December 14, 2010                    HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVI  No. 49


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit visitors.

Today the Chair would like to welcome three members of the provincial government's youth leadership team for the Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy who are present in our public galleries. Present today are Mr. Adam Vickers, Chris Sheppard, and Colin Corcoran.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the hon. Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; the hon. Member for the District of Terra Nova; and, the hon. Member for the District of St. John's West.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate and commend the Southern Shore Folk Arts Council on another successful Shamrock Festival. On the weekend of July 24, 2010, I had the pleasure of attending this two-day event.

This year marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the festival. The Annual Southern Shore Folk Festival was started in 1986. In 1995, the Folk Arts Council re-focused the festival to take on a more traditional Newfoundland-Irish flavour. From those efforts was born the Shamrock Festival.

The festival has attracted great interest from both musicians and the public alike, and has achieved significant growth since its inception. In 2005, a youth session was introduced at the start of the festival, and as well a songwriters circle was added. Annual improvements to the festival site, combined with an outstanding lineup of performers, positions the Shamrock Festival as one of the top music festivals on the Island.

The festival offers a venue for amateur and professional musicians to perform. Although the main event is the performance on stage, there are various other services and attractions for young and old alike to experience and enjoy the festival on the grounds.

The Southern Shore Folk Arts Council is a non-profit organization operated by a volunteer board of directors committed to preserving and promoting the unique culture and heritage of the Irish Loop region. Further accomplishments of the council include the restoration of the historic Kavanagh Premises Building, which now houses a new dinner theatre venue for the region, and ongoing development of a Regional Arts Centre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Southern Shore Folk Arts Council on the tremendous work they have done, and are continuing to do to promote and showcase the unique heritage of the Irish Loop region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great privilege to stand in this hon. House and congratulate the Tricentia Timberwolves 3A Seniors Boys Volleyball team on a very successful year of events.

The 3A Seniors Boys Volleyball team hosted the provincial tournament this past weekend. The tournament was a 3A senior volleyball School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador. Nine teams in total attended from across the Province, and the Timberwolves won all of the games, Mr. Speaker.

There were other tournaments throughout the year such as the regionals, the Boys B Volley Fest Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Kerry Clarke Memorial Tournament, and the Timberwolves won all of those as well; a clean sweep, I might say.

Mr. Speaker, the driver in all their success was that they dedicated their volleyball year to Kerry Clarke, a teacher who passed away at the end of the previous school year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the House to join me in congratulating the Tricentia Timberwolves on a great successful sports year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I rise in this hon. House today, I am beaming with pride as I relay my congratulations to the manager of the Anaconda Pine Cove Gold Mine on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Mr. Allan Cramm.

At the 2010 Mineral Resources Review, Mr. Cramm was named the Developer/Miner of the Year, which is awarded by the Canadian Institute of Mining Newfoundland branch. This award is presented to a company, team, or an individual that has made significant progress in advancing a mine or mine expansion toward production; or for a significant contribution to health and safety, environmental stewardship, or commitment to a community; or for innovation in the Newfoundland and Labrador mining industry.

With great expertise, perseverance, and patience, Mr. Cramm and his highly skilled team faced and overcame several technical challenges. They are to be commended for successfully bringing the mine to commercial production in May of 2008, creating nearly fifty new jobs in the area. This is a tremendous feat, Mr. Speaker, when one considers that they started from scratch and it is fully environmentally compliant.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in saluting Allan and his team for this extraordinary achievement and in wishing them every success as they continue to maximize the mine's potential.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable gentleman from my district, Colonel Don Winsor. Colonel Winsor was born in Wesleyville and later raised in St. John's. Following the completion of high school he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and served as an electrical technician, after which he went on to receive his teaching certificate from Memorial University.

Colonel Winsor would later be employed by the Iron Ore Company of Canada as Parks and Recreation Director as well as serve the Towns of Gander and Stephenville in similar roles. Later he went on to work as director of marketing at a Montreal based company.

For the past twenty years, Colonel Winsor has been self-employed. He is a Notary Public and a Paralegal and for the past twenty-three years has been a well-known syndicated sports columnist, through his column, "Views from Behind the Bench."

Colonel Winsor himself has been highly active in competitive amateur sport. He has nine provincial championships to his credit in four different sports and is also a member of the provincial Softball Hall of Fame.

Mr. Speaker, Colonel Winsor has been and remains involved in a variety of volunteer activities, including fifty years as a lay reader in the United Church of Canada, District Commander for the Royal Canadian Legion, former mayor and councillor, honorary Colonel for 9 Wing Gander, founder of Squadron 125 Silver Wings Air Cadets in Eastport, and he is a member of many committees and fundraising organizations, far too many to list here.

Colonel Winsor who currently resides in Happy Adventure with his wife Kay is a tremendous asset to his town, region and entire Province. I ask all hon. members to join with me in thanking Colonel Don Winsor for all he has done and all he continues to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Cowan Heights Elementary School, which was presented with the Exceptional School Award from the Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada on October 8 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, Cowan Heights Elementary School received this national recognition for its commitment to accommodating students with challenging needs. The school was nominated for the award by Janet Rumsey, President of the St. John's chapter of the Tourette Syndrome Foundation because she felt that Cowan Heights Elementary staff created a supportive environment to successfully teach children with multiple neurological disorders. Mrs. Rumsey's own four children have attended the school over a period of several years and she has seen first hand that any supports required by students are implemented very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, being presented the Exceptional School Award is a tremendous honour for Cowan Heights Elementary School and for its dedicated teachers who work so hard to accommodate the diverse needs of students.

I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to all those involved and wishing them continued success in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and inform hon. members about an event that exemplifies how Aboriginal people in Newfoundland and Labrador are celebrating achievement in business with distinction and innovation.

More than 100 people gathered in Stephenville recently for the second annual Aboriginal Business Gala, which I am pleased to say was sponsored in part by the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. A total of sixty-five Mi'kmaq businesses were recognized and celebrated for their contribution to economic development in their communities in the Port au Port, Bay St. George, and Burgeo areas. The diversity of businesses recognized was impressive, ranging from natural resources, tourism and recreation, retail, construction, accommodations, and food service. The gala was hosted by the Aboriginal Community Business/Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, in Newfoundland and Labrador we have made great strides in recognizing the contribution of Aboriginal people to our rich social and cultural fabric. Throughout the Province, Aboriginal peoples are celebrating and expressing their origins and traditions, often through the arts and cultural events; but we must do more to recognize Aboriginal persons and groups who are doing their part to develop and diversify the growing economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Aboriginal Business Gala provides an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of Aboriginal businesses, and note how they are key to sustainability and growth in their communities. This celebration and recognition is important because it helps to encourage and foster further success.

During this night of celebration, the Aboriginal Community/Business Advisory Committee also announced the possible formation of an Aboriginal Board of Trade and the committee is looking into offering business workshops to Aboriginal business operators who need assistance with their marketing, expansion, and business plans. The Aboriginal Community/Business Advisory Committee currently has 143 Aboriginal businesses registered in a database and they will continue to provide support to small business owners. I wish them all the very best success in their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Aboriginal Community/Business Advisory Committee on their second annual Aboriginal Business Gala to showcase Aboriginal businesses in the Port au Port, Bay St. George, and Burgeo areas.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is indeed a pleasure to see, and we congratulate the Aboriginal peoples who take part in business opportunities. Our economy, of course, works best when we work on all cylinders, as all groups in our Province who are involved in making the economy grow.

We have had IBAs, for example, for quite some years now in the various projects that we have had in this Province, particularly in Labrador, but IBA is only one piece, of course, of the puzzle. We need to have Aboriginal groups take every advantage of the IBAs but also the opportunities which IBAs bring.

We would certainly congratulate them on their conference that they had because, again, doing it alone and not having anyone else know what you have done is not achieving the best benefits. To see that these groups come together to let each other know, to network and find out what is happening in their Aboriginal communities, is great, and we certainly endorse and encourage that to continue.

Thank you.

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 her statement.

I am delighted to join with her in congratulating the Aboriginal business people who participated in the second annual gala. It certainly is something to be very proud of, and I am delighted to see the Aboriginal business people on the Port au Port, Bay St. George and Burgeo areas celebrating themselves and celebrating what they are offering to the community at large. It is not easy to be small business people and there are a lot of supports that are needed.

We have a small population in this Province, and I think a lot of their businesses would thrive during the tourism season. They keep on, and that is what is really important. I am really delighted to hear about their thought of creating an Aboriginal board of trade, and I look forward to hearing how the government would support that, if they decide they want to continue moving in that direction. I just want to offer my congratulations to all Aboriginal entrepreneurs, craftspeople and artisans in our Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Acting Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to making sure that our Province's youth are truly engaged in all aspects of society. As Minister Responsible for Youth Engagement, I rise today to inform this hon. House that a new Office of Youth Engagement is now open for business.

The Office of Youth Engagement will be responsible for ensuring a co-ordinated approach among government partners and departments in the implementation and ongoing development of youth public policies that impact youth and their priorities. The office will be physically located within the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and will be staffed by a manager and a policy and program development specialist, as well as a number of work term students each year.

The office is one of forty-one initiatives contained in Creating A Province of Choice: A Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador, launched in November 2009. The strategy was developed with full input and guidance of over 485 youth throughout the Province. It was clear from our discussions with young people that they are deeply passionate and care about our Province.

Young people are an essential partner in helping shape the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Office of Youth Engagement is another fine example of our commitment to our youth strategy. It will engage youth in policy development; help government departments view their policies and programs with a youth lens; raise awareness of the importance of youth engagement; and, it will provide a single point of entry to help ensure youth throughout all regions of the Province know where they can go to have their voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to visit our Web site or our Facebook page to see how the provincial government supports youth engagement, education, employment, diversity and healthy living. We will continue with a fresh, modern approach to fully engaging young people in working with us to address challenges facing the Province.

Creating A Province of Choice: A Youth Retention and Attraction Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador, and the new Office of Youth Engagement will help us further position Newfoundland and Labrador as the province of choice for young people, and all people, to live and work for generations to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, commend government for its youth retention strategy with the opening of this new office, and also to extend every good wish to those young people who will be employed there from time to time to carry out the various duties in networking and gaining experience. I also want to commend them with regard to the use of Facebook and the Web site, social marketing strategies, because, Mr. Speaker, we know that is the way of the future.

Mr. Speaker, I know when this was all put in place that many young people throughout our Province took part in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is good to see that government listened to them. I noticed when the minister mentioned that they will be engaging the youth in policy development and helping government departments view their policies and programs; hopefully the advice those young people will be giving to them will be adhered to as well.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, in all Canadian provinces we are facing an aging and a declining population. This is a good first step but much has to be done, Mr. Speaker, because we know here in our Province today many of our young people in the various trades cannot find work here in their own Province. Hopefully, with this strategy unfolding, it will be a means for those young people to be able to find the work that they need right here in their own Province of Newfoundland and Labrador where they do want to live.

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, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement.

This is a good announcement today, the setting up of the Youth Engagement Office. We need to have the youth and others directly involved in the decision making and the planning of initiatives that will affect their lives. The ministry started this, of course, by holding the consultations, and I am delighted to see that one of the things that were recommended throughout the consultations, by young people, is being put in place. Government also needs to look at other consultations that have taken place in this Province, such as the one on long-term care and home care, and I hope that the voice of people around that issue will be heard the same way that our young people have been heard, Mr. Speaker.

I do encourage the government, though, to realize that all these initiatives are good and they are really important, but the thing that is most going to keep our young people here are job opportunities, decent work, and decent wages. So, I encourage government to work out very carefully where those jobs are going to come from so that we can keep our youth in this Province and engaged.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The aerospace and defence industry is a key sector for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and is one that our government is committed to helping grow.

The aerospace and defence sector is estimated to be worth approximately $150 million to the Province and employs some 1,800 people. Mr. Speaker, we would like to see those numbers grow and increase, and our government is doing its part to help foster the key relationships between institutions in the Province and some of the world's leading aerospace and defence companies.

Earlier this year, we facilitated an agreement with Lufthansa, one of the top three aviation companies in the world, to enter into a partnership with the College of the North Atlantic in Gander. This agreement will see the establishment of European Aviation Safety Administration certification for the students of the aircraft maintenance program. Representatives of Lufthansa, who were here for the announcement, stated that the partnership results in "one of the most innovative programs for aircraft mechanics worldwide."

Just last week, Mr. Speaker, another partnership was announced involving Lockheed Martin, the largest defence contractor in the world, and the Marine Institute. As part of the project, the Marine Institute is adapting training software that is currently being used by some of the world's largest navies so that it can be utilized by students and industries.

Ensuring that we have a highly skilled workforce with the proper education and training is fundamental to attracting the inward investment to Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, having the right personnel also increases the Province's attractiveness to the aerospace and defence companies who are interested in doing business here.

Partnerships with companies such as Lufthansa and Lockheed Martin bring worldwide attention to Newfoundland and Labrador's aerospace and defence sector and help us stress to the international business community that local companies have the technological capability and the know-how to compete and win major contracts in the international marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, the expansion of industries such as aerospace and defence help us diversify our economy and create well-paying jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will continue to work closely with local companies and the aerospace and defence industry to continue to grow and advance this sector, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

It is great to see that government, of course, is expanding upon the initiative. This was started quite some years ago, the Province's entry into the aerospace industry back in the days of Premier Tobin, the Liberal Administration, and the late Mr. Craig Dobbin, of course, who took the initiative in the Gander area. So, it is great to see that government is continuing with those initiatives. The more diverse our economy is – whether it is a fishing industry, an offshore industry, the aerospace industry, the defence industry – the better it all functions, the more opportunities there are for employment, the better the jobs that are created. Fundamental to all of that, of course, is not only the opportunities; we have to have the people who can take advantage of the opportunities when it comes to being educated and being trained in order to avail of those job opportunities.

I guess if there are any disappointments or complaints that we would have as an Opposition it is that – we called the Minister of Business today the minister of re-announcement because we get a year-end announcement now as to these two projects, both of which were announced in the spring; they announce them when they are starting them; they announce them when they are over, and then just to make sure everybody in the Province knows about it, they re-announce them again at the end of the year. It is called the year-end wrap-up.

It is very indicative of the productivity of this department that, unfortunately, in this year these are the only two things he has to re-announce; the department has not been exactly productive. As we pointed out in the Estimate Committees last year, Mr. Speaker, that department spent more on continuing its own existence and paying staff members than it did in terms of putting money out the door for investment. That is not a very good record, I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker. So hopefully in the future we will have a lot of announcements, and not just a repeat of two announcements and a department that can hardly justify its existence based on what it is spending today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

These are great partnerships and the companies that the minister has spoken about are known worldwide and certainly have great reputations. I feel very confident that the programs, both the one with the college and the one entered into with Marine Institute, are going to be beneficial for the people in them and hopefully for the future here.

I have to say that I have to join with the Official Opposition in also saying my disappointment with this department. I thought this department, Mr. Speaker, was supposed to bring businesses into this Province to create new business and new jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: That is not what I hear, Mr. Speaker. The NDP would very much like to see more jobs in this Province. This government continues to make promises and not keep them.

These announcements, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why they are not coming from the Department of Education or ITRD because this department has nothing to announce so it is trying to make people think they are doing something. Give us some businesses and give us some jobs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

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

Yesterday in this House, I asked the Premier to explain what role, if any, and what say Hydro-Québec might have in the Muskrat Falls project. We know that because of its size, Muskrat will not be able to produce twenty-four hours of power a day. In order to be able to offer firm power to its customers, Nalcor will have to arrange a swap power agreement with CF(L)Co and, or Hydro-Québec at Churchill Falls.

Premier, I ask again: What discussion, if any, have you or Nalcor officials had with Hydro-Québec to ensure that customers of Muskrat Falls will be guaranteed firm power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there has not been any discussion with Hydro-Québec on electricity generation coming out of Muskrat Falls, nor has there needed to be, other than around the issues of water management. We have a piece of legislation that governs how our rivers are managed in this Province now; ultimately governed by the Public Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, we have water management rights on the Churchill River, we have reservoirs on the Island, and we have reservoir rights on the Upper Churchill. Between all of our capacity that we have in terms of our generation, Mr. Speaker, we can firmly commit to meet all of our commitments that we make domestically and abroad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think most people in this Province are awakening to the fact that the Muskrat Falls project is a pretty sweet deal for Emera of Nova Scotia. Not only is Emera getting free energy from Newfoundland and Labrador for thirty-five years, it will actually get extra free energy during the first five years of the project if the deal goes through.

My question to the Premier is: Why, Premier, are we giving Emera extra free power during the first five years of transmission on the Maritime Link?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we are contracted to sell to Emera is one terawatt of power for thirty-five years. For that amount of power they will pay $1.2 billion. They will also pay 20 per cent of the operational and maintenance costs of the whole generation and transmission system, Mr. Speaker. They are going to get 20 per cent of the power, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to pay 20 per cent of the costs; because of that contract we are going to have with Emera we are no longer an isolated system.

First of all, we provide clean, cheap electricity to the people of the Province, we do a good deal with Emera that allows us to construct infrastructure to wheel our electricity, and because of this we are able to access markets outside of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Just in case the Premier did not understand my question: Why are you giving the extra power – you are giving on the first five front-end of this project, the extra power to Emera – why are we doing that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I understood very clearly the question that the Acting Leader of the Opposition asked.

Mr. Speaker, I am telling you and the people of the Province that the Term Sheet we have signed with Emera is for one terawatt of power a year for thirty-five years, for which they will pay $1.2 billion. Mr. Speaker, how we deliver that power over the thirty-five years will be worked out between Nalcor and Emera. Mr. Speaker, the critical piece that people need to understand, is one terawatt of power per year for thirty-five years, for which they will pay $1.2 billion, plus 20 per cent of operations and maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

All we know so far, Premier, is that we have a deal that is front-end loaded. Not only is it a sweet deal for Emera, but you have front-end loaded the deal for Emera. The question was why you would do such a thing?

Mr. Speaker, free power is not the only reason Emera is so happy with the Muskrat Falls deal. Another reason, of course, is that in the $6.2 billion project, the people of this Province are bearing nearly all the risk. This Province and Nalcor are assuming all the construction and financial risk for the Muskrat generating plant, and despite the fact that Emera will own 29 per cent of the Labrador to Newfoundland underwater cable we are assuming all the rest for that as well.

Premier, can you confirm that on top of all those benefits we are giving to Emera, and the risk that we are assuming, that people in this Province and Nalcor will also bear 50 per cent of the construction and financial cost on any overruns associated with the Maritime link, even though Emera will own 100 per cent of that Maritime Link?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are bearing all of the risk on the generation facility because we own completely 100 per cent of the generation at Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, while it is true that Emera will own the Maritime Link for thirty-five years, they will only have the ability to wheel one terawatt of power across that link. Mr. Speaker, all rights above the one terawatt lie with Nalcor. That is a good deal for Nova Scotia; that is a far better deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It might make sense if we are going to own the full generation facility that we bear all the risk. That does not apply when it comes to the rest of it though, does it, Premier – on transmission lines? Nalcor is on the hook for that, and we as a Province.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in return for the investment of $600 million in the Labrador to Newfoundland link, Emera will receive 29 per cent ownership of that link and hence 29 per cent of all profits ever made by that link for at least fifty years. That is not a bad guaranteed return on your investment. Meanwhile, we know that, according to the term sheet, Emera is actually a 49 per cent owner of all the transmission assets that will be built as a part of the project.

I ask the Premier: Emera is getting a guaranteed profit on the energy that will be shipped to this Island; how much is Nalcor going to get from the energy that we ship to Nova Scotia? We know what they are getting; what are we getting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to get $1.2 billion for one terawatt of power. Mr. Speaker, we are going to get 20 per cent of the operations and management. Mr. Speaker, we are going to get access to a transmission link for its capacity beyond one terawatt, so the 1.9 – over and above domestic needs and what we have sold to Emera – that is available for export outside the Province will be able to be wheeled across the Maritime Link. For that we will be able to get access to get all of Emera's infrastructure in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, and into Maine, paying only our costs when we are actually using that infrastructure that we would not have been able to afford otherwise, allowing us to get into the market to the United States with 1.9 terawatts of power, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I guess we will see at the end of the day, Premier. So far we have found enough off-ramps in this to drive a fleet of Mack trucks through, and we are not even started on it yet.

Mr. Speaker, the CEO of Nalcor Energy is on record as saying that even if Ottawa does not back a loan for the Muskrat project or provide the $375 million grant which the Province was seeking, this project would still be viable and could be funded. That means the people of this Province will have to bear the full cost. Part of any borrowing costs, of course, is determined by how much equity you have to put into a project.

I ask the Premier: How much equity do we have to put into this project? Where is it coming from, or how much will have to be borrowed, because we do not have the equity?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The amount of equity and the amount of debt that goes into this project will, of course, be determined in the future when we decide on what debt equity ratio will give the best benefit to the people of this Province. Our Province has made tremendous headway financially over the last six years. We have had surpluses in five of those six years. Well, the result of the surpluses is $4.1 billion to the bottom line of this Province. We have reduced the debt GDP equity from 63 per cent to 31 per cent; and, as a result of that, the rating agencies, all three of them, have upgraded the Province's credit. As a result of that enhanced fiscal position, it has given us the flexibility and the opportunity to access the required capital necessary to finance this project and, in fact, a much larger project is necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to see the Minister of Finance has interceded here. Maybe we might get some information, but we do not need a recitation of what you have done in the last six years' budgets.

Maybe the minister would like to tell us in a direct response to a direct question: Where are you going to get the money to do this, and what equity do you have to put into it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the week before last I went to Toronto and I met with our lenders, and they have indicated to us that the financial community has indicated that the Province will have the ability to raise the necessary capital and that the markets are sufficiently robust to be able to provide the required amounts. In fact, one of the lenders said he would not be surprised if our bonds in this project sold out in less than fifteen minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

In January of this year, the Auditor General released his report on child care spending at Eastern Health. In particular, he looked at Code 79 expenses, which are costs for children and youth who cannot be placed in foster care. These costs grew from $3 million in 2005 to $13.5 million in 2009, yet there were no policies and procedures in place to ensure the money was being spent appropriately.

I ask the minister: What policies and standards have been put in place, not only for Eastern Health but all of the regional health authorities to ensure that money is being spent in the very best way possible to meet the needs of the most vulnerable children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was created because we felt there were concerns with that field, and we felt that we needed to address them in a more direct way than they were being delivered in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that we have been doing to make sure that the best interests of the children are being met, is we are streamlining the adoption process. Mr. Speaker, we are also looking at resources that we have in our communities now that are probably underutilized. Because we are paying for these resources as they stand now, we are also using that as an ability to be able to move some of the children who are presently housed in ALAs into some of the existing resources.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, we need a long-term solution to how we deal with the children and how we deal with children who come into care in this Province. Mr. Speaker, we are also developing a long-term strategy to help us to identify what services we need and how best to set up these services in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in 2009, at Eastern Health alone, there were eighty-six children and youth living in alternate living arrangements. These children were there anywhere from four months to twenty-seven months. Of the sixteen files that the Auditor General reviewed, 63 per cent of them were there for over a year. These arrangements are meant to be temporary living arrangements for children, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: What has your government done to ensure that the time children spend in ALAs is minimal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of measures to ensure that the length of time that a child spends in an ALA is being addressed. As I said, one of the initiatives is trying to streamline the adoption process so that permanency planning starts earlier within the case when we handle somebody who comes into care.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the last eighteen months we have created an additional 134 foster homes in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a tremendous amount of work that goes into licensing these homes, and they provide quality care for our young people.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we do have to develop our long-term strategy. As I said, we do have resources in the Province that are underutilized, that we contract and we pay for under this department. We are making sure that we use these resources. I understand there is a meeting every Friday to make sure that we are able to move as many children from an ALA into the existing resources that we have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this is something we take quite seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: In 2009, Mr. Speaker, there were fifteen service providers that received payments for living arrangements for our most vulnerable youth, the total cost $13.5 million. Some of the providers were private businesses, others were not for profit. The Auditor General found that there was no measurable way to determine just how effective the service was that was being provided to our children.

I ask the minister: How do we know if the service being provided is acceptable; and were improvements, if any, needed to be made with each provider?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, a number of the services that we provide through Child, Youth and Family Services, that provide residential care to our young people, are long-standing contracts with boards, such as WayPoints in St. John's or with boards that would govern; Pine Heights home in Grand Falls-Windsor or the Youth Assessment Centre in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker. We also deal with agencies like the John Howard Society, who provide two facilities as well in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the agencies that we deal with have a very strong understanding of the needs of children in Newfoundland and Labrador. We contract with these agencies, these are long-standing contracts that have been in place year over year, but, Mr. Speaker, it is also important that we continue to monitor quality and make sure that the changing needs of children and the changing profile of Newfoundland and Labrador is reflected in the services that we provide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, there is a shortage of caregiver homes in this Province, not only in St. John's. There needs to be a continuum of residential services in this Province. Your government has known this for several years.

I ask the minister: What is the status of the number of caregiver homes in the Province, and what are you doing to address the continued shortage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I previously stated, in the last eighteen months we have created an additional 134 caregiver homes. When I said foster homes, that means caregiver homes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have also increased resources in some of our offices outside St. John's in order to be able to put more emphasis on the creation and the licensing of these homes. Mr. Speaker, this is not taken lightly. When somebody applies to be a caregiver in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a program that they have to complete, known as the PRIDE program. They have to go through a very thorough assessment, and we make sure that we have all the necessary assessments done before we license that home.

Mr. Speaker, when we take a child into care and we put the child to live with another family in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have to do our utmost to make sure that we provide a safe environment. Mr. Speaker, we are working towards that every day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our most vulnerable children are being cared for in ILAs, ALAs, group homes, and out-of-province placements. Government has failed to put the proper policies and procedures in place to protect these children, and, as a result, the government cannot state that the care these children are receiving is the best care.

Back in March 2009, government announced a new department responsible for Child, Youth and Family Services. Your government has had almost two years since to make any significant changes.

I ask the minister: Are we ever going to see any provincial policies and standards from your government to help protect the most vulnerable in care?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are working on a continuum of care, and we do have new foster homes. I have publicly stated that ALAs is not the long-term solution, and we are going to be moving away from that form of care.

