The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, rising on a point of privilege.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 34 of our Orders, I stand at this time to raise a point of order. Standing Order –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member raising a point of order or a point of privilege?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Excuse me, a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of privilege, which states that whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.

I just want to establish that this is the first, earliest opportunity that I have had to make this point of privilege. It concerns, of course, a very sensitive issue, and a proper way to deal with it. It has to be raised, we feel, because it is a very serious issue but at the same time, it is such a sensitive issue that we have to be cognizant of our responsibilities toward the Chair and the person who occupies the Chair.

It concerns Your Honour's attendance at a political function yesterday. Of course, that brings into question the issue of impartiality. First of all, it is required in order to ground your point of privilege that one must have some proof to say that the event or the supposed breach of privilege took place. Impartiality is so important because the perception must be, not only must it be – it is like in justice, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Here in the House of Assembly, this is the mainstay of our democratic system, and the person who governs this House, of course, is the Speaker. It has been long accepted as a standing principle that the Speaker must be absolutely impartial to all members of the House of Assembly and so on, and even conduct himself or herself in a certain manner.

First of all, with regard to the privilege and the proof of same, it came to our attention vis-à-vis the media yesterday, both NTV, of which we have requested a copy of the transcript that was aired yesterday, as well as - and I will table this document - it is a copy of today's edition of The Telegram which is certainly widely circulated in this Province, which shows our Speaker at a political function that was held here yesterday; obviously, a political function. It was to announce the running of a former member of this House, actually, Mr. Sullivan, as the PC candidate in the federal election. The Speaker was there, according to this photo and the story which follows it.

The problem we have with a point of privilege in this particular instance is that a point of privilege is dealt with in a two-stage fashion. First of all, the person rises on a point of privilege at the earliest opportunity, and the Speaker - no one else in the House, the Speaker - decides whether or not there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. In that particular case, of course, we find ourselves in a Catch-22 because the very person we are asking to decide and judge whether or not there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, so as to refer it to our Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, is the very person whom we are saying has breached the privilege; that being Your Honour. I do not know how we get past that predicament, first and foremost.

There have been other avenues used in the past, if it is as obvious as that, that the Speaker finds himself in that predicament; on other occasions they have looked to outside sources. Sometimes, for example, they look to the Canadian Parliamentary Association for a decision. You can go to other sisters, such as the Speaker of the House of Commons in Ottawa or, if need be, go to the Mother of Parliament herself, which happens to be in London, and ask the Speaker of the House of Commons in London to make a ruling.

I would appreciate the assistance of the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Third Party in the House in that regard as well, and the Speaker's advice as to what process might be applicable. We do not want to, say, have the Speaker find himself in a second situation where you make a ruling that there is no prima facie case because then the issue of impartiality, you are being asked to judge yourself. I do not think that is appropriate, not only to the people here but certainly not fair to Your Honour to have to make that decision.

With regard to the authorities, Mr. Speaker, as I say, we have the clipping which certainly is a prima facie case that you did appear, for example, at an outside public gathering. The question becomes, of course, is that or is that not appropriate? That is, I guess, where the ruling will ultimately have to be made by the privileges committee as to whether it was or was not. In that regard, I have looked at the authorities.

There is no question that we have had incidents in the past where a point of privilege has been made in this House against a former Speaker back in December, 2005. I actually raised the point of privilege, and I refer to that as a precedent here for this House today. In that particular case, the Speaker and some others, who were members of that particular political party, appeared in a photograph in The Telegram. In fact, they were wearing their robes as they wear in the House of Assembly here. They took a picture supporting a candidate who was running in the federal election, a candidate who was, of course, of their same political party.

The point of privilege was raised here. The Premier at that time even weighed in and had a few comments. The Government House Leader of the day, who was the former Member for Kilbride, spoke to it. The Leader of the NDP, who was Mr. Harris at the time, spoke to it. The resolution of it at that time was, I guess, everything got pre-empted because the Speaker ended by saying he was prepared to apologize to the House if there had been any infringement of anyone's privilege as a result of his activities, and that is where the matter lies.

The issue of how the process should unfold, the fact that it was a valid point of privilege, was considered by this House in December 2005.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair listened to the hon. member there, and the Chair is aware that this topic was going to be raised here today. The Chair would like to just talk about, for a minute, the matter of privilege raised by the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

The matter was raised - and I waited for the hon. member to refer to it before the Chair interjected. The matter raised in the House of Assembly on December 5 and 6, 2005 respecting Speaker Hodder was determined not to be a question of privilege despite the arguments put forward at the time by the Opposition House Leader, the same Member here for the District of Burgeo & La Poile. This is clearly established by Beauchesne in §31(3) on page 13 of the sixth edition. "Statements made outside the House by a Member not be used as a basis for a question of privilege".

The central point is that no matter outside of the House can give rise to a question of privilege, whether statements or other matters. So, the issue raised in 2005 was not a matter of privilege, nor is this issue, I say to the hon. member. It appears instead that a member has lost confidence in the ability of the Speaker to carry out his duties, and this is not a matter of privilege. It is a matter for the House to decide through consideration of a substantive motion put forward by the hon. member.

Let me relate the clear authority and the clear procedure in order to do that. When a Member of the House of Assembly has concerns with the actions of the Speaker, all parliamentary authorities are clear in how the issue must be addressed. O'Brien and Bosc, in the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 313, addresses the issue of a member raising concerns about the impartiality of the Speaker, "The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized…except by way of a substantive motion." Beauchesne's sixth edition, paragraph 168, makes the same point: a substantive motion is required.

Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the standard British authority, states that "no charge of a personal character" can be raised about the speaker "except on a direct and substantive motion." (Twenty-second edition, page 190 and page 333)

Our own Standing Orders are referred to the hon. member. Number thirty-seven states, "All substantive motions shall be in writing, and seconded..."

O'Brien and Bosc define a substantive motion in this manner, "Substantive motions are independent proposals which are complete in themselves... As self-contained items of business for consideration and decision, each is used to elicit an opinion or action of the House. They are amendable and must be phrased in such a way as to enable the House to express agreement or disagreement with what is proposed."

Our own Standing Order 55 requires that notice be given at a previous sitting of the House to present such a resolution to the House.

Therefore, the member is certainly free to give written notice to this House of his or her intentions to move a resolution concerning the Speaker. When Notices of Motion are called for during Routine Proceedings, the member should state his or her resolution to the House, provide a written copy for the Table, and that is the way we would deal with this particular issue.

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, are you saying I am not going to have an opportunity to finish with what I am putting forward as a point of order before you have even heard what I have to say?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member put forward a point of privilege. The Chair is ruling that there is no point of privilege. The Chair just related the authorities whereby there is no point of privilege, and clearly laid out the direction the hon. member could take in order to move a motion here in this House to complete his concerns.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have the substantive motion here in writing to submit as part of my submission. There was no opportunity for me to give any notice until today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. has his substantive motion there in writing, then I suggest that he table it when Notices of Motion are called.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome forty-one members from the Paradise Adventure 50 Plus Club from the District of Topsail who are accompanied by their president, Maxine Earls.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Speaker would like to welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the St. Mary's All Grade boy's basketball team on recently winning the Small Schools Provincial Basketball Championships.

Mr. Speaker, the provincials were held in Rushoon last weekend where eight top high-school teams from the Small Schools Division participated to determine the champions. The St. Mary's All Grade boys came out on top after defeating the host team from Christ the King School who had previously defeated the St. Mary's team in the round robin play. I would like to congratulate the team from Christ the King School on winning the silver medal and for doing an extraordinary job as host school to all of these other teams.

Mr. Speaker, the winning players on the team from St. Mary's All Grade were: Cody Ryan, Courtney Pye, Colin Rumbolt, Taylor Farrell, Dylan Rumbolt, Kevin Farrell, Daniel Johnson, Owen Randell, Travis Rumbolt, Kenny Snook, DJ Rumbolt, and their coach, Todd Farrell.

I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating the St. Mary's All Grade boys and all participants for their outstanding performance in high-school sports within the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I would like to recognize today the St. John Bosco Grade 8 Boys Basketball Team who competed in the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Basketball Tournament which was held in Ferryland earlier this month.

The team was comprised of Grade 6, 7, and 8 students who proudly represented their school and home community of Shea Heights.

It is my absolute pleasure to advise the hon. House that this team has won the gold medal, and has remained undefeated during the entire tournament. It was a thrill to see them bring the gold medal and championship banner home, and I would like to congratulate the boys and their coach on their hard work and their well-earned success.

I will read into the record the names of the coach and the team: the coach is Michael Pittman; players are Paul Coady, Billy Newell, Kyle Penny, Hunter Reid, Benjamin Stansbury, Shawn Vinnicombe, Brandon Bambrick, Paul Jordan, Ronnie Breen, Doug Howell, Jordan Bishop, Ryan Spurrell, and Paul King.

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 rise today to pay tribute to nine residents of the District of Port de Grave who will be travelling to Guatemala in May with the hope of erecting nine new homes for families in need in this Central American country.

They will be travelling under the banner of the Parish of St. Matthew's and St. John the Evangelist in Bay Roberts.

The cost to build a home, Mr. Speaker, is merely $1,500, however, the group is aiming to raise $2,000 for each home in order to provide those families with a set of bunk beds, tables and chairs, and even cooking utensils. Anywhere, Mr. Speaker, from eight to ten occupants will leave in each of those homes.

This group has also involved the local schools; Coley's Point Primary and Amalgamated Academy. The students are donating items such as crayons, clothing, and paper for those students.

Guatemala has a population of approximately 13.6 million, with half of the population living in poverty.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all those involved as they continue to raise funds for this mission, and ask all residents to support this group as they reach out to help those less fortunate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize the members of the Paradise Adventure 50+ group. Mr. Speaker, our government has made a commitment to healthy aging one of our top priorities, and this group is certainly doing their part to further this objective.

Since its inception in 1987, this group has been providing quality opportunities to its members, and as a result has grown to become a very well operated and active group of 164 members.

The club's membership is primarily comprised of residents from the Towns of Paradise and Conception Bay South, as well as the City of Mount Pearl. They participate in various regular activities such as bowling, card games, darts, and monthly social events. The Paradise Adventure 50+ Group is a fine example of a group that is proactive, fostering both activity healthy lifestyles and close friendship amongst its participants. Today, I and some of my colleagues were pleased to welcome members of the group as they toured the Confederation Building and the House of Assembly, many of them for the very first time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Paradise Adventure 50+ Group and wish them well in all their continued efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Meg Coles, a former resident of Savage Cove on the Northern Peninsula, who recently started a theatre company in St. John's called Poverty Cove. Meg and her business partner Shannon Hawses are both graduates of the National Theatre School in Montreal and are about to stage their first production in St. John's entitled, The Battery. This play was first performed in Montreal and last summer received a grant from the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council to bring it to its final form.

The mandate of Poverty Cove Theatre Company is two-fold: it is to explore a range of different issues and, like most of Meg's plays, The Battery, is inspired by outrage against social injustices in the world such as domestic violence.

Another part of its mandate is to examine the changing relationships between urban and rural environments and how it is changing in Newfoundland. Meg has noticed that there has been a significant increase of people to the Avalon Peninsula whereas on the Northern Peninsula there has been a huge out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Meg on this exciting venture and to wish her all the best in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Scouts Canada's National Good Turn Week taking place this week from March 27 to April 2.

