June 2, 2008               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLVI   No. 36


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to recognize Ms Carolyn Morgan, an employee of the House of Assembly who will soon be retiring. Ms Morgan is retiring after thirty-four years service with the House of Assembly, thirty-three of which have been spent with the Legislative Library. She has served the Legislature under ten Speakers and eight Premiers and takes with her an irreplaceable knowledge of our House, its workings and the political history of our Province.

I know that all hon. members will join with me in wishing Ms Morgan - Carrie to her friends, clients and co-workers - a healthy and happy retirement. I thank her, on behalf of everybody here, for her faithful and diligent service to the House of Assembly and its members over the years.

Carrie will certainly be missed and I wish her all the best in her retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today from: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte; and the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform my hon. colleagues of a significant achievement of a well-known resident in the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

Mr. Michael Snelgrove, a music teacher at Exploits Valley High in Grand Falls-Windsor, has just won the international competition "Making Overtures" for a piece he composed for the Hannaford Street Silver Band entitled "Frolic No. Two With Lullaby".

Mr. Snelgrove was one of three finalists who headed to Toronto recently to have his composition performed by the Hannaford Street Silver Band. When he was announced as the winner of the competition last Sunday, he was beyond ecstatic. He said, "You would have to be in my shoes to feel what I'm feeling."

Mr. Snelgrove won against some very strong competition, Mr. Speaker. The other two finalists were Stephen Bulla, who is in his third decade as staff arranger to The President's Own U.S. Marine Band and the White House, and Marcus Venables, a composer in his mid-twenties.

In addition, this past week, Mr. Snelgrove also won a Newfoundland Arts and Letters Award in the Musical Composition category for his piece, Beware the Shrouded Moor.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I offer my sincere congratulations to Michael Snelgrove, a truly remarkable and accomplished Newfoundland musician.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 31, I had the pleasure of joining Fire Chief Clarence Russell of Bay Roberts, along with representatives of other fire departments and municipal leaders, during the official opening of the Conception Bay North Regional Fire Rescue and Training Centre.

This Rescue-Training Centre provides the Towns of Salmon Cove, Victoria, Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Upper Island Cove, Spaniard's Bay, Cupids, Brigus, and Bay Roberts, a facility to enhance and expand their training skills; skills, Mr. Speaker, that are required to better prepare them as they volunteer their time in protecting the lives and property of their residents.

The facility was named the North Laing Wood in recognition of Mr. John North, Mr. Allan Laing and Mr. Eric Wood, the first three fire chiefs in the Town of Bay Roberts; all three of whom are now deceased.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Mr. Clarence Russell, Bay Roberts Fire Chief, and all fire fighters in the Conception Bay North area, and also to thank the families for allowing the names of their loved ones to be used in the naming of this new facility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize the 617 Dambusters Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron of Lewisporte.

On Saturday, May 31, I attended their 52nd Annual Ceremonial Review, held at Lewisporte Collegiate. The reviewing officer for this occasion was Lieutenant Colonel Richard Alexander. In the Colonel's words after completing his review, he said, "I am not sure you realize what you have here. This is a very remarkable group and one of the best, if not the very best in the Province." These high accolades from such a qualified individual speak to the dedication, talent and commitment of the cadets, their officers and also to the sponsors in our area.

The 617 Dambusters began in February of 1955 and they have grown in quantity and quality with each new member. Congratulations to commanding officer Captain Shirley Gignac, past commanding officers Mr. William Mouland, Captain Norman Forward, Mr. Goward Heath, Major Edward Vatcher, Major Peter Seaward, Major Eric Anstey, Captain Judy Seymour and Captain Daphne Anstey. Also, congratulations to Captain Ambrose Patterson who will assume the position of commanding officer this coming fall.

I wish to congratulate all cadets for their great performance. Special congratulations to graduating cadets: Pamela White, Norman Porter, Heather Brace and Megan Roberts.

Members of this House, please join me in proudly acknowledging the great accomplishments of the 617 Dambusters Air Cadet squadron of Lewisporte.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, as I listen to members' statements over the last number of weeks I can only come to one conclusion: we have to stop sending our young people to the Mainland for competitions, if for no other reason than to give the Mainlanders a chance to win some of the medals.

Gonzaga High School, in my District of St. John's East, is the latest importer of bulk precious medals, an inventory I suggest they may have to register with the Department of Natural Resources.

A large contingent of students from the Gonzaga music program recently returned from a Heritage Music Festival in New York City with gold awards for the jazz band and the chamber choir, a silver award for the concert band, and the choir was also awarded the Most Outstanding Choral Ensemble.

The full school group won the Festival Sweepstakes Award for having the highest average competition scores and also the Spirit of New York award for the group who best represented their community and school.

Congratulations are extended to the music teachers, Jacinta Mackey-Graham and Doug Vaughan for their commitment to excellence in Gonzaga's music program, and to the parents and chaperones who were no doubt instrumental in making the trip a success.

Mr. Speaker, today I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing Gonzaga High School for their outstanding performance on the international stage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge that Newfoundland and Labrador has recently signed the Climate Registry. This registry sets consistent and transparent standards for the measurement, verification, and public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions throughout North America in a single unified registry. It is a non-profit organization that supports both voluntary and mandatory reporting programs, provides meaningful information to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and embodies the highest levels of environmental integrity.

All provinces, Mr. Speaker, made a commitment to join the Climate Registry under the resolutions made by Premiers at the Council of the Federation meeting in the summer of 2007 in Moncton, New Brunswick. Joining Newfoundland and Labrador on the list of provinces which have fulfilled this commitment are British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. To date, Mr. Speaker, approximately forty American states have also signed the registry.

