms of what needs to be done to the electricity transmission system in order to accommodate the request by Nalcor to transmit power. Nalcor claimed that the multiple options presented in the SIS which came back from Hydro-Quebec transmission was incomplete, Mr. Speaker, because it did not include all of the possibilities and options for power transmission which Nalcor had requested.

Mr. Speaker, the information – the technical and feasible information that was presented - was not contested by Nalcor in paragraphs 386 and 388 in the document; and, in fact, Nalcor preferred to argue merely that the report was incomplete rather than address the technical issues that were raised by the witness.

Mr. Speaker, that is the question that we have not gotten the answer to: Why would Nalcor use their time to go in there and argue about the time limits on the report, Mr. Speaker, and that the report was not complete, as opposed to going in there and counteracting the technical and factual information that was being provided by other witnesses? That is where the big question is in all of this.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now that this is a government that is not doing any deal on the Lower Churchill. They have no capacity to transmit power, they have no province that is prepared to talk to them, they have no feasibility to do this project, they have no access, and for the last seven years it is has been one chapter after the other, Mr. Speaker, that has been a farce on top of a farce.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Hydro-Quebec is not paying her a retainer, they should. They should, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: They could not have any stronger advocate sat the Régie making their case for them.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition is a whole explanation of the Régie's case without any frame of reference at all – especially without any reference to what is required over Open Access Transmission Tariff – not a reference. She finally got it to read, but she never informed herself - not this much, Mr. Speaker - about what is required under the Open Access Transmission Tariff.

What we have seen here in this House of Assembly today is scandalous. I thought we had reached our lowest point in discussion in this House around the Abitibi file; but, Mr. Speaker, we have reached a new low today. It takes your breath away.

Mr. Speaker, we are into a situation in this country where we do not have -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read it?

MS DUNDERDALE: I read it. I read it, make no mistake, and I know the OATT regulations as well. When I get up to speak in this House of Assembly, I pay the appropriate respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by at least knowing what it is I am going to talk about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, because the Government of Canada has not seen fit to have a transmission grid across this country where provinces can wheel power back and forth as is required for their different uses throughout the country and for what I believe is for national security in this country, Mr. Speaker, we do not have any kind of regulation or any kind of recourse to go to ask, can we wheel power through different provinces to market what we have, particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the United States, Mr. Speaker, they do have such regulation, and that regulation you hear us refer to as FERC. Well, FERC is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mr. Speaker.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: I advise the Leader of the Opposition to pipe down now and learn a few things. Hold your tongue and open up your ears and learn something so you can stop making a fool of yourself.

Mr. Speaker, because FERC has a reciprocity regulation, Mr. Speaker, it requires that states –

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

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the word "fool" was ruled as being unparliamentary in our House of Assembly only a week ago, and I would ask the minister to withdraw the comment, please.

MS DUNDERDALE: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, because of FERC regulations we have to have - anybody that has commercial arrangements in the United States wheeling power through states in the United States has to allow other states or provinces to wheel electricity through their states or provinces, Mr. Speaker. So, because of Quebec's commercial arrangements in the United States, and because of New Brunswick's commercial arrangements in the United States, they have to allow open access on their systems, Mr. Speaker. That is what is required. To do otherwise you are in contravention of FERC regulations which has very serious consequences, Mr. Speaker, so it is extremely important that you follow the rules in the OATT process.

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Opposition House Leader lay out a scenario where we would be years and years and years tied up in court on appeals without ever being able to access transmissions through Quebec. Now, the simplest thing I can say to that, Mr. Speaker, is if that is the case, Quebec does not have open access and that is a huge, huge problem for Quebec.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is the application that we filed complaints about and which we are now appealing the ruling on, is not the only application before Quebec. We have another application within HQT for 720 megawatts of power that is still progressing through the system. So, Quebec is not shut off to us, not shut off to us at all. If he were correct, if the House Leader was correct in his assertion, Mr. Speaker, Quebec has a very, very serious issue that they are going to have to deal with very quickly because they have to give access and if they are not giving access then they are in contrivance of FERC and that will interfere with them being able to sell power in the United States. Now it is as serious as that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the problems with the Régie ruling, let me deal with the most significant piece. Mr. Speaker, historically we have been able to move 5,428 megawatts of power out of Labrador along the lines through Quebec, to the heritage pool in Quebec, sold to customers in Atlantic Canada, in New York, in Ontario and so on, Mr. Speaker, but the contract that CF(L)Co has with Hydro-Quebec is to sell them 4,082 megawatts a year. That is all. That is the firm contract.