From simple acts of kindness in communities everywhere in Newfoundland and Labrador, the good turns have always been so fundamental to the scouting program and they will generate more acts of kindness until the good goes national. We will be witness to the limitless potential of our Province's youth and the work that scouting does to help build a better world for our Nation's young leaders.

Mr. Speaker, over 100,000 Scouts and leaders nationwide will participate in this program this week. Scouting youth and adult volunteers may do any kind of good turn, then give a wristband to the recipient who in turn does a good turn and pays the wristband forward again. It is important to note that Canadian parents are embracing the values of good citizenship and caring for others which are more important than ever. Simple acts of kindness will generate others and our Province and country will become stronger and better places.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members of this House to join me in wishing Scouts Canada a successful National Good Turn Week, in which Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, of course, will be strengthened by the goodness that comes from simple acts of kindness.

I would encourage all members to also take the time this week, during Good Turn Week, to do a good turn themselves and encourage others to pass it on.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, to strengthen the Province's current response to chronic homelessness, a new Supportive Living Unit has been created within the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

This dedicated resource of three staff supports the goals of the Poverty Reduction Strategy and the Social Housing Plan. It enhances provincial and community capacity to address supportive living needs of individuals experiencing multiple barriers, as well as the delivery of housing support and other services which promote self-reliance.

Mr. Speaker, the Supportive Living Unit will co-ordinate the ongoing development and implementation of the Supportive Living Community Partnership Program. This program, Mr. Speaker, provides $2.4 million in operating grants to non-profit organizations to increase community capacity and provide a range of services and supports that promote housing stability. Some examples, Mr. Speaker, of this program's success include Choices for Youth – the Lilly Building and the Stella Burry Housing Resource Centre.

The development of the Supportive Living Unit recognizes the leadership of communities in the development of local solutions to identified needs and positions government, Mr. Speaker, to work in partnership with community groups more effectively to develop Province-wide services to address chronic homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, issues surrounding housing and homelessness are complex in nature; however, we know housing support services are critical to enhancing positive outcomes of other interventions that promote wellness, inclusion, and self-sufficiency.

This unit, Mr. Speaker, will provide leadership within government in the co-ordination of an Interdepartmental Advisory Committee. Members of that committee, Mr. Speaker, are representatives of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, Department of Health and Community Services, Department of Justice, Eastern Health on behalf of the regional health authorities, and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

Mr. Speaker, to also support this commitment, our government will develop a cross-departmental policy framework to reduce system barriers. Currently, individuals with multiple barriers go from one department to another to access the support they require. This unit will ensure a streamlined approach and ensure a greater overall impact for residents.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to providing those most vulnerable in society the support they require. Through many of our initiatives, we see great results and I have no doubt that the creation of a new Supportive Living Unit within the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment is a step in the right direction for the future.

Thank you.

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 his statement. While we support the establishment of Supportive Living Units and we are encouraged by the partnership with community groups and support for those who are less fortunate, we also want to say, Mr. Speaker, we believe that with the oil revenues we have coming in today, we do not think that there should be any homeless in our Province. However, that is not the case because we know that the housing costs and low vacancy rates have increased over the past few years and people are in jeopardy because of homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister, from some of the calls I receive, and probably other members, we are going to see the numbers increase. Only recently, I had a gentleman in my district who had to move out of the unit that he was in where they were paying I think it was $472 a month to help him. The rates are gone up to $600, he cannot get a place. I had a call from a lady this morning who was paying a little over $500, utilities included, and the rate for her has gone up to $900.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I hope that this group, when they come together, and all the departments coming together will eliminate the red tape and to make sure that units are made available for the people throughout this Province, and once and for all we will be able to wipe out homelessness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am pleased to see that the Supportive Living Unit has finally been created in government to coordinate the Supportive Living Community Partnership Program, it is extremely important. I am also glad to see that the unit will coordinate an interdepartmental advisory committee to address barriers within government that people face when trying to obtain housing and support services.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is probably – not only probably – it is the number one issue that we deal with in our constituency office. My constituency assistant has become an expert – she should be on this committee by the way, she would really help it – because our constituency assistants are the ones who deal with the issues that arise between the departments, and they really know the barriers that are there.

I am glad to see that the announcement is finally being made. I have been two years waiting for this announcement to come. It is certainly not before its time, it is something that we need desperately for people who are homeless. We also know, though, that it is not just the barriers between departments that are keeping people from being able to access housing; we need more resources also directly going into supportive housing.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is only the first step in moving towards something that I have been calling for, and that is a division of housing in government to deal with the crisis of homelessness and lack of affordable housing in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Premier is distancing herself from the Muskrat Falls file, trying to offload all of the questions onto Nalcor Energy. That was really evident yesterday, because yesterday when reporters asked to scrum the Premier outside the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, after Question Period, they were told that the Premier would not take questions on Muskrat Falls and that they should be referred to Nalcor Energy.

I ask the Premier today: Why are you pre-screening your media questions or is it that you just do not want to answer questions on Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is reaching again today. Mr. Speaker, I have been intimately involved with this file for over four years. Yesterday, in this House, the Leader of the Opposition referenced a report that is fourteen or fifteen years old and costs associated with it. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I am familiar with the file, I cannot carry every piece of information with regard to Muskrat Falls or the Lower Churchill around in my head. We needed to find out the information to which she was referring, which I have done and I am going to be happy to answer questions on that today. Until that was done, Mr. Speaker, I did not have any new information to offer the media, but I certainly was scrummed and had a number of interesting things to say about a variety of subjects, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure if I can take the time to do the research, to dig some of this out; I would expect the Premier would have the history and the knowledge behind the deal that she is trying to sell.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask her a question with regard to the loan guarantee that she talked about yesterday in her scrum, the one thing that she did talk about, because, Mr. Speaker, we also know what this Premier had to say back in the 2006 election when she went out and said that you could not trust Stephen Harper; and in fact, Mr. Speaker, campaigned for federal Liberal candidates in Newfoundland and Labrador because she could not trust him.

I ask you today, Premier: Now that you are on the record as saying that you do not trust Stephen Harper because he broke his promises on the Atlantic Accord and on equalization, what has changed that we should trust him on any other deal that he makes with Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the legitimate aspirations of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not being heard or acknowledged you are going to find me on the record and you are going to find me challenging the people who do not do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there was a particular set of circumstances that led us to the ABC campaign and I have no regrets about my actions during that campaign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, people learn and people have the capacity to change. Mr. Speaker, it is a new day and I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is contemplating that the feds might offer us a loan guarantee, because she was saying several months ago that definitely would not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I challenge the Premier to find the quote where I said that, because I can certainly find the quote where she said Stephen Harper cannot be trusted by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we also know that under federal law any loan guarantee commitments have to be budgeted. We went through the federal budget that just recently came down; there is no commitment for a federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In light of the fact that that does not exist in the federal budget, in light of the fact from the Premier's own mouth that Stephen Harper cannot be trusted: Why should we believe anything that he would come to sell to people of this Province tomorrow, I ask you Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it was only a few short months ago when the Leader of the Opposition was standing here and standing outside this House as well, telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that Muskrat Falls would never come to be, and would never come to be because we were never going to get a deal with the Innu, that that was absolutely not going to happen. Mr. Speaker, she also told us and told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we would not get a loan guarantee from the federal government because they needed to understand the economics and that they had to be solid.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - that she stop making these kinds of statements and that she get on board for a project that is good for the people of Labrador, the people of Newfoundland, and the people of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing the Premier forgot to tell that I have been telling everyone in the media - and this, I would say to you, you can find it; it is in print everywhere – is that the people of this Province will pay double for their light bills under the deal that you are proposing under Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, let's get back to trust again here now for a minute, because in addition to the loan guarantee, the Premier is also asking for a $375 million public-private partnership grant from the federal government. We understand, Mr. Speaker, from an economist in Nova Scotia that this $375 million would all go to Emera, and it would go to pay for the Maritime Link.

I ask you today, Premier: How can you be out there lobbying for a $375 million grant to help subsidize electricity costs in Nova Scotia while you are going to gouge the people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much misinformation in what the Leader of the Opposition just said, it is hard to know where to start.

Mr. Speaker, we have been quite clear from the beginning, the different mechanisms we were using to get financial support from the federal government. We have never been shy about talking about the 3P application and what it will be used for, and we also talked about the loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker. It became quite clear some time ago that probably the loan guarantee was the best financial tool that we could get to support this project from the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, if we do get a loan guarantee from the federal government we will save between $350 million and $400 million that will go directly into the pockets of ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know the difference of that, Premier, and we know it is not going into their pockets. It may bring down the amount that you will charge them for electricity but only by a minimal amount, and we all know that.

Premier, will you stand today and tell the people of this Province that the $375 million that you are asking for from the federal government will actually go to help subsidize power costs to the people of Nova Scotia and not to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our primary concern is the energy needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – and, Mr. Speaker, how they can best be met. All of our studies have shown us that the development of Muskrat Falls at fourteen cents a kilowatt hour is the best project to meet the power needs now and into the future of the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, that is with not selling a kilowatt of power to anybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have excess power, so then we have to look at the markets and say: where is a market, and what is the best price we can get for it? We have done that with Emera and Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, to the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, from her lips, I say to the Premier, because there has been no evidence presented to back up any of the statements that they have made. We have consistently asked questions in the House and have gotten no answers; only being referred to Nalcor.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about another Harper election campaign in 2006, when they committed to bring 650 troops into Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This has yet to materialize, I say to the government opposite. So I hope we are not going to repeat mistakes of the past in Newfoundland and Labrador in listening to what they have to say.

I ask the minister today: What commitments have been gained from the Department of National Defence and what guarantees have been given by their government from Ottawa with regard to 5 Wing Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, this government has been very consistent over the last number of years about the strategic location of the Goose Bay air force base and what it holds for us as a Province and Canada as a whole. I have had numerous meetings with the Defence Minister about 5 Wing Goose Bay and how it is strategically located for northern sovereignty. The infrastructure there is second to none. The federal government are quite up to date on our concerns and the fact that we need that base utilized to its fullest potential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We just heard absolutely nothing that time from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Harper government – the same government that you do not trust – in 2006 said they were going to bring 650 troops into Happy Valley-Goose Bay; that they were going to preserve 5 Wing Goose Bay.

Where is the file now? Where is the commitment from the Harper government now? Why have you guys not delivered for the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members when they answer or ask questions that they direct their comments to the Chair.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of all of the things I expected in Question Period it was not a rant at the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we are not the campaign managers for the federal government. We put forward legitimate –ask on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; 5 Wing Goose Bay is one of them and we look forward to hearing what the Prime Minister, Mr. Ignatieff, and Mr. Layton have to say on this file, Mr. Speaker.

When the federal government does hear what it is we have to say and responds to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, we are going to talk about that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is taking a very narrow-minded perspective if she thinks she can distance herself and her government from what is happening at 5 Wing Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker. We know that it is in desperate need of repairs totalling $128 million and without that funding the base will be even further constrained in terms of actual international customers. That is a responsibility of this Province as well, I say to you Premier, to lobby the federal government to ensure that this base is kept vital and kept active and kept open.