Climate change is an extremely serious long-term issue facing the globe, and we all need to do our part if we are to make any advancement in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The impacts of climate change on a resource-dependent Province like Newfoundland and Labrador are much greater, Mr. Speaker, as we are likely to see impacts on forestry, wildlife, agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture. The rising cost of energy and the impact of energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions has renewed and strengthened our collective focus on energy alternatives and energy efficiency. Our government has focused its efforts on green energy such as hydro and wind, as outlined in our Energy Plan. That is why, Mr. Speaker, signing the Climate Registry will help us ensure we take our place alongside the others who are dedicated to sustaining our environment for future generations.

From a regional perspective, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers had committed to a reduction target of 10 per cent below 1990 greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2020. I am proud to report, Mr. Speaker, that the latest data from Natural Resources Canada shows that Newfoundland and Labrador achieved 1990 levels in 2006.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we do indeed have particular strengths that will enable us to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. We have a history of resiliency, our small communities are very close knit, and we have indeed a vested interest in seeing our communities thrive. Signing the Climate Registry and continuing to work toward limiting our carbon footprint will go a long way in helping us to achieve this important goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased to see that Newfoundland and Labrador has signed on to the Climate Registry, joining with the other provinces across Canada and many states across North America.

Mr. Speaker, while climate change may be global in nature, it requires all of our efforts at a local level to ensure that we reduce any environmental damages in our society, especially with carbons and greenhouse gas emissions, but it also challenges us, Mr. Speaker, as governments and as individuals, to be proactive in any new developments that we may launch within this Province, so that we ensure that there are limitations placed upon any negative impacts that could be seen from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective.

It also requires us, Mr. Speaker, to look at new technologies and to implement new environmental standards within our own provinces to ensure that projects, on a go-forward basis, will garner against any negative impacts that we could see in forestry developments, fishery developments or other aspects of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that while we may have met the 1990 targets in 2006, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, by the Sierra Club's own report on climate change, they have indicated that we have gone from a B last year to a C-minus this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MS JONES: That in itself is not acceptable and we should all be more cognizant of those ratings.

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 am quite pleased to respond to the Premier's statement today.

The announcement that he has made is a good announcement and I am really glad to see that we have joined on to the Climate Registry. The Premier knows, we all know, that we still have a ways to go to undo the damage that has been done since before 1990, and I would today use the opportunity to encourage the Premier to think about the importance of having a subsidiary company of the Energy Corporation that would deal specifically with climate change and energy efficiency. I think it is so important that we need so much research and development and concentration in the area that a subsidiary dealing specifically with that would be very important.

Once again, I call on government, as I have done many times in the past, to reconsider the scrubbers, putting scrubbers at the Seal Cove hydro station, because no matter what happens with the Lower Churchill, it is still so far in the future that there will still be more damage done there in spite of the cleaner fuel that they are using.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, Island Aggregates recently ceased operations impacting 150 of its employees. The company has three divisions, a construction division, a ready-mix cement division and a limestone operation.

I ask the Premier today: is government considering any loans to any part of this operation or this company at the present time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the company has four divisions as I understand it, the other being a trucking division.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the company. As I said last week, we had senior officials in my department meet with the company. The Member for Humber Valley has met with officials from the company and workers. We have been looking at the situation to try and determine if we can be of any assistance to the company in the form of offering advice and guidance to help them get through this situation. We are particularly concerned about the loss of 150 to 200 positions in this region.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would have to say that from a loan or loan guarantee perspective we think it would be very difficult to go down that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are aware that the Department of Transportation and Works last year let two particular contacts to this company, one for roadwork on the Trans-Labrador Highway, the other one for some work on Riverside Road, I think it is, on the West Coast of the Island.

I ask the minister today: What impact will the financial difficulties of this company now have on these particular contracts getting completed in this season?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, they do indeed have two contracts with Transportation and Works. We have with that company an insurance called Performance Bond, and we have notified those people and the projects would have no impact. They will be done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are also aware that the provincial government has a five-year agreement with Island Aggregates' agriculture division to supply farmers with agricultural limestone. I think in the media today we have heard of a number of farmers who are looking for limestone in the Province.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What were the terms of that particular contract and how much of the money in that contract has already been let to this company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have that information at my fingertips here in the House, but I would like to share, now that I am on my feet, that we have not been able to identify another source of limestone for farmers within the Province, but we have been able to identify another source in the Maritimes. That limestone will be moving tomorrow to Newfoundland and should not hang up at all farmers' preparation for this growing season. We are looking at ways that we can deal with the additional financial impact this might have on farming operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the minister's answer because we were looking to see what emergency measures would be in place.

We understand that there are about 75 to 100 farmers who may be impacted immediately by this, and we also understand from our discussions with them that importing limestone from one of the other Atlantic Provinces - primarily the example they used was Nova Scotia - they could see a jump of about six times the cost to them to acquire that particular product.

I ask the minister today: what programs will you put in place to offset this additional cost knowing that it will not make their operations viable if they have to pay six times the cost for that product?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been working on this problem over the weekend. The cost is actually closer to three times the cost. The limestone from the Maritimes will cost about three times more than the limestone purchased here on the Island. We already have almost $500,000 in our Budget, Mr. Speaker, that we use to help subsidize the purchase of limestone by farmers here in the Province. We are now looking at ways to increase that budget to cover off deficiencies that might occur as a result of this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past few weeks I presented numerous petitions from residents in the Torbay area related to the new proposed route for the Torbay Bypass Road.

I ask the minister: have you examined this proposal and are you willing to make any of the changes that they have requested?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have met with a committee from the Torbay area that have expressed the concerns to myself and my officials, and we have made a commitment that we will review that file again. That file has been ongoing now for thirty years and we have heard many concerns from the area. Right now the best route that I have been told is the route that is now proposed, but we are indeed reviewing that file again.