Mr. Speaker, we own 300 megawatts of the power that is produced at Churchill Falls. We refer to it as the recall block. We refer to it all the time. Mr. Speaker, we have 225 megawatts that we refer to as the Twin Co block that we use to service the iron ore mines and the people in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we also have available capacity from time to time in the year, outside of the winter availability piece - which is another big piece that I will not address today because it is a complicated piece - but we have access to another 682 megawatts of power.

Another point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, that the Régie ignored completely, was that the recall power, the Twin Co block and the other available capacity that is on the line has precedence over the 4,082. Our needs and our customers have to be served first on the line, not Hydro-Quebec. So, Mr. Speaker, for Hydro-Quebec to come back and say, and for the Régie to come back and say that they were not going to make any available transmission capacity available because all 5,400 megawatts-plus had to go to Hydro-Quebec is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is wrong. There is over 1,400 megawatts of capacity left on that line.

When we talk about the power that will be generated from the Lower Churchill, the power that we would use in Labrador, the power that will be brought to the Island, Mr. Speaker, that is the project. That is the project. Given that we had 1,000 megawatts - 1,400 megawatts of that capacity on the line, Mr. Speaker, that is the project.

Now, I was going to address the other transmission piece that she harps on, on a regular basis with regard to New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, we have two applications in through the MBSO in New Brunswick for transmission capacity through New Brunswick, which are progressing very well.

The Leader of the Opposition references the auction that took place some time ago where we did not access the capacity for 300 megawatts of power, and why didn't we buy it up? Because we would have had that capacity then in 2015-2016-2017 when we had the Lower Churchill developed. Well, Mr. Speaker, you have to pay for that capacity. So, why would we spend $30 million, $40 million, $50 million, $60 million paying for capacity that we do not need and may never need? She talks about: well, if you were not going to use it then you could have leased it to somebody else to use.

Well, we know where the power is being generated in this country, and especially the Eastern part of the country. We do know what we are doing. They do know what they are doing over at Nalcor, and there was no power source to feed in to those 300 megawatts. They will provide us the capacity and we will pay for it when we need it, Mr. Speaker. That capacity is still not being used up on the lines, I say to the members opposite – still not being used. They want us to waste tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, since we have come to government there has been a mantra, almost a daily mantra on: You are not going to do the Churchill, you are not going to do the Churchill, you are not going to do the Churchill. Last year - anybody can go back to Hansard and have a look. You do not even have an EA in place; you are not even doing the environmental assessment. We seen a little modification of that story this week, Mr. Speaker, because now they have it narrowed down: well, you are not doing an environmental assessment of the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, we have environmental assessments ongoing of the generation project. We have environmental assessments going on of the Labrador Newfoundland link. We have completed our negotiations with the Innu Nation. It still needs to be ratified, Mr. Speaker, but we have signed off on the New Dawn Agreement which addresses the Upper Churchill and gives the Aboriginal people of the Innu Nation redress on the Upper Churchill. They get a fair return on the Lower Churchill. That is a very significant piece of work, Mr. Speaker. We are learning more about the run of the river and what we can expect when we go to develop the river.

Mr. Speaker, under fourteen years of the Liberal Administration we saw two attempts to develop the Lower Churchill. The second one was absolutely terrible, Mr. Speaker. They were ready to sign off on a deal that would have seen us essentially pick up every bit of overrun that would happen on that project. Can you imagine that in this day and age? Just reflect on the year that has just passed and we would have been right in the midst of construction.

Mr. Speaker, in our engineering of that river it has always been known that a diversion tunnel would have to be constructed at the falls to divert rivers so that the dam could be built. It was always supposed to be on a particular side of the river. Mr. Speaker, our engineering has shown us that that would have been a terrible mistake to put that diversion tunnel where it was contemplated under the last two contracts. It needs to go on the other side of the river, Mr. Speaker. That mistake alone will cost upwards – if it had gone ahead without understanding, agreements in place, like they had put there, would have cost the project an extra $1 billion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not about making mistakes like that. As the Premier said here in the House, without a doubt there are going to be challenges from time to time, but we are going to understand the run of that river.