Mr. Speaker, I do take offence to saying that our group homes in Newfoundland and Labrador do not provide quality care. These are long-standing contracts with agencies that I have a great respect for, and I challenge the hon. member to tell me which agency and which group home you are talking about that you think is not providing quality care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Auditor General and the reports that we received, the minister has no way of knowing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, even as late as a few months ago when we questioned the minister, she said that they were still actively transitioning into the department and learning about the issues. With the latest Cabinet shuffle, however, this government has gone backwards. Once again we see that children cannot be the minister's priority because she now has two departments.

I ask the minister: Why were you willing to take on another government department when, clearly, your primary role as Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services is not even on track yet?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member does not know, a lot of times people can give attention to different priorities, and many times, in our lives and in our work, we have things that are equally important that we have to work on. If the hon. member thinks for one minute that this government or this minister is not committed to Child, Youth and Family Services in setting up the best service we can have, he is dead wrong. We are here to do the best we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that there are issues. We have taken the Turner report, we have taken the Clinical Services Review, and we have created a new department. We put $24 million into this service in recent years before we even created the new department. We have created over 200 new positions.

Mr. Speaker, we will change the system and we will bring forward the improvements that are necessary. For the member to suggest we are not serious, like I said, Mr. Speaker, he is dead wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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, throughout this fall we have heard from many teachers from across the Province all speaking of nepotism and unfair hiring practices within our school system. In response to these concerns, the Minister of Education personally conducted a review of hiring practices of the school boards, and he found nothing.

My question to the minister: Teaching professionals have indicated that it was inappropriate for him, as minister, to be doing this review; will he commit to an independent review as the teachers have asked for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. He obviously has no recollection of what he said publicly because it was the Opposition who asked me to get involved in the first place, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just remind the member opposite of what transpired. I was asked to become involved in this process, to look at the teacher hiring practices of school boards, not to look, Mr. Speaker, at individual teacher grievances in the Province. I looked at the process, Mr. Speaker. I have a background; I have worked with the school board for many years. So, I looked at the process from my own personal perspective, and I drew some of my own conclusions. I also engaged the NLTA - which in many circles would be seen as our adversaries in this process - sought their input, and they concurred with it.

Further, Mr. Speaker, we went to an independent agency, the Public Service Commission, that is the independent group, arm's-length from government, that deals with hiring in this Province. They concluded as well that the policies and the procedures that are in place demonstrate fairness and an equable process for anyone looking for a job with school boards in the Province.

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, many teachers have expressed their feelings that when it comes to hiring it is more about who you know than what you know. It appears that the department has passed the blame off to regional school boards, making them solely responsible for teacher hiring. What this means is that there is no standardized provincial criteria for teacher hiring and principals are able to hire whomever they choose.

I ask the minister: Does that make sense to him, since the Minister of Education is responsible for all aspects of K-12 education; and will he commit to government being involved in regulating teacher hiring?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am actually very interested in the train of thought the member is putting forward. I wish we could have more than a minute each because it sounds to me like he wants to involve the political arm of government into the hiring, yet at the same time he is suggesting that is the reason people are not getting jobs. So I am getting mixed messages, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that we operate within the parameters of the Schools Act, Mr. Speaker. Let me remind the member opposite, it was the Liberal government who wrote the last Schools Act when they merged the school boards because I worked with the boards at the time. They are the ones that defined the roles of school boards. The role of the minister is purely policy and directional in nature, Mr. Speaker. It is the school boards that have the vested authority to operate their school districts and to organize schools in the Province for students to attend. That means opening and closing schools. It means hiring personnel, not only teachers; we have many, many important employees. We have janitors, caretakers, secretaries, and bus drivers, all of which are the responsibility of school boards, not the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation. A bridge in the Codroy Valley - commonly referred to as the Bailey bridge - has been closed, apparently, due to it being structurally unsound. This bridge has become crucial to the residents and the businesses of that area. Residents have been looking for some commitment from government that the bridge will, indeed, be replaced and replaced as soon as possible since it is having a major impact on their lives. They have held public meetings, they have asked their MHA, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, to get involved, and they want an answer to this problem.

I ask the minister: Are you and your department prepared to commit to the replacement of the Bailey bridge at Searston Gut; and, if so, how quickly can this be accomplished?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from the member opposite, naturally we have inspected the bridge and closed it down for public safety because the underpinnings of the bridge are in a sad state of disrepair. As well, the bridge itself is fine, and what has to happen is that, basically, the bridge has to be pulled back and a major overhaul of the underpinnings has to be done.

Now, we have done a similar bridge, not so long ago, and the cost of it would be in the millions of dollars. As well, it would have to be done at a time other than the winter. So, right now, we are looking at –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: That is part of the problem, as the member has just pointed out. It was a temporary situation that was done in the middle of winter. Obviously, a job of that nature should be done in (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in legislation being put before the House this afternoon, government is asking for an amendment to their hastily concocted 2008 AbitibiBowater expropriation bill. The amendment would allow Fortis, Chi Hydroelectric, and other private owners of other expropriated hydroelectric projects, to be paid compensation for their assets. Yet, in a recent media interview, the Premier stated this government plans to return the assets to their owners.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is government doing, paying for assets the people of Newfoundland and Labrador currently own or returning those assets to private hands for private profit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me begin by saying that the expropriation of Abitibi's assets in Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the best things this government ever did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there were innocents, so to speak, who were caught up in that action. Our commitment at that time was that we would keep these companies whole. Mr. Speaker, that is entirely what we mean to do; we intend to keep these companies whole. If that means returning their assets – if that is how they want to be kept whole and they want their assets returned to them as they were at the time of expropriation – that is what will happen. If they want to pursue a negotiation with Nalcor to liquidate those assets, then they can enter into that kind of a discussion as well, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is we are going to keep these companies whole.

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.

Government's expropriation of AbitibiBowater assets, which this party supported and still supports, has been fraught with complications, and the Premier has to just explain one of them, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering in this complicated situation we are talking about, whether we are talking about compensation or giving the assets back – which means we lose if the assets go back.

I ask the Premier: Are negotiations going on between this government now and these private companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with these companies from day one. From the very first day that we contemplated expropriation we have had lines of communication open with these companies. Mr. Speaker, our action was against AbitibiBowater; it was not against Enel or Fortis or anybody else who might have gotten caught up in that action. Mr. Speaker, our commitment to them was that we would keep them whole. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that means that the company who has assets wants to keep assets, then we are going to respect that. The action around expropriation was not against those people, Mr. Speaker, it was against AbitibiBowater.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26 (5)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling twenty-one Orders in Council relating to funding precommitments for the 2011-2012 to 2015-2016 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the 2010 Annual Report for the Chartered Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

As the Speaker of the House of Assembly I hereby table the Annual Report on Election Expenses from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 as submitted by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act provides the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate shall be filled by Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Ms Carol Chafe be appointed as the Child and Youth Advocate.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move motion 1 pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 and further, Mr. Speaker, I move motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House not adjourn 10:00 p.m. today on Tuesday, December 14, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today being Tuesday, December 14, 2010.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: A further motion that this House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, December 14, being today.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will call Order 13, second reading of Bill 44.

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I will change; I will go to Order 15, second reading of Bill 46.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I would just like to make some commentary on Bill 46 and Bill 44.

Many times in the House when we see bills being introduced and debated here, and we see the word tax or the words income tax, we right away think that this is going to be a money bill which opens up debate for a whole wide range of debate. Many times relevance is called; we are not certain. Our Standing Orders are never clear when this is brought forward, and we are hoping that with our new proposal for the Standing Orders that might be introduced into the House at a later date there might be some clarification brought to those matters.

The Chair has had an opportunity to confer with those who have more wisdom than he has, and the Chair has agreed that Bill 46, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador, ratifies an agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the Province relating to the joint administration of certain taxation regimes. It does not have as its sole purpose the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax impulse.

This bill is not a money bill, which would, in accordance with our practice, admit a wide-ranging debate. The bill has to do with administration, not the appropriation of revenue or of a tax.

Hopefully that will bring some clarification.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my responsibility here today, as Finance Minister, to speak to second reading and to urge passage of Bill 46, which is entitled, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador. Now, I know everybody watching this on TV has now gotten up and they are gone to get themselves a cup of tea, so I will do my best to try to make this interesting.

Mr. Speaker, people will remember back in 1997 when the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which at that time had in effect an act called the Retail Sales Tax Act, which of course was a sales tax, and the Government of Canada introduced the famous Goods and Services Tax, which was an 8 per cent tax that was also a sales tax. After a while, the Government of Canada, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Province of Nova Scotia, as well as New Brunswick, agreed to harmonize those taxes into a new tax of 15 per cent at the time, called the Harmonized Sales Tax. Eight per cent of that tax is the provincial portion of the tax, and 7 per cent of the tax is the federal portion of the tax. It is 15 per cent. Although, we all know that a year or so ago the Harper government in Ottawa reduced the federal portion of the tax from 7 per cent down to 5 per cent, so that the Harmonized Sales Tax that exists in this Province is 13 per cent as opposed to the original 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, we know that some provinces – I know the Government of Nova Scotia has recently increased the provincial portion of their tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, taking over the two points that the federal government had relinquished. I know that the Government of New Brunswick, I understand they are under some pressure to maybe introduce that tax as well, although the Premier of that province has indicated they are not prepared to go there.

When the Harmonized Sales Tax came in, the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement, or CITCA as it is known, governs the way in which the Harmonized Sales Tax is administered and collected in this particular Province. Every province that has harmonized their respective sales taxes with the federal Goods and Services Tax has such an agreement in place. It has been in place, as I said, since 1997 when the government of the day elected to harmonize. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia also joined with us at that time and they signed the original CITCA, as did our Province.

Mr. Speaker, on July 1 of this year, two more provinces are now going to harmonize their Provincial Sales Tax with the federal Goods and Services Tax, and that is Ontario and British Columbia. It has been happening in British Columbia with a great deal of controversy. Under the terms of their agreements, their CITCAs, both British Columbia and Ontario have obtained a broader tax policy flexibility than we had, and Nova Scotia had and New Brunswick had, in the original 1997 agreements signed by the original participating provinces; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland back in 1997.

Under the terms of that agreement that we signed, there was a clause that said if any other province harmonized their sales taxes with the federal government on terms and conditions that differ from ours, then the existing harmonized provinces would have an option. The option would be to either continue with the same agreement or to enter into new agreements on the same terms as found in the new provinces.

This Province now has a choice, and we are making that choice. As I said, we could have continued under the old agreement, but we have decided to exercise our option to enter into a new agreement, as Nova Scotia has already done. As I said, they increased their portion of the HST from 8 to 10 per cent, effective July 1, 2010, in order to meet their fiscal requirements. That is not our intention, Mr. Speaker, but we did feel that we should enter into this new agreement because it will provide us with more flexibility to do so.

Under the new agreement, we are still bound by the federal tax base. Under both agreements, the old one and the new one, we agreed when we harmonized the taxes that we would accept the tax base under the Goods and Services Tax, but under the new agreement we will now have more flexibility over the tax rates. Under the previous agreement, in order raise the provincial portion of the HST there had to be an agreement of the majority of the three provinces. Two of the three Atlantic Provinces would have to agree to increase the tax, and if we wanted to reduce the HST, unanimous agreement was required by all provinces. Under the new agreement, we will now have the complete flexibility to make that decision on our own without the necessity of seeking any agreement from any other province. We have flexibility over the tax rate. Another thing under the old agreement, if I recall correctly, you could only increase the taxes by 0.5 per cent at a time. Under the new agreement we will have the flexibility to have complete control over what the rates will be, whether they go up or down.

We also have more flexibility with respect to point of sale rebates on the provincial portion of the tax, as long as it meets certain conditions. The other advantage is that our HST – of course, our HST is administered and collected by the Government of Canada. It is administered, it is collected by the Canada Revenue Agency. There was no point in having two sets of administration to collect what is essentially one sales tax. The Canada Revenue Agency collects that tax, they administer that tax, and of course, they send us our share, our 8 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, by entering into this new agreement it is necessary to amend the Tax Agreement Act and regulations which came in, in 1997. The legislation dates from the introduction of the HST, and the purpose of that act was to implement the original CITCA, the original agreement. Certain elements specific to that agreement will need to be amended in order to have consistency with the new CITCA. In addition, there are a number of elements that are now obsolete. They are simply not needed and should be repealed. An example of these obsolete components of a former agreement include provisions that related to transitional measures, tax inclusive pricing, and a covenant not to impose a tax under the Retail Sales Tax Act, which had not, at that time, been repealed. That act has now been repealed.

As I have said, the provincial portion of the HST is administered, enforced, and collected by the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of this Province and the Government of Canada. This bill will not change the means in which the provincial portion of the HST is administered, enforced, or collected by the CRA. The bill simply ratifies the new agreement between the Government of Canada and the Province and modernizes our provincial legislation to reflect the new agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments are relatively technical. Section 1 just updates the title of the act. It will now read the Tax Agreement Act of 2010. In section 2, the definition section, the definitions are the same as in the original act; so there is no change there. In section 3, there is the removing of the reference to the original date of signature. In section 4, there is a non-application of the Retail Sales Tax in terms of the importation of vehicles from outside Canada. In sections 5 and 6 - that deals with the agreement and with confidentiality - there has been no change here. Former sections 12 and 13 of the original act governs the exchanging and sharing of information related to the HST and how this information can be disseminated for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of the legislation. Under section 7, authority to make regulations, has provided to allow for the granting of refunds for rebates and other reimbursements of the HST. Section 9 substitutes section 22 of the former act with respect to the commencement date.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is the bones of it. In terms of point of sale rebates, that is something we can now take a look at. There are certain conditions on point of sale rebates. Of course, we can do our own rebates if we want to administer them ourselves. For example, we have a Home Heating Rebate; it is not a point of sale rebate. The federal government has indicated to us they are not prepared to allow a point of sale rebate for electricity or home heating. We have our own Home Heating Rebate program, which we administer out of an office that has been established in Grand Falls-Windsor. Of course, we can continue to do that any time we wish to have a rebate.

In terms of future rebates, obviously, when we go through the Budget process, we review our revenue measures, including the HST; and those are something that could be considered at that time. The point of sale rebates will be allowed if the total value of the rebate does not exceed 5 per cent of the estimated tax base for the Province and is subject to the availability of a sufficient database to capture the tax expenditure. On this basis, the rebate room available to our Province is about $30 million, a net of the existing Newfoundland and Labrador book rebate. The 5 per cent tax limit, as I said, does not prohibit the Province from introducing any other self-administered rebates.

One other small change is that the HST will now be paid to us weekly as opposed to monthly, and that means that we will have the money earlier so we will earn a little bit of interest. As everybody knows, interest rates are low right now; but, at some point in the future, they will go up again, and we will earn some more revenue.

The HST to this Province is about $766 million this year. With 1 per cent on investment, that might mean an extra quarter of a million dollars a year in additional revenue for the Province. So, it certainly will help. Again, this gives us more flexibility over the tax rates. We still have to deal with the same tax base because the HST is a value-added tax, and one of the principles of a value-added tax is that you have a large base and that way you can keep the tax low.

Obviously, as Finance Minister, I get letters all the time from people who say: Take the HST off this particular purchase and take it off this particular purchase. Of course, if you continue to make exemptions, what eventually will happen is you will have to start raising the rate because with taxes it is a middle ground. People do not like to pay taxes - we know that - but governments need revenue in order to provide the services that the people demand we provide.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the comments from members of the Opposition and other members of the House, and I would urge passage of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this piece of legislation, Bill 46; however, I would be remiss if I did not comment that we are here debating legislation and it is very disheartening when you are expected to get up and debate and respond to what the minister himself admits is a very comprehensive, a very complex, and a very technical piece of legislation, and the Opposition, who are expected to respond, only gets the legislation sometime this week. We are here this afternoon, four members in the Opposition, we get these complex tax bills, which we have here, and we are expected to get up and give a comprehensive response. For example, we have a bill coming up here this afternoon on Abitibi, giving properties and utilities back to Enel and Newfoundland Power, and we got that bill yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Opposition House Leader: Is this a point of order, or are we debating the particular piece of legislation?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Well, we can call it a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because it needs to be said here. This is very important. People need to know and members of the House need to know. Government members need to know and we need to know how the process works here. If we are going to make this institution function properly and effectively, it needs to be said. When you get a comprehensive piece of legislation, for example, involving Abitibi and what happened in the expropriation and we are here today dealing with pieces - not to say Opposition are going to be offside with it, not at all, but we have to understand things if we are going to be able to respond. To be given a piece of legislation at 4:00 o'clock or 5:00 o'clock on an afternoon and come into the House the very next day and be expected to respond to it. We were offered a briefing at 11:30 this morning, by the way; 11:30 this morning they said: Do you want a briefing on some of these things in this particular bill we are discussing here?

Now, the minister himself admits that he has a problem, and I certainly have a problem dealing with the technical pieces of this. You are offered a briefing at 11:30 a.m., an hour or two before you come into the House. It is just unacceptable. If government are expecting - or maybe that is the point, they do not want a comprehensive debate in this House. The point is there is lots of time to get this done. If government has had this on the agenda - this agreement did not get negotiated yesterday - there is lots of time for the government to get its House in order, put the legislation in the proper process so that members of the Opposition have time to digest it, to read it, to analyze it, and then come in here and have a full-scale debate on it. That is the point, Mr. Speaker.

Now, with regard to this bill, it certainly is complex. The old HST regime, of course, goes back to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's time and considered one of the major things that he accomplished. Of course, then we get into changes on it through the Chrétien years, the Paul Martin years and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Government House Leader wish to respond to the point of order?

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I assume we are moving the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, we would like a ruling. If we have done anything incorrect in the distribution of the bills, we certainly would clear up the situation. Mr. Speaker, if the government has done anything that is not appropriate here in the distribution of bills, we look for your ruling on that. We feel that we have followed the procedure that has been set down in the precedents -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: We feel that we have distributed the bills as per the precedents set in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. the Government House Leader. I would ask all hon. members to allow the Government House Leader to respond to the point of order.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, if there is any ruling on the point of order, if it is a point of order that you would be ruling on, we are certainly willing to do anything that we feel is necessary to make sure we follow the Standing Orders or the policy within the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, we feel we have acted well within the set policies of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take both arguments under advisement. I will get back to the House after reviewing the comments made by the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader at a later point this afternoon.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

With regard to this particular piece of legislation, we wholeheartedly agree that it is a very technical piece here. I am sure our viewing audience, my good friend Joe, who I always talk about, is gone for his cup of tea long before now when it came to considering this particular piece of legislation. When it is a complex bill like this, you need lots of time to get your head around it. You need time to study it, but we have taken the time that we have been allowed and permitted to discuss this piece of legislation. Hopefully, our comments will not be lost and we have grasped something from this very complex bill in the short time, the restrictive time, we have had to deal with it.

A lot of the other provinces, of course, are having problems with this issue too. Premier Campbell in British Columbia recently – it is such a complex and impactful bill on the population sometimes that it leads to dire consequences. It actually led to his resignation. Part of the big question was the HST. That is what we are dealing with here, of course, in terms of trying to come up with a proper formula whereby the feds who deal with the HST portion and us, as a Province, who deal with our tax regime can co-ordinate things to the best benefit of everybody. If you do not need a dual system for taxation, if you can complement each other and everybody get their just desserts out of the tax regime, that is what it is all about. Obviously, that has to be tweaked from time to time in order to make sure that it is working the best that it can for all concerned.

I notice the minister talked about us having an option at this point in time as to which way we wanted to go: Keep the old agreement that we had, or we had the option, of course, to negotiate a different agreement. It is sort of called a me-too clause in labour lingo. We decided that another deal came along that we feel now is better for us, so we have opted on to that me-too, and we want to negotiate, the minister is saying, a better opportunity, a better arrangement for us, administratively, for carrying out of this process. We are supportive of that. Whatever is to the benefit of the Province, when it comes to having a streamlined – and I do not know if you can get such a thing as a streamlined process – when it comes to some of these tax regimes, just because they are so complex, is great to have. We do have the flexibility.

I think it is very important that we, as a Province, instead of having to get the consent, any more, of other provinces, as the minister alluded to, are able to have a different tax rate. Now we have chosen – we are going to be able to establish solely, wholly, without anybody interfering or trying to suggest or control, we have the option of putting our own tax rate there. I think that is very important, because not all provinces have an equal opportunity, or are in an equal position financially, fiscally, to have the same tax rate.

For example, Prince Edward Island, which is in a different situation than Newfoundland financially, fiscally, might decide that well, we have to leave our rate at a certain level. We, as a Province, if we are now a have province, better off financially, we might decide as a Province we do not need as high a tax rate as we have. We might want to lower the tax rate. So it is great to see that that flexibility is there.

One wonders, of course, how we had that in the first place; why other provinces had that control. I guess that is pretty well irrelevant now, since we are not going to have it anymore, but it is certainly important that we have that.

The only other comment I would make, and maybe the minister can give us some explanation of this in his summary or later on, deals with the point of sale piece. Now, the minister indicated, we all know we have a rebate program in this Province when it comes to people who consume oil, for example. The minister alluded to the fact; I believe he said that the feds had a problem with us doing it on electricity bills; yet, we have just negotiated an agreement now, that is the one we are here talking about.

I am wondering why we did not negotiate it in here such that we could have a similar program for our electrical as we already have for our home heating, and why it was not possible to do that in this particular case. I understand before if the feds said no, but if we were in to negotiations and we had the opportunity to do so, was it raised? Why did the feds continue to insist against it? What bargaining chip did they have that made it impossible? Is there some kind of legal way they can refuse us that opportunity? Did we push the issue firmly enough? Why did we not succeed in getting it? In this Province, regardless of where you are, your heating bills can be astronomical when it comes to the winter time. It is great to see that we should, if we could, have such a program.

We will be supportive of this particular piece of legislation. It is, as I said, an administrative thing basically, but I think the most important piece here is that we have the control and the flexibility now that if you want to change your tax rate – the portion of the combined taxes – that that is totally in the hands of this Province now and you are not subject to the wishes of anyone else in order to do so.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Chair has looked in both Beauchesne and in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 83 states: "All Bills shall be printed before the Second Reading." One can only assume from that as there is no reference to the distribution of bills that as it requires a bill to be printed prior to second reading that would also include the distribution of the bill prior to second reading. There is nothing either in Beauchesne or in the Standing Orders that would require a briefing. I understand a briefing was offered today, prior to second reading, but there is nothing in the Standing Orders or in Beauchesne requiring a briefing by government or a minister on any particular piece of legislation. So I can only find that government has followed the proper protocol in the first reading, printing, and distribution of the bill prior to second reading.

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

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

I am happy to stand and speak this afternoon to Bill 46 which is an act to implement the comprehensive integrated tax coordination agreement – a mouthful – between the federal and provincial governments – I do not need to read out the names of governments.

Taxation, yes, can be boring but there are some interesting things in this piece of legislation that the minister has pointed us to that I would like to speak to. As we know this bill does have to do with the harmonized tax regime that we have between the federal and the provincial governments in this country, the HST. A tax which caused many problems at the time it was first introduced; there has been tremendous controversy over this year in some other provinces – in Ontario and BC – because they do not have it yet it is in process. I think in BC in particular there is a movement to undo a decision by government to take part in HST.

HST itself was a very controversial tax because, of course, it added in services and goods that we were not used to having taxes on. So it not just brought the two levels of government together; it added new components to tax. That was the biggest controversy at the time it was first brought in – the HST itself – and that was the big controversy that has just gone on in BC and in Ontario in the new harmonization between the provinces and the federal government.

So the debate has not finished in this country with regard to HST and the harmonization of HST. We had it a longer time than they did in BC and Ontario; they are just new to this discussion. We have, I guess, in one way learned to live with it, but I think we have to continue to learn how to use it to our benefit. So one of the things the minister pointed out, which I think is an extremely important point, is that the amendments will allow the provincial government to change rates. I think that is extremely important.

The minister also said something which I find a little bit confusing and I will be asking him to give us some clarification on it. He talked about the whole issue of refund, rebate, and reimbursement, which I think is very important. Section 7 of the bill says: "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting a refund, rebate or reimbursement of an amount equal to a tax paid by a recipient under…" a section "…of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) and in accordance with the agreement". It is saying that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of this government may make regulations.

Then the minister went on to say, and used as an example the tax on home heating, and said: For example, we have a refund and we did that refund. First of all the refund was just on oil and then it got extended to electricity. So we were able to do that in the old regime and we are still able to do that is my understanding. Now, what the minister said was that while the Province can do refunds or reimbursements and rebates, I imagine – while we can do rebates and as I said, I imagine, refunds or reimbursements – we cannot do them at the point of sale. Yet, I find it strange, Mr. Speaker, that in Nova Scotia their tax is taken off home heating, and it includes oil and electricity, and it is allowed to be done at the point of sale. I do not understand why something – there it is the whole tax, it is just not on it, and that is at point of sale. I cannot understand why something that is allowed in the agreement between another province and the federal government should not be allowed in the agreement between this Province and the government.

I will ask the minister to explain: Did they really explore this? Did they really push for it? The only thing I can think is that they did not, because why would Nova Scotia have it and we not have it? It looks to me like we would have the ability to have the tax removed at the point of sale. Why would this government not do it?

Now, the minister did speak to the fact that it would lead to a loss of revenue. Yes, it would lead to a loss of revenue, Mr. Speaker. However, we are talking about something that is being taxed that is a basic necessity of life. Living here in the northern hemisphere, having home heat is a basic necessity of life. The issue is having a tax on something that is essential to life. People cannot live here in the north without heat; we would freeze to death if we do not have it.

I am asking the minister, would he explain how a loss of revenue from this sector can be balanced off against the potential loss of life for people who do not have enough heat? I would like to challenge the minister to be more creative in thinking about if tax was removed for home heating, both oil and electricity, where other revenues could be brought in. I think there could be other things done to the taxation system to make up for that loss of revenue, Mr. Speaker. We could, for example, create another tax bracket here in this Province, have four tax brackets instead of three, and tax the highest earners in this Province more money by having a fourth tax bracket. Then, we could make up for a loss of revenue by having a retail tax on home heating.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this agreement, on the surface - and I have not had time to go into detail studying this, and I do want to make that point. On the surface, it looks like we do have the ability to take off the tax or to do it by making it a refund or a rebate, or reimbursement, call it whatever you want, and do it at the point of sale, if it can happen in another province.