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 thank the minister for her answer to that question.

I just ask her: have any timelines been established as to when you may be able to get back to them with any recommendations if that is the route they will travel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, right now that file is still being reviewed but we will follow up with the committee when I am in a position to give them some more answers that they asked me in that meeting.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the current route proposes a five-lane highway through a part of the Town of Torbay, and the major concern the people have there is that school children may have to cross this highway to get to the bus stops.

I ask the Minister of Education: Is there a policy in your department regarding situations like this, and would children be expected to cross such a highway, or have any plans been considered in that particular case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the school board who would provide the busing services, whether it is through the board or through a private operator, would certainly review the distance that needs to be travelled by students, because we do have the 1.6 kilometre radius for students who receive busing.

I would think that once the highway is in place, based on the situation where the bus stops would be, that, between the busing company and the boards, depending on who operates the bus, they would certainly look at what would be the most appropriate place for bus stops at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks our office has received numerous calls from residents in Green's Harbour, New Harbour and Hopeall concerning the status of the tender for removal of contaminated soil from the New Harbour Barrens landfill.

I ask the minister: Have the bids for this tender closed at this particular time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information readily available but I certainly will get it and table it for my colleague.

Thank you.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the tender - and I just ask the minister if she could follow up on this as well - was to remove two tandem loads of contaminated soil from the hot spots at this landfill. The residents have major concerns because the contractor - back when the transformers were buried there were hundreds of them - has major concerns that only two tandem loads being taken from the landfill will not correct the problem.

I was just wondering, Minister, if you could check that out and see why the limited number of contaminated soil was considered to be removed from that site.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we would be in consultation with the Department of Environment with regard to the contamination of soil, and we will take every measure to make sure that it is safely removed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the same situation, the community surrounding the New Harbour landfill saw that the department's decision to allocate Crown Land for cabin lots on Dennys Pond as a direct attempt to minimize the concerns about the pollutants in this landfill. That is what the residents are saying.

I ask the minister: Did the department follow AMEC's 2006 recommendation to collect and test water and sediment samples from Dennys Pond for heavy metal content? If so, could those results be tabled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if they have taken recent samples or not, and it is something that I will follow up with my colleague, the Minister of Environment & Conservation, but I will tell you one thing: that extensive work was gone in - the committee had met with department officials, because I recall that in my previous capacity, they had gone in and at the request of the committee they wanted some more test holes drilled, and they were, and the samples were collected and the results were given, so extensive work was done. Whether it fully satisfies the people of the area or not, I cannot say for sure, but I know one thing: extensive work was carried out to make sure that there were not contaminants drenching down to the rivers.

That is were it is, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the department's plan for closing the New Harbour landfill involves placing a multi-layered, graded cell cap over the entire site, and that was confirmed by the minister during the Estimates this year.

I ask the minister: Do you plan on holding some type of information session so that the residents can feel secure about the science behind this plan of action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will bring forward the question you have posed as to where the minister intends to go, but he is right in that if you are going to close a landfill site then it has to be recapped to a certain standard, and I would anticipate that is what will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have some questions with regard to Bill 35, but I am going to hold them for debate, seeing as we have extensive time to do debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister of Health & Community Services.

We have been contacted by an individual with a major disability known as osteogenesis imperfecta, which leaves her prone to fractures of the bone. Mr. Speaker, this individual has experienced great difficulties in finding quality home care and has requested that her husband be hired as a home support worker, but was denied by the Department of Health & Community Services. We raised this issue with the department on three particular occasions and, Mr. Speaker, just recently the individual has suffered another injury.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister today: Why is it that individuals with special health needs, that have been documented by their physicians and are being requested to hire family members, are being denied within the department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a provision in our home support policy framework to be able to allow health authorities, under very unique circumstances, a special circumstance, to evaluate individual requests from clients, to consider family members providing paid support to care for them while they are in their home. That follows an evaluation by clinical individuals who would be prepared to do that assessment or be available to do that assessment within the health authorities, and the health authorities are in the best position to make that determination. That is not a determination that we make within the department.

What we have done is, we have created a policy framework to provide guidance to the health authorities, and it is through their evaluation and clinical assessment, and they make that determination. That is exactly what happened in the case, I believe, that the member may be referring to; that, that evaluation was done within Eastern Health after a clinical assessment, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: So, it was not the department because we provided the policy framework that will allow individual consideration, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, the minister is talking about section 7.3 of the Home Support Program which does allow exceptions for these individuals whereby they can hire family members; however, this individual spent a number of years going back and forth to the Department of Health and Community Services and not being aware that there was a special circumstance available.

I ask, Minister: How is this being communicated to these individuals, that after several years they do not know that there are policies that exist which can provide for these services? This is a case where this individual is still not accessing it, however.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just so that the member opposite fully understands, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the regional health authorities deal directly with individual patients and clients in the system, Mr. Speaker, so when individuals approach the department with a particular question or looking for a resolution to a problem that they may have, one of the things that we try to do is work with them in connecting them to the appropriate people within the health authority, because they are the people who have the clinical expertise, they are the people who have been mandated to provide the services and programs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a department, our role and responsibility is to create the regulatory and the legislative and the policy framework that guides our health authorities in the delivery of programs and services, so we would have, Mr. Speaker, directed this individual and others to one of the respective health authorities who would have dealt directly with the individual patients and their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a case that is very serious. This person has a brittle bone disease; they have to be handled by people who are very knowledgeable about their condition. Whether it is Eastern Health or whether it is the Department of Health it is a government policy in which they should have been receiving an exemption.