The Opposition House Leader spoke of the expertise that we have in Nalcor. Let me tell you, Nalcor brought forward the applications to HQT. It is Nalcor who made the appeals to the Régie. It was Nalcor who prepared the cases to the Régie, not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We own it, but he speaks to the expertise that we have at Nalcor. That expertise is guiding everything we do in the Lower Churchill.

I cannot wait to get Hansard tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, because we have the Leader of the Opposition putting words in Mr. Ed Martin's mouth that I can swear he would never have spoken, never have spoken. That will show you the lengths that the Opposition members will go to, to discredit this government, to discredit what we are doing here in the development of the Lower Churchill, because the worst possible thing that could ever happen, as far as they are concerned, Mr. Speaker, is that we would successfully develop the Lower Churchill. They cannot stand the thought of it, Mr. Speaker. They will do everything they can do to thwart it. They have people in Quebec rubbing their hands together because of the support that their actions are being given here by people who profess to have the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador at heart. There are no lengths to which they will not go. Mr. Speaker, it is cheap politics.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue on the course that we have set out on. We have a very comprehensive strategic plan, in terms of the development of the Lower Churchill. We have good relationships developed in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, through Atlantic Canada, and the Eastern United States. Premier Graham, today, again talked about how excited he was to be part of the project. I understand the Leader of the Opposition had a conversation with the Premier of New Brunswick today and I am sure he told her the same thing he told us. He is excited about the Lower Churchill which is a wonderful project for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Eastern Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am very pleased to stand today and to take part in the discussion with regard to the amended motion that is on the floor of the House. The whole notion is a complicated notion, Mr. Speaker, because it is not as simple as the motion might like to believe it is.

When we talk about the Lower Churchill - and it is going to happen at some point, I know, whether it is five years, ten years or fifteen. I do not know which party is going to finish it. It could even be the NDP who finishes it, but we know it is going to happen. What I do object to, Mr. Speaker, is our calling the Lower Churchill development an extraordinary clean, renewable energy project -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Thank you for your co-operation.

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, one of the things that I have objection to is not the Lower Churchill being developed. I am open to looking at that potential; I always have been. What I do have a problem with is when we call the Lower Churchill development an extraordinary clean project because, Mr. Speaker, it may be renewable, as long as there is water - and I cannot imagine when there will not be in this Province. As long as there is water, it is a renewable energy. Mr. Speaker, it is not in and of itself clean energy.

This is an ongoing discussion that is happening worldwide. For example, in the United States with the federal environmental regulatory body, known as FERC, FERC does not recognize hydro energy as a green energy. There are many reasons for that because a lot of damage is caused when hydro energy is put in place because of the damming of the water in particular. People who are concerned about the Lower Churchill are already noting what some of these damaging effects will be of the damming of the Lower Churchill and the creation of the Lower Churchill project, Mr. Speaker.

There will be negative effects on the health of biota including plants, animals and fish. There are going to be negative effects on human health and the well-being or quality of life. We are going to have a threat to rare or endangered species. There are going to be reductions in species diversity and interruptions in food webs, how all of the biota connects together, Mr. Speaker.

All of this is going to have to be discussed under the environmental assessment process and will be. We are also going to see that you are going to have discharges and/or a release of persistent and/or toxic chemicals, microbiological agents, nutrients for example. Nitrogen and phosphorous will be increased. You are going to have radiation. You are going to have thermal energy created.

There is a lot of damage that happens, Mr. Speaker, because of the development of hydro energy. You also have population declines among certain groups. Some more than others, but you will have population declines of life within the area that is affected by the hydro energy.

You are going to have fish and predators that will be affected by mercury accumulation and increased parasites in fish from the reservoirs; this goes with hydro energy. Then you are going to have human health that is going to be impacted because of the fish consumption which is a serious issue in the area of where the Lower Churchill is and the land around the Lower Churchill.

We are going to have caribou who are going to be impacted, Mr. Speaker. Aquatic habitats will be altered. There is a lot of damage that happens environmentally, Mr. Speaker, both from an environmental and a social perspective when we talk about the creation of a project the size of the Lower Churchill.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has been in communication with Innu, I know they have the agreement that government has signed off on the agreement. Everybody recognizes that damage is done and you do try to make up for the damage, but we cannot deny the damage that is done. Calling this project a green project, Mr. Speaker, I think really offends the whole environmental process.