That is my biggest beef, Mr. Speaker, with the bill. It is not with the bill itself, because I think perhaps we can do what the minister is saying we cannot. I am very serious in saying I want a full explanation of why he is saying we cannot when it does happen elsewhere. Where in this bill does it say we cannot do it? That is what I would like to know, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate on Bill 46.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Although the agreement is complicated, basically the changes we are making here are in reality relatively simple. The new agreement we are going to sign, as I indicated, gives us more flexibility over the tax rates. We will no longer have to seek the consent of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who used to be in an agreement with us. If we wanted to raise our HST tax – and, of course, we have no intention of doing that, but if we did - if we determine that we wanted to do something like raise the HST and maybe lower another tax, then we can make that decision. The government of this Province can make the decision with the approval of the Legislature, which we cannot do now under the old agreement. Under the old agreement we need the approval - there is New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in that old agreement, and two of the three would have to decide. Also, if we wanted to lower the tax, under the old agreement all three provinces - Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia - it would have to be unanimous to lower the tax. Now, under the new agreement, we will have complete flexibility on our own. If we want to lower the tax we can certainly do so.

We are still bound by the tax base, but we do have authority to issue the rebates. Before I get into that, I want to refer to the comments that the Acting Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party made with respect to time to review. When new legislation is brought forward, of course, it is the minister responsible for that department who will be given the bill, or be given the draft with some background information. As that goes through the Cabinet process, it will go through a Cabinet committee, it could be the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet, it could be the Economic Policy Committee or the Social Policy Committee for Cabinet. I have to say, I have to tell the Acting Leader of the Opposition that, basically, I was given the material; you read it, you take the time to read it and you bring it forward. I, myself, did not have any special briefings –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You had more than an hour.

MR. MARSHALL: I had more than an hour. Yes, I certainly had more than an hour.

It is interesting, when I got back from my meeting last night - I got back to the office and saw that the Opposition had requested a briefing. Of course, I authorized the officials right away to provide the briefing, but I said they can only provide the briefing on the condition that they also give it to me; but, obviously, it is a good point that they are making. That complicated legislation; it would certainly be helpful if the Opposition had received it earlier so that we could have an even more informed debate.

The other thing that this legislation does - and I said this in my remarks earlier - is that while we are bound by the same tax base as the GST, we of course could always give rebates. We can make the decision, if we make it in this House, if government makes a decision that is endorsed in this House, government can provide rebates. Now we can do those rebates on our own. As I mentioned, we give a rebate with respect to home heating. That is on oil and on wood and on electricity that people use to heat a home. We rebate it for people whose incomes, if I recall, up to $40,000 will get the rebate. The rebate amount is $250 on the Island and for Labrador it is $500, because their cost of heating is much more expensive than it is here, and their heating season is longer than it is here, and it is colder than it is on the Island.

We always have the right and the ability to set up a rebate system and do it ourselves. What is happening here is we are talking about point of sale rebates, and we already have one here, books. I think when you buy a book the HST right at the point of purchase is rebated. We are giving authority in this legislation to go to the federal government and to set up a further point of sale rebates where - there are certain conditions that have to be met. Now I know that some provinces - like Nova Scotia and British Columbia and Alberta - have point of sale rebates for things like, I think children's booster seats and children's clothing and diapers, and I think feminine hygiene products, for example. So, that is something that we could do.

Now with respect to my comments about the HST on heating, I may have been mistaken. I know in Nova Scotia, that Nova Scotia has tried to get a point of sale rebate - it is either electricity or oil, one of the two - and the federal government has said no to that. Therefore, they said no to us as well. They were not prepared to do that. Of course, if we want to give the rebate we can set up our own system and do it as we are doing on home heating fuel, as we do right now. We always have that option to do it on our own. With respect to point of sales, we can do it but we obviously need the consent of the federal government because they are the ones that are administering and collecting the tax. When I go back to my office, I will seek additional information, and I will be happy to share it with the Leader of the NDP and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would thank hon. members for their comments and would urge passage of this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 46, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador. (Bill 46)

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

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 46)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 13, second reading of Bill 44.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3". (Bill 44)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is, again, my duty to speak to the principle of this legislation in the House today. If Joe and Martha went and got a cup of coffee for the previous act, I would suggest they stay in the kitchen for this one because it does not get any better.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an amendment to our Income Tax Act, and it is a number of technical amendments to our income tax legislation. As I said earlier, our personal income taxes, our corporate income taxes, and our HST is administered and collected for us by the Government of Canada by the Canada Revenue Agency. We administer and collect certain taxes on our own, our mining tax and other taxes; but the personal income tax, which is a big one, the HST, which provides, I think, a billion-and-a-half dollars in revenue to the people of this Province, are administered and collected for us by the Government of Canada. That is why, sometimes, when we do our Budget and we do our mid-year update, we need information from them; because they are collecting it and they are going to tell us what it is, and then we wait and they will tell us an adjustment, maybe six months later.

In the act, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of technical amendments, and I will deal with them briefly, Where you have two parents who are separated but they share custody of their child or their children on an equal or near equal basis, that is the situation we are dealing with. There are certain federal benefits administered by the Canada Revenue Agency such as the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the Universal Child Care Benefit, and the GST, HST credits for the child. In the past, the benefits were given to one of the parents for six months and then it was given to the other parent for another six months. Then, in this year's federal budget, the federal government changed that so that each of these credits that would be paid out, would be split 50-50 between the two parents.

It was the same here in Newfoundland and Labrador for certain refundable tax benefits that is administered for us by Canada Revenue Agency. I am referring to the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit and the HST credit for that child. Again, for us, it went to one parent for six months and went to the other parent for six months as well. So, the first amendment is to change that so that benefits administered for the Province on the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit and the HST credit will also be split equally by the parents 50-50, the same as the way the feds are administering the federal benefit.

Currently, the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit and the HST credit for that child are administered free of charge under the provisions of the Tax Collections Act. Diversion from the federal proposal would create a difference that would trigger provisions that require administrative fees to be charged to the Province. We do not know what those charges would be, but we are told that they would be significant. We are going to harmonize the treatment of benefits for the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit and the HST tax credit to mirror what is happening with the federal benefits.

Mr. Speaker, the second amendment is to deal with the Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credit wording. The Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credit is a refundable credit of 15 per cent of eligible expenditures made with respect to a scientific research and experimental development activities that are carried out in the Province. The credit is based on the parameters and the definitions of a similar credit offered under the Income Tax Act of Canada, albeit with a different tax rate. Both the federal and provincial programs are administered by the Canada Revenue Agency.

There is a minor technical amendment proposed to our legislation here in the act, which I am moving, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province. The wording in our act refers to an eligible expenditure made in the previous taxation year, which is not necessary. The credit is fully refundable, which means that a taxpayer receives the benefit of the credit in the year in which the taxpayer spends the money regardless of the amount of tax otherwise payable in that year. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for our legislation to refer to expenditures made in a previous year. The CRA has suggested that we amend that act to remove the reference to the previous year and we delete it. That is one of the things, one of the amendments that this legislation does. Our legislation will then support the current Canada Revenue Agency administrative practices in the way they are dealing with that provincial credit.

There are two other minor amendments, Mr. Speaker, that both deal with definitions. One is the definition of the words qualified relation with respect to the low-income tax reduction. The low-income tax reduction is a very important piece of our personal income tax system. It is a personal income tax reduction for low-income individuals and families. For the 2010 taxation year, the program is going to eliminate from provincial income tax individuals with net incomes up to $16,022 and families with a net income up to about $26,811. Partial tax reductions are going to be received by individuals with a net income of up to $19,535 and for families who have net incomes up to $32,086.

The low-income tax reduction income thresholds are increased annually, utilizing the provincial Consumer Price Index. This reduction eliminates low-income people from paying any income taxes at all. I think, in our first year in office we brought that in, and then one year later, I think, in the Budget of my colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, that was enhanced further and, of course, we also indexed this credit so that it gets higher each year along with the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, some definitions in the acts use language that is similar to the federal Income Tax Act while others use a different definition. Adjusted income, which is used in determining the amount of a low-income tax reduction - which I previously mentioned - was previously defined in the act and set out its own parameters in detail. Unfortunately, this led to a conflict in some unintended differences between the two acts, the federal act and our act, when changes are made by the federal government to their legislation.

The federal government is currently administering our low-income tax reduction based on the federal definition of adjusted income, and that removes payments from registered disability savings plans as well as other adjustments. If this change was not implemented, as set out in this legislation, and the current provincial definition was continued to be used then some residents of the Province would be negatively impacted and would no longer be eligible for the low-income tax reduction. Therefore, we want to amend the definition to utilize the federal definition so that these people will continue to receive the benefit and these families will continue to receive the benefits of these reductions and therefore not have to pay any personal income tax. The amendment will be retroactive to January 1, 2005, which is when the low-income tax implementation was implemented. I think that all members of this House will be very happy to support this particular amendment because of the benefits it will provide to low-income families in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, an amendment will also be made to the definition of qualified relation that is contained in our Income Tax Act. The change will now consider qualified relation to include a deceased spouse or a common-law partner who died during the taxation year. This will allow a taxpayer who has had a spouse or a common-law partner die in that year to be eligible again to claim the lower-income tax reduction for the taxation year as a family. The income thresholds to determine eligibility for the low-income tax reduction are higher for a family than for a single individual, and this change will benefit widows and widowers who find themselves in this particular situation.

Mr. Speaker, those are the four technical amendments that are set out in the legislation. Two definition changes; one is a change in the administration of benefits so that they will be split between the parents who are separated but who have joint custody of a child, so that they share in the benefits. The other is a minor amendment to the scientific tax credit.

I would urge passage of this legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

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

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

I will start off my comments by saying I have to take the minister at his word. Based upon what he has told us here today, I am certainly not in the position to refute what he is saying. The reason I am not in a position to refute what he is saying is because I have absolutely no idea what he is saying. In fact, I challenge the other forty-six members of this House to get up and say that they know what he is saying, because the minister himself, admittedly, is dealing with a very complex matter here.

Maybe he has a whole battery of tax experts or accountants, fiscal people to crunch the numbers for him and tell him what the policies are all about. So he has that benefit, but the rest of us, we get this stuff maybe eighteen to twenty-four hours before we come here and we have to read it, digest it, understand it, and vote upon it. That really bothers me because I hate to vote upon things that I do not understand, but I realize as a member of the House, if we are here we are required to vote one way or the other. I do not want to vote against it because I do not understand it. Therefore, I have to take him at his word and I will vote for it, but that does not mean I understand it, and I readily admit that.

Now, I understand it is an administrative issue. I understand it is dealing with tax issues and that from time to time they change, and maybe we are not expected to understand the intricacies of how it works. As long as we know that it benefits the people here somehow, if it benefits seniors and certain spousal groups, for example, that is good stuff. I want to be upfront and clear about that. I do not want anybody out there in TV land to think that I understand what this is about intimately and so on because I do not understand the nuances of exactly what is here.

Again, I have to take the minister at his word. It is beneficial for these people, it is administrative in nature, and it is streamlining the process so that the best benefits that can be gotten for the people of this Province, the certain stakeholders and groups in this Province, that is what we get. I just wish, Mr. Speaker, again, that government could provide us with this stuff in a timely fashion so at least we could get to do justice to it from a reading point of view. At least we would get an opportunity to read it.

With regard to the complexity, we do not have a whole battery of resources available to us. We did go to the briefing that the minister arranged, I think it was an hour or so before we came here to the House of Assembly, and the researcher who went down to try to get his head around it came back absolutely befuddled. He could not even eat his lunch. He was so upset because he could not grasp anything from the briefing. He was questioning his own intellectual abilities. Then he said: I realize that the person giving me the briefing did not understand what he was saying either, or he was not doing a very good job of it.

These things are complex, and the more lead time we can have to understand it the better. We thank the minister for at least his attempt at explaining what this is all about. I am not certain that he understands himself the intricacies of it, but based upon that, we will at least be voting for it rather than object to something that we do not know the details of, from an objective point of view.

Thank you.

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

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

Bill 44, an income tax act amendment. They are complicated, and I am certainly not going to get into the complicated formulas that are talked about in this amendment. That is probably the big thing, the complication of the different formulas that are here. I am going to leave that to the tax heads who put it together and who know that these formulas work out.

There are some issues that come up in this bill that I would like to speak to. Some of the positives, there are practical positives here that will benefit people. The minister has mentioned some of them but I would like to mention them again with just a little bit more information.

The new provisions with regard to the Newfoundland and Labrador Child Benefit - which includes the nutritional supplement, which I think is excellent - is something that is really going to be welcomed by parents. We also have new provisions which apply to the HST credit as well, because under the old procedure the Canada Revenue Agency would allow only one parent to receive the benefits with regard to the child benefit for the first six months, and the other to receive it for the last six months. Now both couples will be able to get an equal split right across the year, which makes for greater consistency with regard to your income and figuring out your income, et cetera. That is really important; it is something that is going to be good for people in the Province. It does have a practical application.

Another thing in here that is good also has to do with somebody who has been cohabiting with a spouse, whether the person was married or a common-law partner and becomes widowed, left alone in the middle of a tax year. Prior to this, once they became widowed, they automatically, from that point on in that tax year, were considered to be in a different tax-based reality, because they were single instead of being part of a couple. There are some tax breaks that are there for couples; for example, the allowable household income would be different for a couple than for a single person. There would be expenses that there are tax breaks for that would be different for a couple than for a single person.

What the new bill will say – if somebody loses their spouse through death in the middle of a tax year, that whole tax year will consider them as having been part of a couple, and that is really important. I have had some phone calls recently that have been important. I have had them from single people who had been part of couples and all of a sudden, with the death, they are left in a very different situation. The household income has come down and yet, basically, the expenses of the household are much the same. There are slight variations in the expenses of the household. I have had calls, especially from widowed women who are calling saying is our tax system fair because I have much less income now with my husband gone, but when it comes to running my house I have almost the same expenses, and yet the tax system does not recognize that I have almost the same expenses.

It is a serious issue. I do realize there has to be a difference between the treatment of a couple and a single person, but several of the examples that have been brought to me would indicate that a middle- to low-income individual who all of a sudden becomes widowed – no longer has a partner – can overnight be thrown into a very difficult situation.

The minister indicated that the change in this amendment will be helpful and will make life easier for the person who no longer has their partner, but it will only be for that one taxation year. I think that it begs a question of whether or not our system is completely just to the person who is left behind. Sometimes you hear of individuals having to give up the homes that they had once the partner dies. Part of the reason is because while they have almost the same expenses with regard to the upkeep they do not get the same tax breaks as an individual. It is something to think about.

It is one thing to be talking about the difference between a family of four or five and an individual, it is another thing to be thinking about a senior couple – say a couple who are seventy-five, eighty – and their expenses. When the partner dies, there is not a big difference in the expenses for the single person as there was for the couple, when it comes to the household – I am not talking about when it comes to personal expenses like health issues and drugs and that kind of thing, but when it comes to the household.

So it is something that I put out there as an issue that I do not think our taxation system takes into account, because I am talking specifically about seniors who get widowed and who are trying to keep going with the same household expenses, or basically the same expenses, they had before the spouse died. So, it is an issue. It is nice to see that in the year that the spouse dies, the person is going to get a tax break – that is good; I am glad to see that, but I wonder if this is not something that we should be putting more thought into as governments, both on the federal and the provincial level, with regard to the needs, in particular, of seniors who become single people overnight – because it always happens overnight; it is not something that you can prepare for – and at the last stages of their life, maybe a single person being faced with having to give up what they have had as a couple.

This bill, of course, does not deal with that. It does give that little break during the tax year; it is a benefit. It does help them during that tax year, but that is about it. It does not deal with them beyond that. It is good, too, that the definition of qualified relation for the purpose of the low-income tax reduction has been changed to allow the cohabitating spouse or common-law partner who died in that year to be considered a qualified relation, because that was not the case before for determining eligibility.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, obviously it is a bill that we need to pass. It is a bill that technically is needed to be put in place, and it does have a couple of good pieces in it, as I have said, which help people in the Province with regard to their payment of income tax.

Having said that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I will be voting, of course, for this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate on Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the acting Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party for their comments and their support of this legislation. As I indicated, it is to ensure that our law contained in our acts is in accordance with the federal act and the administrative policies and procedures that the Canada Revenue Agency is following in administering and collecting our taxes.

No government likes to put an unfair tax burden on the people of the Province. This is a measure that takes away some of the unfairness that may exist in the system. As we identify other anomalies or instances of unfairness we will be very pleased to correct them. In fact, in terms of taxation, this Province was at one point known as a very high tax jurisdiction; a place where the personal income taxes were extremely high. We have taken some measures to get those taxes down, but it is important always to strike a balance between not overly taxing the people of the Province and keeping your taxation systems fair. Also, we need to raise revenues so that we can bring in a lot of the programs that the people of the Province would expect a caring and competent government to provide.

We have reduced taxes. Cumulative tax reductions have been $1.2 billion since 2007 and the people are paying now $374 million a year less in taxation than they were back in 2007. So government has taken its hands out of people's pockets. It is helping Newfoundland and Labrador families to pay their bills. We are also ensuring by being competitive that people have a part of their incomes to invest and that creates jobs and opportunities.

One of the biggest problems we have, that all members of this House understand and appreciate, is the fact that we have so many people retiring and so many people eligible for retiring. I have heard that 25 per cent of the public service is eligible for retirement in the next couple of years. We are also going to need skilled trades people; we need more health officers and social workers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that we are debating Bill 44 and I ask him to keep his comments relevant to the particular bill.

MR. MARSHALL: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

Taxes have been reduced and this bill eliminates some of the anomalies. This bill co-ordinates and harmonizes the practices of the Canada Revenue Agency with our law and it helps people who will now be eligible for the low- income tax reduction. The low-income tax reduction has grown – it was $5.3 million in 2005 – to $12.5 million in 2010. It was introduced in 2004 by the then Minister of Finance, and it enabled low-income families – and the amendments in this particular act are affecting this tax reduction. Low-income families back in 2004 could save $416 in provincial income tax, and a family could save $464. Provincial income tax was eliminated for individuals with a net income, as I said previously, up to $12,000, and for families this amount has now been increased to $21,900.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their comments, and I would move passage of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3, be read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3. (Bill 44)

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

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 44)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 16, second reading of Bill 47.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights And Assets Act". (Bill 47)

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in December of 2008, our government took quick and decisive action when it became clear to us that Abitibi Consolidated was abandoning its pulp and paper operations in Grand Falls-Windsor, its last location in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Clearly, such action left the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and particularly, the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador, in a very tenuous and unfortunate position. For over 100 years Abitibi had been the major employer for the region. Generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had supported their families through good paying jobs, either in the mill that was located in Grand Falls-Windsor or through harvesting to support the mill operation, or through the many other jobs that were integral to the operations of the mill. Mr. Speaker, while the people of Central Newfoundland gained much from the jobs created by the mill, so did Abitibi. For those same 100 plus years Abitibi reaped significant profits from the natural resources the people of Newfoundland and Labrador allowed them to use.

From the fibre to the land and the hydro, Abitibi was certainly privileged to be able to operate here in our Province. However, Abitibi did not appear to consider its access to such resources to be a privilege; they instead considered it to be a right. When the company faced financial trouble our Province was one of the first places looked to by that company to cut costs, and in December of 2008 they announced the closure of the mill. The financial troubles of Abitibi became apparent and so too did the desire of the company to find its way out on the backs of the many people who had worked so hard and so long for them. Our government recognized this and moved quickly to ensure the natural resources of our Province were retained by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador no longer to be exploited by Abitibi.

Our government moved quickly to take back the assets of Abitibi through the Abitibi Consolidated Rights and Assets Act which was supported by every Member of the House of Assembly. An example of how we in the House can work together to do the right thing. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this was the right action to take and remains so today. While some commentators challenged our actions we knew we were acting appropriately and the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador knew we were acting in their best interests. They supported our actions and the people of the Province continue to do so today.

Mr. Speaker, our government paid severance of over $40 million to mill workers, both union and non-union, and loggers affected by the actions of Abitibi. We provided numerous programs and assistance to the people of the region and they have continued to support us. We have invested upwards of $100 million into the Central Newfoundland and Labrador region. Just a quick example, Mr. Speaker, of some of this funding includes: $35 million for infrastructure repairs; $5 million for upgrades to various health care facilities across the region; $4.6 million to improve the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre; $500,000 has been provided to upgrade the College of the North Atlantic; and, there has been a $2.3 million investment for forest and agricultural resource road construction.

Mr. Speaker, our government has also announced the relocation of the administration office of the Home Heating Rebate Program and the Parental Benefits Program to this region. As you know, a residential treatment centre for youth with addictions will be established in Grand Falls-Windsor. All this is in addition to the almost $200 million which flows to this region annually from our government.

Many of the people who have made the transition from mill employee to other sectors have been helped along the way by the services made available to them by the provincial government. Services such as: career and financial counselling, job search techniques, transition supports, and skills assessment. All provided very ably and capably by the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the competent and capable staff of that department. While not everyone who worked at the mill has had a successful transition to other employment, we continue to work on a number of fronts to create opportunities to help people replace what was lost.

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of optimism in the region. As an example, we have heard recently that housing starts are increasing in Grand Falls-Windsor. While our government has played a role in this optimism, the people of the region have worked hard, have worked with us, and they deserve what it is they have achieved.

The fibre of Central Newfoundland remains a world-class natural resource, and this government issued an expression of interest for the 280,000 cubic metres of wood fibre which was formally used by Abitibi. I was encouraged by this process as it demonstrated strong interest in the resource. However, I would like today, to state my commitment to the fact that the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador must be the primary beneficiary of any use of this resource, and that there must be a value-added component which creates jobs for the people of the region to use this fibre. We are continuing to evaluate proposals for the use of the fibre and we hope to have further information for the people of the region in the very near future.

This government, Mr. Speaker, has a vision for the region. We formed a ministerial task force that has worked with the people of the region and the community, the leaders, to achieve many wonderful things. I have to give credit, Mr. Speaker, to Premier Dunderdale for her leadership when she was in my current position of Minister of Natural Resources. I am confident that her commitment will continue.

As well, the current Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who is also an elected Member of this House of Assembly from that region, the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, has been a driving force, along with her fellow task force colleagues and the MHAs from the Exploits and Windsor-Springdale districts. Mr. Speaker, I serve as Chair of this ministerial task force and I can tell you the dedication of this committee is second to none and has provided many results.

It is true that during our actions we did expropriate the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. Some people have incorrectly characterized this as an action which resulted in the Province assuming environmental liabilities as well. This is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker. We have orders against Abitibi to clean up five properties in the Province, including the mill. The validity of those orders, Mr. Speaker, is now an issue before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is also now obvious that even if we had not expropriated a mill, we would still be dealing with the environmental liabilities; because as a part of its reorganization, Abitibi transferred all of its remaining property in the Province to a Shell corporation. It did the same thing in other provinces, in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick. We have every expectation that had we not expropriated the mill, it would have been transferred to this Shell corporation as well. This corporation has no funds for environmental clean up, and Abitibi has recently been trying to abandon these properties to the Province as well.

As a result of our actions to protect our Province, Abitibi decided to file a challenge under the North American Free Trade, or NAFTA, against Canada for our actions. In August of this year, the Government of Canada committed $130 million to Abitibi upon emergence from bankruptcy to settle this NAFTA challenge. This payment was made to extinguish the claim and effectively end the company's claim for compensation related to our government's actions.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Government of Canada were welcomed by us and now bring us to the next chapter of this issue. The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act, under section 10.(2), provide the right to compensation to the company for our expropriation. The payment of the Government of Canada to Abitibi certainly eliminated the need for further compensation to Abitibi and thus, we are removing this section and limiting compensation rights to the other parties directly affected by the expropriation of hydroelectric assets. These parties, Mr. Speaker, were CHI Hydroelectric Inc., a subsidiary of Enel; Fortis Properties Inc., a subsidiary of Fortis; and a consortium of lenders who are all involved with the two expropriated hydroelectric properties.

While the action of the Government of Canada terminates our obligation to Abitibi, we certainly recognize that these parties that I just mentioned above have always acted in good faith and thus should be treated with good faith. We appreciate and value the relationship that we have with them. Far from the actions of Abitibi, these companies are fair and reasonable. We believe they should be treated the same, which is what we have been doing. Our government continues to negotiate with these parties to achieve a fair compensation package for them. Mr. Speaker, I am confident such a package will be achieved and approved by the provincial government, as will now be the stipulation of the new legislation according to the proposed amendments.

The legislation before you today is an important step to closing this chapter and moving on from Abitibi. This is one of the last pieces we must deal with to officially end our dealings with Abitibi. As my colleagues, the Minister of Environment and Conservation, and Justice, recently outlined to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Supreme Court of Canada has granted us leave to appeal regarding the payment of site remediation at the former Abitibi operation sites. Each of us, Mr. Speaker, looks forward to a resolution to this issue which follows the polluter pays stipulation of our legislation. With that, hopefully we will not have to deal with Abitibi again.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time to address these amendments, and I look forward to the debate and the passage of the act.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I certainly would like to have a few words with respect to Bill 47. I think there is a lot more that needs to be said on this particular bill than the minister has stated. In fact, he said very little about the bill itself. He might have had two or three paragraphs on the end of it about what was going to be accomplished here, and they were not very clear. I think it is very important that the people of the Province, particularly the people in Central Newfoundland, have a clear understanding of exactly what is going on with this Bill 47. It is not going to impact their lives directly I would suggest, but it is certainly a piece of the bigger puzzle of what we have seen unfold in this Province since December, 2008.

This minister, or the minister before him, who is now the Premier, can sugar-coat this all they want, there was a wrong process and approach taken with respect to the resolution of this matter; all due respect for what you try to do after you have made a mistake and after you have screwed things up, absolutely. You can pump all the money in you want after, as if you are doing the do-gooders, but you have to look at who caused the mistake and the nature of the mistake right from day one.