Your department is well aware of this, there are a number of members in this House well aware of this particular case, and I ask again: will an exemption be granted for these individuals in circumstances like this, to be able to access family members to provide their care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am delighted that the member opposite, that anyone in this House, would advocate on behalf of individual constituents in the Province, but I think it is inappropriate to stand and make a pronouncement as if you have the medical knowledge to make a determination that this person will get or should get or is entitled to.

What I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, is that the policy framework established by the Department of Health and Community Services is there to allow a special consideration after one of the health authorities, whoever is responsible for that particular region of the Province, after they have provided the appropriate clinical assessment.

In this case and others like this, there will be clinical individuals who would have made an assessment, made a determination of the individual's needs, their requirements for home support and the kind of training and special skills that might be necessary for home support workers, and ensure that that level of training and direction is provided so that the individual gets safe and quality care while they are in their home.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming in this particular case that she is referencing here, because I have had some discussion around cases similar to this, that this would have happened. I say, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case Eastern Health would have done just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, we can only base our information on what the doctors and the patients give us.

Mr. Speaker, this individual as well, has had trouble obtaining medications, Peridot and Lozac'h, under the Prescription Drug Authorization Program, which she requires because of her illness. In order to get this, according to departmental policy, these individuals have to have an upper and lower GI performed. Her doctors are advising that she not have these particular tests. Because she cannot have these tests, the department is saying that she is not meeting the guidelines, and therefore is not approving the medication.

I ask you, minister: are there provisions provided for exceptional cases like this, based on doctors' or physicians' recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is difficult to stand in the House and deal with very specific cases. I am not prepared to talk about an individual's circumstance, but clearly, I say, Mr. Speaker, within our Prescription Drug Program there are mechanisms, through the involvement of family physicians and other treating specialists together with the people who work in our Medical Service Division, people who work in our Prescription Drug Program, to look at exceptional circumstance, and if there is a body of clinical knowledge out there or clinical expertise or clinical opinion that is suggesting something contrary than what might be existing in the policy itself, there is always an opportunity to have that kind of discussion and it happens each and everyday. Family physicians and treating specialists alike deal with our Medical Service Division and our Pharmacy Division on a daily basis to deal with exceptions like the ones being described now, I say, Mr. Speaker., It is not an unusual event to deal with exceptions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 17 we asked the Minister of Justice if he was aware that inmates at Her Majesty's Penitentiary were being denied access to their psychiatric medications and sent to segregation. His answer at that time was: he did not know where we would come up with such a thing.

Recently the media reported a situation of a mother whose son actually was an inmate at HMP. She actually ended up at court proceedings and asked the judge if he might intervene, because he in fact has been taken off his medication and placed in segregation.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of this circumstance and is there anything being done to check out that particular individual's concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember that question being asked and I would have to see Hansard, but I thought that my answer was relating to other parts of the question that had been put before me.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member has missed it, there is a prison review ongoing. One of the issues in the prison review is to look at the provision of health treatment at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. This prison review is being conducted by individuals outside of the Province. They will look at all aspects of what is going on at Her Majesty's Penitentiary at present.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not lost on myself or on this government that when there is a suicide at Her Majesty's Penitentiary and then we have an individual who dies in custody, that there are issues that have to be examined, especially when issues are raised in relation to the provision of medication.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware, as the minister indicated, that there is an ongoing review that is going to take some time at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, but in this particular case involving this individual and his mother, the individual in question attempted to commit suicide twice in a period of five weeks and the parents were not notified until more than a day after the second suicide attempt had taken place.

Aside from the review that you have ongoing, Minister, I ask: Is there any specific investigation ongoing at this time with regards to this particular incident and can you find out why the parents were not notified and why this individual was not, in fact, sent to the Waterford Hospital rather than being kept in HMP?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to that incident being referred to by the hon. member, in fact, on the day after this incident occurred, I stated to the media that if the parents of that young man wish to contact me directly I would ensure that they were put in contact with the people conducting the review, or they could contact the people conducting the review themselves. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am staying away, as the Minister of Justice, from the investigation that is ongoing. However, we are indicting issues that we wish to be looked at. This is an issue that, if the parents request, can certainly be looked at.

In terms of why the individual was in Her Majesty's Penitentiary as opposed to the Waterford Hospital: Mr. Speaker, when a person is arrested there is a provision for psychiatric treatment, then there is a bail hearing and there is counsel involved. If an individual ends up at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, then one can only assume that neither the lawyer or the police or no one recognized the need for treatment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the unfortunate realities of Her Majesty's Penitentiary is that people with mental health issues end up in the prison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, it is quite clear here that this individual did go through the thirty-day assessment, was placed on medications at the Waterford, went to the HMP, had the medications removed by another psychiatrist and made two attempts at suicide and ended up staying at HMP.

The parents have made this known to the judge. You are aware of it. Rather than being reactive and asking the parents to come, I am asking you: don't you consider this serious enough to find out what are the policies down there and were they properly followed? Something obviously went seriously wrong here with this individual?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member's opinion, his conclusion that something obviously went wrong will be examined by the individuals, if requested, who are conducting the review.

At this present time, Mr. Speaker, we have numerous complaints coming in from individuals at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Like the hon. member across the way, I do not set myself up as judge and jury. What will happen is that the issues will be examined, a report will be provided and we will take the steps that are necessary.

I will concede, Mr. Speaker, that there is an issue as to whether or not the provision of medication at Her Majesty's Penitentiary is being continued or is being administered, but that is again an issue that will be examined by these very experienced individuals, and once we have received the report we will action the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite clear from the Terms of Reference, which I read, issued by the minister with regards to the review that is taking place, that it is generic in nature and that this particular incident was not referenced to be looked at. I guess we will wait and see if they do take the latitude to look at it. As of now, it has not been directed to be looked at and I think the minister ought to do so.