I am going to be very interested, as I already am, in looking at the environmental assessment process, the documents that are going to be tabled in response to the EIS, and the analysis that is going to be done by the panel that is made up of people who are quite qualified to do the job that they have been given to do.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the first points I want to make, the point regarding the fact of saying that this is an extraordinary green project, because it is not. This is one place where I differ with both parties in the House. Call it a project, call it a hydro project, and even call it a good project if you want to but do not call it an extraordinary green because it is not. No hydro project is an extraordinary green project. By its very nature it is impossible, it cannot be.

Mr. Speaker, in the motion, one of the clauses says, "WHEREAS Ontario, the Maritime Provinces and the North Eastern United States are in need of affordable, clean energy sources." Yes, Mr. Speaker, they all are in need of clean energy sources. I think we need to look at some of those places to understand how much they do want clean sources of energy because even though, Mr. Speaker, the Maritime Provinces – let's look at the Maritime Province because they are the ones that we are so close to. No matter what happens it looks like, when Lower Churchill ever goes ahead, it will probably go ahead through the Maritime Provinces. Let's look at the Maritime Provinces, Mr. Speaker. Are they putting all their eggs in the basket of hydro energy? No, they are not, Mr. Speaker, far from it as a matter of fact.

On April 1, Mr. Speaker, we have a statement from the Maritime Provinces showing that they do look at a much broader picture than just hydro energy, because New Brunswick Power is leading a consortium of maritime utilities in a $32 million Smart Grid project. That project includes Nova Scotia Power, Maritime Electric Company Limited and Saint John Energy. The whole purpose of a Smart Grid, Mr. Speaker, is to be able to deal with different sources of power coming into the electrical grid. They know that a Smart Grid - they are starting the work now. They are starting now to put the plans together. They are talking about something that will be about a decade away, but they want it, which means they are going to continue developing other sources of electricity, not depending on hydro electricity from Labrador. However, if that comes into the picture they will be ready for it. Their goal is to be able to have a grid that can measure the smallest changes in power coming into the grid. Those changes can come from less predictable renewable resources such as wind and solar power, sun, wind and solar power. The way in which the power comes in from those sources is in a different speed. It causes changes in the way in which the power is coming into the grid and the Smart Grid can make adjustments for the different sources of power.

So, the fact that the three Maritime Provinces are putting their resources and their heads together to come up with a Smart Grid in all three provinces says they are looking at alternative energy, Mr. Speaker, and this is something that we need to be looking at in a greater way as well. They are working on technology to integrate more wind energy into New Brunswick's electricity grid. Wind power is becoming more and more important in New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker. By the time the Lower Churchill comes on board, they are not sitting around waiting, they are already moving ahead on these alternative sources, Mr. Speaker. So we have to ask, are we in lockstep with them or are we just waiting and having to deal with the issues that we have to deal with and not ourselves looking at how we can better use other alternative methods in this Province as well?

If you put Smart Grid in place, Mr. Speaker, customers will eventually be able to install devices that would control their electricity consumption to match variability. Customers would also be able to do things like have their own source of energy come into their houses from, for example, solar panels or from wind, but especially from solar panels, and they would be able to benefit from the Smart Grid as well. This Smart Grid project in the Maritimes, Mr. Speaker, will be broken into two parts. On the one side, you have researchers at the University of New Brunswick who will be coming up with methods to forecast, with as much accuracy as possible, when the wind will blow and how much electricity it will produce. On the other side, while the academics are doing the research, the utilities and a technology firm that has not yet been identified will develop a system to reduce their customer's energy consumption when the wind stops blowing.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of exciting research and exciting planning that is going on in the Maritime Provinces. Whereas, Mr. Speaker, we have all our eggs in this one basket and we are not -

MS DUNDERDALE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, on a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have two wind projects on this Island. Mr. Speaker, we also have a wind hydrogen diesel project that we have spoken about extensively that has wonderful applications if we are successful in the integration of those three components, not only here in Newfoundland and Labrador, but right throughout the country and throughout the world. There is lots of innovation going on, smart young companies here in St. John's doing all kinds of things around energy conservation and efficiency, Mr. Speaker, and lots of innovative research and development going right on here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; and, as you said, there is no point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister, that if the minister had allowed me to continue speaking I would have talked about the projects that are going on in the Province, but they are going on without a plan, Mr. Speaker. This is the point I want to make. We all know the different projects that are going on. They are called experimental, but we also have projects that are not experimental, like down on the Burin Peninsula in St. Lawrence. What are we doing, Mr. Speaker? It is a company from outside the Province, a company that is making money off our wind in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I want a plan that comes under Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, our company. A plan that integrates projects, a plan that is under Nalcor, and Nalcor involved in the research. If we are going to have that power company, Mr. Speaker, then we should be using that company to be a leader in the research and a leader in putting a plan together. That is what we are lacking in this Province, is that plan. We do not have a plan. If this government, Mr. Speaker –