I want to go back, because that is important, and it even ties in to how the legislation is being given out here today. I had alluded to this earlier this afternoon. We are dealing with three piece of legislation. This one which is very important, very, very important, fairly easily understood but the implications of it are not understood. That is where some of the questions are that we are going to be posing. In fact, from what I have read of it so far and from what I have certainly heard, the lack of commentary from the minister, this member certainly will not be voting in favour of this bill. Absolutely not! I have no problem with seeing that the parties of good faith here, the Fortis properties of the world, the Enels and anybody else impacted by this, Sunlife, for example, are treated fairly and properly; as they should be, because they did not do anything in the first instance to deserve the treatment and what has happened to them.

Let's go back for a second when we talk about Abitibi. The minister is quick to slam Abitibi, who - for whatever reasons, mostly financial, world markets, maybe poor management, whatever else - went on the rocks, but do not wash away a lot of the history that they put into this Province. I am not here to pat Abitibi on the back, but just do not, because of something that happens, wash away - a lot of people out there in Central Newfoundland had their lives invested in that; made a very good living there, retired on it and will continue to get some benefits from what Abitibi did. There is nothing to be gained because there is a disruption in the business and a cessation of business. You may not like some of the tactics; no one in the Province liked some of the tactics of Abitibi once it befell them and they were going to close it down. Not everything was Abitibi's approach to it, which caused the problems either.

It is like Stephenville. On the watch of this government, we have had two paper mills in this Province close. Now they say three strikes and you are out in baseball, and we certainly have two strikes against this government when it comes to dealing with the paper industry in this Province. You can pat yourselves on the back all you want with one or both hands but people are going to look at the reality of what happened here. It is like the Stephenville thing when it started. The approach that was taken, the former Premier, he said the chairman of the board needed a fastball up the side of the head. A great way to start negotiations and discussions as to how we are going to get a major industry in a community survive.

We saw what happened in Stephenville. It does not exist there any more either. That was the first ball, the first strike; you are out, Stephenville. We will pour in a bunch of money to see what we can do. We will relocate some of the programming that we have in the Province to see what we can do to help you. There was no resolution, there was no staying in Stephenville; I did not see many solutions come about. Close it down, off you go, hundreds of jobs impacted; we will deal with the fallout. That has been the approach of this government when it comes to the paper industry: We will deal with the fallout rather than deal with the problem. Then we move on to this Abitibi we have here in Central. I remember the day; I was a part of it. In fact, it shames me now to know that I was misled. I do not know if I could use the word misled –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Now, I am quite familiar with the rules here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I am not suggesting that any member of this House misled; I use the misled term –

MS SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, what are you suggesting?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will explain now - I have fifty-four minutes, I say to the Minister of Innovation and Trade who is the member for Central - I certainly will explain exactly what I mean. I will go back to that fateful day in December. The Leader of the Opposition then - still is - got a call saying: We have an urgent situation. We have to bring some urgent legislation into the House of Assembly today. We would like you to meet in the Premier's office. Off we go, the Leader of the Opposition, myself, and I believe the Member for Port de Grave was there as well.

Off we go to the Premier's office, he said: This is urgent, it has to be done. We are expropriating the assets of Abitibi in Central. It needs to be done because they are going to declare bankruptcy and we do not know where we are going to stand after. Here is the piece of legislation. By the way, this was about 1:00 o'clock I do believe; the House opens at 1:30 p.m. We will arrange a briefing for you so that you understand it, because we know you obviously should have some questions, but take us on good faith, we need to do this and we do not have time to wait the normal process. In fact, we are going to want it to pass all three stages in the House of Assembly today, so we need this done before the close of business today. That is what we were told.

We took the Premier on his word. We went to the briefing, they had the legal people there from the Department of Justice, and they had the legal people there from Nalcor. They had the current CEO of Nalcor, Mr. Martin, there. We met out here in the Opposition caucus room. They explained the deal to us. I believe the Leader of the NDP was there as well - she was there. They explained the deal and the bottom line was: We know it is complex, we know there may be ramifications, but take our word for it. We have to do this. It is absolutely essential. We have to do this.

So based on that, of course, who is going to see any company, whether you are a Newfoundland company or a foreign company, abuse any of the assets that belong to the people of this Province? That is the bottom line. Nobody worth their salt in this Province is going to vote against that or disagree with that, but that is the context in which it happened. We came in here and sure enough, given that background, everybody in this House voted for it.

We find out sometimes that haste makes waste. That is an old saying: haste makes waste. I think we have certainly learned that in this Province from this Abitibi thing. As I say, the government can sugar coat this all they want but the bottom line is, to the current Administration, what happened in Abitibi and how it is unfolding from a governance point of a view and government involvement point of view is going to turn out to be far worse than the Sprung Greenhouse ever was to the Peckford Administration, without a doubt. Time, slowly, is showing that. In a matter of the last year-and-a-half, since December of 2008 up to today, two years, we have seen a lot of that fallout and there is more to come.

I would like to go back so that the people of Central and the people of this Province just do not hear what the minister is saying today about all the good things we have done with the fallout. Let's go back and analyze some of the things that have happened. We expropriated, at the time, the lands and the forest that are on those lands, we expropriated a mill, and we expropriated certain power facilities. That was the essence of the act that we passed back then. I have a copy of it right here. We flipped it through in that afternoon. There is not a lot to it in terms of numbers of sections. Most of it is made up schedules and so on. There are actually only three or four pages of the act itself. Let's deal with each of them in turn.

The government knew some months after the expropriation that we had a mill that we did not intend to expropriate. Somebody - I do not know who it was. Was it a surveyor, was it a technician, was it somebody in the Department of Justice, or somebody in Nalcor? Somebody made a mistake and somehow or other it was rushed to the point where we ended up with a paper mill, the actual physical mill itself, that nobody wanted from day one, but we had it. That was a mistake. Haste makes waste.

By the way, the other part about it was, not only did the government find out that we had a paper mill that we did not want, and the reason we did not want it, of course, is because of the possibility of environmental costs that were associated with it, extreme environmental costs. That was a big thing. We did not want to expropriate something that had environmental cleanup costs attached to it that was far more expensive than that what the mill could ever be worth.

Anyway, that mistake was made, but it is not enough that the government finally admitted, after months and months of pounding here in this House of Assembly, through open lines and press releases, they finally said: Okay, rather than fudge this any more, we will own up to it and say we made a mistake. They can stay here today and say: Well, it is a mistake and we owned up to it. Guess what? They did not own up to it on the day they found out about it. They owned up to it months after. I do believe it was nine months after government knew that they had made a mistake and took a mill that was contaminated, that they did not intend to take, that is when they came clean with the people of this Province and said: We admit it. That is a great approach to take too: We admit it.

Let's look at some of the cost that we have incurred as a result of that move that was made to expropriate back in December of 2008. Let's look at some of the costs and set your calculators going as to what it costs the Province. First of all, and I am sure some people in the government maybe do not care, but the Government of Canada paid out $130 million because it was considered a breach of NAFTA. They negotiated a deal. The people here might say: Well, that is fine; we made the mistake here as a Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but it did not cost us because we left Canada on the hook. Canada paid $130 million. Well, folks, we are part of Canada. We paid for that one way or another. That came out of somebody's pocketbook in this country because this Province made a mistake. It might not impact their bottom line and their budgets over here, but it cost $130 million under the NAFTA provisions.

Now, let's get to the environmental piece because we still have that mill today. As we speak here today, the Province is the caretaker of that mill. The Minister of Transportation admitted in Question Period last week that we are paying out security costs, basically mothballing it, seeing that nobody breaks in and destroys it, keeping it maintained. Not that it is operational. Not putting any pulp through it, but we have to pay the cost on it.

So we have been paying the freight on that ever since we took it. Now, that is just the keeping up of it. Then, of course, there is the environmental cost. I certainly look to the minister to give me an explanation of this, because he sort of floored me today when he said, on the one hand, we have made the five environmental cleanup orders against Abitibi, which, of course, we all know were tested in the Quebec courts, the Quebec courts came back and said – the bankruptcy court, I do believe – and said basically, we are on the hook.

Whatever environmental cleanup costs that are in that mill – whether it is $100 million, $500 million, whatever; nobody knows – we are on the hook for that. Now, from figures that have been tossed around in the public domain, this mill that operated for years and years and years – and paper mills are known to be one of the dirtiest type of environmental hazards you can have – the word out there is that we are anywhere from $200 million to $300 million to clean this up. Sure, down in the Hope Brook gold mine, which was only a little hole in the ground, to remediate that we paid some $30-odd million back ten years ago. So I can imagine what we are going to have to pay to clean up the mill.

I would think somewhere along the lines there is going to be a connection here between future use of the mill, and the environmental contamination that exists in the mill. I know if I were a prospective user of that mill, on a future basis, I would want to know something about: What am I getting? What are the damages that exist? What is the cleanup, and who is going to pay for the cleanup? That would seem to me to be a reasonable expectation of anybody who is going to make any future use of that mill.

So we have $130 million, we have hundreds of millions in environmental costs, as I say, unknown, because we took a mill that we did not intend to take. Now, the minister says today, in the one breath, that we have appealed the decisions on the environmental orders to the Supreme Court of Canada. I noticed a couple of weeks ago I saw the release there that the Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear that case. It is my understanding, at least, that it is important for a lot of provinces in country, because whether a bankruptcy court can make certain decisions that impact upon a province's right to make environmental laws is an important principle that needs to be decided. The only court in the land to properly decide it would be the Supreme Court of Canada.

He said in the next breath, we realize – I just jotted it down here, I do believe – we are on the hook, are the words he used. So there is no doubt that regardless of what the Supreme Court of Canada rules, we are on the hook for the environmental piece when it comes to the mill. He has admitted it himself today, we will get his transcript out because I could not follow his logic on that one myself. Now, we have $130 million in Canadian taxes government paid, we have hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental clean ups.

We also have, by the way, and we never did get a straight figure, we have been asking for months in Question Periods going back to the spring, fall before that – can the minister of the day or the Premier of the day tell us what we have paid so far in consulting fees, legal fees, experts fees, you name it, since we have been involved in this Abitibi debacle? So far, we have no idea about that. We know there are hundreds and hundreds of millions, not hundreds of millions – we know there is probably $20 million, $25 million that we have invested in legal fees and consulting fees to date. Now we will probably never find it out and the reason a lot of times nowadays we cannot find out, of course, is because government funnels a lot of these costs, I would suspect, through Nalcor. Nalcor was involved in the briefing on this from day one.

So, of course, we have no way – the public of Newfoundland and Labrador – of finding out what Nalcor spends its money on because this same government passed a law here exempting Nalcor from the Access to Information. It is a pretty neat trick. We know we have hundreds of millions of dollars in costs but nobody will ever know and the reason they will not know is because we will do it through Nalcor and when anybody goes to Nalcor and says can we have this information, you always get a pad answer; we are not subject to the Access to Information Act. That information is commercially sensitive, sorry. So now that is openness and accountability. That is openness and accountability to the people of the Province.

Whatever we spend that we want to tell you about, we put out all kinds of press releases on it but when we do something like this, which is Nalcor involved, that is the way no one ever knows. You are left in the dark; secrecy reigns when it comes to openness and trying to get this information out to the people of this Province.

How much does it cost on the Quebec hearings to date? You cannot get any of that information. The final accounting, if it ever comes out in the future and I hope it will come out; hopefully this government would stand up and put it out themselves – the full cost on it instead of hiding it. It will come out eventually through some future administration; it will come out. The cost on the Abitibi matter is going to be astronomical and absolutely scary. This government does not want to go anywhere near that in providing that information right now.

The minister talked about what the government has done for the fallout. I do not think I caught all the details of what he said but I caught some of them. He talked about over the course of the time we would have put some $200 million into the area anyway. That is obvious, a government that is looking after things in the Province, whether you put it in, in terms of road work, you put it in, in terms of hospitals or schools and infrastructure, you would do that anyway. Whether you lost your paper mill or not you should do that as a government. I would take it that was done in Corner Brook, which did not lose its mill, yet. I am sure that was done out there, I am sure there has been money invested in Labrador, Lab City; we have seen all kinds of it.

To suggest that because we put money into infrastructure out in Central Newfoundland is in some way a great act by this government when you would have done it anyway; I mean how two-faced can it be? We are governing you and we are using your taxpayers to do things in your area, and yet we are saying we are doing it because of the closure of the mill. Bad old Abitibi went off and left you so we are going to give you extra road work and that is in compensation for the hundreds of jobs you lost. People are not that gullible. People look for tangible stuff. If you lose the 200 jobs or 300 jobs, people like to see well, where are the 200 or 300 jobs that you put back? Do not tell me you just put a new road there.

In fact, he referred to in addition to that money the minister did say we put $35 million into infrastructure repairs. I would like to see the direct correlation between the infrastructure improvements and job creation; I would love to see that. The regional health centre, as far as I know, the regional health centres out in that area, we have always been putting money into the infrastructure of them. I would like to see the correlation between that and the job creation; CNA, the same thing.

Forest and agricultural road construction; I can see how that has had any jobs other than the short-term jobs the work itself created. You did relocate a government program there. Probably one of the best government relocated programs that ever took place for Central was when we relocated the MCP there. I believe that was done by the Liberal Administration; I know it was done by the Liberal Administration. The government should not be taking any credit for that.

Then we come to the Youth Addiction Centre. I am really looking forward to seeing that materialize for a number of reasons. Number one, it is definitely needed; absolutely needed. We in the Opposition applauded when the government said they were going to do it. We absolutely applauded it when they said they were going to do it. Some questions have been raised as to the appropriateness of putting it in Central, simply from an access to – what do you call it? – specialized staffing needs that might be associated with it. Some people out there have been saying – it is a good, legitimate question – would you put a facility somewhere where you do not have access to the professionals that are needed? My own view, personally, is: if you put it there, you find the staff that needs to go with it. Not everything needs to go in St. John's simply because there is support staff around it. That is my personal view on it, but it is nice to see. If it materializes, it would be great because we certainly need it and hopefully it will come to fruition. The bottom line here is, do not pat yourselves on the back for helping the people of Central because you put some infrastructure money in. We would like to see the more job creation direct things that government is going to do to make this work.

Government should not take the credit, by the way. I believe the major credit here is due to the people of Central Newfoundland. I think the people of Central Newfoundland, like most Newfoundlanders and Labradorian, if not all of us, are pretty resilient. You take a smack, you figure out that you got hit, you figure out what your options are and one option is never to quit. I do not think that is in the Newfoundland vocabulary, not for most of us anyway. We have all had our punches, God knows. I know living in Port aux Basques, my district, we had 1,200 jobs one time on the wharf and it went down to about 150. That was pretty devastating. We faced that, been there, and had to claw back.

Again, albeit government helps out and puts some resources there, it is not the governments who need to take the big credit for that. It is the people there usually, for coming up with the creative ideas to make it work. That is where the ultimate credit needs to go. It is a role of government to put money in to help these people who are on hard times. Fortunately, we are in a position as a Province to have the financial wherewithal to be able to do it. So, do not pat yourselves on the backs because you are doing something partially because of a mess that you created yourselves. That should never be overlooked.

When you look at this, and I will come down to the power resources piece that we are dealing with here today –

MS SULLIVAN: Oh, the bill.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Innovation and Trade. The same bill that the minister himself gave two paragraphs to, I am going to devote now about thirty minutes to it. That is where we are going to go and we look forward to the minister responding as well to the bill; hopefully, she can add something creative to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about, they took the lands when they expropriated and we talked about when they took the mill. Now, we have the lands. By the way, there was always an option here that government could have taken the lands back anyway. They were all held and operated by Abitibi by way of leases. We could have gotten at them a number of ways, but government felt that: well, we want to get at the whole package for obvious reasons and wanted to make sure that we did it the right way. So they proceeded with the expropriation and took the works. That is what happened, they took the works. They took the land, they took the forest back, they took the mill, and they took the power resources.

Anyway, there were options on the land and they are still there. Hopefully, we will see them utilized, and utilized for the benefit of the people of Central, as the minister said. He used the words: they were the primary beneficiaries I believe, or ought to be, of those resources that are in Central. There is nobody who would disagree with that.

The problems with the mill itself, as we say: environmentally, one bill that we are going to have to pick up in the future. Secondly, what are the uses of it? We had the minister of the day, now our Premier - back when, last summer I believe it was - talking about potential operators for the mill. Unfortunately, somewhat like the mill expropriation itself, they had not done their due diligence on that German enterprise. I do believe they turned out to be, and I will use the word, shysters. Apparently, they were known to be shysters and it was readily known. If anybody had gone on YouTube or on Google you would have found it out pretty easily, but we were going to deal with them to get things dealt with.

Anyway, so far we have no uses of the mill in the future. We have the resources, we have a contaminated mill site, and we have no use for the mill. We are two years in now and we have not seen much so far, if anything, as to what use will ever be made of that mill. As I say, whoever uses it, I would think the environmental issues there are going to be of a major concern to them. They are going to want some protective clauses done or undertaken by government before they go in to set up any kind of business in that site, when you deal with the contamination issues; which brings us to the three power resources that were impacted.

By the way, I agree fully with the comments of the Premier today. I am not sure if the Leader of the NDP might have some misunderstandings about what was said in the meeting or not that I referenced when we did the initial meeting, but it was clearly my understanding from that meeting, in fairness to the Premier, that the intention was always to return to these affected parties - Fortis, CHI, and the secured creditors - the assets that were being expropriated. The understanding I was given at that meeting was we do not have time to sort out their interests at this time. We have to do this in a hurry, but it was their intention from day one, the government's intention to give these assets back to these companies. That was my understanding.

I can appreciate the principle of where this bill is coming from, that we have to keep these people whole, I believe is the words the Premier used, and that is right. They had nothing to do with whatever Abitibi did or did not do. They had nothing to do with the government actions to expropriate. They were innocent parties here who had interests tangled up in this, who deserved to be compensated. Don't get me wrong or misunderstand me when I say I am voting against it for that reason, because the principle of the thing is quite legit and quite appropriate. We restore these parties to the position that they would have been in if government had not undertaken the actions that they did.

Now, there is a price tag attached to this. That is where the major concerns come in here, and I will explain why I have major concerns with this bill. The potential is here that nobody on the face of this earth will ever find out what was paid back to these companies in compensation; nobody, and that is scary. Nowhere in this bill does it say if a deal has been cut with any one of these affected parties. It does not say, for example, that the Fortis properties which we took were worth $100 million and that is what we are going to pay them. It does not say what any party here is going to be paid. It does not say anything in here about the amount that we are going to pay them. It does not say a thing. In fact, they have even changed the way of calculating how you would determine the amount that these affected parties would be paid. I refer, of course, to the original section 10.(2). It said in there, it was contemplated in that - and I will read it; it is only a short sentence. Section 10.(2) in the original Abitibi one, done in December 2008, "Abitibi-Consolidated and all other persons affected by the operation of Schedule C" - which dealt with the assets that were seized - "shall be paid the compensation that may be determined by the method the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine as a result of the expropriation of the lands and assets under this Act."

What the first part of section 10 did, of course, was it basically ruled out that Abitibi would not have any cause of action against the government. Nobody would have a cause of action against the government for the expropriation, and then the government back stepped in subsection (2) and said: except for. That is where we have singled out these people like the Fortises and the Enels, we commonly refer to them. That is where they were singled out and said: We know that we had to act in a quick fashion, so we will keep you people whole.

So, what has the government done here now? They are back now trying to deal with this problem, which everybody knew, myself included, it had to be dealt with sometime in the future, these companies. It is very disconcerting to see that the method piece, number one, of how you determine the amount of compensation is gone. That is not in the new bill that we are dealing with any more. All it says now is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will decide the compensation. We have no idea of the method of compensation, how it is determined. Why would that change? What is the method of evaluation, assessment, that a normal person in business might use to determine what somebody's assets are worth? That is what that was implicating in the original act. Instead of that, government has said: No, there are absolutely no guidelines there whatsoever as to what this government uses to determine the compensation.

Now, that is even more troublesome. For the people of the Province, by the way, who do not know, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council who is going to make the decision how much Fortis gets, that is the Cabinet. That consists of the Premier and the ministers. They are going to decide what we are going to pay Fortis. In the new bill, and I quote, it says, "…shall be paid the compensation the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine for each of them on an individual basis as a result of the expropriation of the lands and assets under this Act". I do not know about anybody else in the Province, but given this government's penchant for secrecy, that is very concerning – very concerning.

I come back to my comments about Nalcor again, because we all know that Cabinet documents in this Province, I do believe, are protected from the access to information act for twenty years. If this Cabinet, in their wisdom, sits down in January and says: We are going to pay Fortis $250 million for the hydro projects or whatever we seize from you. If they do not announce it and make a public release of it, you will never know about it for at least twenty years. If Cabinet makes that directive, passes that money over to Nalcor and says you look after the transactions here for us, we all know again; Nalcor is exempt from the access to information act.

So, whatever government decides, the Cabinet decides in their wisdom, we do not know the method they are going to use to determine the compensation; they are taking the method out. We do not know how much that final figure will be. We do not even have an undertaking from the Premier or the minister that the day we pay these people we will tell you what we paid and how we determined it. If I had that kind of undertaking from the minister or the Premier I would feel great, because I do believe in the principle that they have to be fairly compensated.

It is like giving somebody a pretty free hand. I agree with you compensating them because they are innocent parties here, but then you are saying: Trust me, I will not tell you how I am going to do it and how much I am going to give them. If this Cabinet decides not to make that commitment about being open and transparent about the amount and how it is determined, the people of this Province will not know at a minimum until twenty years because Cabinet documents and decisions are secret. Nalcor, under the law, has no obligation to disclose, and how will we ever know what was paid? I do not care who has been a member of this House or who comes after, the people of this Province have an absolute right to know if we are spending the taxpayers' money, what we are spending it on, and who we are giving it to.

We are not talking here about buying a chocolate bar; we are talking here about giving these companies some pretty big bucks. All we ask, and this member is asking in Opposition, is: Please, before you ask me to vote on this, tell me how you are going to calculate it. Have you cut a deal? I suspect it is very probable that the Cabinet or the department have already made a deal - it is pending in the wings - because I am assuming since 2008 they have talks with Fortis. Mr. Marshall, who is the CEO of Fortis, has not sat back, I am sure, for last two years, and just had his assets confiscated out on the river and not talked to government about what was going to happen to them. If that has been the case, that is not the Mr. Stan Marshall we all know.

There have been some discussions going on, I am sure, in the last two years on how we are going to handle it. If there has been a deal arranged - and I do not say the deal in a negative sense; as I say, they should be compensated, absolutely - what is the harm in letting anybody know that? Why bring people in here in the House of Assembly? Maybe some members here do not care and do not question it, do not want to know, but that is why we like to have an Opposition, as small as it might be, we have to ask the questions, folks, whether you want to hear them or not. The people of this Province deserve to know: How much are you going to pay Fortis for what you took from them. How did you determine that amount? Are you going to tell us how you determined it? Are you going to tell us what the dollar figure was; if not, why not? That is pretty straightforward stuff.

Unless the minister can give us some information in that regard this member is not prepared - with the general wording of this bill - to vote for it. I am not into conspiracy theories. I do not have much time for them, but it is not a conspiracy theory with what I just laid out here in terms of Cabinet secrecy, do not have to disclose for twenty years, and Nalcor being exempt from access to information.

I think that is pretty relevant stuff that I laid out here this afternoon in that regard. If this is a government that claims to be truly open and transparent, this is one opportunity, this is a humdinger of an opportunity, to show the people of this Province that you truly are, or else we will see the true colours. We will see the true colours if you do not disclose it.

By the way, I can speak when it comes to Nalcor and access to information with this government. Absolute doors battered shut, tied down, and locked up. You are not getting anything out of Nalcor other they admit where their office is and what their official name is. Other than that, hands off, commercially sensitive, cannot tell you anything. We have a track record to prove that so far.

Now, that brings me to the issue, too, of conflicting statements. You all remember when this expropriation happened, the people out in Central, the Member for Exploits knows, the Member for Grand Falls knows, the two Members for Grand Falls area, there was a lot of commentary and fuss out in that area, very legitimate fuss, when people said: If you have expropriated Abitibi's assets upon the river, and Fortis assets and whatever, all that generation that was happening, shouldn't we, the people of Central Newfoundland, be the beneficiary of the money that that power generates? You all recall that. At the time - you all go back and check the records, because I did. The Premier of the day said: well, no, no, we cannot give the money from the power generation to the people of Central because that money is for the benefit of the whole Province. That is a pretty fair statement I guess, but why didn't we tell the full story? Nobody took the time then to explain to the people of Central, that we cannot possibly because we might even give them back those assets.

That is a question that is raised here, too. Are we going to take over the assets ourselves now? Are we going to own the generation, or are we just going to compensate them for the disruption that we have caused to these businesses since we expropriated? Are we going to turn around now with this bill and say, here are the assets back, here is the dollar figure of how we hurt you and what it cost you because we did this? You have your property back, on you go. If the assets are going to go back to these people, we knew from day one we never intended to keep them if that is the case; we knew from day one. At least we were told at the briefing that they had to be held whole. How do you keep them whole? Unless you figure out what money they would have made on the generation of energy out there in perpetuity. I am sure Fortis is not going to say thank you very much, our buildings and our reservoirs and our dams cost $50 million, thank you very much, that is all the damage we have had. They are going to want to get the benefit of the money they would have made from that generation for years to come.

There are some sizeable dollars being talked about here. If you are keeping the assets, no doubt compensation will include profits that these companies would have made on it. If you are not talking about keeping the assets, we still need to know the compensation figure for what damages they have incurred from the time you expropriated up to now. We need to know how you are going to determine those damages or that compensation back to them. That is stuff that the minister never took a chance to explain here, I say to the Minister of Innovation, Trade. Those are some of the questions the people of the Province might like to know. That is the purpose of second reading, to give an overview of what we are doing here. I never heard any of that in the two paragraphs. I heard a lot of platitudes and gratitudes and patting on the back.

I look forward to hearing the minister respond to some of this because I certainly never heard it in his introductory remarks. If he did not, he should have. Maybe he is going to come back now and respond but he should have done it in the first place, because that is the gist of this bill.

Anyway, I will get an opportunity to come back when we get to Committee stage and talk about this some more. That is just a general lay of the land here, and just to summarize and conclude my comments at second reading. Those are the concerns we have here. Government has dealt with this thing in a haphazard, not always logical way from day one. No problem in making a mistake, no problem in fixing your mistakes, but do not hide your mistakes like you did on the paper mill. Do not try to dupe people that you are doing everything possibly for them that you can if you are not. Give people the information so they can decide themselves what is best for them and what is right for them, and not government think itself the smartest guy in the room all the time.