My next question is for the Minister of Health.

Recently, we have also heard an outcry about treatment of young offenders with psychiatric needs. Currently, young offenders in need of psychiatric assessment are sent to the Youth Detention Centre at Whitbourne, ninety kilometres away. We do have, as I understand it, a secure unit at the Janeway Hospital, which was intended to be used for young offenders with psychiatric needs. Albeit we have the physical structure there at the Janeway, we do not have the support personnel necessary.

I am wondering: Is the Minister of Health aware of the situation and what does he intend to do in terms of providing the funding and the support mechanisms and personnel –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

What is the minister intending to do in terms of finding the funding and providing support personnel, so that the secure unit for young offenders at the Janeway can be properly utilized?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for raising the question.

It is an issue that has surfaced very recently. As the member would also be aware, some of our other health facilities have units that were designated as such: St. Clare's, and out in Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland. The Janeway was intentionally excluded on the advice of individuals who would provide psychiatric intervention for young offenders.

It is an issue that is currently being evaluated by officials. The initial thinking was that individuals who find themselves in this age group would either be referred by someone who is either a part of the - in the custody of the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services, or would be someone in the immediate family. That was the initial thinking, and that designated the site, but I have asked officials to re-evaluate that whole question that has arisen very recently; and hopefully in the next week or so we will be able to have some greater insights and better insights that might reflect a change.

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.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, cancer patients in our Province suffer from not just their illness but also from the financial burden of having to travel for medical treatment. A February 2008 study revealed that one in three rural patients pay more than $200 per trip to see an oncologist, one in eleven pays more than $1,000, and some pay up to $5,000 when coming from a remote area. Mr. Speaker, as well, the Medical Transportation Assistance Program does not help to cover the financial burden of cancer if patients use their own vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will this government reimburse gas and mileage costs for the use of personal vehicles under the Medical Transportation Assistance Program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members opposite, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, would recognize that in the last two years we have made some major enhancements in our medical transportation budget; enhancements not only in the dollar amounts we have invested, Mr. Speaker, but we have made some major improvements.

We have changed the deductible, increased the limits that are available, increased limits for the accommodation side, increased limits for the meals and accommodations piece, made some changes in the deductible, some major enhancements, Mr. Speaker, and it is one of these programs - I think I answered a similar question in the House one day last week or the week before last - it is one of these programs that are subject to continuous review. We have looked at it this past year as part of the budgetary process, as we did with many other programs, and once again this year coming, I say, Mr. Speaker, we will also be reviewing this program, as we will with others, to look at opportunities for improvement, opportunities for enhancements.

One of the things I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Canada that has a medical transportation program that is not means tested. It is available to every single person in the entire Province, regardless of income.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I tell the minister that I do recognize the improvements that have been made, but people continue to come to us with the difficulties that they continue to face. I am glad the minister mentioned, at the end, the thing about no needs testing, and that is true, but, Mr. Speaker, for people suffering from cancer, paying for travel costs up front before getting reimbursed can be very difficult.

I ask the Minister of Health: With the things that you are reviewing, will your government remove the deductible to ease the financial burden for those who incur high costs of travel to access treatment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have also done, in addition to making it universally available, we have not discriminated on the basis of a diagnosis. Regardless of whether it is treatment for cancer, or cardiac treatment, regardless of the diagnosis or disease or disorder, it is available to all individuals, and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that on a go-forward basis, as we continue to make improvements in the program, we will make it generic across all diseases and disorders.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things, in looking at programs such as these, we acknowledge, too - and I want to point that out very clearly, we acknowledge - that there are many people who travel frequently in the Province to access whether it is dialysis services, treatment for cancer and many others, so the issue of transportation, and having access to services, is a critical issue for us. That is one of the reasons, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have made a major investment in providing dialysis services outside the St. John's Region; because the government, I think, since we have been in power -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think since we have been in power we have had about five or six different sites where we have introduced dialysis service with a view of making services available closer to home. Cancer treatment in Central Newfoundland is another example –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

 

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

Further, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice of the private member's motion for the forthcoming Wednesday, which is an Opposition day, moved by the Member for Port de Grave, seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair:

WHEREAS the provincial government retired pensioners have sought an increase in their pensions because increases in the cost of living have diminished their value and many pensioners live in dire financial circumstances; and

WHEREAS the provincial government had an established practice of granting a pension increase to coincide with or follow public sector pay raises, thereby creating a reasonable expectation that this would continue to be a feature of their pension entitlement; and

WHEREAS this practice was discontinued after 1989 due to the severe financial constraints at that time, thereby hurting all pensioners but especially those on low fixed incomes;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the government to resume the practice of matching increases for public service pensioners to wage increases for public sector employees.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of the residents, not only in my area but throughout the Province, with regard to a petition on doctor shortages.

We know, over the past several weeks, I have been presenting those petitions because it is a major issue, Mr. Speaker. It is a major issue. A lot of people in my area and other areas do not have a general practitioner, and I guess the workload is falling down on the emergency units in our regional hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, we have support from the joint councils, all of the mayors and municipalities. We hear residents; we read their letters in the papers from time to time. Mr. Speaker, it is a major issue, and hopefully the day will come when we will see general practitioners in our area.