I ask you today: What other commitments can we expect from Stephen Harper tomorrow on 5 Wing Goose Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest she come and meet Mr. Harper and ask him directly. I am not Mr. Harper's spokesperson. Mr. Speaker, we are going to put forward the legitimate aspirations of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we expect Mr. Harper and his government and a future government, if he forms one, Mr. Speaker, to respond in the same way that they have responded with regard to the Innu, and in a way, we hope, they respond to the Muskrat Falls (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is a Premier and a government who have thrown caution to the wind, Mr. Speaker, because they want to get one little thing from a government they claim they cannot trust. Today, Mr. Speaker, they have no goods to deliver on 5 Wing Goose Bay even though there was –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – a broken promise in 2006.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Harper government last week –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the Harper Conservative Budget last week they cut $56.8 million from the DFO Budget and I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs today: What areas of programs are going to be cut in Newfoundland and Labrador? Will it be in science research or enforcement? Will any of these cuts be downloaded to the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that the gift from the Harper government to Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said these questions are better addressed, as we will address them, to the federal government and to Mr. Harper. I would also suggest to your good friend Todd Russell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is too busy partying with the Harper government to find out how they are draining Newfoundland and Labrador and cutting us in the process. No answers on how these DFO cuts are going to affect fisherpeople in this Province. I ask you a responsible question, Premier, I expect a responsible answer.

How are these cuts going to affect the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I am not going to engage in this little game that the Leader of the Opposition is playing today. Mr. Speaker, we will answer for the actions of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we will hold the federal government's feet to the fire on files that are extremely important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier caved-in to the Harper government. She sold her soul, Mr. Speaker; that is what has happened in this Province. She sold her soul to a government a few years ago she could not trust, and now today she cannot answer the questions on behalf of the people of the Province. Well, the Harper government just cut $5.4 million from Marine Atlantic, a vital service that we depend upon in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Stand in your place today, Premier, and tell the people of the Province how these cuts are going to affect us and the vital link we have to Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is Stephen Harper and his candidates who are going to have to answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, just in the same way that I will have to and the Leader of the Opposition will have to. I have more confidence in the people of this Province. No more politically astute people live in this country than the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. They will make the right choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: People are smart; I will give the Premier that. They are smart enough to see what is happening in this Province today. A week ago the Harper government ripped the guts out of programs that affected Newfoundland and Labrador and you, Premier, have not bothered to ask one question about how it is going to affect the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The ACOA budget was cut by $15 million in Atlantic Canada, the very budget that puts tourism and agriculture infrastructure in rural communities all over Newfoundland and Labrador. How is that going to affect these communities and programs in this Province, I ask you?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite open and straightforward about my interactions with Prime Minister Harper and with his government. Mr. Speaker, she is always talking to us – the Leader of the Opposition – about her contacts, her sources, and the people she talks to. I would advise her to speak to her communications director and her adviser Mr. Westcott – he has a much more direct line to the federal government than I do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, for the Premier's information, I talk to Mr. Westcott every single day, and I can assure you –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is more than she does with the former Premier, Mr. Williams, I can say to you. She is not consulting him these days. That is why she is cozying up to Stephen Harper. While she is working on getting her loan guarantee, he is ripping the guts out of everything else in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier: Why, in over a week, have you not questioned the federal government on how these drastic cuts in Marine Atlantic, ACOA, DFO, and other programs are going to affect us here in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need any advice from the Leader of the Opposition in terms of standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I did it in 2006, Mr. Speaker, in a very public way and I will do it again if it becomes necessary. I do not mind naming people when they fail the people of this Province, but I will also acknowledge them when they do right by us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: The association representing small fish processors in the Province have submitted a plan to government for strengthening their position in the industry. For the most part, the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, discredited the proposal in the media yesterday. One of the things that SPNL is requesting in their proposal appears to the ASP's proposal in the MOU report, and that is a loan request or guarantee from this government.

My question to the minister is if he will stand in this House today and commit to some form of loan guarantees in this year's Budget for the fishing industry.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I met with Mr. George Joyce of SPNL. Just a year back from that, I received a proposal from Mr. Joyce, a submission to the MOU process. Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to read out verbatim what was said, but his stand was very clear: Government should take a hands-off approach, should not financially intervene.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago yesterday, I get a three-page submission asking for $45 million. Mr. Speaker, I might apologize to Mr. Joyce, but I certainly have no intentions of responding on a $45 million ask within two weeks. We are doing a financial analysis of that, and we will report to Mr. Joyce when the time is right.

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.

The minister, in his media response to SPNL's proposal, said that despite his qualms, he would review the plan and try to extract something positive, were the words that he used, from it and their response.

So I ask the minister, and I just heard what he said in response to my first question, but can the minister provide us here today with a time frame when SPNL can expect a response to this proposal?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, when someone asks for $45 million from us as a government, we are going to do our due diligence. If that takes a little bit more time than Mr. Joyce sees fit, well, he will have to deal with that, but we are going to do our work to ensure that we are prudent with the spending of the public purse, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the minister that Mr. Joyce is writing on behalf of an association, and in that association there are a lot of communities in this Province and fish plant workers and harvesters who are represented there. So, I think it is important that we have some idea of when we can expect this to come forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Jackson's Arm shrimp plant has now been closed for a year, and last year the minister stated that it was misleading to suggest that the plant was closed for good and indicated that the MOU would provide a long-term solution. We know where that is today – well, actually, we do not know where it is.

I ask the minister, what is the status of the plant – I am talking about the MOU, Mr. Speaker – for this season? Now that we do not know where the MOU process is, can you give us some idea as to what its future is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Regarding the MOU, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard yet whether the hon. member either supports it or rejects it. He finds himself walking the fence on it, Mr. Speaker, and maybe at some time he should come clean.

In terms of the Jackson's Arm plant, Mr. Speaker, we have had no indication to this point that that facility will not open this year. We await the company's final decision, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I see the political stand on the MOU, where the government stands with the MOU and what their vision is for it and so on, I will let them know as to whether I can support it or not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Sealers Association recently sent a letter to the Minister of Fisheries asking that he lift the restraints on the sealers with regard to shipment of raw sealskins. They suggest that the current regulations in place for shipment of raw sealskins are preventing sealers from being able to sell to a potential market this year of approximately 50,000 older seal pelts, thus causing sealers to lose potential money. There are is only about twelve days left before the hunt starts and people have been calling.

I ask the minister today: When can the Sealers Association expect to hear your decision on their request?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, he should start listening to the Fisheries Broadcast.

MR. DEAN: I do.

MR. JACKMAN: Well, you did not listen to it yesterday.

I did an interview on this yesterday and I indicated, at that particular point, we did indeed have submissions to ship out some additional seal products.

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with the sealing operations in the Province who, we, a few years ago, instituted a policy where products had to be processed on land. What these groups are asking now is for an exemption to that. Mr. Speaker, I will have a response to those parties within the next few days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased this morning to hear the Minister of Justice in the media flip-flop on his decision to dismiss the Citizens' Representative's investigation of psychiatric services in provincial correction facilities. Mr. Speaker, the evidence found in this report and the evidence I have received myself from inmates of Her Majesty's Penitentiary and their families demand a deeper investigation. Mr. Speaker, the minister has now stated that there would be a peer review of the practices of the psychiatrist employed at HMP, something he was not saying yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Who or what organization will conduct the peer review, and what are the time frame and plans for the release of the findings?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I have to point out to the hon. member with her expertise that she may well be considered to do the peer review.

My reaction, Mr. Speaker, to the report of the Citizens' Representative is that we rejected the recommendation of the Citizens' Representative based on the poor standard of review that was done in that report. Anybody who read that report, Mr. Speaker, would do the same because there was absolutely no evidence in that report to substantiate the recommendation that was made.

Having said, Mr. Speaker, there was a fair amount of concern out there and a lot of reaction. The only way to clear the air on this matter is to do a proper review, which the Citizens' Representative did not do. We will do a proper review on this.

In terms of what will happen and in terms of the preparations for it and getting it ready, that is ongoing. It is too early to determine what it is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that I would suggest the Citizens' Representative has the right to look at things in this Province and make observations and make recommendations based on his position, and has as much expertise to do that as Justice Cameron had to look at breast cancer. She was not an expert in breast cancer, Mr. Speaker, and did not have to be. I would like to point that out; and Robert Wells was not an expert in safety, but he knew how to do a study.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand we have a Minister of Health and Community Services promoting mental health and addictions treatment, and doing it very well, while his colleague casts off -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: The Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, is not doing what his colleague is doing. The Minister of Justice is rejecting reports.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker, does he condone the present practice of (inaudible) prescribe psychiatrist medication to victims in our Province…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows it is forty-five seconds to ask a question and forty-five seconds to answer, not a minute and twenty-one seconds. If there is a question, I pass it on the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was cut off before she had asked her question, and understandably so, but I think I got the gist of it anyway, in spite of my disability.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to Justice Cameron that she just made, an expertise of the Citizens' Representative; there is a vast difference, Mr. Speaker, of the expertise that Justice Cameron had at her disposal than what the Citizens' Representative used in coming out with this report. She had access to all medical experts all over the place that she needed to do her report. The Citizens' Representative did not.

Mr. Speaker, our record, over the last two years since the bringing in of the Decades of Darkness report, shows a $7 million investment in our correctional system, a lot of which has gone to mental health issues and training and programming for people with mental health issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question so I will ask my question again. The Minister of Health and Community Services is very concerned about mental health and addictions treatment.

I am asking the Minister of Health and Community Services, does he condone the regressive practice of limiting properly prescribed psychiatric medication to inmates in our correctional facilities, people who need them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is not for a person like myself to answer a question with regard to professional practice of any medical practitioner. I cannot answer the question whether or not the prescription policy of any doctor in the Province is adequate for the clientele they serve. That is not my expertise; that is not my level of jurisdiction. That will be done, I suggest to the hon. member, in the peer review. That is the only way it can be done, and we have announced that peer review this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

It being 3:00 o'clock, if hon. members are willing to give leave for the rest of the Order Paper here, since it is Private Members' Day. There is some tabling of documents, notices of motion; I understand that some of those activities need to be conducted.

Does the hon. Speaker have leave to go through those particular items on the Order Paper?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in fulfilling government's commitment of being accountable to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is my pleasure to table the 2011-2013 strategic plan for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission. This is a plan developed in accordance with the requirements of the Transparency and Accountability Act.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion, seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair:

WHEREAS the Speaker of the House of Assembly has appeared, and has admitted appearing, at a public event of a partisan nature intended to support and promote the candidacy of a particular party and or candidate;

BE IT RESOLVED that having established a prima facie case of privilege, this matter be referred to the House Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked several questions with respect to the occupational health and safety audit that was done by our department. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity now to answer these questions. I am a person who, whenever I –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, my understanding under this particular section is if something is asked, it is normally asked by a written process and the answers are tabled in this House. Maybe I could be clarified on that, but that is my understanding, that this section of the Order Paper is for Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. This was done in the course of a Question Period. It was not done by way of a notice to this Table asking a minister to provide any documentation or information to this House.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. minister who was –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

MS BURKE: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister who was providing information to questions that were posed by the Opposition, if we are not particularly following this routine procedure we would ask for leave because we think it is important, based on the answer given yesterday by the minister, that he committed to bringing an answer back to this hon. House to answer the questions posed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, with leave, we would like for the minister to be able to provide the answer that he said here in the House yesterday he would provide.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly have no problem and we grant leave to the minister to table his answers. We will not provide leave for oral presentation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given has been done in two ways here in this House of Assembly. It is done by the hon. minister tabling his answers and it is done by the hon. minister giving the verbal answers to his questions. The Chair understands that notice was given yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Government Services that those questions would be forthcoming today. So, I think the hon. Minister of Government Services has every right to read his answers into the record, with notice having been given yesterday.