Governments, as you have found out and have done, have made mistakes. Your problem is you cannot own up to them, you try to either hide it or fudge it. There is nothing wrong with admitting if you made a mistake. We have all made lots of mistakes. The problem is if you try to hide your mistake. I see, Mr. Speaker, from the way that some of the members opposite are getting so defensive - they get defensive; they start to chat amongst themselves. I guess it is the old saying, Mr. Speaker; the truth hurts they say. That is when you start to get the chuckles back, when you hit the raw nerve.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks on this, that is what is missing here. In a very serious vein, I would like for the minister to explain why the method of calculation of compensation has been removed from the original act to now. Wouldn't it be prudent that the public, and especially people here who are going to vote on this, be given some idea of what the method of calculation will be? What exactly are we compensating them for? We would like a more detailed breakout. Rather than just talking in generalities of the assets that we expropriated, can we have a more detailed breakout as to exactly what assets we did take in the expropriation? What, if anything, is going back? How did you arrive at the figure for compensation? What level of negotiations - if there have been any negotiations - are with each of these (a), (b), and (c) referenced in Bill 47? How was the compensation determined for each of (a), (b), and (c), for example, a correlation between the compensation that you arrived at, however you have arrived at it or intend to arrive at it, and what they are being compensated for?

For example, I believe there was a $60 million loan that one of these companies had, probably Fortis, that the government had to stand good for once the expropriation took place; maybe the details on some of that and how that is being compensated for as well. We are not talking here, as I say, about a chocolate bar. We are talking about some pretty serious dollars here, big dollars. To expect the members of the Opposition or even government members to come in here and vote to give somebody, we do not know $100 million, $200 million, or $300 million. What is the figure? We have not even had a figure from the minister that we estimate. We have not even had a guestimate, let alone an estimate. I would think if you are to the point where you are going to compensate them, there must be some discussions that have taken place in the last two years that brought you to this point. We look forward to the minister telling us that.

The government here can use the hobnailed boots, the former Member for Baie Verte used to say. He used to always say years ago: The government got the hobnailed boots on; they are forcing you to do stuff; they are driving it down your throats. Well, we all know we did not get this piece of legislation until yesterday. We did not get it until yesterday. Dare I suggest that this was a method of sneaking this through and we would not pay proper attention to it because it is Christmastime? God forbid!

Now, we know the Government House Leader has already given orders that we are going to stay open after 5:30 today to debate this bill if necessary. I can guarantee you one thing; it is either going to be a case of the minister coming forth with some answers or this member is going to certainly ask. Santa Claus is going to have to wait for me if that is the case, because this is too important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about my colleagues and whether they are prepared to stay here and back me up –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting me.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues are going to stay here and back me up; and the rules, of course, require that we have to have an intervening speaker, but the minister might clarify all of this and send us all home early. He might stand up and say: Here are all of the questions you asked, and here are all of the answers. I suspect he does not have many of these answers. I suspect he does not have a lot of them, but I think I have been pretty detailed in laying them out there, some pretty good questions there.

So, I look forward to hearing his response.

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Business, it is not your privilege nor right in this House to tell me to sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to address the Chair.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: That is right.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Chair, the Minister of Business and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are telling this member to sit down. It is not their right to tell me to sit down. That is your right, sir, and I will abide by that ruling.

With that note, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could continue, uninterrupted, because I have not concluded my remarks, I say to the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, they might try to distract me, but my concern here today, the most important piece of business here today is not the Minister of Business and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs it is between myself and the Minister of Natural Resources. I think he has a good list now of some of the questions I have asked. I think they are very legitimate questions, particularly the piece about public disclosure because that is very, very important. If you have a deal made with any one of these parties, or intend to make a deal, or if you do make a deal, when you do make a deal, I think it is ultra important that the people of this Province know that you are doing to disclose what the deal was, for example, how much you paid in compensation to the parties listed in (a), (b), and (c) of this Bill 47.

If the minister is not prepared to make that commitment here in the House of Assembly, I think the people of this Province can read something into that, because that is a pretty simple request - a pretty simple request. If you cannot stand up in here as the minister responsible for the carriage of this act and say: Yes, we undertake to disclose that information and disclose it when we make it - do not disclose it twenty years after when Cabinet is long gone, disclose it the day or within the day or so of making the decision.

That is the challenge that we put forward as an Opposition, and I look forward to seeing and hearing the minister speak here and listening to some of the comments and answers, hopefully, that he has for us on what is a very important piece of legislation.

This is not something to be dealt with in a rash manner. We learned our lesson that. Right or wrong, we all learned our lesson on that. This is another piece of legislation tied in with that. We have to give it the seriousness, the thought, and the consideration that it deserves. That is the whole purpose of this debate, seriously.

I disagree at times, lots of times, with this government when they do things, but I also give this government credit when you do things right, and you have done a lot of right things. This is a very serious piece of legislation, it has impacts, it has all kinds angles to it, and I think it is only right and proper that we do not make another mistake when is comes to the people of Central, when it comes to Abitibi. The opportunity is here to be open, to be upfront, to be transparent, and let the people know exactly. The bottom line is, as I say, it is hurtful, in a way, because I fully agree that the parties named here should be kept whole, they should be compensated, they should not be hurt as a result of what government does, when they are innocent parties. Even though that big issue is there, we cannot just simply just vote for something without knowing what we are voting for and what the consequences of it are. With all due respect, the government has fallen short, so far today, in explaining what the consequences are and what this bill is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is good to get an opportunity to speak to the bill that is before us, An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act.

Two years ago, almost to the day, we were here in this House speaking to this act that we are today amending, the act that came in rather hurriedly and got passed rather hurriedly in the House. One thing, though, that was in that act, in which we are amending today in the section on compensation, was an inclusion in the section of Abitibi. Of course, Abitibi is no longer named in the amendment that we are dealing with today.

I noticed that the Minister of Natural Resources, they have been very efficient over in his department, and there is already a statement out from the minister, a media release, pointing out that the government, through this amendment, is now, by changing the legislation, noting the complete denial of any more responsible - of any responsibility - of the Province to compensation to AbitibiBowater. What this amendment does today is to name who the government is accepting responsibility for compensating, and that is Fortis Properties Corporation, CHI Hydroelectric Company, and secured creditors of the Exploits River Hydro Partnership and the Star Lake Hydro Partnership as represented by Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada. So, it is very clear in this amendment who will be getting compensation.

I guess it is rather fortunate for the government and probably for the Province that AbitibiBowater decided to do a NAFTA challenge because when they did a NAFTA challenge they brought the federal level into the discussion. The Province really did not have any responsibility with regard to the NAFTA challenge that was brought by AbitibiBowater. Consequently, it was the federal government that chose - rather than to let the NAFTA challenge go through the courts - to compensate AbitibiBowater to the tune of $130 million. So, that is $130 million that the Province did not have to face and the Province did not have to put out.

I guess we have to be grateful that AbitibiBowater did the NAFTA challenge because it put the responsibility then for compensation in the laps of the federal government. What we are dealing with here today is the responsibility that is left in the lap of the provincial government, and that is the responsibility for compensation to the companies that shared the assets of the hydroelectric power project on Star Lake. Obviously, these groups need to be compensated and have always been told they would be compensated.

My confusion today - and I started that confusion in my questions to the Premier during Question Period - is: What is the word that we are using? This says compensation. I have heard the Premier make reference to more than compensation. I have heard her make reference to what they owned prior to expropriation, they will own after we conclude the process. She has made the expression and she said it twice or three times here in the House today: We told the companies, we said to these companies when we did the expropriation, we will keep you whole.

Now, I am not sure what the Premier means by that statement: We will keep you whole. Maybe the Minister of Natural Resources does know what the Premier means by that statement. If not, either when he stands up to respond today in second reading or we go into committee, he can give us an explanation.

I want to be clear that when we are talking about compensation, we are talking about compensation that would mean the companies will get financial compensation upfront but no more access to the assets, because to me there is a difference. If you are talking about giving back or giving them what they had, then they will benefit; well into the future, they will continue benefiting. I think that the responsibility of the government is not to – they have a responsibility to those companies for compensation, up to the point of expropriation is what I would believe. Then, from then on their responsibility is to the workers and the families and the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and to the people of the Province.

It is important to me that I hear clearly that the assets that were expropriated are going to stay in the hands of the Province, while at the same time making sure that the companies get their fair and just compensation for what they have lost. In the original discussions - actually in the House in December, 2008 - the Premier did say at that time that the Cabinet will determine a formula. He did not give details of what that formula would include because he did not have the details. He did make some reference to capital infrastructure et cetera, but did not give any more details than that. I am assuming that the amendment which says, "Notwithstanding subsection (1), the following entities affected by the operation of Schedule C shall be paid the compensation the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine for each of them…" is what Premier Williams meant, because it was Premier Williams two years ago when he talked about Cabinet coming up with a formula.

Now I understand from the release that has come out from the Minister of Natural Resources just about an hour ago, and also from the comments of the Premier, that negotiations have been going on. I would take it from the meaning of the Premier and the meaning of the minister that probably negotiations have been going on non-stop since 2008. Certainly, on the day that we passed the original bill, government did speak with these companies and let them know what was going on and let them know that expropriation was happening. We do not know what else was said to them at that time or what else was said to the creditors at that time but they certainly were told ahead of time that expropriation was going on.

I would imagine that discussions with regard to fair compensation with those companies probably began right away. I would imagine that this government is pretty advanced in its discussions with these companies and I would like to know, from the minister, what it is, what is the direction that they are moving in. I need an assurance that we are talking about compensation in the sense that I understand it. That is a cash compensation to make up for their loss, not a passing back of the assets. So, I do not know what the Premier means when she talks about keeping the companies whole. I presume, making sure that they get their benefit, because of the expropriation in cash has to mean that; but, is that what is meant? Before I can vote for this amendment I need to know specifically what compensation means.

That is an important thing for me, Mr. Speaker, and as I read back over the Hansard of two years ago, that is the spirit I hear in the answers that were given by the Premier of the day, is that compensation would happen. The act itself had compensation in it and I want to make sure that we are clear about what compensation is. That is one of the big issues for me, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the bill that we are looking at here today.

Star Lake; it is true that the companies themselves who were involved in Star Lake were not companies that were going into bankruptcy and they had nothing to do with what was happening at the mill. The big issues that the government had were with AbitibiBowater. In actual fact, those companies were joined at the hip with Abitibi when it came to the generating plant at Star Lake because it was AbitibiBowater in partnership with CHI Hydroelectric of Stanford, Connecticut that constructed the station, the eighteen megawatt station on Star Lake. It began in May of 1997 and went on until October of 1998, and they were involved in that together. Then you also had, down the road in 1995, a contract between Hydro and Abitibi-Price and CHI. So you had a three-way, Newfoundland Hydro - that is what it was called at the time, that was Nalcor's name - Abitibi-Price, and CHI signed a contract on April 18, 1995 for the development and purchase of energy from the Star Lake facility.

Now, that agreement is still in effect, Mr. Speaker, because it is a twenty-five year agreement that began in 1998. There is an option in the agreement for the parties to renew the agreement for a further twenty-five years. Now I suspect that will never happen, but I would like to know from the minister: What is the status of that contract now? I would imagine that contract would come into play with regard to the discussions around what is going to be compensated. That twenty-five year contract which began in 1998 is obviously still in place, Abitibi-Price is gone but Hydro and CHI are still here. What happened to Abitibi-Price's part in that contract? Abitibi-Price, CHI, does that now include AbitibiBowater? Are they still part of that contract?

There are an awful lot of pieces that will have to be considered for compensation, and I am sure I do not have to tell that to the minister. I cannot imagine how complicated this process must be, but I believe there are some pieces of information that we should be able to get here publicly, and one is the definition of compensation, that we are talking about cash compensation. The other is: What is going to happen with this contract? Who are now parties to that contract, and will that contract be ended and compensation be made for the ending of that contract? These are some questions I have, Mr. Speaker.

These are details that are part of this amendment. They are sort of at the basis of it; they are embodied in it, but of course are not being talked about. If the government is considering actually returning assets to the companies named, if that is how they are interpreting compensation - it is not how I interpret it, but if that is how they are interpreting it - then I would like to know, how is the government dealing with that? What provisions would the government then make for the power that we will have to buy? What are the contracts that would have to be put in place? I really would be concerned if this is something that government is considering because what we would have is Nalcor, which is our Crown corporation, a public body, contracting out to private companies hydro generating facilities. It is bad enough that we have Newfoundland Power, which buys power from Nalcor and then sells it at a profit; it is bad enough we have it there. I would have hoped when the government did its energy plan and did its new act, that it would have gone the whole way and not just had Nalcor as our Crown corporation, but also take over Newfoundland Power and have that as our Crown corporation. They did not; they did not choose to go that direction. So, it is bad enough that we have that. I would hope that we will not have a continuation of that model with Nalcor selling power from the hydro generating facilities to these private companies.

So, I want more details on that as well, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the minister giving me detail on that.

The Premier - and I do agree with her - in Question Period today talked about the commitment to the companies that are going to benefit from the amendment that we are talking about today, benefit through the compensation that would be made to them. It is true that there is a commitment made to them and they have to be compensated. That is a commitment of the government, and it is a commitment of the Province.

I certainly agree that they have to be compensated, but, as I said earlier, I hope that the Premier and the government realize they also have - and they have showed it in the past, so I want them to continue showing it - their first responsibility, their first commitment, is to the people, the people of the Province. Not keeping the assets that they have expropriated on Star Lake, not keeping those assets, turning anything back to these companies, I think, is going beyond their commitment to those companies, and that they have to show, in negotiations, that they are going to be able to maintain a stance of cash compensation, not compensation in the form of giving back assets to them. Because, I think that is penalizing the people of the Province. The people of the Province now own that facility, and we should start being assured that the Province will always, 100 per cent, benefit from having taken over the facility on Star Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to put its mind to that, to ask itself the question: Why should the people of the Province be forced to sell power, which they pay to generate, to a private company? Even though that company, yes, did own it originally, but everything changed the minute expropriation happened.

It is a big job that government has. They do have to look at their responsibility to the people. They do have to take care of their commitment to the companies that were owners of the assets on Star Lake. I certainly would want to agree with them on making this amendment to the bill because it allows them to do the compensation. Practically speaking, an amendment does have to be made because the government does not have to be responsible to AbitibiBowater with regard to compensation; they have received their compensation from the federal government; however - and that is part of what this amendment is - I do need to know what this government means by compensation before I can vote for the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to put these thoughts out.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to have a few words on this bill. What we are looking at here today, Mr. Speaker, is that it is another chapter in the story of pulp and paper and Abitibi in this Province. I think what we are getting away from in this particular bill - and it seems to be very clear, "This Bill would amend the Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act to revise subsection 10(2) respecting the payment of compensation as a result of the expropriation of lands and assets under the Act." Basically, the payment made to Abitibi by the federal government certainly eliminates the need for further compensation to Abitibi, Mr. Speaker.

I know for the past 100 years in this Province that paper company, AbitibiBowater, provided much needed work in this Province and a good livelihood, actually, for a lot of people, including my parents, Mr. Speaker. I have had family and friends who worked in this industry. To say that the past year-and-a-half has been easy, it is a difficult transition when a business or operation closes and you lose so many jobs. You listen to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and they talk about we created this mess.

We did not create the bankruptcy that happened to AbitibiBowater, but we have to go back before that, long before that. We can go back - and a little history on, basically, how we got here. In 1992, when Abitibi closed number six machine in Grand Falls-Windsor, there were quite a few jobs that were lost at that particular time, Mr. Speaker. It did not end there, it was only two years later they came back with a threat that they were going to close number seven. What did the workforce out there do, and the union? They decided: Okay, we are going to take job losses. They agreed to take another job loss of somewhere around eighty to eighty-five of their membership just to keep it open, Mr. Speaker. Then, again a couple of years later, they put the same threat there again.

It has been an ongoing saga with AbitibiBowater, Mr. Speaker. We did not create this mess, this was thrown on us. I will say, Mr. Speaker, and when you listen to the Opposition and the comments they make, it seems like we created the mess, and we are in turmoil. Well, we did not create the mess, and we are certainly not in turmoil. Everything we have done has been out in the public. We dealt with the people who were affected, and the people directly affected, Mr. Speaker, was the workforce and the union leaders out there. What this government did was met with them time after time and worked with them to try to find out what their wish was, what they wanted this government to do, Mr. Speaker.

One thing was clear - because it was a decision of the workforce and the union workers; it was their decision - they had to make a decision on whether they were going to take a between 60-70 per cent job loss, vote on that, or not accept that agreement. Of course, they did not accept the agreement, and Abitibi decided to close, but that was forced on the workers, Mr. Speaker. What their main wish was to this government is that the natural resources that belong in this Province, to the people of the Province - and more specifically, Mr. Speaker, to the people of the Central Newfoundland region - is to stay in this area and not to leave with AbitibiBowater. When we brought in the legislation to expropriate the lands and the water rights and the fibre rights, everybody was very pleased that day - all the Province was pleased, Mr. Speaker, even the Opposition - that we did the right thing.

There is no question that they are looking for certain answers to some things they do not understand. Probably I do not understand all of it as well, but I do understand the fact that AbitibiBowater has been compensated with $130 million that the federal government paid out, and this was considered a fair compensation. All of that money that was paid out to AbitibiBowater was for what I just mentioned and it is my understanding that the other stakeholders who are involved in the partnerships are basically involved only in the hydro facilities, not the fibre, not the timber, which is what Abitibi received a fair compensation for, $130 million. So, it would lead me to believe that the compensation for these other people who are involved in just the hydro assets would be less. The question was asked, and there is probably an answer I am sure that will come out soon enough by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, when they get up there and ask these questions, the Opposition do, they forget that back in 1997 or 1996, or whenever it was when the Star Lake development came about and the stakeholders and shareholders were involved in it, Fortis and Abitibi and the rest, they were allowed to build that facility and reap the profits from it with no commitment to the pulp and paper industry whatsoever. This was under the former Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, no commitment whatsoever; nothing tied into the pulp and paper industry, which actually were the ones that were reaping the profits. AbitibiBowater was reaping the profits from our fibre, from their paper operation, and now of course from the hydro that they were receiving off the Star Lake development. So this bill basically eliminates the need for further compensation to Abitibi.

Now, a big part of this closure and bankruptcy and everything else, was the workforce out there and what we were going to do with development out there. I have to commend our task force, because this government put together a ministerial task force that did a very good job dealing with the people and the industry, different industries, and looking at other opportunities. I will say there have been quite a number of jobs created by investment that was made in the Central Region by this government. Some of the jobs came in the private sector; a lot of it actually came in the private sector. There are a number of industries out there, no doubt on a small scale, twenty-five to thirty, to forty employees, but I think that is what basically generates the economy, for the most part, in Newfoundland and Labrador. Some of these people were fortune enough to go back and get trained. They went to work in other fields, got trained for other skills. I know quite a few who ended up in the construction industry; some more ended up in the manufacturing industry; some more became involved in the investments that were made in the cranberry farms out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: The Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources is impressed with that. It is true, by the way. Cranberry farms seem to be, right now, a very good investment, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing with the investments from this government, Mr. Speaker, was the investments in infrastructure out there. I hear the Opposition say: well, what about infrastructure? What about putting money in infrastructure? What does that do? What it does, Mr. Speaker, is it creates jobs, creates a number of jobs, and they are good paying jobs.

I know one construction company out there that hired a couple of the Abitibi displaced workers. The money that was spent in infrastructure in the Central Region, a lot of it went into the Central Health care, the hospital there, a lot went into the College of the North Atlantic, and there will be more go into the addiction services facility when we get that one started up. The Home Heat Rebate Program, that particular office employs in the vicinity of twenty-five people. We are talking about twenty-five people going to work in one area, and then you talk about ten going to work in another place. Grant you, it is not the 400, or 500, or 600 who were working in one particular spot.

We also have to realize that the jobs that were lost, Mr. Speaker, through the closure and the bankruptcy of Abitibi were in many fields, not only in the mill itself, but in the harvesting, in the silviculture. This government stuck to the silviculture as well and the agriculture and invested $2.3 million in road construction and upgrades this past year for the purpose of agriculture and silviculture work; $2.3 million. When we are talking about $100 million investment, $2.3 million is still a lot of money. There was $40 million paid out in severance, which I know a lot of the workers, some of them friends, some of them neighbours, really appreciated that.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here is that basically this takes AbitibiBowater out of the equation. They have been compensated at a fair market value for their assets. I think myself, being a resident of the Central region, we are quite satisfied that that was done, because now we know the resources are ours, Mr. Speaker, it belongs to the Province, it belongs to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you. It is true, by the way, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have a commitment to other shareholders and stakeholders that have been involved in this partnership. They are listed in this bill. The bill says, "Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows: 1. Subsection 10(2) of the Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act is repealed and the following substituted: (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the following entities affected by the operation of Schedule C shall be paid the compensation the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine for each of them on an individual basis as a result of the expropriation of the lands and assets under this Act." Well, Mr. Speaker, Fortis Properties are mentioned there, and Fortis still operates businesses in this Province. Fortis did not take off and leave this Province. They employ a lot of people, and they invest a lot of money in this Province. That is why, when the minister spoke earlier, he said that these people will be compensated. These partners and stakeholders will be compensated, Mr. Speaker.

Let's go back to what we were saying earlier about the investments in the Central Region, Mr. Speaker. There has been a lot of money spent there in Central Newfoundland: $35 million in infrastructure; $5 million for upgrades in health care facilities across the region; $4.6 million in the Central Newfoundland health care centre, and the College of the North Atlantic. Many of the people who have made the transition from mill employee to other sectors have been helped a long the way by services made available to them by the provincial government such as career, financial counselling, job search techniques, transition supports, and skills assessments.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this was very important to the task force and this government. Under Human Resources, Labour and Employment of the time, the minister then - who was also the minister of task force - is now the Minister of Natural Resources. He did a very good job in making sure that the proper counselling was put in place for these workers in Central Newfoundland who were displaced from AbitibiBowater would at least find out what it was that they would like to move on to with regard to a career. Some of these people, Mr. Speaker, were still fairly young, in their forties; some, early fifties, with a lot of time left to work, and they made that transition. They were helped a long the way, Mr. Speaker, by the programs that were put in place by this government and HRLE.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador must be the primary beneficiary of any use of this resource and there must be a value-added component which creates jobs for the people of the Central Region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you.

This was another statement made by the new Minister of Natural Resources. That is why when the resources were expropriated, when they were brought back to this Province, Mr. Speaker, they also came back to the Central Newfoundland Region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: I am not even getting riled here. I am trying to explain to the people out there that we have had some very good investments in the Central Region -

AN HON. MEMBER: Very, very good.

MR. FORSEY: - very, very good - and we have been able to capitalize on a few of them, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, while we will not close the book, we will certainly close another chapter and get Abitibi out of this particular compensation package. Mr. Speaker, with the investments that this government has made in Central Newfoundland and the cloud that was hanging over the workers there for years and years, they did not know what they were going to do, well, we managed to keep the resources in this Province. They are now back to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and that is what is important.

So, yes, I will be supporting this bill, and I think the people in the Central Newfoundland Region will want us to support this bill because now they have been compensated, they have a fair market value for their assets, and this Province now has the resources back where they belong.

We have done a little history on how we got here, Mr. Speaker; we have done a little history on some investment in Central Newfoundland. Like I said, the past year-and-a-half was not what you would call easy, but we certainly weathered the storm, and we have done fairly well since then. Actually, things are starting to pick up in some areas and some industries out there.

I was listening to the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor the other day, actually, Mr. Speaker, saying that basically, that area and that region was actually doing very, very well. So, I am pleased to be able to stand up today, Mr. Speaker, and just to be able to say we have –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. FORSEY: Well, I would just to be able to say, Mr. Speaker –

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

MR. BUTLER: By leave.

MR. FORSEY: The hon. Opposition Member for Port de Grave said I have leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to clue up.

MR. FORSEY: I appreciate that, my colleague just next door there.

Basically, all I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I think we have done our due diligence as a government. We were all in agreement when the bill was passed for expropriation back in 2008. What we are doing here now, Mr. Speaker, is fairly clear. Basically, we are eliminating AbitibiBowater from the equation, and I will certainly be supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time we will adjourn debate until we return this evening, and by agreement we have agreed to return at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

This House now stands in recess until 7:00 p.m.


 

December 14, 2010                   HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVI No. 49A


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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to breaking at approximately 5:30 p.m. we were debating Bill 45, and at this time we will continue second reading of Bill 45.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I think we are going back to the hon. Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: My mistake, Mr. Speaker, and for no reason; I meant to call Bill 47, not Bill 45.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am happy the House Leader corrected that, although I would have spoken to Bill 45 if that is what she had called.

In fact, I am very happy tonight to be able to stand and speak to Bill 47, a bill which is An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by telling you and by telling everyone in this hon. House and by telling everybody at home, that I will be voting to support this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: I am doing that, Mr. Speaker, not just because I believe in what this act is saying and because I believe in what this amendment is about, but because I know that the people of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans who elected me to work on their behalf would want me to vote for this particular bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, let me read to you what the bill says. This is a subsection of the Abitibi-Consolidated Rights and Assets Act and it is repealing a section and then substituting another section. The notwithstanding subsection reads, "(1), the following entities affected by the operation of Schedule C shall be paid the compensation the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine for each of them on an individual basis as a result of the expropriation of the lands and assets under this Act". The groups that will be compensated, Mr. Speaker, will be: Fortis Properties Corporation; CHI Hydroelectric Company Inc.; and the secured creditors of the Exploits River Hydro Partnership and the Star Lake Hydro Partnership as represented by Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada.

What is missing, Mr. Speaker, is that we will no longer further compensate AbitibiBowater. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, why it is that the people who voted for me will be happy to hear that news. Let me set some context here, Mr. Speaker, as to why.