I cannot help but note the letter that was in the paper this week - I think it was on the thirty-first – by one of our general practitioners in the Placentia area. It just goes to show how serious this particular issue is. He was referring to how – I guess the minister looked at it when someone said that our health care was in a crisis. This is what he referred it to, Mr. Speaker. He said: It reminds me of Lord Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar, holding his telescope to his sightless eye and saying: I see no ships. I am not saying the minister has a sightless eye, but I just want him to keep his ears and eyes open to the concerns of the people, more so now that we hear it from our general practitioners themselves. They are crying out for help too, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of all of those people, I want to present this petition, and hopefully the government will continue on with their recruitment and retention program for all our residents when it comes to our general practitioners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move motion 1, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 2, 2008; and I further move motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on today, Monday, June 2, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, being Monday, June 2.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock today, Monday, June 2.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35.

Further, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the suspension of the rules that we had on our last parliamentary day, again this day, by mutual consent with the Opposition, we would like to suspend the rules for second reading and continue our debate in second reading.

In order to have a full open debate on Bill 35, to ensure that all members in this hon. House are able to speak to the issues, ask their questions and receive the answers that they so request here in the House, that we would suspend the rules for today, by mutual agreement. What that would mean is that any speaker, any person in the House who would like to speak, can continue to speak for their twenty-minute timeframe. If we stuck to the rules, once somebody spoke in second reading they would not have the option to speak a second time. So members can speak more than once, and they would keep within the twenty-minute timeframe.

Again, the Premier has not yet spoken at second reading, so if the Premier chooses to speak he would retain the option of speaking for one hour. If any member wanted to speak more than twenty minutes, they could certainly speak a second time during second reading, or else by leave.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: All members, I would assume, are in agreement with what the Government House Leader has put forward with the way that we will proceed in second reading of Bill 35.

Are there are objections?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I just want to confirm, Mr. Speaker, for the record, that that is the agreement between the Government House Leader and the Opposition, and we certainly have no problem with that.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to address some of the questions that our colleagues opposite have raised during debate on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill for the Energy Corporation and for the people of the Province. What we are doing is giving the Energy Corporation the tools to do the job that we are asking it to do on behalf of the people of the Province.

As a government, we have directed the Energy Corporation to pursue energy development on behalf of the Province and to manage our equity and participation in these developments. We want the corporation to be as open and accountable to the people of the Province as it possibly can, while still being able to operate in a competitive and commercially sensitive environment which is critical to its success. This is what we are trying to achieve with this bill.

As I said during my opening remarks on Thursday, we have done a significant amount of research on state-owned energy corporations elsewhere in the world. We have engaged national and international analysts and we feel we have developed the appropriate balance. That is why I feel it is so important to address, at this time, some of the questions and concerns brought forward and put greater explanation and clarity around why this bill takes the approach that it does.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have been listening very closely to the debate and the suggestions from members opposite and we are open to any input that will strengthen this bill. The spirit and intent is to be as open and accountable as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to go through some of the questions that were raised by the members opposite on Thursday evening and provide as much context around these pieces as I can so the members opposite and the people of the Province understand what it is we are trying to achieve with these amendments.

We are proud of this bill and I have no problem defending it, as well as being open to suggestions from the members opposite for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked last week in Question Period why the Energy Corporation is exempt from the Securities Act and why, if it is exempt, is it referenced in the bill?

The Energy Corporation is not being exempted from the Securities Act. The Securities Act provides guidance to companies that offer shares for the general public or companies that trade in shares, mutual funds or bonds. It is not anticipated that the Energy Corporation would do that. With that said, should the Energy Corporation ever decide to engage in these activities, it would be covered by the Securities Act like any other company in that line of business.

The reference to the Securities Act in the bill is only intended to provide a reference point for the type of information that will be required by the Energy Corporation to include in its annual report. The annual report, prepared by the Corporation, will be consistent in form and content with annual reports that will be required of the Corporation if it was engaged in an activity that would make it subject to the Securities Act. This means, Mr. Speaker, that even though the Energy Corporation is not engaged in an activity that would bring it under the Securities Act, the information provided in the annual report will be consistent as if it were. We are using the high standard under the Securities Act for translating information and we are using it in the Energy Corporation Act to do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, last week questions were also raised around the business plans of the Energy Corporation. At this time, I just want to remind the House that the Province's Transparency and Accountability Act applies to the Energy Corporation. Under this Act, the Energy Corporation will provide its business plan to me, as minister. I will table this plan in the House for anyone to see and we, as a government, will be able to monitor and assess compliance with this plan. The Corporation will also hold an annual general meeting where the public will have an opportunity to question the Corporation on its activities, including its business plan.

Also, in relation to a question last week as to what are business activities as it relates to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I direct members to section 5 of the Energy Corporation Act. In relation to the definition of commercially sensitive information, activities are defined as any activity undertaken as part of a commercial enterprise. Section 5 of the Energy Corporation Act clearly lays out the scope of activities that the Energy Corporation can engage in within the energy industry. It states, the Energy Corporation can invest in, engage in, and carry out activities in all areas of the energy sector including the development, generation, production, transmission, distribution, delivery, supply, sale, export, purchase and use of power from wind, water, steam, gas, coal, oil, hydrogen or other products used or useful in the production of power; exploration, development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons; the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of energy related products and services; as well as research and development. The Corporation may also engage in those other activities that Cabinet may approve.

Mr Speaker, much of the debate last week focussed around the Auditor General Act and the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act and how these two pieces of legislation apply to the Energy Corporation. As I said last week, these pieces of legislation do apply to the Energy Corporation, however we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that commercially sensitive information cannot get into the hands of competitors through these acts. Protecting against the release of this information is critical, Mr. Speaker, to the success of our Energy Corporation. We are writing in the appropriate checks and balances to ensure the greatest level of accountability and transparency appropriate for a Crown corporation operating in a competitive environment, and, Mr. Speaker, we realize that we are breaking new ground with this Energy Corporation and this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity now to address the specific questions that were asked.