MS DUNDERDALE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, on a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, two points. Nalcor is leading the research in Ramea on wind, hydrogen and diesel, Mr. Speaker. The second piece is, the operation in St. Lawrence is a build, own, operate that Nalcor has complete control of, Mr. Speaker. We can buy that project back at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you say, once again no point of order, and once again the minister feeds into what I have to say because everything is piecemeal, Mr. Speaker. It is all piecemeal.

We do not have an overall plan that shows how all of it is going to fit together. If this government is thinking about buying back, then tell us when they are going to buy back. If they are thinking about the integration of all of those pieces, then tell us how.

Mr. Speaker, if they were really interested in having a cohesive program, if they were interested in all those pieces coming together, then they would now be planning how to invest in a Smart Grid, because if all of those projects are going to work, we need Smart Grids, Mr. Speaker. Smart Grids modernize the electricity delivery system to accommodate all of these different sources. We are doing all of these projects without the forward looking that we need, Mr. Speaker. The looking into the future and to say, how do we bring it all together? The different sources, the hydro, the wind and the solar, all have unique characteristics, and we want to be able to use them all, so why isn't this government already putting in place the Smart Grid that will be needed? It is too late to start thinking about it in ten years time, Mr. Speaker. They should be thinking about it now.

So what I want is a cohesive plan. I want a plan that shows how all of it is going to work together, and I want to see investment in the grid that will allow the transmission of all of those different sources of energy, Mr. Speaker. When this government puts all of those pieces together, then I will say that we have an energy plan, then I will be able to say it and not before it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that time is running short, but I am happy to have the opportunity to stand here for a few minutes to take part in this debate on the resolution we are discussing here today. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is very disconcerting when I hear the Leader of the Opposition take such a stand in support of the Régie ruling. Mr. Speaker, a ruling that is so blatantly biased against this Province. I cannot believe my ears when I hear the Opposition Leader speak on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the arguments that were put forth by Nalcor were certainly very legitimate arguments and very sound and well backed up. The ruling, certainly, by the Régie is consistent with Quebec's history of attempting to stop the development of the Lower Churchill. What Quebec is really telling the rest of Canada and the United States is they will go to any lengths to block this Lower Churchill development and give them complete dominance over the electricity distribution in the total North America.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, this position by Hydro-Quebec is consistent with the way they have dealt with this Province since the early 1960s when then Upper Churchill was developed. Of course, we all know of that infamous contract which gave Hydro-Quebec a sixty-five-year deal on power at such ridiculously low rates. It is incomprehensible how such a deal could have been developed. To have hydro power for forty years at a quarter of a cent per kilowatt hour, and then, instead of having an escalator clause we have a de-escalator clause. So now, they go in for the last twenty-five years where they go down to one-fifth of a cent, about 5 per cent of the retail value that Hydro-Quebec is taking out of this particular resource.

In the few minutes that I have I just want to touch briefly on the Régie ruling, and particularly the first ruling which deals with the available transmission capacity because, Mr. Speaker, some of the conclusions reached by the Régie in here are so ridiculously biased that I just need to talk on them for a couple of minutes.

There are three main points of contention in this particular ruling. The first one was the designation of the Churchill Falls generation station. According to the Régie, this generation station in Churchill Falls was determined to be a designated resource for Hydro-Quebec. Therefore, they were able to designate the entire generating station as a resource, dedicated to serving the Quebec load completely. They also stated there is no evidence to the effect that the production at the Churchill Falls Generating Station is sold to third parties.

Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely ridiculous. We all know that Twin Co, which is the predecessor of the Churchill Falls which had a capacity of 225 megawatts. That power is now being reverted under Churchill Falls to the Twin Falls Power Corporation to use in the mining companies of Lab West and in Labrador City and Wabush, of course, in my district, Mr. Speaker. As well, there are also power sales to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro since 1998.