The closure of the AbitibiBowater Mill in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker, is best understood by the people who experienced that closure; by the people who lost their livelihoods; by the people who no longer have jobs in that particular industry; by the businesses that were affected by that closure. We are the ones who understand what the closure of that mill meant. I, in my capacity as the MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, my colleague, the MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, my colleague, the MHA for Exploits, my colleague, the MHA for Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, we all know and felt and experienced what the closure of that mill meant. We also understood very clearly how that company treated the residents of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and all of the areas in the Central Region.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the 100 years. We had some wonderful companies there, beginning with the old AND Company – the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company. We had companies like Price, Price Newfoundland. We had many companies who treated us extremely well in the Central area, who understood the privilege of being awarded those resources, who understood that they were making a very, very handsome living there as well. Not simply the workers, Mr. Speaker, but the company as well was doing exceptionally well as a result of being able to harvest those resources, as a result of being able to operate a business there. No one knows that better than those of us who have lived it; but, those very companies, companies like the AbitibiBowater company who reaped the benefits of those particular resources, Mr. Speaker, they had a different relationship with us. Theirs was purely a business relationship. It was about making money, and only about making money. It was always about the dollar. It was not about looking after a community, it was not about corporate responsibility, it was simply about the business case of the dollar. That is fine, but it is not what we were used to.

Mr. Speaker, when this government moved to expropriate those resources because the company was no longer meeting the mandate of seeing that the resources were used for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we made that move to expropriate, we said, at that time, that companies would be compensated. We said that; for assets that were taken, companies would be compensated. Mr. Speaker, what ensued after that was a discussion around how that compensation would happen but since then there has been the NAFTA challenge.

Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater, through the Government of Canada, has been awarded $130 million. Compensation enough I think for a company that has been raking in money for its bottom line for a long, long time on the resources of Newfoundland and Labrador and on the backs of the people of Central Newfoundland who worked hard to see that this company was able to survive. They have now been compensated for the assets to the tune of a $130 million paycheque. I think compensation enough.

What this act does, Mr. Speaker, is this act says: enough AbitibiBowater, you got your got; you got what you deserved from Newfoundland and Labrador; you got what you deserved from the taxpayers of this Province; $130 million, 100 years of operating in Grand Falls-Windsor; 100 years of making money out there. You have done okay, you got it. This act is now saying: so we are going to remove you from the act AbitibiBowater but other companies here do need to be compensated, and I have already highlighted those.

Now I understand from listening to the Leader of the Official Opposition, or the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition, that he will be voting against this bill. He is voting against it. I understand from that, that he thinks perhaps Abitibi deserves more. I do not know, he is voting against it. That is what it would mean if he is voting against it. Maybe he wants to give them more money. Maybe that is what he is intending when he says that, but that is his right. He has the right to vote as he sees fit; but, Mr. Speaker, those of us who understand how AbitibiBowater functioned in Grand Falls-Windsor understand very clearly that they have been well compensated and we will not be voting to see to it that they still have access to compensation. They had their access. They had it for a long, long time.

Mr. Speaker, we always said that compensation would be in place. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to see to it that these other three companies – and, again, I want to tell the people at home what those companies are - Fortis Properties Corporation, CHI Hydroelectric Company Inc., and the secured creditors of Exploits River Hydro Partnership and the Star Lake Hydro Partnership that is now represented by Sunlife. Those companies do deserve compensation, Mr. Speaker. This act, this amendment, will see to it that they too are compensated. We need to be fair. These companies have acted in fairness, these companies have acted in good faith, Mr. Speaker, and we need to ensure that we do the same for them. Therefore, I am glad to hear that the members opposite are in agreement with that. I am very glad to hear that they are in agreement; but, in any case, whether they agree or do not agree, they are voting against it, Mr. Speaker. I do not quite understand that, but that is what they are saying to us. They are going to vote against us.

Mr. Speaker, there is much that I can say about what happened out in Grand Falls-Windsor and what happened in terms of the whole process of Abitibi leaving the area. Grand Falls-Windsor and the surrounding area have probably come through its most difficult period in history. There is no question about that. The death of a 100-year-old industry is difficult, Mr. Speaker. There is no other way to describe it: It is a difficult time. There was a bit of a mourning period out there, but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, time heals and the people of Grand Falls-Windsor have shown great resilience out there.

I recall earlier this afternoon that the member opposite made some comment about fact that the people in the area deserve the credit for how well they have rebounded. You are right; they do deserve the credit for how well they have rebounded. Mr. Speaker, let's not lose sight of the fact that government played a role in that as well, and government played a large role in holding up and supporting people as we do when there is grief, when there is loss, and when there is mourning. The people elected us to do that. The task force that was put in place, Mr. Speaker, did a remarkable job of holding on to the people of the area, of saying to the people: We are not going to let you go; we are going to find a way.

Now, the leader opposite made some reference to the fact that we put $200 million in there, and as he said: Wouldn't that be spent in any area of the Province? It probably is, Mr. Speaker, but that was not the only money we put into that area. That $200 million is the annual allocation of money that goes into the area, Mr. Speaker. That is not the money that was the holding-on money. That was not the money that was the sustaining money. It was the extra $100 million, Mr. Speaker, that made the difference in seeing to it that the region had time to recover, that the region had opportunity to get over this particular loss in their lives. For that, Mr. Speaker, I know that the people of the area are grateful.

Again, we understand it because we are the ones on the ground. I live there, Mr. Speaker. These people who lost their jobs, they are my friends, they are my neighbours, they are family, and they are people who I encounter every single weekend when I am in Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker. So, I understand clearly from them, not because I think it but from them, because they tell me: Thank you so much for the $43 million that you put into severance. It has made a difference. It has given us that opportunity to breathe and figure out where we are going. That has made a difference, Mr. Speaker.

They also point out, Mr. Speaker, that the $100 million that was pumped into the area provided, in many cases, jobs; jobs that the members opposite are not able to see. For example, the twenty-five jobs that were created at the Home Heating Rebate and Parental Benefit office, and extra jobs that were created through HRLE and several other government departments out there, those are jobs that are tangible evidence of government supporting community. Jobs that were created as a result of the extra infrastructure builds that happened out there - $30 million for the expansion to the Central Newfoundland regional hospital, Mr. Speaker. I do not know who the members opposite think are going to do those builds but they take people, and that means that jobs were created out there, Mr. Speaker, in order to do that.

When we look at $5 million and some change for the expansion to the College of the North Atlantic out there, Mr. Speaker, again, we need people to go in and do those builds. Those buildings do not just go up out there; people have to be hired to put those buildings in place. Then there are long-term, sustainable opportunities that come from those jobs, Mr. Speaker. There are people hired to teach in the college now, to do those new courses that are being offered, to bring in students who are out there, there is housing that is needed and so on. There are many, many opportunities.

The youth addiction centre that will be built out there - and it will be built, Mr. Speaker. The one that the Opposition did not want to see going out there, that will happen, Mr. Speaker – that will happen. Not only will it happen, Mr. Speaker, it will happen and it will be a facility of excellence. There is some suggestion that maybe if you build it then people will come to staff it. Mr. Speaker, we have people out there now who can staff that, and we welcome additional staff. Again, opportunity of jobs created, Mr. Speaker.

Talking about the fact that we have done nothing makes no sense to me, Mr. Speaker. It makes no sense to the people of the area, Mr. Speaker. I invite the members opposite to come out to the Grand Falls-Windsor area and see for yourselves, see the fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: You have not been there in the last little bit of time, sir. With respect, I have not seen you out there. I want you to come out and I want you to see the fact that the residential sections of this town, residential builds, have doubled since this time last year – they have doubled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: I want you to come out, I want you to take a drive around, and I want you to see the commercial development that is happening out there, Mr. Speaker, unlike anything that we have seen in the last few years. Take a drive, come out and see; there are six, seven, eight buildings that are going up overnight out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS SULLIVAN: You come on out because I would happy to take you on that drive and show you what the people of the area think of what government has done. I want you to come and see that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand here today in support of this bill. I am happy to say that the people of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, without question, would want me to support this bill, Bill 47, which says and removes from the act compensation obligations of the provincial government to pay Abitibi for any rights or assets that they once possessed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because they had enough. They had 100 years of making money, Mr. Speaker. They had a $130 million paycheque delivered to them. They have had enough. It is time that we recognize when enough is enough. In this case, it sincerely is.

So, Mr. Speaker, happy am I today to stand on behalf of the people of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans and support Bill 47.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, he will close debate on Bill 47.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all thank all members who have spoken to second reading of Bill 47. I appreciate the opportunity to hear all of the people who speak on this and appreciate the varying viewpoints that have been brought forward.

It is important for us, on this side of the House, to make sure that we understand all of the viewpoints so that we are able to be fully informed in terms of the legislation that we are bringing forward. If there are any concerns or any issues that people have with the legislation, I will do my best to try to make sure that they understand what it is we are bringing forward here.

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of things that were mentioned by all of the people who spoke on this in terms of some of the good things that have happened since the expropriation, the reasons for the expropriation, some of the potential confusion that may exist in people's minds, and some of the challenges that people are having in understanding what it is we are trying to do with Bill 47.

Let me just say to all members of the House, in terms of what Bill 47 is meant to do, there are two things - if I could try to sort of condense it down into what the purpose of the bill is - that we are trying to achieve here. The first thing is we recognize and state very clearly, and have been very consistent in stating, that we want to be fair and equitable in the compensation that may be owed to any of the parties that were inadvertently harmed by the expropriation that occurred. Our action that we took was against AbitibiBowater. It was not against CHI, or Enel, or Fortis, or any of the lenders, or any of that kind of stuff. In the action that we took, in being able to get at Abitibi, there were some other parties that were affected. I would call it collateral damage; there was some collateral damage that may have been done. We want to make sure that we compensate people for that, and we want to do that in a fair and equitable manner.

The second thing we want to do with this bill is want to make sure that we very distinctly carve out, saw off, execute, get rid of Abitibi from a compensation perspective. That obligation has already been met, the obligation of compensation to Abitibi. It has been met by the federal government paying $130 million a couple of months ago to AbitibiBowater.

Now, I just want to talk for a second about some of the numbers that have been tossed around because a lot of the discussion that has happened here earlier in the day in the House in terms of what all the costs are is very speculative. I just want to use a couple of numbers to try to draw some attention to numbers that people use. The Opposition House Leader referred to the costs of environmental issues, and I will come back to that in a second. There were lots of numbers being thrown around. I will just take us back a little bit in time to when we talked about the Expropriation Act itself and the fact that we had inadvertently expropriated a mill and some other things.

The Opposition at the time was saying: Oh, that is going to cost a lot of money, hundreds of millions. It started out tens of millions, and then it grew very quickly to hundreds of millions. At one point I heard numbers as high as half a billion dollars. Five hundred million dollars was being thrown from the other side to this side saying: Your mistake, Mr. or Mrs. Government, is going to cost the people of the Province up to half a billion dollars. It did not cost the people of the Province half a billion dollars. It did not cost the people of the Province $100 million, or $5 million, or $2 million, or one red penny. It cost the Government of Canada, under a NAFTA challenge, $130 million. Abitibi accepted, willingly, $130 million as compensation for the Expropriation Act.

We would have been happy to go forth with that challenge and present our case to a tribunal or to an arbitrator. We believe we had a solid enough case that they would not have been paid a cent; but, unfortunately, the NAFTA challenge was not brought against the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because it was signed by the Government of Canada, it went against the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada, in its wisdom, as was its prerogative to do, as was its right to do, decided to negotiate a settlement - rather than pursue it through a court of law or through a tribunal – in arbitration.

That is fine, they did that, and we thank them for that. We feel it was a fair settlement. It was $130 million, not half a billion - with a B - dollars. I throw that out there just to give you some context for numbers that get tossed around sometimes: The reality of $130 million versus the speculation of half a billion. So I want people to keep that in mind as other numbers are being used.

Now, there were some questions asked about how far along are we in our negotiations, and where are we with these people, and what is at stake here, and how much is going to be paid and all that. I will be upfront with the members opposite. I cannot tell you the dollar amount at this point because it is still in a negotiation. Because we are in a negotiation, there is some sensitivity surrounding that. I do not say that to be coy, I say that because I cannot negotiate here on the floor of the House of Assembly.

I will also say, I will be upfront, whatever I can share with the members opposite, and all the members in this House when this deal is done, I will bring it back and it will be shared. People will have access to that. I have nothing to hide from that perspective. The only restriction I put on that is if there is commercially sensitive information that the Information and Privacy Commissioner throws out and says you cannot declare that. That will be something that the third parties that we are dealing with, Enel and Fortis, we will tell them what it is we are trying to put out, and if they have some difficulty with that, the Information and Privacy Commissioner will be the arbitrator of what can and cannot go out. From my perspective, I am prepared to defend it all, and I am prepared to put it all out there. I have nothing to hide on this, and I will be prepared to put it out there.

Now, in terms of our partners that we are dealing with, one of the partners is what we refer to in this House as Enel. It is not the letters N-L, as in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is actually a company name, E-N-E-L, but it is pronounced N-L. So, we are dealing with Enel on the Star Lake generating facility. The original arrangement on Star Lake was that Enel owned a 49 per cent interest and Abitibi owned 51 per cent. When we expropriated, we now own that 51 per cent interest. So, we are in a negotiation with Enel as a company to try to determine fair compensation.

Now, does that mean we are going to own it all? We might. We might own 100 per cent of it. If we do, to the Leader of the Third Party's question - compensation - we would write a cheque for that 49 per cent interest, whatever value that was deemed to be. It may also mean that we will make them whole – that has been the word that the Premier has used from time to time. By that, it may mean that we will still be partners if Enel wants the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to be a partner with them, but that is a part of the discussion that is now occurring. That is a part of the negotiation that is now happening. We are happy to be a partner at 51 per cent and 49 per cent, and we are just as happy to be 100 per cent owner if we can come to a satisfactory arrangement on what their 49 per cent interest is.

To the Leader of the Third Party's question about what is the formula. I believe the Opposition House Leader used the terms, a method, in the original bill; I forget the exact language he used. It was a method I think, if I remember correctly. It said in the original legislation that we would determine a method of compensation. That has been removed. The Opposition House Leader is quite correct. We have removed that terminology. We did not remove it to hide what we were doing or to not have people understand what it is we are doing - I have already said I will disclose that information at an appropriate time - we removed the word, method, because we needed more flexibility in terms of our discussions that we were having in our negotiations. Method was very singular, and we felt that to do a negotiation with Enel and to do a negotiation with Fortis we could not use the same method necessarily. At the end of the day we may, but we wanted some flexibility to be able to tweak it a little bit because both circumstances are different. They are different than the percentage of shares that each of those two companies own in the two different projects.

The purpose of taking out the word, method, was not to be coy or to hide anything, it was to allow greater flexibility, it was to allow us more options in terms of the negotiation that we were having. To speak to the compensation process - I will just go back to that point that the Leader of the Third Party spoke to: How are we determining that? I will say this to you, from my perspective, in laymen's terms of trying to explain this as best I can: There are physical assets there that have been expropriated and have a value. They would be depreciated capital assets, but there are people in accounting worlds who can calculate that and determine what that physical asset is worth. There were contracts in place called power purchase agreements that had some future value; there were amounts of monies that were coming in.

Those contracts have all been terminated; they were terminated at the time of the expropriation. There may be some residual value there that would have to be compensated for. There may be other things, I am not into the weeds of it in terms of an accounting perspective, Mr. Speaker, but there may be other things that would have to be taken into account. Again, going back to the principle of being fair and equitable to the parties that were affected by this who we did not mean to affect, we will bring in experts, ourselves as a government, who will determine some value for this compensation and what the level of criteria should be on each of the compensation values. I am sure the other parties, Enel and Fortis, will do the same. Somewhere between those two points, what the government experts say and what the Fortis or Enel experts say, somewhere in between there I am sure we will come to an agreement. We are trying to do this to be very fair to the people who were caught up in this situation, who should not have been caught up in it. We are trying to do it in as open and as transparent a way as we can, given the sensitivities of the negotiations that are currently ongoing.

In terms of the environmental issues, Mr. Speaker, there is concern over the environmental mess that was left. Let's be clear, first of all, the mess was left by Abitibi. It was not something that this government left; it was left by the company that was operating. When we expropriated, we did in fact include some of that in our expropriation. So we now are supposedly liable for that, people think. Well, that is not how it works. The polluter pays.

We went to the Quebec court and the Quebec court shot down our argument; but, guess what? We asked for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is very difficult to get, as I understand it. I am not a lawyer, but in talking to people in the legal profession I am told that does not happen very often. We have been granted leave. We believe we have a case. In some research that we have done there are other similar cases that I have heard about that potentially could set a precedent. When we get our opportunity to argue in the Supreme Court of Canada, we will bring forth that information and put forth our arguments. Ultimately, what we are hoping is that the polluter will pay. AbitibiBowater, as the polluter, will pay for what it was they did. Whatever amount of money that requires will be the amount of money they will obviously have to pay to clean up. It could be very expensive.

In terms of some of the costs, I want to just go back to that for a second. I do not know if it was specific about legal, but it was generally about the expropriation and all of the actions that took place since the expropriation. In the recess that we took, I did do some digging to see if I could get a number around that. The best I can give the members opposite at this point is somewhere between $7 million and $8 million. I do not have a definitive figure and I am sure I can provide more detail once I get an opportunity to look into that issue further. Right now, I am being told by my officials that a number that would fairly represent and approximate our involvement in the Abitibi situation, the expropriation, would be somewhere between $7 million to $8 million for legal, professional services and other things like that. I just want to give that to the members opposite for their benefit.

In terms, Mr. Speaker, of some of the things that we have done, as a government, and the comments from the opposite side of the House about taking credit and patting ourselves on the back, I would be the first to stand up and say this is not about taking credit. This is not about patting ourselves on the back. This is about recognizing the terrible situation that AbitibiBowater put the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador in. Abitibi played that card and somebody had to stand up to AbitibiBowater, and that somebody was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the employees and the people of Central Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: We stood up for the people out there. As chair of the ministerial taskforce, I would say to you I have been back and forth there thirty to forty times in the last year-and-a-half, maybe more. I have been back and forth there a lot, I will say that to you, and I have met with many people; some people who are very, very troubled; some people who are very, very traumatized by the situation that occurred with AbitibiBowater leaving the Province. One thing I can say to you about all of those people, when they were at the depths of despair, when they were at their darkest hour, with no severance, no pension, no medical entitlements, nowhere to turn, no job retraining, no job prospects, it was not AbitibiBowater that reached out, it was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as it should have on behalf of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: It was the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that did it, not because we wanted a pat on the back, we did it because when we went out on the doorsteps knocking on the doors of those people looking for their support during our election years, our commitment to them was to be there for them when they needed us. The people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador needed the members of this government at that time and we were there for them and we will continue to be there for them as we move into the future. Let's be clear about that, it is not about credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: It is about making sure you do the right thing. We made a commitment to those people and we are living to that commitment, and we will continue to do that.

I just want to also reference, Mr. Speaker, going back to the environmental liabilities; there was a reference that I said we were on the hook for those liabilities, a reference from the opposite side of the House. I certainly do not think I said that. I will check Hansard tomorrow, and I checked my notes that I had written, I did not have that phrase anywhere in my notes. If I did say it I will correct it tomorrow, but just for the record, in case I did say it, I want to be clear. We are not on the hook for those environmental liabilities. I have never accepted, nor has this government accepted that we are on the hook. From day one we have been fighting to try to make sure that Abitibi lived up to the responsibility that we believe, as a government, it has, where the polluter pays. They are the polluter and we believe they should pay. We have gone through the court system and we will continue to advance it to the highest levels of the courts until we get our day in court where we have a final decision. The fact that we have been granted leave to appeal gives us some hope and optimism on this side; and, as I indicated earlier, we believe we have a strong case that we will put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am just looking through some notes I made, and I may not have answered all the questions. I will get up again at an appropriate time and answer any that may be. In terms of where we go from here, I just want to, if I can, try to give some sense without divulging too much of the negotiation process.

In terms of Enel, the company, there have been many meetings and lots of discussion, lots of negotiation, and we have gone back and forth. As a matter of fact, as a new minister I have a request from Enel to meet with me, and I am trying to arrange that in the next few days. We would like to bring this to a head fairly quickly, and we feel we are getting closer. We think we have a good potential of doing an arrangement with Enel.

With Fortis, it is my understanding, being a new minister - I was not there for all of this, in terms of the departmental stuff, but with Fortis there has not been a whole lot of negotiation per se, but there have been some discussions. Fortis, basically, we have not had the same level of engagement with them; not for any particular reason, other than there was really no push to get it done. We wanted to get Abitibi straightened away, and that just happened with the NAFTA challenge in the Government of Canada agreement. That just happened in the last few months. We were really nervous about doing too much with either one of the affected parties until Abitibi itself got straightened away. Now that that has been straightened away, we are much more into the tooing and froing with Fortis and Enel in our discussions with them. We are now going back to the table with all of those parties. We have indicated to them we want to go back to the table, and we believe, even with Fortis, there is a good likelihood that we will conclude an arrangement.

The key to this, Mr. Speaker, is we are hoping to conclude an arrangement with Enel and Fortis that is acceptable to them, that they feel is fair to them, that they feel has treated them responsibly and properly during this whole process - because for the last couple of years, basically, this has been an issue for them – and we want to make sure we do the best we can so they feel that when they walk away from the table, having done whatever deal we do with them, that they have been compensated appropriately, that they feel they have been treated respectfully and they have been treated fairly, and that they can say: yes, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador lifted a commitment that it made to us some sixteen, seventeen, eighteen months ago, or however long ago that was.

We are going to do that, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you. As the minister, as long as I am here in this chair, I will assure you that we will do that with both of those parties and the other party which is the group of lenders. I will just speak to that for one quick second. The group of lenders, quite simply, that was a loan payment that needed to be made on behalf of the parties that were affected by the expropriation. We have just continued to make the loan payment, and they are happy with that as I understand it. They have not lost anything; all payments have been on time. So, they had a financial arrangement that they just wanted to make sure did not get interrupted by the expropriation action. It has not been interrupted, and we have continued to make those payments.

Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat for now, but I am quite prepared to continue to try to answer any questions that the members opposite may have, and I now close second reading.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act. (Bill 47)

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

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

Now?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 47)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Order 14, second reading of Bill 45.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill 45)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Acting Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, I became the Acting Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment just over a week ago. This legislation has been analyzed, put together, brought through the Cabinet process and here to the floor of the House of Assembly by a previous minister; however, tonight to introduce the legislation, it is my job to speak in second reading to this legislation.

I want to acknowledge the amount of work that went into this legislation. It has been done through the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment through the Labour Relations Agency, because it is actually a labour law that deals with collective bargaining; however, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was also heavily involved in the development of this amendment to the legislation because it affects the fishing industry as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, members of this House will recall that in 2006 government brought forward the amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. At that time, it was to establish a balanced regime for collective bargaining through the establishment of a Standing Fish Price Setting Panel to act as an arbitration panel to assist in the setting of fish prices. Mr. Speaker, at that time it was government's intent to bring forward these amendments so that we can ensure the timely commencement of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and to be able to maintain the confidence that international markets would need with respect to the reliability of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what that means is that as the fishing season approaches, the dates can change and it can be based on whether or not the people involved in the fishery will go out and fish and if they have a price negotiated for their fish. The whole gist of the legislation was to be able to assist the fishing industry in being able to start at a reasonable time in the season. When I talk about international markets, it is certainly very important that the supply of fish is there when the market is needed. Being able to present Newfoundland and Labrador as a place where there is stability certainly ensures the markets for any given fishing season.

Since that time, since 2006, we have undergone five fishing seasons. With that experience, we see the opportunity now to adjust the legislative framework that we work under and to make further improvements. Again, this is to enhance and build on what already exists, as opposed to producing new legislation; it is to amend what we have now and to basically fine-tune it. It is a logical process that we have in place and that we will enhance through this amendment. Certainly, we understand the importance, again, of making sure there is stability in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the members in this Legislature may recall that in December 2006, government brought forward amendments to the legislation to clarify its scope, to provide greater flexibility, and to ensure that it remained responsive to the needs of the stakeholders. One of the changes at that time was to provide government with the ability to modify, through regulation, the authority of the fish panel with respect to the form of arbitration it could utilize to establish the price and conditions relating to the sale of fish.

Indeed, this amendment, Mr. Speaker, also provided government with the flexibility to provide the panel with arbitration options should complexities emerge during a season and the need present itself. A further change made to the act in 2006 brought forward a new provision that permitted the fish panel, on an application from a party, to reconsider an earlier decision if a reasonable case could be made that failure to do so could place the conduct of the fishery in jeopardy. These innovative solutions have worked for the fishing industry in this Province despite the challenges faced with international markets and the rising Canadian dollar.

This is a remarkable achievement given the history of the turbulent collective bargaining times that we had in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It sent a message to the rest of the world that the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador was stable and there was a reliable source of fish for the world markets, Mr. Speaker. That is extremely important.

As acting minister responsible for labour relations in this Province, I am pleased today to table the amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, otherwise referred to as FICBA, that involve the administrative amendments to enhance the model of collective bargaining for the benefit of both parties. Mr. Speaker, a clear and transparent process for the setting of fish prices and, on occasion, when parties are unable or unwilling to do so themselves in the interests of all the stakeholders, that this clear and transparent process for setting the prices is absolutely necessary. Being able to provide flexibility to streamline or to clarify the process for all reconsiderations will support this overall goal. That is what these amendments attempt to do.

Mr. Speaker, the changes being introduced in this bill establish clearer and timelier processes for the setting of fish prices; therefore, again, this provides a signal to the international markets that we have a stable source of fish and a reliable source of fish here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The world markets, Mr. Speaker, need this stability. The bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, includes changes that can improve collective bargaining relations and ensure clearer, more predictable rules regarding collective bargaining in this industry.

The key elements in this amendment, Mr. Speaker, are as follows: the publication of set dates when fish prices must be set, to provide greater certainty to harvesters and processors as they plan for the opening of the fishery. Another key element is the inclusion of a demonstration by parties that they have engaged in collective bargaining. That will be demonstrated through the exchange of proposals. They need to be able to demonstrate they have been engaged in collective bargaining to ensure that the parties are working together to achieve a negotiated collective agreement, which includes the price they will pay for the fish.