It was asked on Thursday night: why does the CEO of the Energy Corporation have the final say on the release of information under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act? He does not, Mr. Speaker. Under no circumstances does the CEO have the final say on the release of information under this legislation. We have provided in this bill, a clear process for addressing Requests for Information. This process involves the CEO, the Privacy Commissioner, the Corporation's Board of Directors, or that of the subsidiary, and, if necessary, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division.

Mr. Speaker, all of these players could be involved in a Request for Information. All we are doing in this bill is ensuring that commercially sensitive information cannot be released under the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. The role of the CEO in this process is to determine whether the information that is requested is commercially sensitive and can harm the corporation or one of its subsidiaries or a third party. Should it be necessary, the decision on whether this information can be released will go to the Board of Directors of the Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we do not feel that the determination of what constitutes commercially sensitive information can be made by the Privacy Commissioner. That is no way meant to be disrespectful of this office. We feel the decision must be made by a person who has a full understanding of the information and the impact that its release could have on the company and its partners. Our partners demand this, Mr. Speaker.

We have taken a great deal of care to bring into the corporation this kind of expertise, because it does not exist within government. It is a special competency to understand the global economy and the impact on a corporation or its partners, of the release of certain information at delicate stages within the commercial and global environment.

The ill-timed release of information could jeopardize an entire deal, such as Hebron. These are nuances and special circumstances that require the commercial sensitivity and expertise that the individuals in our Energy Corporation hold. It would be very difficult for someone outside the corporate world to fully appreciate the impact on a company, or an extended negotiation, or a stock market, for that matter, of what they may be holding in their hands.

For these reasons, we have put this initial decision in the hands of the CEO of the Energy Corporation. However, we have not left this decision to him or her alone. We have included the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that there is transparency, accountability and an ultimate test that the information is indeed commercially sensitive.

We have made provision for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division to make a ruling on the corporation's decision not to release the information. The CEO does not make the final decision.

Mr. Speaker, there has also been some suggestion in the last week that we are attempting to exempt the corporation from the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That could not be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. We are very open and transparent in our intent here, which is to protect commercially sensitive information and the corporation's ability to operate in a competitive, global, energy industry.

Mr. Speaker, I was also asked why the definition of commercially sensitive information is so broad in this bill. This is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. The definition contained in the bill is designed to cover any potential area of the Energy Corporation's business activities that could be exploited to harm the corporation's competitive position or that of any third parties with which the corporation is engaged. This does not mean that all the information captured by the definition of commercially sensitive will not be disclosed.

In section 5.4(1)(c) of the bill we have laid out five specific tests governing the release of information. These tests are designed to measure whether the information being requested will harm the corporation, its subsidiaries or a third party.

For the benefit of members, Mr. Speaker, the information must be applied against five tests to determine if the release of information would harm the competitive position, interfere with a negotiating position, result in financial loss or harm of the corporation, the subsidiary or the third party, that the information is treated consistently in a confidential manner, or is customarily not provided to competitors. Those five tests, Mr. Speaker, have to be applied against any information that is being considered commercially sensitive. If they do not meet that test, Mr. Speaker, then the information can be disclosed. Mr. Speaker, while the definition is broad, and it is necessary for it to be broad, the test for release is specific.

We are not attempting to exempt the Energy Corporation from the Access to Information legislation; nor are we attempting to muzzle the Auditor General. We are being very open and transparent in our attempt to protect commercially sensitive information. Protecting against the release of this information is critical to the success, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, of our Energy Corporation; and, as I said last week, we want this corporation to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, much has been made by members opposite also about why the CEO has input into the information that the Auditor General can release. The Auditor General's office, Mr. Speaker, has access to all information within the Energy Corporation to which it would normally have access from any other department or agency in completing its work.

This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. We are not muzzling or restricting access by the Auditor General. We are ensuring that commercially sensitive information does not get released.

If there is a request by the Auditor General to release a report that the CEO has determined contains commercially sensitive information, then the Auditor General can provide this report to the Cabinet. The Auditor General can also note the existence of this report in his annual report to the House of Assembly.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet knows and the members of this House will know, and, because the members of this House know, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will know.

Again, there are checks and balances in the system that clearly demonstrates that the CEO of the Energy Corporation does not have the final say on the release of information. We are very open and transparent in our intent and approach to protecting commercially sensitive information. This protection against the release of this information, again, Mr. Speaker, is critical to its success. If the Auditor General's report does not contain commercially sensitive information, then the report can be released in its usual manner.

Mr. Speaker, I was also asked last week: How do we ensure that there are no improper contracting practices at the Energy Corporation and that there is full competition for Energy Corporation work?

These are good questions, Mr. Speaker, and ones that we have taken very seriously. As I indicated last week, we have undertaken a great deal of research on state-owned energy corporations and how they are structured.

The Energy Corporation has also reviewed the best practices that are in place for procurement policies and contracting practices in the global oil and gas industry.

Our new Energy Corporation is staffed by extraordinary people with global experience in megaproject contracting, and we are very lucky to have them, Mr. Speaker. We are confident that the procurement and contracting practices developed at the Energy Corporation will compare with practices in place with the major oil and gas corporations. These practices will address the principles of best value, open competition, and appropriate monitoring and reporting.

Over the last week, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the concerns raised about the need to ensure that these procurement and contracting practices live on beyond the current government and current CEO. That is a legitimate concern. We agree there must be appropriate monitoring and reporting on the Energy Corporation's procurement and contracting to ensure openness and transparency.