I ask the hon. minister if he wants to read his answers or provide his answers verbally, he certainly is at will to do that, or it is up to him to table them.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A different point of order?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the notice that you are talking about the Government House Leader filed yesterday, we certainly have no knowledge of it. If it was filed, it was not brought to the attention of the Official Opposition. I do not know about the Third Party, but we certainly have no notice of it.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I alluded to when I said he gave notice yesterday was the fact, as you had said in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that he advised the House verbally yesterday that there was information requested of him during Question Period and the hon. minister indicated that he would return with that information. His intent today, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the information that was asked for by the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker heard quite clearly, the hon. Minister of Government Services yesterday state that he was going to be providing the answers today. The Chair accepts that as notice. Once again, I ask the hon. member to either provide the answers verbally or to table the answers, or to do both. I leave it up to his (inaudible).

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave notice yesterday that I would like to provide the answers. Whenever I speak, Mr. Speaker, I always like to say something that is meaningful, that is true, and that is factual.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, yes, I take advantage of the opportunity to stand here today and give the answers to the questions that were asked yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Opposition do not want the public in this Province to know the real answers or not, but, anyway, I am taking the opportunity to do that today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition did ask two or three questions yesterday with respect to the health and safety plan audit that we were doing with the Department of Government Services. I would just like to say this was initiated by our department three years ago to have an audit done of the Occupational Health and Safety practices within the department. It was expanded also to include a number of other social departments within government.

Mr. Speaker, we look upon this is as a government, as a department, that wants to ensure that the practices within the department are the best that we can have for the people –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister, while he has been given the opportunity to provide the answers, I ask him also to be guided by the time limits that we allow for Question Period; if it cannot be done within that time frame, then maybe to table the answers. We would like to have it done in the time frame that you would have been provided in Question Period.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the questions, in particular, pertained to the three employees that were hired to assist us in doing this review. Mr. Speaker, these three employees were hired on a temporary basis. They were told when they were hired three years ago that it would be for a three-year period –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARDING: - and since early this year, Mr. Speaker, those employees were told, again, that they would be laid off the end of March this year because the work had been completed.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today being Private Members' Day and it being 3:08 of the clock, I now call on the hon. Member for the District of Humber Valley to bring forward his private member's resolution.

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise today and begin debate on our private member's resolution with respect to the Lower Churchill hydro development project. This Province does have one of the greatest, clean, green hydro resources anywhere in the world. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased today to introduce this resolution which was initially brought forward on Monday.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, reads:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House affirms that the development of the hydropower potential of Muskrat Falls is vital for the achievement of energy security in Newfoundland and Labrador and vital for fuelling industrial development and economic growth in Labrador and on the Island.

Of course, this private member's resolution was seconded by the hon. Member from Humber West.

So, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate we can show everyone in this Province that our House of Assembly is totally in support of the action and process that our government is taking in the development of the 824 megawatt Muskrat Falls Project.

This project is being done to ensure our energy security and for supporting industrial development and economic growth in our Province. There are many benefits to this project, Mr. Speaker, for the Big Land, and the Island, and Canada. The primary reason for developing Muskrat Falls, of course, is economic, but there are secondary benefits as well.

The energy security for the people in our Province is one of those, along with the thousands of jobs which it is projected to create. Mr. Speaker, there are tens and hundreds of thousands of person hours of employment attached to this project, employment for our people, human capital, and great opportunity, especially for our youth..

Mr. Speaker, this will be a major economic driver that will have all kinds of spinoff, particularly in Labrador. I am proud to say that, Mr. Speaker. From our government's energy plan, it is clear that Labradorians will be the primary beneficiaries of the Lower Churchill Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed good to see.

It was so clear that we would seek long-term stability for electricity consumers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and acquire a secure and renewable source of power. The development of Muskrat Falls was determined by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be one of the most economic and least cost options to address the future demand for electricity generations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Muskrat Falls will meet the electricity requirements of the Island and also provide additional capacity for future industrial development in Labrador. There will be significant benefits to Labrador from the development of Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. KELLY: More than 75 per cent of the work for the Muskrat Falls generation facility will take place in Labrador, including construction of the dam, the powerhouse, and the transmission lines, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, an estimated $450 million in income will be earned solely by Labradorians and Labrador-based businesses, with an average of 1,150 people per year employed in Labrador from both the generation and transmission components of this very futuristic, worthwhile Province for the people of Labrador and the people of the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: First consideration for employment, and I repeat, first consideration for employment, will be provided to the Labrador Innu, as outlined in the New Dawn Agreement, and then all Labradorians. Muskrat Falls is an opportunity for all Labradorians to contribute to the clean, renewable, energy future of this Province.

With a strong cultural and historic connection to the land, Labradorians will indeed make a substantial and important contribution to this project. Employment benefits: the Muskrat Falls development will result in 8,600 person years of direct employment –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the member who has been recognized to speak. I ask for the co-operation of all members of the House.

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

It is quite obvious to me that the members of the Opposition do not want to hear such positive news about such a positive project for the future of this great Province of ours, Mr. Speaker: 8,600 person years of direct employment in Newfoundland and Labrador with 5,400 person years of direct employment in Labrador during the construction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: The addition of direct and induced employment means a total of 18,400 person years of work in the Province, of which 7,500, Mr. Speaker, will occur in Labrador.

This will peak. There will be a peak, Mr. Speaker, in employment during the construction: 2,700 people in the year 2013, which again is quite significant, especially for the young people in this Province. This project, Mr. Speaker, is not only beneficial to the Innu, and not only beneficial to Labrador and the Island, but it is also beneficial to our country. Canada-wide employment will be 47,800 person years during construction. Direct project employment in this number consists largely of work of a speciality nature such as steel fabrication which cannot be completed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, there is so much good news in what I am saying that they just do not want to listen, Mr. Speaker.

A person year, Mr. Speaker, is equivalent to one person working forty hours per week for fifty weeks. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls construction site, accommodations will be designed for up to 1,000 people and it will be removed when the construction is complete.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of economic benefits, the total income to labour and business for Newfoundland and Labrador will be $1.4 billion or $220 million per year; extraordinary, Mr. Speaker. Over $200 million in taxes will accrue to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canada-wide income to labour and business will be $3.5 billion or $550 million per year; over $525 million in taxes to the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker. Obviously this project is not only a benefit to this Province but it is indeed a benefit to Canada as a whole; this is a win-win for all of Canada, Mr. Speaker.

Under the environment, the Muskrat Falls development will lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions and this is important for my children, my grandchildren and my great grandchildren. Estimates sit at ninety-six million tonnes by 2065. Newfoundland and Labrador will be consuming 98 per cent renewable energy by project completion, Mr. Speaker; a major consideration given the continually increasing government mandates to reduce emissions, the right decision for future generations no doubt, Mr. Speaker.

The development will also allow Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a Nalcor subsidy, to stop burning oil at its generating plant in Holyrood, Mr. Speaker. Quite sensibly, we are proposing something which can greatly assist the federal government's overall goals, Mr. Speaker, in reducing greenhouse gases.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly represent the District of Humber Valley and in 2011, I am sure, in the fall, I will continue to proudly represent the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: The people of Humber Valley know how hard and how diligently I work on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I communicate with them on a regular basis. They know the many successes in my district. This project, Mr. Speaker, will also be beneficial to the people in the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: My district has three very significant hydro facilities already, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLY: The oldest one is in Deer Lake, and the construction on that facility started in 1922. Actually, the Deer Lake –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked on a couple of occasions today to allow the member recognized to speak to present his motion. I ask members again for their cooperation. The Chair is having some difficulty in hearing the member who has been recognized to speak.

Again, I insist upon the cooperation of all Members of the House.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Obviously there are certain members in the Opposition who do not want to hear so many positive things about this project.

My district has three very significant hydro projects, as I just said, Mr. Speaker. One of those, the design started in 1922 and it went into production in 1925. It produces 125 megawatts.

In fact, when that project first went into being – and appreciate the historical significance of this, Mr. Speaker – they were even talking about putting the paper mill, which is currently in Corner Brook, in Deer Lake. The reason was that the transmission of electricity was at its infancy and it did not look like the project would be viable to transmit electricity over the power lines to Corner Brook. In a couple of years, the technology improved and of course Corner Brook has the paper mill and the hydro-generating facility is in Deer Lake. In the last eighty-five years, it is so impressive and so amazing how much the technology has improved in the generation of hydroelectricity.

In fact, the one in Deer Lake is an historic site. It was also recognized recently and painted by Christopher Pratt. A painting of that particular facility is proudly on display in Ottawa.

Deer Lake of course; not only is the Deer Lake plant, which produces 125 megawatts, but Grand Lake, which is the water reservoir for Deer Lake, and Hinds Lake provide power to Hinds Lake power project, which is 75 megawatts. Also, in my district I have Cat Arm. Cat Arm produces approximately 125 megawatts.

My district is already an energy powerhouse. My district, the District of Humber Valley, the district that I am so pleased to represent in this House of Assembly, makes a significant contribution already to this Province by producing 325 megawatts of electricity.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my family members have worked with hydro companies over the years. My grandfather and two uncles worked on the Deer Lake power transmission grid. One of my two uncles, Bernard Kelly, happened to be a linesman who worked on the Upper Churchill. He was proud to see himself in a Newfoundland and Labrador magazine being recognized as a pioneer with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, my area receives significant benefits from the current hydro projects in my district. The Muskrat Falls Project will provide significant benefits to the Innu, the people of Labrador, and this Province. More specifically, it will indeed provide benefits to my district because of the location. Already, Mr. Speaker, there are companies in my district that are looking to tender on contracts for hydro line construction, for supplies. Deer Lake and the entire West Coast is ideally located to take advantage of the business opportunities associated with the development of the Muskrat Falls project.

Churchill Falls; the notorious Churchill Falls contract, in essence, gave Quebec the right to sell power generated on a site owned by Newfoundland and Labrador. It is widely considered the poorest decision ever made in resource development. The massive Churchill Falls generating station is the second-largest hydroelectric project in North America. The unusual terms of the 1969 agreement allowing Quebec unusually high rewards and the majority of profits from the massive hydro project are a common discussion amongst Newfoundlanders, in particular during the last decade of tough economic times.

Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that Quebec has reaped over $19 billion in revenue over the years, while Newfoundland and Labrador has profited only $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, thank God that the vision today of this government is far superior to that. The project is expected to provide a long-term, sustainable and renewable energy supply that will enable rate stability and energy security for the Province, leading to increased economic growth. It will also enable the retirement of –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KELLY: By leave, to clue up?

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

MS JONES: No, you had fifteen minutes (inaudible).