Also, Mr. Speaker, another key element is the streamlining of the appeals process - in this case, it is called the reconsiderations - by permitting the minister, through regulation, to establish four rules surrounding these applications. The four rules include: (1) requiring the use of final offer selection; (2) requiring that decisions be made within forty-eight hours; (3) establishing that market and currency factors have to have changed significantly for reconsiderations to apply; and, (4) allowing the parties to individually file a reconsideration application only once a year per species. These latter amendments are dealing with the reconsideration process and will be provided for primarily under regulation rather than in the act.

Mr. Speaker, government believes that the parties need to accept responsibility for bargaining of fish prices, and making the amendments to this legislation today certainly supports that direction. In developing the amendments, consultations were held with the Fish, Food and Allied Workers, the FFAW; consultations were also held with the Association of Seafood Producers, known as ASP; and consultations were also held with the Seafood Processors of Newfoundland and Labrador, known as SPNL; also, the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel were also involved in the consultations.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the stakeholders involved in the changes in this legislation were consulted. While there was not full consensus among the stakeholders on the changes they wish to see, there is certainly a level of satisfaction that these enhancements – and I feel a level of satisfaction – to the collective bargaining framework will ensure the accountability for bargaining remains with the parties, and that is important as well, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the House of Assembly to endorse these changes to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to support this very important industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate and to the successful implementation of these changes.

Thank you.

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.

It is my privilege to be able to stand and speak to this act, Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

I would just like to say as well, as my colleague said earlier, we realize it is not against the rules and so on, but this is another important piece of legislation that is being dealt with today. It was tabled yesterday, the briefing was this morning at 11:30, and we have been kind of scrambling with all the things on the go in the House and so on, to try to get our heads around it and understand exactly what the implications are as they pertain to the changes in the fishing industry, which are very important.

I would like to kind of summarize where it is from our perspective, and then we would trust that the minister could speak to it a little later and be able to correct anything that might not be presented properly. The purpose of the amendment, as we understand it, is to provide more certainty to the fishing industry by strengthening the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel through imposing more structure and really tightening the timelines and so on. It adds a section which allows the minister to set the date, whether it is two or three months prior to, whatever the case might be, of when the price of fish is to be set by the panel. That is important, because the current regulation states that the price has to be set only three days before the start of the normal fishing season.

As you can appreciate, the people who are involved in the fishing industry, the harvesters in preparation for the fishing season - there is a lot of work to be done, a lot of investment to be made and so on, a lot of preparation that goes into it. In a time of uncertainty as to whether the season will open or what the pricing will be and so on, then that time frame to allow them to understand the pricing and where the season is going for that particular year is very important. While the amendments to some degree may be administrative and so on, this particular piece is very important.

It also states that in the event the minister may need to vary that date, that it can be done by joint agreement of the FFAW, ASP and SPNL as well; again, important that they all have their participation. The parties are also compelled to exchange proposals with each other a few days before the panel's hearing to basically encourage a negotiated price, as the panel is seen as an option of last resort for those parties in that particular situation. There is also a provision for the Minister of HRLE to set regulations regarding the reconsideration option.

As an example, an appeal option, either party can use it if the fishing industry is deemed to be in jeopardy, given changes in the market and the global economy that would affect that pricing. The end result then, Mr. Speaker, is that on a go-forward basis the panel will have to consider the market, consider the currency conditions that would affect the pricing for the industry as the fish season unfolds. The panel then has forty-eight hours to make its decision; I believe would be the way it would be.

These are some comments basically around that piece of legislation that we would like to make. The amendment will be seen, I believe, both as positive and also as controversial. That would depend really on which player you are in the industry. The fishing industry probably has a lot of industries kind of play to that two-sided interpretation anyway. Certainly, in this situation we believe we will see the same.

We believe that the amendment will be seen as being favourable by the harvesters and the FFAW as it will provide more certainty, as I just mentioned, of when they can expect to go fishing. I know for myself, last year in my district, as I am sure it was for many of the MHAs in their own respective districts, the uncertainty around the beginning of the fishery last year just really brought a cloud, so to speak, over it. It is not good for the industry, not good for the economy, not good for the Province, and not good for any of us, I do not believe.

To be able to deal with that is a good thing. They will see it as a step in the right direction and they probably may not even see it as going far enough. That, I think, would probably be something we could expect to see in terms of their position. They may argue that it does not force the ASP into the room to negotiate. Then, again, clearly we understand government's role is not to negotiate but to provide that legislative framework where the negotiations take place. We understand that.

On the other end, Mr. Speaker, the large processors may not like it and they may allege that there is interference taking place. The ASP has in the past called for Final Offer Selection, FOS, throughout the whole fishing process. That has been their stand and I guess that is where we would expect them to be.

One concern is that the small processors do not have access to the bargaining table as do the larger processors. I know that is one the government has heard over the past three or four years in particular, and certainly longer. Small processors in this Province have met with the Minister of Fisheries - back to Minister Rideout when he was minister - Minister Hedderson, Minister Jackman, and also the Labour Ministers Shelley and Sullivan. It has been an ongoing battle for them, if you will, in terms of requesting that the government amend the act to allow all processors to have access to collective bargaining.

Currently, producers who are not a member of the ASP, the majority of processors' organization, then they are prevented from participating in collective bargaining on a given species, despite the fact that legislation requires that all processors pay the cost associated with collective bargaining. They have an issue there; they have been arguing it. I would certainly encourage government to continue to look at that. It is basically, from their position at least, it is patently unfair, if you will, to have negative implications for business owners who are not members of the ASP. I would suggest it is time that that change and that the small processors have access to that part of the Collective Bargaining Act.

If I could just talk for a moment a little bit about the background of the whole fish pricing in Newfoundland, fish pricings have been set by collective bargaining since about 1972. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the last piece of legislation that Premier Joey Smallwood brought in before he left office. Since about 1977, it has been a binding arbitration mechanism. Fish pricing and collective bargaining are not new to the industry and it has been around a long time. Disputes went on and the arbitration mechanism that is called the Final Offer Selection, or the FOS, whereby the arbitrator could pick one position and so on. We understand that about in 2003, Mr. Speaker, that model collapsed for all species but was implemented again in 2004-2005 for the shrimp by the agreement of the FFAW and the producers. In 2006, government put in place the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel. It has been there since that time, and it has been utilized each year to help with the positioning of the pricing.

Mr. Speaker, 2010 saw one of the biggest - I do not know about the biggest, but certainly a big dispute in the fish price setting for that year. Particularly what happened in 2010, of course, we saw where the ASP actually boycotted the panel and kind of ignored their pricing. It was back in February of last year when they severed ties with the panel and called for a full industrial inquiry into price setting in the fishing industry, and also said that government should compensate them as producers for their losses. It sparked major dispute in the industry. On the one side we had the FFAW accusing the processors of holding a gun to the heads of the government, or of union busting and so on, and threaten not to fish if the price was not right. Again, as I mentioned a moment ago, the uncertainty and the upheaval that it caused to those involved in the industry is certainly not something that we would want to see this year or any other given year. I am certain that the minister has made that comment, both in the House and in different places that we do not want to repeat 2010. So, if that is where this legislation helps to take us, then that would be a good thing.

One of the things that happened in 2010 in the dispute was the Fogo Island situation with the Fogo Island Co-op, where they were a member of the ASP at the time, they went ahead and bought crab and negotiated a price from harvesters, even when the ASP would not. Of course, they were kicked out of the association for following, basically, what the panel price setting was. So, now this organization does not have access to the collective bargaining process in the industry, in which they are a participant, nor do they have access to the MSC eco-label that the ASP has. So, they certainly feel that they have been ostracized by the ASP.

I want to mention, I do not think I could not speak to the MOU for a second in terms of this piece of legislation, in terms of how it relates to it, but we have been waiting all year for that process to be completed. We had hoped, the government had hoped, I guess, and we all had hoped that before the 2011 fishing season came upon us that the MOU process would be complete. At least from a point of recommendations we would understand it. Hopefully, it would be something that would bring us to where we need to be in terms of rationalizing the industry, and we have yet to see what the recommendations would be. We have yet to see whether the government will be supporting those recommendations. Obviously, us as an Opposition, we are yet to see whether we would be supporting it as well. The two industries are just a few months away from starting the harvesting and the processing, and we know that the MOU process will not be ready in that time frame.

So, in that light, we see this piece of legislation as being very important, as the minister being able to set the time when the price setting panel has to have its work complete, so that the pricing is out there and the harvesters know what is going to take place, they are able to get ready, and we are able to have a good fishing season in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would conclude my comments and just thank you for the opportunity to speak to that this evening.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you would have noticed before, I tried to speak to Bill 45 earlier. Now I get my chance to speak to Bill 45 as well, and I am certainly happy to do so. In my capacity in the former department as Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency, I was happy to be working on this particular file. I have to admit that being from Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans I really did not have much experience on the fishing file. Through this particular aspect of my portfolio, Mr. Speaker, I learned a fair bit with regard to the fishing industry and around the legislative component of the act, I think it is referred to as the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, I have learned a great deal.

In my conversations with members of the FFAW, with members of SPNL, with members of ASP, and the panel, Mr. Speaker, I have come to a greater understanding of the difficulties within the fishing industry of this Province, an industry that is so critical to Newfoundland and Labrador. I am very grateful for having had that experience. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am exceptionally happy to rise here this evening and to offer some comments, and to offer my support as well for the proposed amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, was a very, very difficult year in the fishery. In fact, we have had several very difficult years within the fishery in the last five or six years. It was predicted that it was going to be one of the most difficult years on record. The world economy being what it was, emerging from a recession and so on, markets for fish were very, very uncertain. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the fishery experienced a better year than we ever could have anticipated in spite of the fact that there were some challenges. One of those challenges was that the parties themselves failed to negotiate a deal on setting a reasonable price for fish. That is an exceptionally difficult challenge that we face within this industry, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless a price was set, the panel did set prices, the fishery did get started and it was a good year in 2010 for fishing in spite of all of the predictions that I and many others had made with regard to this industry.

Mr. Speaker, when negotiation fails, when the parties are not able to reach a settlement, when they are not able to negotiate a price for fish, whatever the species, then that creates certain instability in the industry. It also undermines the confidence that the international market has in the fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We acknowledge the fishery as being perhaps one of the most critical industries that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador; and, Mr. Speaker, as a government, therefore, we simply cannot stand by and see those challenges continue to impede the progress of our fishery. Therefore, it is government's responsibility to do what it can to try to make a difference here. That is the reason the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel was put in place in the very first place. That is precisely the reason why in 2006 we said we have to do something here to help out with this, one of the critical and one of the most crucial industries in Newfoundland and Labrador, because thousands of people depend on that.

Prices, Mr. Speaker, have to be set early. They have to be set early so that we can say to the market that we are open for business. They have to be set early so that we can say to the harvesters go out and fish. It is time that you go out and fish, exceptionally important; but yet, as I said, there are challenges. Last year, in particular, when we had one party who did not come to the table, who did not want to negotiate, who refused to go to the panel as well, exceptionally difficult.

Mr. Speaker, given all of that history we decided it was time perhaps to explore some options, to look at some enhancements, to safeguard the industry, if you will. So, looking at our legislative framework we said: What is it that we can do here? How can we engage to see to it that there is an earlier start in the fishery, to see to it that this industry continues to move forward? Of course, we acknowledge right away that collective bargaining between the parties is the most effective way to do that, and that will always be the most effective way, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are proposing, that parties negotiate, that parties collectively bargain a contract here and set a price for fish; but, as I said, there are times when that just does not happen and therefore we have the panel.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as a government we are committed to the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel here in this Province, the panel works. The fishery has started every year, and it has started because the panel has been there to step in and see to it that the fishery is started. We are committed to that, but in any sense we decided we would engage the parties.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and I met on several occasions with the parties. We met with the FFAW, we met with SPNL, we met with the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel and we met with ASP, Mr. Speaker. We said to them, within the framework of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, what can we do to tighten things up? What can we do within that collective bargaining framework to see that we can get that start to the fishery and to see that we sustain the fishery throughout the season? It probably will not surprise very many people here in the House, Mr. Speaker, to know that the parties were polarized. When we did have those conversations there was still not necessarily agreement. There was some toing and froing, and we facilitated that; but, in the end, there really were some very polarized views with regard to that.

Difficult labour relations; it is not surprising, again, to anyone here in this House, Mr. Speaker. There have always been difficult labour relations between the harvesters and the processors. Mr. Speaker, we cannot take responsibility for that relationship. That is not our responsibility. What our responsibility is, it is to see how we can facilitate, to see how we can conciliate, and to see how we can help this fishery to move forward. That is what we have done. We have found ways to support any impasse that might be out there.

We are proposing in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, which is called An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, certain amendments to ensure, first of all, accountability for collective bargaining, because that is what we want to see happen in the first place. We really do want the parties to bargain collectively in the very first place. That is where the accountability rests. It rests with the harvesters and it rests with the processors, but we also have in place a mechanism that can help in the event that an agreement just cannot be reached.

In terms of the enhancements that we have put forward as a result of consultation, as a result of the minister and I having had many, many conversations around this particular issue, we are proposing several enhancements and the member opposite just outlined those enhancements. In fact, he did a very good job of identifying what the amendments are all about. That particular technical briefing must have been very good this morning because you did a great job, Sir, of outlining what those particular amendments are, and I was really happy to see he shared our opinion, that it is the right way to be going. So, I thank him for that.

In terms of the three particular ones that I want to highlight, we have required and we have put in place now a requirement for harvesters and processors to engage in collective bargaining by showing us that they have done that, by sharing offers. We want to see some visible sign that there has actually been collective bargaining taking place. We have asked them to show us that they have shared offers across the table. We also have a provision in place to ensure that when required, prices are set by the panel early in the fishing season. We need an early start. It is a short season, Mr. Speaker. We need that early start to the fishery here. Therefore, we have put in place that when required, prices are going to be set by that panel and they are going to be set early.

There is a new regulation making authority for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that will support a more efficient reconsideration process. Mr. Speaker, reconsideration should be a very last resort. It is not an opportunity to go back and say: I did not like the price, can we set another one? It is not about that. It is about looking at the situation itself. Therefore, the panel is going to have to make some decision around whether or not the conduct of the fishery is in jeopardy. In addition to that, it is going to have to look and say: Are there significant changes within the currency? Are there significant changes in terms of the international markets and so on? If so, and it deems acceptable, it will accept the application for a reconsideration or an appeal process. That is not something we are encouraging that needs to happen very often, but should those situations arise, then the panel is there to look at a reconsideration.

Some might suggest, Mr. Speaker, that has happened on a number of occasions and has been a crutch that either of the parties has used. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. In all of the years since the panel has been in place, reconsideration has only been called for seven times. Only three times did the panel agree to hear a reconsideration or to hear an appeal, Mr. Speaker. Again, we encourage that to be the norm, that it should be a very rare occasion when parties go looking for a reconsideration or an appeal. In the event that the circumstances suggest that is the way it ought to go, then the panel is there to do that.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to tell you that government is determined to provide the supports required to ensure the fishery can function and that the model used to support that process is flexible and is efficient. I believe these amendments will accomplish those goals, Mr. Speaker. They will additionally send that message to the international markets, that Newfoundland and Labrador is open, there is a fishing industry here that is exceptionally viable, and that it is a good business for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I too am very pleased to be able to stand and speak to Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. While on one level one could say: Why does an MHA from St. John's want to speak to the fishery? Once upon a time I would have had several fishing villages in my district. Right now, I do have part of the Port of St. John's, which is the largest fishing port in the Province. I think it is incumbent upon all of us MHAs in the House to be concerned about the fishery because - as we all believe, I think, and as I have said myself in this House this week - it still is the backbone of our culture and of our economy. I am really pleased to see this bill brought to the House today. Unfortunately, I did not receive it until this morning. So, I am bringing as much to it to bear as I can based on the short time that I had it in my hand. It did not get delivered to our office at all. I had to go looking for it this morning.

Having said that, it is pretty straightforward on one level, and from what I have heard, the interchange that has gone on, I think people who have stood before me have spoken to the details, and when you look at it, it is pretty straightforward with regard to the date by which the pricing conditions of the sale for a species to be set in a year by those who are a part of the collective bargaining; and the big thing, of course, is the maintenance of the panel. That is the key thing, and it is extremely important that the panel has been kept in place. I applaud the minister for making sure that happened because if we are going to move anywhere with this fishing industry, keeping the price setting panel in place is going to be essential. The role of the minister with regard to regulations is also key.

Obviously, we have not had the time to go through this line-by-line with a legal eye and say: Is there a detail here that might not work? I am hoping that is not the case. I am sure the minister is quite forthright in wanting to have an amendment that is really going to be effective for everybody in the fishery, whether we are talking about the processors, whether we are talking about the harvesters, or whether we are talking about the plant workers, everybody has to benefit. I think that this is a major attempt at making sure that everybody does benefit.

What we had happen in the fishery this year, in particular, can never happen again. I think it is appalling, it is atrocious that the processors were able to do what they did, to act as if they were being held hostage, to pretend that if they gave in with regard to the price of the crab that they were going to go under. The fact that they were adamant about that, yet when all became said and done here they had profits, and now, of course, they will not open their books so that people can see how much they made. That kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. That is what I see good about this piece of legislation: The government saying that we cannot tolerate that any more and that a process has to be put in place to make sure that that kind of behaviour ceases.

So, the demand for having a price shared with the other partners in the collective bargaining before it goes to the panel, and to have the demand that that be shared at least forty-eight hours before the ASP goes to the panel, that there have been negotiations, they have to show that they have sat down, that there has been talk. You just do not have the Association of Seafood Processors appearing out of the blue with this low number that they just pick out of the sky and say this is where we want to start. That is not the way to do it. I certainly hope - the legislation in and of itself will not do it - that the process that it is putting in place will really make for real negotiations going on, because that is not what has happened in the past. It has not been real negotiation that has gone on and not real collective bargaining, not honest collective bargaining. That is what we have to see happen here.

I agree with the minister, yes, government cannot get in between the harvesters and the processors. I realize that, but I think it is even more of a role, not just of facilitating but even giving leadership. I think that is where government has to step in. The fact that government has maintained the panel, I think, is a key leadership position that has been taken and something that I feel very, very happy about.

It is going to be interesting to see, when the MOU comes out, the role that government might have to play when that happens. I really do not have any idea, because I have no idea what is going to be in the MOU. We all have things that have been floated around. We have heard possibilities of restructuring, et cetera, and we do not know, but government is going to have to play a leadership role in that dynamic as well, because decisions will have to be made and the decision-making body, ultimately, will be government, just as decisions had to be made about the panel. Government made its decision about the panel by maintaining it. So, it is extremely important.

The key provision requiring one side to make an offer to the other side forty-eight hours before being allowed to appear in front of the panel, is just key. It is going to be the turning point, I think, in the process so that, hopefully, in 2011 we will not see the nonsense that we saw happen in 2010. I am sure that the minister is going to be monitoring that closely to make sure that it happens in the way in which this legislation wants it to happen.

There are so many things that we need to address in our fishery, and this is a wonderful step forward. The marketing, which we talk about so much - and when I do stand in the House on the fishery, one of the issues I talk to all of the time is the marketing. We have some positive things happening. For example, what has just happened lately with Ocean Choice International where they have received official notice that the OCI Grand Bank yellowtail flounder fishery has completed the certification process and been awarded the Marine Stewardship Council certification for sustainably managed fisheries.

This is wonderful news, and I think it is a model of what needs to happen here in our Province because the MSC is an industry leader in the global seafood market. The award that the OCI just received recently around marketing - around exporting I think, for their exporting in the Province, from the Province, is a sign of how they really want to be involved and be a leader in the industry and to show the way of how we can exist on the international stage. It is so important today that we show that our fishery is being done in an environmentally sustainable manner. That is, I think, what the MSC is all about. So, the endorsement by the MSC for OCI just means better access to markets and better access to markets is what we need.

I think, as the minister pointed out ahead of me, this new legislation, by putting more detail in and firming up more the collective bargaining process is also going to help with our marketing, our access to markets as well. Because people do need to see that we are taking our industry seriously; they do need to see that we are not just a sustainable fishery but we are consistent and we are worth listening to and being brought out into the marketplace so that access to the market, we have to show that we know what we are doing.

Working towards sustainability is the big issue, of course. Whether we are talking about our natural fishery, our traditional fishery, or whether we are talking about aquaculture, they both have to be sustainable, they both have to be environmentally sustainable, and they both have to be economically sustainable. The other thing that, of course, is going to help the sustainability of our fishery is by including greater value-added processing. This has been one of our weakest areas. We know that, historically. It is one of the things that we really have to work on. It is also probably one of the areas where government is needed to work with industry in whatever way that might be, just as government has worked with some other industries in the Province such as Tourism, in partnership, to make sure that industry grows as well. It is the same way with our fishery.

We know from countries like Iceland and Norway that involvement of government, support of government, and a culture that promotes the fishery is what has helped those two countries maintain their fishery to the degree that they have. We can still do the same thing here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our fishery is not dead. Our fishery is worth $1 billion a year. That is what it is worth to our economy.

We still have communities that depend on the fishery. So, we have to find a way to make that industry continue. We have to find a way to keep communities alive, and we have to find a way to attract younger people into the industry to make the industry modern and to make it attractive to young people. There are so many ways that has to be done, and I know that the industry itself has to work at that. Whatever can be done by government to help industry attract young people into that industry, and we have our Marine Institute that does some of that, but there is so much more that needs to be done so that young people will see that this is a viable industry and this is something I can be proud of. There are young people out there who want to be proud of it; but, because of the state the fishery has been in, they do not see sustainability for themselves as individuals. So, that is what we have to work towards.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have had the opportunity to have spoken to this, this evening. I am delighted with the piece of legislation. I shall be, along with others, monitoring closely to see how this works, especially this coming year. I do applaud the minister on bringing forward this amendment and on maintaining the panel on price setting.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know I only have twenty minutes and I have been here anticipating this debate all day. I have been jotting down notes as to what I am going to say and I think I have about ten pages of stuff here written down now. I am certainly not going to use all of that.

Mr. Speaker, here is a common statement that is made to me about this portfolio: Boy, you must have a bloody tough job there. When you get put there, it almost comes with it: What are they doing to you, putting you in that particular portfolio? I suppose, Mr. Speaker, it comes from the challenges that come with the fishery but also the amount of controversy that seems to come with the fishery seasonally.

If you follow the fishery, nothing too much happens, and then all of a sudden after Christmas it starts to ramp up a little bit. We go into, quite often, crisis mode, we get things started, and then it goes away again for another year.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I do not think there has been either portfolio that I have been in that I have been more proud to be in than in this fishery. I have to say too that I am very pleased to hear the comments of both hon. members opposite today because with all truthfulness, all we are doing here is attempting to bring a more orderly start to the fishery in this Province. I will use the example of crab during the past season. The fact that we have one area in our Province, 3K, that left about 20 per cent of its product in the water when this was probably the best season that they could have had to start, there were no ice conditions. As such, a month's delay cost those harvesters, those plants, those processors, and the plant workers, it cost them a portion of their livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, what we did, we embarked on a road to say: Okay, we have this process that is in place now around the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. What is it that we can do to tighten it up? We had a discussion and one of the things - if you look at what it says now about the start of the season, it says to set a date for when it normally starts. It is so ambiguous; there is no defined date that a fishery should start. Now there may be factors that may impact when it starts. If, for example, we say the crab fishery we will set as April 1, that is when we have to have a price established, then what we are doing is we are announcing to the parties involved that if a week before April 1, you have not set it then the panel is going to have to decide.

I know there was fear out there that we were going to do away with the panel. As a matter of fact, just a couple of weeks ago one gentleman came up to me and said that someone in the ranks had said: Do you know what Jackman is trying to do? He is trying to do away with that panel. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, myself and the former minister in the Department Responsible for Labour Relations Agency, the furthest from our mind was doing away with the panel. What we wanted to do is to put in place a process whereby the panel is the last resort. The Leader of the NDP was correct in saying one thing: In recent years, there has been no collective bargaining. What, in fact, happens, the two sides are way apart and they just wait and wait and then they go to the panel to look for a price.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we promoted last year was around a thing called the Alaskan model. I stand here, and I would say that if the Alaskan model had been in place this year harvesters may have gotten – not may have, I contend they would have gotten a better price than they finally arrived at, because no one predicted, in the beginning of the season last year, where the price of crab was going to go. The Japanese came in, they were more aggressive. Unfortunately for other jurisdictions, they had cuts in their quotas, so many factors impacted on it and the price of crab rose to a high that has not been seen in quite a while.

What we were attempting to do and anybody who follows the broadcast knows that we talked about the Alaskan model, a more open and transparent process; but, still, we could not get both sides to agree. So, government becomes the facilitator as attempting to move the process forward; and, in the end, if a resolution cannot be found, then we go to the panel to set the price.

In the legislation now, as it has been outlined by the members who have spoken before me, we now are going to give the Minister of Fisheries the authority to establish a starting date for the fishing season. We would hope that both parties would negotiate and arrive at a price, but in the event that they do not then, we would hope, they would put forward their best effort, their best price, and then the panel will decide on a price based on representation from the parties. Then, what has been there for reconsideration, now, we are restricting even that process so that under reconsideration the parties will present again - and this has to be final offer - and that the panel will rule within forty-eight hours. We are tightening up the time frames which then limits the manoeuvrability, I suppose, if I could put it that way, of the parties and hopefully then get the fishery started in a timely manner.

These amendments to the legislation are quite simply an effort to have the parties come to an agreement, but in the instant that they do not that, we have a process in place that will not permit a fishery to be tied up for a month or a month-and-a-half, and a season passes by and harvesters, plant workers and whatnot are impacted and their livelihood is affected by that.

Mr. Speaker, we will be going into committee, so if there are questions the members opposite want to pose, myself and the minister, my colleague here, will certainly do our best to answer them. Before I sit down though, I have to speak to the MOU. When we speak of the MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Speaker, we have to understand one thing here: the MOU speaks to the longer term of the fishery. What we are anticipating will come out of this Memorandum of Understanding is a financial analysis which will tell us these are things we must do based on the financial analysis around the harvesting side and around the processing side.