The Régie also sided with Hydro-Quebec's argument that they control the Churchill Falls generation station and that the generation station is on the Hydro-Quebec system. Mr. Speaker, these conclusions are totally ridiculous and they are not supported; certainly not by the provisions of the Open Access Tariff. They are not supported by the terms of the power contract.

They do not recognize the fact that the Churchill Falls Generating Station is controlled and dispatched by CF(L)Co, that Nalcor Energy is a majority shareholder in CF(L)Co, and that the Churchill Falls Generating Station with its location in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and as a result, CF(L)Co is subject to the Newfoundland and Labrador legislation and regulation.

The second point on this particular argument was the reservation on the Churchill Falls lines. According to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that today is Wednesday, and being Wednesday, at 4:45 p.m. of the clock the time goes back to the proposer of the motion.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank all of the participants in the debate this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARDING: No, I just want to add that it is unfortunate that we could get full support of all of this House of Assembly in this very important resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I made reference in my opening remarks with respect to Nalcor itself, why we formed that corporation, made reference to the environmental assessment work that that has been done and procedures with respect to engineering, pre-design and things like that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to a comment now before I close with respect to the market end of this project. We certainly, as a government, have gone to every potential market that is possible. This includes the market in Ontario, in the New England States, in New York and the Atlantic Provinces. Mr. Speaker, in the work that we had done up until now, I will give you some idea of the magnitude of what this project will probably end up being.

From 2003 until the present date, our government has invested $104 million into preliminary work for the Lower Churchill project. Prior to that, and the Opposition House Leader was correct in one thing, that there has been a lot of ongoing work with respect to this project because from the early 1970s up until 2003 there was approximately $115 million spent plus $78 million that has accrued in interest on that money. All together, Mr. Speaker, there has been just about $300 million spent in the preliminary work on the Lower Churchill project.

Mr. Speaker, things are happening with this proposal. Things happened in the past. Things are happening now as we proceed and they will continue to happen. This is a very complex project. It takes time, but it has to be done right. Mr. Speaker, it has to be done in the best interest of all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With respect to the decision, Mr. Speaker, of the Régie in Quebec, that decision came after four years. That request was put in four years ago, back in 2006, and it took four years to get a decision, Mr. Speaker. This was done based on the Quebec's Open Access Transmission Tariff rules and that provides for non-discriminatory access to the Hydro-Quebec transmission system. These rules also allow, Mr. Speaker, for a study process to determine the technical implications and costs required to accommodate a block of Lower Churchill power.

Mr. Speaker, these rules also, as the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out, these rules were done in consultation and adopted with the United States government. With the Régie decision, Mr. Speaker, on our request to use the transmission lines through Quebec, they are saying that the open and fair access will apply on the US side of the boarder but something different will apply on the Canadian side of the boarder. Mr. Speaker, that is intolerable to expect and to see that our own Canadian government, a country which we are a part of, would make that kind of decision.

Quebec is going to do this again, Mr. Speaker, even though Nalcor was willing to pay our fair share and a substantial tariff up to $200 million a year for a thirty-year period. What Quebec has done, Mr. Speaker, with the Régie decision, what they have done and what they are saying to the people of Canada, not only to the people of Canada but also to the people of the Northeastern United States, is that they will go trough any lengths to ensure that they have complete market dominance over electricity markets in the Northeastern North America. They do not want any competition whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not only Newfoundland and Labrador that will object to that decision and the tactic being used, but also, Mr. Speaker, the state governments in the Northeastern United States will also have a say in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, while the United States, especially the New England States, they are literally starving for clean, green, energy sources, they will not want to pay exorbitant, high electricity prices. They know with one service provider of that power, that is what is going to happen.

So, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor has taken steps to - or will be appealing the Régie decision, and we will wait and see what happens. However, Mr. Speaker, our Province will continue with the development of the Lower Churchill project, the Régie decision or not. We will not stop. Our government will not stop its plans to develop this extraordinary, clean, renewable energy project.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in conclusion, that I will vote against the amendment made by the Opposition. I believe in the approach that is being taken by Nalcor and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Opposition sort of supports the development of the Lower Churchill project. What they do not agree with, Mr. Speaker, is the approach, but they provided no alternative. They gave no indication as to how they want to proceed.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, stood up here this afternoon and made this mega-project seem so simple. Mr. Speaker, it is that kind of attitude that got this Province in the state that it was in when we took over power in 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have had enough of that. No more decisions being made for political expediency. Mr. Speaker, no more giveaways.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and the business of the House being concluded, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.