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to stand today and speak to the motion that has been put forward in the House of Assembly by the Member for Humber Valley.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that it is the Member for Humber Valley who is putting this motion forward today and not the Member from Lake Melville, or the Member from Labrador West, somewhere where the resource, in itself, is the home of this particular potential, huge development. It is very interesting.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how much grandstanding the Member for Humber Valley is going to do on election day when he is out in his district knocking on doors in Deer Lake, and Pasadena, and Jackson's Arm, and Pollard's Point, and Hampton, and all of those communities, Mr. Speaker, saying to them: I am the man you sent to St. John's to represent you and I managed to get your light bill doubled for you before the election. Can you imagine that? Knocking on their door and saying that what you pay for electricity today, $150 a month on your light bill, is going to be $300 a month now because I supported a bad deal that was done by my government which says you have to pay for it. You, the taxpayer of Newfoundland and Labrador, you, the consumer of electricity in this Province, you have to pay for the deal that my government did, and I voted for that. So, I am sorry, but your light bill will not be $150 a month anymore, it is going to be $300 a month. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced yet that it is only going to double. The numbers I have people putting in front of my face these days tell me that it is going to be more than that, but we will see where that goes.

This from a member, Mr. Speaker, who has a shrimp plant in his district that did not open last summer, people were sent out in the streets with no jobs. Today, we asked questions about it in the House of Assembly, we have no response from the government; and yet, Mr. Speaker, the member never once came into this House of Assembly and stood up and said how the plant in Jackson's Arm should be open or how the workers should be put back to work. He never once stood in this place, Mr. Speaker, and fought to keep that fish plant open. Now, today he is up saying I want to support a deal that is not only going to keep your fish plant closed, Mr. Speaker, because they will not afford the electricity for it, but I am also going to support something that is going to see your hydro rates double over the next year or two or three years as we move forward with Muskrat Falls power. That is what the Member for Humber Valley is saying today.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the motion that he has put on the floor, because it is a very serious motion. I am going to preface my comments like this, and the first thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I have spent my entire life waiting for the right deal to happen on Muskrat Falls and Gull Island power. I grew up in Labrador. One of the greatest dreams of Labradorians is to see a project developed that would bring wealth to them and to their communities. How disappointed do you think they are today? How disappointed do you think they are today to learn that all that is in this deal for you is some jobs and some construction? Do you know something? If I was a business person today in Labrador I would say give it to me and I would take it and run, because with 5 Wing Goose Bay on the way down the tubes because you guys failed to negotiate a deal with the federal government on 5 Wing Goose Bay, what do people have to look forward to? They take whatever they can get, that is the position your government has forced people into today.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, stood up in the House of Assembly on a number of occasions and talked about vision. Well, let me tell you a little about vision because her vision, Mr. Speaker, of what she is proposing for Muskrat Falls is a nightmare for every single consumer of electricity in this Province. It is a nightmare, Mr. Speaker. A vision that does not provide a return of wealth for the people of the Province is not a vision that is in their best interest. Why would the people of this Province want to buy into a lot of desperate talk at an election time of a great deal when they know at the end of the day they will pay more for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador? Today, we have one of the lowest electricity rates in the country and under this deal we will pay the highest electricity costs; amongst the highest in this country, I say. What kind of a vision is that for people, Mr. Speaker? What kind of a vision is it to say to people that we are going to increase the debt of the Province by 50 per cent almost? That is what you are telling them.

You, as a government, like to talk about when you won the lottery; when you came into government you won the lottery. You received all the money from the oil revenues and you went out spent it like it was going out of style, Mr. Speaker. People in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today are still wondering where the oil revenues are because they did not see any of it.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about how you paid down the debt and today you are the very government, the only government ever in our history that is prepared to increase the debt, to saddle the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with the largest debt we have ever seen in our entire history. Even in the poorest days of Newfoundland and Labrador we have never had a debt like the debt you are proposing to saddle the people of this Province with today; never before in our history, I say to the members opposite. People out there, they know that. People, who are smart enough to know I have to pay my light bill at the end of every month, know what it means when that light bill doubles. People who pay taxes in this Province know what it means when the debt of the Province doubles, somebody has to pay for it. Well, what you are proposing is not just adding to the debt in Newfoundland and Labrador, but what you are proposing will saddle this Province with the largest debt that we have ever seen in our history as a Province in Newfoundland and Labrador, the largest ever since we came into Confederation with Canada.

That is the vision of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The other part of her vision shows no respect for the people of Labrador. The Member for Lake Melville might stand on his haunches today and give one speech that is quite different from ones he has given in the past, and that is perfectly all right, but I can tell you one thing, if the Member for Lake Melville was sitting on the Opposition side of the House of Assembly today you would have to tear him off the tops of the Mealy Mountains, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, because he would be up there saying the people of Labrador deserve better. Now, Mr. Speaker, he is sandwiched into a position and he does not know where to go because deep down he knows, and he has made the speeches before. In fact, he made them over here on MacDonald Drive, Mr. Speaker, on the parkway. He talked about how Labradorians want to get more out of this deal. They want a heritage fund, they want electricity to their communities, and they want to ensure that the NunatuKavut people are represented and not just one group of people but all peoples in Labrador. Today, he might talk out of a different side of his face but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador are still talking out of the same side of their face and they are still making the same demands today on your government as they made on previous governments. That has not changed.

What kind of vision is that, when you show no respect for the people whose very lands you are going to flood, to the very people whose lands you are going to take control of and generate power to sell to everyone else except them? Think about that for a minute. Think about that and you tell me, when you stand up, where the fairness is in doing that.

What I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that any government that I would be a part of would have a vision that would certainly not gouge the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It would certainly take the people of this Province for granted, Mr. Speaker. We would make sure that any deal on Muskrat Falls and Gull Island power would be economical for the people of this Province. We would ensure, Mr. Speaker, that they do not have to pay twice as much on their light bills at the end of the month because the government of the day was desperate, Mr. Speaker, was so desperate they even sold their soul to the very federal government that they could not trust. That is what we are seeing here.

Well, any government, Mr. Speaker, that I would be a part of, I can guarantee you, at the end of the day would show respect and honour for the people of Labrador and would ensure that there was a vision that included them, a vision that would bring transmission lines to the North Coast of Labrador and to the South Coast of Labrador, and that would bring power to their communities, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: That is the kind of vision that we would have: one that does not gouge people but gives something back to people.

I can tell you one other thing, too, Mr. Speaker: My vision would never include giving free power to Emera, a private energy corporation in Nova Scotia so that Nova Scotians can get a break on power coming off of the Lower Churchill and coming off of Muskrat Falls. Yet, our own people, Mr. Speaker, will not be able to afford to keep the lights on in their houses by the time you get finished with this particular deal. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker.

We would want to support a deal that makes money for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, not on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is the fundamental difference, I say to the members opposite. That is the fundamental difference: making money for the people of this Province, not making it on the backs of the people of this Province. This is a very different strategy, I say to the members opposite.

Any deal to develop, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls power and Gull Island power should be a good thing for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It should be a wonderful thing for this Province. It should be a thing to be celebrated, but how can you celebrate something, Mr. Speaker, when you are being told that the only way that this can work is if every single one of you dig deep into your pocketbook and you find the money to pay for this.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? What really, really gets to me most about this deal is the government will not answer the questions. They refuse to answer questions on this particular deal. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier will stand up in the House, but she will not give the answers. Unlike the Elizabeth Matthews thing where she hid away for, I think, it was ten days and did not even speak to the media. She sent the Minister of Natural Resources out to speak to the media. For ten days she hid away and did not even approach the microphones. Mr. Speaker, she does stand up, but she will not give you the answers. She will not tell us how a project that can be done today, building a transmission line that is twenty-six kilometres longer can be done cheaper today than it could have thirteen years ago, even though we know that steel prices have increased by 200 per cent. She is unable to tell us, Mr. Speaker, where the demand for power is going to come from.

The members opposite talk about we are going to improve carbons, we are all for it. I am going to tell you something, a real vision on improving the carbons in this Province, you would take the moratorium off small-scale hydro projects and you would take the moratorium off wind projects. You have not done either one of those things, so do not talk about bringing carbons down, Mr. Speaker, by 6 per cent and jacking people's light bills up by 100 per cent because that does not jibe.

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of things that need to be looked at here. We are going to keep asking the questions. We are going to figure out where the demand for power is coming, because Nalcor could not tell us where the demand for power is coming from. It is all coming from statistics from the Department of Finance, but the Minister of Finance will not tell us, the Premier will not tell us. It is locked down. It is a top secret in this Province today, top secret. Any answers on Muskrat Falls have been top secret when it comes to this government.

Our only objective here, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that we protect the citizens of this Province. If we can do a deal on Muskrat Falls and we can protect the citizens of this Province, we will be the first ones there, I can guarantee you that. We will be the first ones there. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment to the motion presented by the Member for Humber Valley:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that government should reconsider the viability of the development of the hydropower potential of Muskrat Falls should the project result in increases in the consumer price of electrical power that are higher than the inflation rate as determined by the Consumer Price Index, or result in sales to consumers outside the Province at prices lower than sales to consumers inside the Province, or should Nalcor fail to finalize firm power purchasing agreements for the power excess to provincial needs or the contractual commitment to Emera, or if the result of the project will be further privatization of a great proportion of the Province's electrical generation –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - or distribution system, or if government does not sufficiently address the residential and industrial energy requirements for all of Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Here is the amendment. I did not get to read it all into the record (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not yet had an opportunity to see the amendment, so I will take a moment to recess the House to ensure that the amendment is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had an opportunity to review the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I find the amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a great honour to stand in this hon. House to represent the great District of Lake Melville. As I said a couple of weeks ago, home of the Upper Churchill, home of the Lower Churchill, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to speak to the private member's motion here today.

I want to thank my hon. colleague from Humber Valley for his support, and for his kind words regarding this project. Mr. Speaker, over on this side of the House we work as a team; the Progressive Conservative team, of which, I am very proud, Mr. Speaker, to be a part of this team and this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Now, the Leader of the Opposition talks about nightmare; she said it is a nightmare. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the only nightmare that we have seen here is the Leader of the Opposition, and we saw it for fourteen years while the hon. crowd on the other side was governing this Province. It was a pure, a terrible nightmare that this Province went through, Mr. Speaker.

While they were in power, we saw the largest deficits, we saw our schools go down dilapidated – the roofs were leaking, the windows were broken – we saw our hospitals go down, we saw our recreational facilities stagnate, we saw our colleges dilapidated. Mr. Speaker, we know what kind of a nightmare our Province went through, through the fourteen years of Liberal governance in this Province – we saw the fourteen years.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great project, the Muskrat Falls project. Before I go into a little detail about that, Mr. Speaker, she made a comment here; I could not believe she said it. She said, the oil, we never received any benefits from the oil. Well, she must be have been asleep for the last seven years, Mr. Speaker because the investments that we have laid in roads, in hospitals, in schools, in long-term health care facilities are unprecedented since we came into Confederation in 1949. Unprecedented, I say.