The other issue, of course, that is addressed in the MOU is around the marketing issue. Everyone recognizes the need for marketing. We are no longer on a track whereby we are little Newfoundland and Labrador, our fishery is just a small player on a world stage, and if we are going to be competitive on that world stage we had better have our game plan down pat. That means the industry has to come together and that the partners have to do what is best here, because it is in all of their best interests that we move ahead with something in terms of the marketing.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the MOU as I alluded to, the financial analysis. I will not speak with 100 per cent certainty, but I think if you go back in the history of trying to find ways forward as to how we can manage this fishery and restructure it or whatever you want to call it, this is probably the most in-depth financial analysis that has ever been carried out in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. As much as one of the members opposite talked about the government being the leadership in carrying this forward, I say, Mr. Speaker, we are the facilitators.

One of the things that is going to be most important in this is that as we go forward the parties that are involved in the industry - that being the FFAW, the processing sectors, that speaks to SPNL and the ASP - that we come at this collectively. For far too long what happens in the fishery in this Province, and you wonder why we cannot get results elsewhere, is - former Premier Williams, he could take on the oil companies and the federal government but in the fishing industry we often find ourselves battling with each other in the Province. The way forward here is that when we go out, I am hoping that the FFAW, the processors, maybe Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, will all be onside here so that we present a unified effort forward.

Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry in this Province, if we look back to the music and our culture as it applies to the fishery, it is the backbone of our Province. There is no doubt about it; but, if there is one thing that has happened recently, I think that is really impacting where our fishery is going, it is the negativism that results around the fishery. A good example - I do not know if I used it in this House or not before - Dr. George Rose has a research program. He puts out advertisements for students to apply to his program. He gets applications from across Canada, worldwide, because Mr. George Rose has a stellar reputation as a fisheries research scientist, globally. The unfortunate thing, Mr. Speaker, he did not get one application from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why is that? I contend, Mr. Speaker, that there is such a negative message around the fishery in this Province that parents and people in the Province are saying: why would you go into that? There is not a future in it.

Mr. Speaker, I am here as the minister, and I cannot speak with a lengthy tenure in the fisheries portfolio but I can speak as an individual who lives in the little community of Baine Harbour with about eighty-five people and the majority of people are attached to the fishery. Some of the young people, who are getting into the fishery there, do not tell them there is not a future in this fishery. These people, the younger people, are very anxious to get on with it as to what they want to do in the fishery. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to do as much party politics as we possibly can to turn around that negative image and to get the message out there that there is a strong future in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do listen to a fair bit of music. There is one song that a gentleman from the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Bob Porter, writes; it is called Up She Rises. It talks about a fishing boat that is out battling through the waves as they return home, I suppose. It is a very upbeat song, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Member for The Straits & White Bay North has sung it many times, it is from his area. We might get a rendition in the House some afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I think the tone of what I take from it is there is a bright future in this fishery, and the history that comes with it and where we want to go that is what this MOU is about. It is about the long-term future of the Province.

What we are talking about today in the collective bargaining are specifics geared at getting the fishery of 2011 started on time, Mr. Speaker. The amendments will, in effect, set the direction. I have already had meetings with Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Butler about setting the price for next year. I am looking forward to many more meetings with them, and hopefully this year we will not have to go to the panel. Let's see the leadership from these people on the ground who start the negotiations, and they arrive at a price that is best for all of their stakeholders, Mr. Speaker.

I will close with that, and I look forward to any questions that will come forward in Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Government House Leader and Acting Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment speaks now she will close debate on Bill 45.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There seems to be support here this evening as we amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to ensure that there is a timely start to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to provide the stability that the industry needs to be able to compete in our world markets.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank everyone who spoke on this legislation this evening, and my colleagues, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, as well as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who have done considerable work behind the scenes on these amendments in order to bring it into the House of Assembly this evening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the – oh, we had better finish the second reading first. I am so anxious to get into Committee here.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 45)

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

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 45)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 44, 45, 46, and 47.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Kelly): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 44, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3". (Bill 44)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 6 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 3.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 45, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill 45)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 46, An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador.

A bill, "An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador". (Bill 46)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

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

There was a point that came up today in the discussion when we were doing the second reading of Bill 46, a point that I raised and was responded to by the Minister of Finance, but I have further information on it. So, I want to speak to this information and then maybe get some more feedback from the Minister of Finance.

I made reference to the Province of Nova Scotia and the fact that the Province of Nova Scotia does do a rebate at the point of sale when it comes to home heating. The information that I have is directly from the Nova Scotia Department of Finance Web site. This was the information I was going by today, but I did not have this in my hand, so I wanted to wait until I had it to make sure I was quoting correctly.

According to their Department of Finance Web site, "All energy sources purchased for home use (heating fuel, natural gas, propane, firewood, wood pellets, coal, kerosene, electricity, fire wood) receive a Nova Scotia energy rebate when delivered by a registered vendor to a home." The rebate is equivalent – here it says 8 per cent but that has gone up to 10 per cent now because their tax went up on July 1. The rebate is equivalent to 10 per cent HST applied to the purchase. "Vendors may automatically apply the rebate to fuel bills."

I put that information out because, again, my question stands: If this can be done in Nova Scotia, why can it not be done here? I think the minister thought that there were exceptions over in Nova Scotia and that it was only oil that got treated this way. As I have put out, which is from their site, almost every source of heating that they use over there is treated in the same way. I would like to hear the minister respond to that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I did not have an opportunity to get that question answered because I did not get back to the department; I was engaged otherwise elsewhere. I will certainly get that information tomorrow, and I would be happy to make it available to the member.

We can do a rebate. It was always my understanding that on one of the energy sources the federal government was not prepared to allow a point of sale rebate. It was always my understanding that Nova Scotia had tried and the federal government had said no, but I will check into it and bring this in. I had hoped to have had it by tonight, but as I say I was otherwise engaged. I will get this information and report back tomorrow.

MS MICHAEL: I ask a further question. I am allowed to stand again.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

I mean this is the information, it is the Web site. I guess you do want to see it yourself is what you are saying before you say anything to it. The answer I want from the minister is – and I can speak to you directly, we are in Committee. The answer I want is: Knowing this, are you willing to pursue further the possibility of this Province doing the same thing that they are doing in Nova Scotia, when you ensure, yourself, that what I am saying is correct?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Finance.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, again, we can do the rebate ourselves if we wanted to do the rebate. We have a rebate program, but we target our program to people at the lower end of the income. We do not believe in giving tax rebates on home heating fuel or electricity for heating a home to wealthy people. We want to target our rebate to people who need it the most. If we gave it to everybody, then the amount of benefit we gave to people at the low end would not be as great.

I am certainly going to look into this to see if we could do it by way of a point of sale to make it easier, maybe we can save some administration fees. I will be happy, as soon as I get that information, to talk to the hon. member tomorrow.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

Shall clauses 2 to 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 9 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement Between The Government of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights And Assets Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Abitibi Consolidated Rights And Assets Act". (Bill 47)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I have just a few questions. I spoke earlier this afternoon in second reading on this issue. I listened intently to the minister's comments when he clued up second reading, and there was some very enlightening information, actually. It is good that we, I think, have this debate. We do not often, in this House, have an opportunity to debate bills very thoroughly and get an exchange of information. We had one on the statement of principles in Voisey's Bay, FPI, RMS, and so on, but rarely do we get an opportunity to debate a substantive piece of legislation and get informed, and that is what it is all about. I appreciate the minister attempting to, in some cases, and in others, providing good information for one to consider.

I am still unclear, and I have indicated this to the minister privately and I will call upon him now through the debate, and I do not believe the Leader of the NDP had an opportunity to listen to that explanation when the minister gave it earlier either, and that concerns the shareholdings of these three individuals who we are dealing with here. The minister gave an explanation. I did not get all of it, but I would certainly like an opportunity to have the minister explain again exactly what he was saying about the shareholdings and so on, and what was exactly expropriated back in December, 2009, when it comes to these three interests that are specifically identified in Bill 47.

It does do two things, basically. It looks like a pretty simple piece of legislation. It is only one clause that is being amended. As the minister says, number one, it gets rid of Abitibi and Abitibi's possibility of getting any compensation. That was not made clear back when. In fact, not only was it not made clear, the implication was – not implication, the direct assertion was that Abitibi would be compensated. Because 10(2) back in the old act said: Abitibi Consolidated and all other persons affected would be compensated. What we have done here now is - rightfully, I submit - remove Abitibi Consolidated from any compensation. I agree with that premise. No question about it, we made it clearer; again, another example of maybe having done something in haste. We did not consider all of the implications of what it was. Now upon second, sober thought we have had an opportunity to rectify that and we certainly agree with that.

Also, of course, from day one nobody disagreed with the compensation to the three companies that were improperly, unfairly, impacted by this law in the first place. We members on this side knew that from day one, by the way. We knew that based upon the meeting with the Premier, and we knew there would be compensation. We just did not know how it was going to come about and what the process would be. This is what the government is trying to get at, is determine how the compensation is going to be done.

We still have some concerns as to the process being followed here, some serious concerns. They deserve asking and they deserve an explanation. I say, albeit the minister gave explanations and information cluing up second reading, I do not think he did a thorough enough job in the first place when he opened the debate in second reading explaining that. We had two basic concluding paragraphs but very little detail that he subsequently provided. I think that is the whole purpose of debate, is to get at that information if we do not have it, ask him to explain himself, and if it is a legitimate, logical, rationale for why something is being done, that information should be readily available and forthcoming because it helps us all understand what we are voting on here and what the purpose of this particular legislation is.

The comment: on the hook, off the hook, the minister alluded to it, I alluded to it. The reason I brought that up in second reading was because I thought he said: We are on the hook. That is why I raised the question quite legitimately, is because he made two sentences back-to-back that just were not logical. Number one, he said we are going to the Supreme Court of Canada to test the polluter pays principle, basically, and then on the second hand I thought he said: but we know anyway, because there is a shell company - words to that effect - that Abitibi is going to be off the hook. That is where the confusion is, and I am still confused, because the minister did allude to the fact that Abitibi has now been restructured. The restructuring plan was accepted by the bankruptcy courts in Canada, the restructuring plan was accepted by the bankruptcy courts in the United States in the past week or two, and they are now trading as a new Abitibi Consolidated; whatever the official name of the company is they proceeded on after restructuring. I was under the understanding, like him, that the only thing left of the old Abitibi Consolidated was the shell; no money in it, no assets in it, it is a shell company.

If our original action to imply the polluter pays principle, if that is who we were chasing to get the money, the compensation for any environmental clean ups, how are we going to get it if we are chasing a shell company that does not have assets? I am not aware of anything in the restructuring where the bankruptcy courts have said the new restructured company will be held liable for any environmental damages that they left behind. That is why the confusion. On the one hand it looks like they might be off the hook if that is the case. If there is only a shell company to chase, why would we be chasing it? Some further enlightenment on that would be very helpful. Because if they are indeed off the hook because of the shell company principle, and we are chasing after a man of straw, that once you catch him you have nothing, you have a pig in a poke, what is the point of proceeding with the Supreme Court action, other than the principle of establishing that the polluter pays? So, we need some clarification on that; that is why I was at a loss to understand where the minister was coming. Those statements were made sort of back-to-back and they were inconsistent.

The other concern I have here, and I can appreciate where the minister is coming from when he says – because we raised the issue here of Cabinet is going to holy, solely, make a decision as to the compensation. I guess somebody has to make that decision, and probably Cabinet are the proper ones to make the decision since it was Cabinet, of course, and government - we, in the House of Assembly - who expropriated the land in the first place, and the assets in the first place, from these people. Somebody has to make the decision - we all know that - whether it is the House of Assembly, the Cabinet, or some independent body who makes the decision on the amount of compensation. It has to be done somewhere. The concern is, will the people of the Province ever know how the compensation was done, what method was used to determine the compensation, how much will the compensation be, when is it expected to be concluded? Those are legitimate questions. It is not okay, today, any more, when a government or anyone says: we want the right to do something and we will tell you at the end of the day what we did. Just give us the arbitrary, broad-scope power to do something, and once it is done, we will come back and tell you what we have done.

Even the minister here, by his own admission - and I quote his words when he said: When it is done, I will share with you what I may. I say to the Minister of Innovation and Trade, she might consider it a generous offer, but it is certainly cloaked in uncertainty, shall we say. Because disclosing to you the information that I am allowed to, or I may, does not give very much comfort in knowing when you are going to get it or what you are going to get.

God knows - not only this member but a lot of people in the Province and in the media in particular - they do not trust this government when it comes to being forthright, transparent, open, and accountable; and for good reason, because they have established a track record for hiding stuff.

We were in here two years ago, I believe, in a fall session when this government passed a piece of legislation, after the creation of Nalcor, and nobody disagreed with the creation of Nalcor. With the members opposite in this House if you disagree with any piece of legislation, there is something wrong with you. You are not supposed to disagree at all. You are not supposed to ask questions and it is unfair to do that, they think. They created a piece of legislation, rammed it through this House back two falls ago whereby Nalcor were basically told: You do not have to tell anybody anything. They are not subject to the Auditor General of this Province; they are not subject to the access to information laws of this Province, absolute carte blanche to do what they want when it comes to revealing information.

That is the concern, and that is the piece I would like to ask the minister again. Assuming that a person voted saying yes, we agree to ruling out Abitibi; yes, we agree to compensation for these companies, all of which is very fine, what assurance do we have that you are going to be able, under the existing laws, to tell us what you did? How did you determine the compensation? How much is the compensation? Because all of this information, if Cabinet directs that this – because, Nalcor was involved in this, by the way, they run all of the energy sources, programs, and everything else in this Province, now, for the Province. So, if the good minister, in good faith, says: We will tell you what we can. That is a true statement statement, a very true statement. If the deal is cut, the compensation is paid, and we come back here next spring and say: Minister, have you concluded the deal for the compensation? He says: Yes, we have. Can you tell us what you paid them? Sorry, I cannot do that because I am prohibited from doing that. This transaction was dealt with through Nalcor; you will have to go to Nalcor. We go to Nalcor and Nalcor says: It is commercially sensitive, sorry. What avenue do the people ever have of getting the information?

There is nothing bad what you are doing here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this Province, this government, compensating these people for what you took from them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. They should. It is the fair thing to do, it is the just thing to do, and it is the equitable thing to do. What is wrong with giving a commitment that, once it is done, we will tell you about it? It is the people's money that is going to be spent to do the compensation. It is the right thing to do.

What is wrong with somebody saying this is what we are going to pay Fortis? This is how we determined it. Now, people might agree or disagree. People might say: Oh, I think you paid too much. You are always going to get those armchair quarterbacks at the end of the day that is going to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. What is wrong with government standing up and saying: Yes, we will tell you when we do it? We expropriated, we came up with the compensation, and yes we are going to tell you about it. That is all we are asking here. That is all we ask the minister: Why would this government not tell the people of this Province, once you compensate them, how much you compensated them? What is the big deal? That is the only objection we have over here.

I would like to understand further - as I said - the information about the shareholdings and so on, and the minister has undertaken to give us that information. That is the problem this member has with this piece of legislation. It is not the compensation issue. It is not who you are paying it to. It is not the ruling out of Abitibi, saying they cannot get anything. I am simply looking for an undertaking that, when the deal is done, whether it is next week, next month, whatever, disclose to the people that you did it, how you did it, and what you paid.

Now, if you refuse to do that, there has to be a reason for it. What could be the reason? Now, maybe the minister cannot stand up and tell me why the people of this Province ought not to know what you are paying somebody in compensation for what you took from them unfairly? It is pretty simple. That is not complicated. It is not a mistake. You did not make a mistake when you took these properties from these people. I was at the meeting with the Premier when he said: We know what we are doing. We know we have to somehow make this right. We have to keep them whole when this is over. That was all agreed; nobody disagreed with that from day one to now.

It is the process and it is the government's reticence about trying to be open and transparent. That is the only hesitation this member has right now. As I say, the minister has been very good at explaining this thing so far. All the politics aside as to taking a mill when you did not intend to take a mill or what you have or have not done in Central and whatever, put all that aside. This narrows down to a pretty simple concept right here. I can say right now on balance, this member is torn between wanting to vote yes because I know it is the right thing to do – absolutely the right thing to do. I am hesitating because I do not trust the government to reveal the information that they should. That is the only concern I have here. At the end of the day I will have to cast my vote based upon what I believe is the balance there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

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

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I said in my remarks earlier that I would try to be open and transparent, and provide whatever information I could. How the hon. member opposite went from those comments to we are over here hiding and not being open and not showing information, it is a big leap. I do not see how he made that connection.

First of all, there is an assumption in the argument that was just presented – I am dealing with his last point which was on compensation and sharing of information. The assumption is that we are going to be paying money. We may not – we may not be paying any money. They, being Enel or Fortis, may want to remain partners in the arrangement, and so we are not going to buy them out. We will not take over their shares. We will be partners with them as they were in the past with AbitibiBowater. That may be what we would do, that is the negotiation piece. Maybe we will buy them out, maybe they do not want to be partners with the government. Maybe, as corporate entities and as businesses out there, they will say: We do not want to partner with a government, we will give you our shares, we will give you our ownership in this generation plant, and we want to be paid for it. We may write a cheque, but that is the discussion that is ongoing. That will be determined by the people across the table because we indicated we wanted to be fair and equitable to them. If they think fair is remaining in the arrangement that we had before, then so be it. We will do our best to accommodate that. If they feel fair is: Just take us out, we are tired of this, it has been two years of headache, we want out, we will try to take them out and see if we can come up with a number. So, we will do our best to accommodate the party on the opposite side of the table.

In terms of what I can say in the House or what I can release from my office or wherever I get this request from, I can only stand on my own two feet and on my own record and say that up to now anything related to AbitibiBowater, I, as Chair of the Ministerial Task Force, have brought it to this House and told people what we are paying. We did it with the severance; we did it with the pension and other entitlements; we did it on the developments out there; and we have done it on everything that we have had.

I appreciate the interest and the concern of the members opposite. I truly do. I am trying to - as best I can today - say to them that that information will be made available to them and to the people of the Province. I am being cautioned by the Department of Justice in terms of if there is commercially sensitive information that is deemed by the privacy commissioner to be such, if he rules that it is commercially sensitive and says you have to redact it, then it has to be redacted. I cannot release it. I guess I would be breaking a law if I did it. So, I am not going to put myself in that position, but I am prepared, if there is nothing commercially sensitive, if it is deemed not to be commercially sensitive, I will do my best to have that information presented here, so that people are aware of what it is.

I hear the concerns coming from the opposite side, and I respectfully say to them I will do my best, but I cannot do any more tonight than that. That is all I can say to you. I will do my best to make sure that I respond to that.

In terms of the point he brought up about the environmental issues and some confusion over polluter pays and there was an old Abitibi in a bankruptcy court, and a new Abitibi came out of a bankruptcy court, and he did not hear the bankruptcy court say that the new Abitibi had to pay any environmental, all of that form the member opposite is probably an accurate description of the situation as he understood it. What I understand though, and the point that I will try to make again, is that the old Abitibi, the polluter that we expropriated some lands from, went into bankruptcy proceedings, and the bankruptcy court only commented on and only dealt with bankruptcy proceedings. It did not deal with this other issue of environmental.

We filed a separate action in a court in Quebec regarding those, and those environmental orders that we put to Abitibi - the old Abitibi. The court in Quebec, in its judgement, deemed that our action would fail and we had a right to appeal that to the Supreme Court of Canada. We applied for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada and we were granted that. So, it is my understanding - again, as a non-lawyer, just a basic understanding - that we will get an opportunity to once again present our case to the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada will make a judgement. Whether that judgement is against the old Abitibi, or whether the paper trail allows the Supreme Court of Canada to connect it to a new Abitibi, or something in between, I do not know; I cannot presuppose what it will determine.

The best information that I have from the legal department is that we do have an opportunity here to have Abitibi – be it old or new, I really do not care who – write a cheque for the environmental liabilities. I would expect it would be the Abitibi that has emerged from the ashes because that is the Abitibi that now has assets. That is the Abitibi that has gone through the court protection proceedings and has reborn itself as – the official title actually is AbitibiBowater Inc., as I understand it. That is the new Abitibi, ABI, AbitibiBowater Inc.

So, I am hoping that if we are successful in our leave to the Supreme Court of Canada and in our appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, that the judgement will say that the Abitibi that arose from the ashes still is really the same Abitibi. We are talking about the same corporate entity - different name, I recognize that - but I am hoping that the court will say that they have pay for the environmental mess that is left behind. Time will tell and the court will decide that. It is not for me to say in the House of Assembly if it will or will not. All I am saying is that we are not dead yet on that particular case. We have been granted leave and we will make our case. We believe we have a strong case and we are hoping that the Supreme Court of Canada will see that.

In terms of the process to be followed, the process, quite simply, is one of negotiation. For the benefit of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who missed my earlier comments, if you will allow me, I will just take a minute and very quickly try to highlight for you what is happening. First of all, we were reluctant, as a government, to have any discussions with either of the parties while the compensation issue for Abitibi was ongoing. By the compensation for Abitibi, I am referring to the NAFTA challenge. We did not want to do too much because we did not know what kind of interrelation their might be while Abitibi was still outstanding. Once Abitibi got resolved through the NAFTA challenge by the agreement of the Government of Canada - that $130 million payment - we then felt that their entitlement to compensation was gone, was lessened, and this act will even further entrench that, and we felt comfortable then engaging with Enel and with Fortis. Fortis, in fairness, we have not had a lot of discussion with as yet. They have sort of sat there and said: We are prepared to wait. We are in no great rush, and when you are ready to talk to us, we are prepared to engage with you. There were some basic discussions, but nothing too serious.

Enel, on the other hand, were much more engaged, much more animated, and much more forthcoming. They wanted to get this over and done with. So, we have had a lot more discussions with them, and I indicated that I have been asked by Enel to meet with them as the new minister. I am trying to set that up for the next few days. If things go as I hope they go, I am hoping that I will be able to bring something to the table for them that they will be happy with, we will be happy with, and we will resolve that piece of the puzzle. Hopefully, that will be done soon. I get the sense from officials that I have spoken to in the Department of Natural Resources that it is a possibility, and I certainly want to see it resolved.

I would say to you, in terms of where are we, we are very active with Enel, and we will try to conclude that in the next little while. We are not quite so active with Fortis, but it is not a matter of they do not want to talk, they just sort of sat there and said, when you are ready, let us know, and we have indicated to them we are ready now, and we will engage with them. Again, because of the informal discussions that have occurred, we think there is an opportunity there to get a deal that will be satisfactory to both.

Now, what do I mean by deal, just to be clear? It might be - and I will go to the percentages now, and I assume this is the information that the hon. member is looking forward. If it is, great, if it is not, you can help clarify it again for me. On the Star Lake project, Enel are a shareholder of 49 per cent and Abitibi had 51 per cent. Abitibi, now we have. So we have 51 per cent. So our discussions with them may lead to that arrangement staying the same. If they want to stay the same - the 49-51 as it was before - we are prepared to do that. We will come to some arrangement, we will figure out how we are going to make that work for parties, but we will do that. If they want out, if they say, we do not want to deal with you, we are a corporate entity, commercial entity, you are a government, we do not want to get tied down in your bureaucracy then we will try to come up with a dollar figure that we will pay them for their 49 per cent interest.

What will not happen are them buying us out. We do not want that to happen. We feel we should maintain an ownership position. So, it is either going to be 51 per cent or 100 per cent is my expectation. I will know better after I have my meeting in the next few days, and I will be happy to share any update that I can at that time with the members opposite.

Moving to the other partnership, which is the Exploits generating hydro project - I think that is the particular name of it – that, basically, is Fortis, which is the majority shareholder at 51 per cent and the government now is at 49 per cent. Our approach is the same: If Fortis wants to remain in an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as a minority shareholder, minority interest, as it had with AbitibiBowater, we are quite prepared to do that. We will figure out a way to do that. If Fortis says: No, we are not interested in that. We would like you to take us out because we would like to go on and work with other commercial partners and not work with a government. We are prepared to try to come up with a value for their shares.

Again, the third alternative of them buying us out is not one that we are prepared to engage in. So, it is either you stay as you were before the expropriation. Instead of Abitibi as a partner, you have the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador-Nalcor as a partner, or we buy you out. Now, how are we going to do that? I will just take a minute to talk about that again for the benefit of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

We will have people who are well versed in determining values of assets, like power generation stations, do some work for us and determine what they believe that asset is worth. There will be depreciation around that. There have been capital costs that have gone into that. There were power purchase arrangements that have since been cancelled but that were in place up to 2023 and the other one was 2033. They had some future value. There would have been certain profits that would have been expected from those. All of that will be determined by the financial evaluators and they will come to a dollar figure. My guess is, based on my own personal experience, is that they will not give a specific dollar figure they will give a range. So, we will do that for our purposes, and I am sure that Fortis and Enel will also do it for their purposes. We will have a range of from here to here and they might have a range - I suspect their range will be a little bit higher than ours - from here to here. What I am saying to you is that somewhere in the middle is where I expect we will end up. I do not know what those dollar values are today. We will know hopefully very soon what those dollar values are, and it is my intention to share that information with the people of the Province and the people in the House of Assembly.

I think, Mr. Chair, I have responded to most of what was posed to me. I would be prepared if there is more to try to answer it, and I hope for now that has answered some of the questions.

Thank you.

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

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

I do want to thank the minister for the explanation that he has just given. I am sorry that I was not here earlier, but I had something important in my district that I had to attend and race back as fast I could.

The information I have gotten in the last fifteen minutes is really -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

The explanation that I have gotten in the last fifteen minutes has been very, very helpful. I am glad to hear the minister explaining so well the issue around the shares and the possibilities of what might happen. I am assuming from what the minister just said that, number one, if it comes down to negotiations around the shares and the actual buying of shares in whichever direction that might happen, that once the negotiated amount becomes agreed to he is going to be willing to share that with the people of the Province. Obviously, if either one of these companies stays in as a shareholder in either one of the cases that is going to be public information as well, because that is not something that would be held privately. It seems to me, from what the minister is saying, key information is going to be public. It seems that way to me. So, I am glad to hear that.

I do not think I have any questions left. I think the questions that I had around compensation have been very, very well answered and I feel comfortable with moving ahead, from my part, with voting on the bill.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Abitibi-Consolidated Rights And Assets Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 44, 45, 46, and 47.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 44, 45, 46, and 47.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley and Assistant Deputy Speaker.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and has directed me to report Bills 44, 45, 46, and 47 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 44, 45, 46, and 47 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bills 44, 45, 46, and 47 read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Wednesday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.