Mr. Speaker, this is a leader who is desperate. The tripe that we are listening to across from the House and some of her supporters, Mr. Speaker, is about desperation. This is not about whether or not this is a good deal for the Province; this is about a desperate leader who is trying to cling on to power within her own party in which she has her own crowd there with the knives out sharpening them up for her. All we have to do is look at the comments of Danny Dumaresque and John Efford. Let me say what John Efford said; do not see her as the next Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we are seeing these remarks from the Leader of the Opposition, I say to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to go through a number of points here today because we are going through an environmental assessment process right now. There are some fifty-four hearings and sessions. I want to talk about some of the issues because there are some good questions, and I can tell you this government is not afraid of answering questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HICKEY: You have that right. We are not afraid about answering questions.

One of the questions that she talks about is the cost of power. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my district, in Central Labrador, and in my good colleague's district, the Member for Labrador West, we get our power from Churchill Falls and we have the lowest power, the lowest cost power of anywhere, I would say, in North America right now and that is not going to change, Mr. Speaker.

The Muskrat Falls development, Mr. Speaker, will not impact the rates in the Labrador interconnected system unless some of the assets are required to service the needs of that system. There is no requirement to use Muskrat Falls power in Labrador. We have 200 megawatts, Mr. Speaker, right there, right now; if industry wants to come to Labrador there is 200 megawatts sitting there in recall on the Upper Churchill. That is part of this project – and she does not talk about this, she does not talk about these benefits.

There is also a plan for a 245,000 volt line from Churchill Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. That will give us even access to that block of power. Will the rates in Labrador be comparable to the Island rates? Currently, the electricity rates in Labrador in the interconnected system, particularly in Labrador West and East, pay the lowest electricity rates of anyone in the Province, and certainly throughout the country. Electricity rates in Labrador are lower than other comparable communities in other parts of the country, such as Ontario and Quebec due to the significant subsidization of electricity rates on these communities.

Then, we talk about jobs for Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, the Lower Churchill construction project benefits strategy and that was released in July of 2010, specifically provides first consideration of employment to the members of the Innu Nation, to the residents of Labrador, to the businesses of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and then to the rest of the Province.

The Lower Churchill construction project benefits strategy, specifically, Mr. Speaker, provides first consideration for employment to the members of the Labrador's Innu communities and to the residents.

Some people say: Where are the long-term benefits for the people of Labrador? Mr. Speaker, there are 7,500 person-years of direct and indirect and induced employments which will take place in Labrador; an average of 1,150 people per year. That will be just for the Muskrat Falls development. First consideration, as I said earlier, will go to the Innu and, again, to the residents of Labrador. More than 75 per cent of the direct labour of the Muskrat Falls generation facility will be undertaken in Labrador, with approximately $450 million in income to labour and businesses will be earned solely by Labradorians and Labrador-based businesses.

Mr. Speaker, this is a far cry from what we saw from the Tobin government. She talks about we are not doing our homework and this is a terrible deal. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have been through all that up in Labrador. We were there. She talks about living in Labrador, I have lived there all my life and I am planning to continue that until I die up there. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we saw a government at that time sign a deal with Bouchard –

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: We are talking about Muskrat, now.

MR. HICKEY: Yeah, we will talk about Muskrat, but we are going to talk about what I want to talk about. We are going to talk about a deal with Bouchard, and where was the Leader of the Liberal Opposition? She was part of that government. She never as much as picked up the phone to talk to the Innu people, not once, for the people of Labrador, the Innu people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: Not even an e-mail.

Then we saw the Grimes government, and I can tell you, I know that better than anyone what happened there. I can tell you, I know what happened with the Grimes government. They wanted to give it to Quebec. They wanted to give the transmission lines to Quebec, all the supply to Quebec, everything was going to Quebec. Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was stood on my feet then, that I was not in favour of that. Those days are over, Mr. Speaker. Those days are long gone. The next time we sit down with the Province of Quebec, and maybe Mr. Dumaresque might be across the table with Hydro Quebec, for all we know, talking about this. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, Hydro Quebec will never hold the aces any more when it comes to development of power in this Province, and certainly in Labrador. Those days are over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a good project. This is a good project for the people of Labrador and this is a good project for our Province. The replacement of the Holyrood plant and the use of crude oil over there is going to clean up one of the most environmentally (inaudible) projects I can tell you, spewing tons and tons into the atmosphere, and we have to be environmentally responsible here. This is a green project with a very small footprint, I say, Mr. Speaker, a very small footprint compared to other hydro projects across the world.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up on the Upper Churchill and I can tell you, my family – certainly, we came to Labrador because of the hydro development. It has been good for me, it has been good for my family, and it has been good for many, many Labradorians. This project, Mr. Speaker, will be a project that will go down in history as a project that allows us not only to start Muskrat Falls, but to develop Gull Island.

I will tell you what really makes me feel good about this project. When I walk into the College of the North Atlantic in Happy Valley-Goose Bay where there are some-250 students, when I go in and talk to these students, they want to stay home in their hometowns. They want to live in Labrador. They want to be in Labrador. They do not want to move to Fort McMurray, they do not want to move to Saskatchewan, and they do not want to move to Ontario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: They want to stay home, Mr. Speaker. We are going to train young engineers, technicians, linesmen, and all of those trades. We are preparing for it now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; a brand new linesman program was started just this year.

I can tell you what, all of those young men and women there, Mr. Speaker, they want those jobs. They are not listening to the Todd Russells of the world. They are not listening to the Danny Dumaresques of the world, Mr. Speaker. They want to see a future because they do not want to travel, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: It is expected that you would treat everyone with respect and certainly everybody in this Province with respect. This is the second time the Member for Lake Melville and the Minister of Labrador Affairs has used that word. Now, that can happen on both sides. If we want to get into ‘Stunderdale' or whatever else, we can go there, but I suggest to the party opposite that if they want to continue with that, that can work both ways, Mr. Speaker. I think it is unnecessary, it is discourteous, and the member should be straightened out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Chair is not aware of any Standing Order within Beauchesne that would refer to an individual from outside of the House. I am aware of Standing Orders and rules referring to individuals, Her Majesty, the Prime Minister within the House, therefore, I find that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess it is very clear that the members of the Opposition do not want to hear the truth.

In closing, I only have about forty-five seconds, but I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, things are going well in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The economy of Happy Valley-Goose Bay is doing quite well and it will do better as we continue with the Lower Churchill. Our town is prepared for it, the community is supporting it. I can tell you what, Mr. Speaker, as we go into this federal election I can tell you there is a strong feeling both in the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in Labrador, that we need a change in Ottawa and I am very happy to stand on my feet here today to support Peter Penashue of the Innu Nation who is going to be the Conservative member running in the next federal election, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on this motion, a very important motion here; a very, very important motion in fact, but there are a few flaws in it. In fact, it is tragically flawed because it is so simple. We heard the word green. I do not know if the government member who proposed this thinks the people of this Province are green to propose such a simplistic motion about Muskrat Falls, high in the sky, pie in the sky motion without giving any details in his speech, not a one. Not one detail did the member from that district who proposed that give about Muskrat Falls.

As for the Minister of Labrador Affairs, I do not know if he even uttered the word Muskrat while he was on his feet, not a word. I will tell you one thing that this member will not be telling the people of Burgeo & La Poile. I will not be telling the people of Burgeo & La Poile that they ought to accept light bills that are doubled. That is a fact. There is nobody in this government - we have seen the Premier get up day after day after day and say this is the most cost-effective project we have; this is green. Nowhere do you hear the emphasis that your light bills in this Province, folks - and I am talking now, we are on camera here, I have to go back to these people in October in my district when it comes election time and one of the things I am going to be asked on the doorstep: Where were you on Muskrat Falls? I am going to tell them exactly where I was to: I will not support a project that has a direct, immediate consequence to the people of this Province, and particularly in my district, that is going to lead to them paying double the light bill that they are presently paying. It is just absolutely unacceptable.

The people of Burnt Islands, the people of Rose Blanche, Mr. Speaker, Port aux Basques, Cape Ray, Margaree, Isle aux Morts, Ramea, Grey River, Burgeo, have no fear, I am not going to vote for anything, resolution or anything else, that is going to mean that their light bill is automatically doubled. I have a lot of people in my district, as we all do as members. Not everybody is millionaires, not everybody has all the money they want. I have a lot of people on fixed incomes. I have fishermen in my district and we know what the average wage to most of the fishermen in this Province is. I am certainly not going to support anything that is going to lead to them having a doubling of their light bill. It is just not on.

Let's talk about the green, just a few little details you do not hear talked about. If you talk about green, of course, the end resulting energy is going to be electrical as opposed to what we have at Holyrood right now which is oil-fired carbons. Does anybody other than – because I am sure a lot of the government members do not know. Has anybody else been told by this government – because you talk about we are going to be 98 per cent green, absolutely true if Muskrat Falls goes ahead. Guess what, folks? We are already 91 per cent green. Does anybody in this Province know that or have been told that? When they talk about going 98 per cent green, a great thing, we are already the greenest Province in Canada and in North America.

This government, because they want to go from 91 per cent green, the best there is right now in North America, to 98 per cent green, one of the natural consequences is you are going to have to double your light bill. There is nobody on the face of this earth believes in being more green than I am, when you want to be green, but you have to do it in a responsible, economically viable manner. You cannot say that for the sake of wanting to be 98 per cent, we are prepared to sell the souls of every resident in this Province when it comes to their light bills. That is just not acceptable.

I do not know about the members opposite on the government side when they go out and knock on the doors in Grand Falls-Windsor, and Springdale, and Deer Lake, and Pasadena, and Corner Brook, I do not know how they are going to be met on those doors when someone asks you: Did you vote for that Muskrat piece that is going to give my light bill 100 per cent? You try explaining that to them then. You try explaining that to the person who you are asking for their vote: Yes, you will vote for me, do not worry about it; I looked after your interest. I agreed to up your light bill by at least 100 per cent; at least 100 per cent.

That is one of the problems, folks. We do not know the end result here. We do not know the end game. We do know, based on the information that has been revealed to date in the technical briefings from Nalcor, the comments of the Premier, when she was Minister of Natural Resources, we know we are going to have a minimum of 100 per cent, a doubling. Now, we are trying to get to the bottom, as an Opposition, of what the ultimate end result is going to be. We had a briefing with Nalcor when they originally announced the piece.

We asked numerous questions back in this House here in December. The Premier said – I guess she got fed up with us asking questions – I will have to arrange a briefing with Nalcor. We know she obviously does not know all the answers, or she has the answers and they are so shocking that she does not want the people to have them. So, she foisted it off on Mr. Martin and the officials at Nalcor. Go have a briefing. So, we had the briefing. We had one, there is going to be at least one more, and probably several more before we get to the bottom of this. That is because this government, neither the Minister of Natural Resources nor the Premier of this Province are prepared to discuss the details face to face with the people of this Province and come clean with them.

Every time you ask a question in this House they say: You should have that, PUB has that. You should have that. That is on the Web. Well, folks, we are not asking for stuff that is on the Web, we are not asking for stuff that has been filed with the Public Utilities Board. We have accessed all of that. We are asking for information that the Premier tells us the decision was based on, yet she will not show anybody, nor will Nalcor release it. Everything you ask Nalcor for, they come back and say it is commercially sensitive, so we cannot give it to you. That is a fine, neat little trick. Here is the deal called Muskrat Falls, but we cannot tell you anything about the assumptions it is based on, where we got our information because that is commercially sensitive stuff. Believe us, accept what we say.

If anybody thinks the people of this Province are going to buy a pig in a poke, that is not on. That is the sad part here. Such a deal as Muskrat or the Lower Churchill, I should properly say, if properly done, could be so beneficial to the people of this Province, to the people of Labrador who rightfully deserve it being on their turf, the maximization of benefits that they should have in their area, where a 90 per cent chance of any future economic development, when it comes to the mining industry, major, major projects scheduled for Labrador, they ought to have first call on that energy for their purposes; but, we are not getting that. We have already admitted that by doing Muskrat in the format that we doing it, we are leaving Gull off to the side. Maybe the people of the Province, you might think they do not know, but Lower Churchill was a big, big thing we were going to do. It was a big dream of everybody in this Province that we would never have another Upper Churchill; we would have a Lower Churchill that filled the coffers of this Province with money so that we could use it for health care, education in this Province, to advance everybody. We are not getting that here, folks; we are getting a piece of the dream. We are not getting Gull Island, no plans, on the shelf; do not know when, if ever, it is going to be done.

This is another fact that a lot of people in the Province do not know. They think that if you go ahead with Muskrat Falls and you run that line from Muskrat down to the South Coast of Labrador, across the Strait of Belle Isle, down to Newfoundland, over to Nova Scotia, they think that down the road, ten years out, if you decide to do Gull, that you can run the Gull power over the same line. You cannot. I do not know if the members opposite are aware of that. The capacity on the lines that they are doing now is going to be 900 megawatts. This is not complicated. The Muskrat lines coming across the Island, down and shipping this free power over to Emera is going to have a 900 megawatt capacity, 900 megawatts.

MR. MARSHALL: Free power.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I will get back to the free power, I say to the Minister of Finance, if I get time here.

If you do Gull, you are going to need at least another 2,200 or 2,300 megawatts. You cannot possibly put Gull on to Muskrat Falls. I have asked the people in the government this question: Why are you telling people that? Why are you letting everybody believe that you are just sitting Gull over there, and whenever we are ready down the road – the markets become right and whatever – we can do Gull; ship it on the same line? That should be clarified at least. Nobody is even out talking about that and clarifying that these are the facts when it comes to that line.

Now talking about the Nalcor briefings; very helpful, very beneficial, but they do not have all the answers. That is the interesting piece too; the government, by deferring us as the Opposition to Nalcor meetings, they think that is going to take the heat off of them, we are not going to come into this House and ask questions. Well I am afraid we are still going to continue to do that because Nalcor does not have all the answers and they have not given us all the answers. We will be continuing to ask the questions in here that are necessary for the people of the Province because we are not going to get to vote on it here yes or no. This is going to be voted on, I would suggest, in the ballot box come October. That is when every member in this House, that is when you will get the final vote on Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Martin, for example, very well qualified individual to be the CEO of Nalcor. I have no grief, beefs or anything else about Mr. Martin's capabilities, none. Make that quite clear. That does not say you cannot question where he is going and you cannot question the logic, the economic viability and the reasoning that he is outlining for this project. Let us remember now this is not the first project in this Province that Mr. Martin was involved in. Mr. Martin was also involved, through, Nalcor in the Abitibi piece. I just use this as an example to show that none of us are perfect; all of us are subject to making mistakes, not understanding the situation, and proceeding based on faulty information. In Abitibi we saw that.

We were told when Abitibi was expropriated in this House, Mr. Speaker, by the officials of Nalcor – or I should say we were not told; somebody overlooked the fact and we had all kinds of government lawyers in Justice, outside lawyers, Premier's Office, Nalcor officials. We sat out here in the press room, in the caucus room and we had officials of Nalcor from lawyers to engineers to you name it, including Mr. Martin, but nobody realized at the time that the bill that we were going to come in here and vote on was going to take a paper mill filled with absolute rubbish, an environmental disaster.

Now, all I would use that as an example for is to show that the people at Nalcor do not know everything. They did not know it all when it came to Abitibi because we ended up with a paper mill that we did not want and we are going to pay the consequences of that: environmental cleanups and security costs of maintaining it now. So do not tell me that because it is such-and-such and officials over at Nalcor do everything right. We are all subject to make mistakes. So do not try to sell us that bill of goods, that because it is such-and-such and such-and-such a company that we have to accept what they say as gospel. We certainly do not.

The other thing is they talk about openness. The Premier talked yesterday about the SNC-Lavalin contract that was given out by Nalcor. If you talk about true openness and accountability, she said: Well, they made their decision, of course, before this ever happened – talking about the price of steel and everything. They had two independent audits done.

Well, if you are so open with the public, why would that not be out there? Why do we as an Opposition now have to go back to the Premier and say: Are you prepared to release the two audits? You have to be asking for everything. They keep you in the dark unless you know exactly what you know. Sometimes you do not even know it exists. Then her answer to it of course is: We have to see if it is commercially sensitive.

Anyway, my time is up now, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate the opportunity to talk about light bills and Muskrat Falls. I am sure when the Budget debate gets ongoing we will have lots more opportunity, and I would certainly love to take part in it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in this hon. House today to speak to the motion that was presented by the Member for Humber Valley.

Mr. Speaker, I was just two or three years old when the infamous Upper Churchill deal was signed, Mr. Speaker. I will be in my mid-seventies when Newfoundland and Labrador can claim rights to that power again, Mr. Speaker. That is the legacy, Mr. Speaker, from the other side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House last week and again this week –

AN HON. MEMBER: It was unanimously voted on.

MR. GRANTER: – as the members of the other side of the House challenged this side of the House on the Muskrat Falls project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not a history teacher.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and again today, members of the opposite side of the House rose time and time again in this House challenging this government on how we can build a transmission line cheaper today than we could build it a number of years ago. Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of advancements in technologies today that allow us to do things and purchase things cheaper today in 2011 than we could just a few short years ago.

Only a few months ago I remember hearing on television a car company touting the fact that you could purchase a vehicle last year cheaper than you could purchase the same vehicle ten, eleven, or twelve years ago. Mr. Speaker, you can purchase today all kinds of electronic equipment cheaper, including computers, made with steel and others that we could not purchase for that price just a few short years ago. Mr. Speaker, we can do things today with all of our advancements, that we are familiar with on this side of the House, that only a few years ago were not even conceptualized or even on the drawing board.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to remember that our reality, the reality of the people of Labrador and Newfoundland is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. The future of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Labrador fall in the development of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take some time to lay out for all of us why this is so important for all current Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and future generations to develop this project. I want to lay out why it is even more important for the Innu of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, and why it is important for all Labradorians and then all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, when we peel the skin back on Muskrat Falls we see a simple but necessary need to move forward. Much of it, Mr. Speaker, is entrenched in science, much is entrenched in historical evolution of power resources, much of it is entrenched in economic sustainability, future growth and much of it is entrenched because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, moving water is a very powerful entity. That is not something new. The Greeks, Mr. Speaker, thousands of years ago understood that very precisely. They could turn kinetic energy into mechanical energy, and things have not changed from that day from the Greeks. In the 1800s, Mr. Speaker, water wheels were used to drive machines in emerging European and North American markets. Today, Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the largest producers of hydroelectricity worldwide and demand is expected to increase over the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, why should we use hydroelectricity against other sources of power, since members of the Opposition keep bringing that up? Hydroelectricity, Mr. Speaker, is one of the oldest scientific planned solutions to gain power. Flowing water was a boon for the economic growth in the United States and European states and it will be a boon for Labrador and Newfoundland in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that the best time to plant a tree was thirty years ago; the next best time to plant a tree, Mr. Speaker, is today. The best time to do Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, may have been thirty years ago; the next best time to do Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the members opposite, is today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: When we develop Muskrat Falls today, what it means is future development for the Big Land that we know as Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

The future, Mr. Speaker, is protected by the present. If we do not plant that tree today, we will not be ready for future growth opportunities and we will not be ready for sustainable future energy. That is something that people across the House forget, Mr. Speaker. Investors, companies, and potential developers will not wait for us to have a source of power ready for them. We must be ready, Mr. Speaker, and this government is ensuring that we will be ready in five to seven years.

Mr. Speaker, as I hear Minister Marshall tell all the time, the problem is fossil fuels are non-renewable; they are limited in supply and will one day dry up. There is no escaping that conclusion. We have a resource in Muskrat Falls of continuous, sustainable, clean power right on our doorstep, Mr. Speaker, that will provide constant, balanced, affordable energy not for ten years, Mr. Speaker, not for twenty years, Mr. Speaker, not for thirty years, Mr. Speaker, not for forty years, Mr. Speaker, but for generations and generations to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, that is where the Opposition parties in this Province are short-sighted. They only see two or three or four years out, Mr. Speaker, and they have been hanging their hat on the fact that the price of electricity bills will rise in the next five to seven years. You know what, Mr. Speaker, they are right; the price of electricity rates will rise in the five or seven years and I just want to put out some facts on the table. If a resident in Newfoundland and Labrador today is paying $291 a month, Mr. Speaker, in 2017 with natural increases, no matter if we do Muskrat Falls or not, Mr. Speaker, they will pay in the vicinity of $400 a month, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you believe it.

MR. GRANTER: In 2025, those rates of $415 monthly with Muskrat Falls developed, Mr. Speaker; they will be paying $455 a month without Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: As I said, Mr. Speaker, light bills will increase over the next six or seven years. We all know that. Under a Liberal plan, Mr. Speaker, light bills will increase not only for the next five or seven years, Mr. Speaker, but they will continue to increase for ten, fifteen, twenty, or more years, Mr. Speaker.

As the population grows worldwide, striking in about fifty years, the world's energy demands will increase proportionately. Not only will it be important for renewable energy to keep up with the increasing population growth, Mr. Speaker, but it must outpace not only those demands but begin replacing fossil fuel and energy production if we are to meet future energy needs.

By the year 2020, Mr. Speaker, world energy consumption is projected to increase by 50 per cent. Clearly, renewable energy resources will play an increasingly vital role in the power generation mix over the next century. It is a no-brainer, Mr. Speaker. It is a no-brainer.

Muskrat Falls is a crucial step in fully developing the entire Lower Churchill Project, and further solidifies Newfoundland and Labrador's position as an energy warehouse, and places us amongst the world's energy powerhouses, Mr. Speaker. I can envision the front page of The Telegram thirty-five years out from today when we fully own all of the Churchill River resources for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The headline might read something like this, and I would ask the members opposite to listen clearly: Newfoundland and Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRANTER: It might say something like this, Mr. Speaker: Newfoundland and Labrador, the energy capital of North America, old balance of power, and possession of wealth and strength for generations to come. That is what Muskrat Falls is about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, let me take a minute or so to state just a few points about the advantages of hydroelectricity. After construction, Mr. Speaker, dam cost is minimal, and I spell that D-A-M. The source of energy, namely water, is for the most part inexhaustible. There is no pollution or residue produced as a result of hydroelectricity, Mr. Speaker. It is more reliable than other sources of renewable energy, like solar, wave, wind, and nuclear. Stored water, Mr. Speaker, can help in meeting increased demands for electricity. Hydroelectric power plants are recharged earlier than other power sources, Mr. Speaker, like oil, and are more efficient than other power plants, thus rate of production remains constant. Finally, the cost of operating a hydro electric plant is nearly immune to increase in cost of fossil fuels, Mr. Speaker, and that is incredibly important.

Hydro electricity plants, Mr. Speaker, have a long life and no operating costs. It is also a clean, domestic and renewable source of energy. In hydro electricity plants the source of energy is not destroyed, unlike fossil fuel electricity, Mr. Speaker. There are hydro electricity plants with long economic life worldwide that are still in service, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, eighty, and 100 years later, Mr. Speaker, hydro electricity plants are still operational. That is long-term thinking, Mr. Speaker, and a vision that we have for this Province.

Investment in hydro power, Mr. Speaker, is one time. Investment in hydro power is one time, but the advantage, I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is a lifetime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Electricity rates, as I said, will rise between 2012 and 2017, and as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, under their plan across the House electricity rates will continue to rise far beyond 2017. This is the reason we are taking action to develop Muskrat Falls. This government is acting in the best interest of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure rates do not continue to rise astronomically if we remain tied to the volatility of the world markets and the volatility to oil, Mr. Speaker.

If we maintain the status quo of dirty power from Bunker C at Holyrood, rates are going to go up and they will continue to rise long into the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker. Rates are going to rise. I stress that again, rates are going to rise, but with the plan from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, they will rise indefinitely and far into the future.

It is important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to remember that after 2017, Mr. Speaker, we will see a levelling off of energy rates in this Province with an average increase of about only 0.5 per cent per year. The people of this Province want and deserve long-term stability on energy and that is what this government is delivering in Muskrat Falls. We will never have long-term stability, never, Mr. Speaker, if we continue to rely on fossil fuels as a source of energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, I drove through parts of this city last evening when the power was out. Let me tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that the power will never go down, the lights will never go dim, and the future will not be dark under the leadership of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, will be one of the many long-term, viable shining lights and bright spots for this great Province. The energy plan for this Province, Mr. Speaker, which is well-known, seeks long-term stability for the ratepayers of this Province and requires a secure, environmentally friendly source of power. Muskrat Falls does all that, Mr. Speaker. Nothing else comes close to this in this Province. We would have to invest an additional generation of power in smaller hydro projects, wind, and ultimately more thermal energy. The total capital cost alone of these projects, as stated numerous times in this House, Mr. Speaker, would excess of $3.2 billion.

I want to conclude with this: The Innu of Labrador, all residents of Labrador, will see tremendous benefits from the development of Muskrat Falls. This development will provide a source of power for the industrial development in Labrador and also ensure a viable power source for future development, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. It will also provide to the Innu of Labrador and to all residents of Labrador tremendous benefits over and above the source of power. There will be over 7,500 person years of employment in designated and non-designated trades and support occupations. Finally, there will be millions of dollars in spinoff jobs for suppliers, clerks, cooks, catering, travel, lodging and so on, Mr. Speaker. Last said, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRANTER: - this is a good project for the people of Labrador and good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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 was certainly a loud speech. I do not know how logical it was, but it was certainly loud. It was very interesting to hear the member say that hydro power has no operating cost. I do not know where that came from that there would be no operating costs, but I would suggest if you talk to Nalcor after an ice storm in Newfoundland and half the towers are down across the Province there would be operating costs somewhere. Another thing that was interesting that he said, he said that it is just a one-time investment. In other words there is no upkeep, no repairs, no replacement; it is just a one-time investment. You make the investment and you have it forever. So, thank you, I was really intrigued to hear that.

In talking about Muskrat Falls and the Lower Churchill, as we always understood it would be for a number of years and we look forward to the Lower Churchill development, there had been that dream of a Lower Churchill. We all acknowledge that it was a dream to right the wrong that was done on the Upper Churchill contract. Of course, then, suddenly, there were a couple of attempts at that, as you know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Then, suddenly, we moved from the Lower Churchill to a very sudden and unexpected announcement back in November of last year to the announcement of the Muskrat Falls deal. Of course, one of the things that we have been putting forward in the House, particularly the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition House Leader, and will continue to put forward, is the fact that in order to realize this great project that has been brought in by this government is that it is going to cost us twice as much for electricity rates. As my hon. member said, there is no objection and no denying from the government that that is indeed the case, but they try to substantiate that, or justify that, by the fact that rates are going to go up anyway. I have looked at some of those numbers over the past while. I have not spoken about them but, certainly, have looked at them, and the forecast and the models that they are using and so on, really, Mr. Speaker, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of the truth in the real world and the reality of this project.

I would like to speak, Mr. Speaker, on one aspect that has not been given much attention, except from the Opposition, is the wider effects of skyrocketing electricity rates in our economy. There are several aspects to this. One that I would like to bring forward for a moment is what it will cost, the effect that it will have on doing business in this Province. We do not hear the government talking about that in terms of what it will cost a business in 2017 to do business because of the Muskrat Falls deal they are proposing and so on. We know, for example, from the fishing industry and what we have just recently discovered in their report back to the Minister of Fisheries, to this government, through the MOU process, we realize that there are many manufacturing or processing plants in this Province today that are struggling to survive. They, of their own acknowledgment and of financial reviews and so on, acknowledge that times are very difficult and that their profit situation is marginal at best.

What do those plants do when the money runs out, so to speak? Well, obviously, we would know that they would struggle to keep going. What is interesting to know is that in the plant processing business, in the fish plants, they need electricity. One of the larger expenses that they would have, I would suggest, on a day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month basis, would be the cost of electricity to their business. They have refrigerators to run, they have lights to run, they have conveyors to keep on, they have large refrigeration units and deep-freezes kind of thing, whatever you want to call them, and so on. Electricity is a significant cost when it comes to operating a fish plant.

So, if they look back and take this project at face value and put it into their business model in five years' time, what they realize is that instead of having a $10,000 or a $20,000 electricity bill – albeit, for a $199, and we double that to $400 as a residential level, that sounds bad enough, but when we look at it from a business level and we take a $20,000 light bill, Mr. Speaker, and we double that, suddenly it is $40,000 per month on a business that is only struggling to survive as it is. So, suddenly then we need to ask ourselves, how many plants would be completely unviable then, those that are struggling today, how many of those plants would be unviable if their electricity rates would suddenly be doubled, as they will be under Muskrat Falls? Mr. Speaker, that is a legitimate claim; that is a legitimate point: These businesses will pay twice the electricity bills that they are paying today in five years' time.

Mr. Speaker, the same holds true for convenience stores, grocery stores –

MR. SKINNER: Back it up.

MR. DEAN: Back it up, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources suggests, they have offered the figures, they have already backed up the fact themselves, that it is going to be doubled.

So, there is no needing to back up the fact that rates are going to be doubled. It is already there, they have already told us that it is going to be doubled. So, anyone can do the math, anyone can take their electricity of $5,000, multiply it by two, and you have double of what you are paying now. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how the minister would be having difficulty trying to figure that out. Any kind of manufacturing plant that relies on electricity as a component of their manufacturing process in this Province will pay twice of what they are paying today in five or six years' time.

What does that mean? It means the cost of doing business in Newfoundland and Labrador, for many companies, given the situation they are in today, will make them basically unviable. The result in that, Mr. Speaker, would be that we would see businesses close; we would see layoffs and so on. That is a very legitimate concern.

Mr. Speaker, the other aspect of this is that Muskrat will make the Province uncompetitive and unattractive from an investment point of view. I believe this is important for the people of the Province and the businesses of the Province to understand. This is a competitive world, Mr. Speaker, and you cannot double the cost of electricity rates and expect it to not have any effect. You cannot double the cost of electricity rates in our Province and expect that, from a competitive point of view, it will not have any effect on our businesses. That would be short-sighted and almost blind I would suggest, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a Province, we are continually trying to attract new business and new companies to come here and set-up shop. We have invested significantly over the years as governments have come and gone to try to attract new businesses. So does every jurisdiction in the world, I would suggest. Everyone is trying to attract business to their provinces, to their jurisdictions, to their counties, to their countries, or whatever the case might be. The people who run large companies, Mr. Speaker, know that better or as well as any of us here this afternoon. That is why when companies and investors look at moving, look at setting up shop, and look at investing in a particular place, one of the things they want to see is the cost of doing business there.

An important cost of doing business, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of energy. It is the cost of the electricity that will run their computers in their businesses, that will make their pressing plants roll, and that will be able to switch all of their equipment on that is necessary for the twenty-four hours a day, the twelve hours a day, or whatever the limit is that they are in business. It is the cost of keeping the lights on all night during a twenty-four hour shift. These are all costs of doing business.

Mr. Speaker, right now – and I believe it was probably the Member for Lake Melville who mentioned it – we have the cheapest electricity rates in Canada. Yes, we do – in Eastern Canada at least, I should say. Mr. Speaker, under Muskrat we are suddenly going to have the most expensive electricity. The most expensive electricity in Eastern Canada will be ours in five or six years when Muskrat Falls comes on-line.

Mr. Speaker, the worse part of that is that while our residents and our business owners will be paying the highest electricity rates in Eastern Canada –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that, it being Private Members' Day and the clock is showing 4:45, we have to revert to the presenter of the motion.

MR. DEAN: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committees and the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: It is indeed an honour for me to rise and close debate on this resolution.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively all afternoon and I realize that the Official Opposition, I guess it is something – the thought just struck me that their crystal ball to all of us on this side of the House appears to be tainted somehow; it appears to be tainted red. It is too bad that they cannot see the blue sky potential of the Muskrat Falls project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the development of Muskrat Falls with a transmission link to the Island will provide consumers with long-term value through rate stability and tremendous economic and employment benefits.

Mr. Speaker, the development of Muskrat Falls is the least cost alternative to supply electricity for the Island and will stabilize rates for the foreseeable future, Mr. Speaker, talking about a crystal ball. Mr. Speaker, our energy plan is clear; that we would see long-term stability for rate payers of Newfoundland and Labrador and acquire a secure and environmentally friendly source of power. Muskrat Falls accomplishes this and will produce the long-term stability and avoid the volatility of oil-reliant power used at Holyrood, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this project is a marvellous green project, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this project will provide jobs, important jobs, for our people. Mr. Speaker, this project has significant economic opportunity for the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, this project will meet our energy needs now and into the future. Mr. Speaker, this project is futuristic. Mr. Speaker, this project will ensure stable electric rates not based on oil generators. Mr. Speaker, we are an energy powerhouse and this project will continue to ensure that. Most important, Mr. Speaker, this project to me ensures confidence in our people, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, after listening all afternoon: What is their plan?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and with that I close debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the House Leaders ready?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Mr. French, Mr. King, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Harding, Mr. Granter, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Baker, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Ms Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Verge, Mr. Kent, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Forsey, Ms Perry, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: five; the nays: thirty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment lost.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion as put forward by the hon. the Member for Humber Valley?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: The House Leaders are ready?

All those in favour of the motion put forward by the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Mr. French, Mr. King, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Harding, Mr. Granter, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Baker, Mr. Loder, Mr. Davis, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Ms Osborne, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Verge, Mr. Kent, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Forsey, Ms Perry, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Hutchings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: thirty-six; the nays: five.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion, as put forward by the hon. the Member for Humber Valley, carried.

Motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being Private Members' Day, the House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, being Thursday, at 1:30 of the clock.