We have heard a lot of debate as to why we just could not make amendments to the Public Tender Act to accomplish the contracting goals of the Energy Corporation. Mr. Speaker, this government prides itself on being open and accountable. We do not want to be trying to come up with amendments to skirt the Public Tender Act, or to circumvent it, and then go out and say the Public Tender Act applies to the Energy Corporation. It does not apply, Mr. Speaker, and we are saying that very clearly.

The Public Tender Act does not allow the corporation to get the best, most competitive and most qualified contractors for very, very specific, specialized and large pieces of work, if it is restricted to the lowest bidder.

As I said, we want the Energy Corporation to be able to consider key initiatives in our Energy Plan when going forward with these projects, which includes the principles of adjacency, use of Aboriginal contractors and local benefits.

During the debate, Mr. Speaker, two sections of the Public Tender Act were brought forward by the members opposite as possible measures to accomplish the contracting objectives of the Energy Corporation. These are sections 3.2 (j) and section 12. We have looked at these, Mr. Speaker, and the exclusions identified under section 3.2 (j) are far too restrictive to permit the flexibility needed on major projects. Using this section will require government to provide exemptions for each individual contract awarded by the corporation. This is not reasonable, Mr. Speaker. The Lower Churchill Development alone could result in hundreds of required exemptions under this approach.

Section 3.(2) (j) permits Request for Proposals, or RFPs, instead of tenders, on Cabinet approval. If this approach was employed, each use of an RFP would have to be approved by Cabinet – again, not reasonable. This could result in hundreds – hundreds, Mr. Speaker - of required exemptions for major projects.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS DUNDERDALE: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS DUNDERDALE: The Public Tender Act also outlines the regulations for conducting an RFP process. These regulations would severely restrict the flexibility required in arranging and running an RFP process for a major capital project, and therefore are not appropriate for the Energy Corporation given the scale of projects that they are dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, another section that was raised, section 12, relates to the authority of the minister to make regulations under the Public Tender Act. This approach would require government to make exemptions under the act to cover the Energy Corporation. There is nothing in this section to permit partial exclusions, expanded exemptions, or anything else likely to avoid problems under the Public Tender Act - again, Mr. Speaker, not reasonable in this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, we greatly appreciate the efforts from the members opposite to seek approaches within the Public Tender Act to accommodate the flexibility that the Energy Corporation requires. We looked at them ourselves, and we re-examined them when they were raised here in debate in the House; however, as I mentioned earlier, we are interested in accountability and transparency in these amendments. The approaches raised here are nothing more than a means to seek exemptions or to work around the current act, and we are not interested in doing that.

In the same line of questioning last week, comparisons were drawn between our bill and legislation in place in other provinces such as British Columbia and Quebec. Specifically, I was asked: Why are the Public Tender and Auditor General Acts okay for BC Hydro and Hydro-Quebec, but not for the Energy Corporation?

Mr. Speaker, I remind members of the House that not all pieces of legislation, even if they carry the same name, are the same in content from province to province. Therefore, it is like comparing apples to oranges, to compare a piece of legislation in this Province to a piece in another province, without doing the work to find out how they differ.

In our assessment of how other state-owned energy companies are operated, we undertook significant analysis and engaged external analysts to ensure that the approach taken in this Province for the Energy Corporation was consistent with international best practices.

In so doing, Mr. Speaker, guidance was taken from Norwegian and Danish state-owned corporations as models for ensuring meaningful public accountability requirements, while ensuring commercial competitiveness and effectiveness.

These jurisdictions have different legislative processes than our Province. The processes that are used in these countries, in terms of accessing information and public tendering, are not equivalent to the processes and procedures we use here. Therefore, when conducting our analysis, we focused on the result of the legislation to ensure that the process and procedures we chose provided us with the same results.

This is also true for the analysis we conducted of Hydro-Quebec and BC Hydro. For example, Mr. Speaker, while it is true that BC Hydro is subject to the Procurement Services Act, this legislation cannot be compared to our Public Tender Act. The legislation in British Columbia does not require that a specific process be used in tendering; rather, there is only a general policy regarding procurement, with a requirement to use best practices. It states that goods, services and construction must be awarded using a competitive process that is appropriate to value, complexity and profile of the business opportunity. These processes include an Invitation to Tender, a Request for Proposals, a Request for Quotations, an Invitation to Quote and so on.

In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec must only issue tenders with respect to supplying electricity, as required by the principles of its open access electricity market. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec follows its own procurement policy for acquiring goods and services.

With regard to the Auditor General Act, Mr. Speaker, in both British Columbia and Quebec, this act applies; however, again, we must ensure that we have a proper comparison. In both of these Provinces, the Auditor General can review and report on any aspect of BC Hydro and Hydro-Quebec; however, both of these are regulated utilities and are subject to oversight by their respective public utilities board. The same is also true for this Province, where Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is regulated by the Public Utilities Board and is open to the Auditor General.

The difference we are operating under here is that our Energy Corp. is a fully integrated energy company that is competing in a commercially-competitive business environment. In this context the Public Tender Act in this Province does not provide the flexibility required to complete large construction projects; and, because this corporation will be competing in a globally-competitive business environment, it must be able to protect against the release of commercially sensitive information in order to protect its competitive position.

In addressing corporate governance and protection of commercially sensitive information issues for our Energy Corporation, we have looked more to the international jurisdictions I referenced earlier for guidance, than Canadian jurisdictions. The state-owned energy corporations established in these countries provide for a much more comparable model to our Energy Corporation than the utility-based Crown corporations that exist elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are breaking new ground in this Province with our Energy Corporation and we are following the many examples worldwide of state-owned energy companies that have returned significant value from the development of their energy resources.

It has always been our expectation that the contracting and procurement process will be open, transparent and competitive. To ensure that this intent and these processes are clearly reflected in this bill, I will be introducing two amendments to this bill to bring clarity to this piece.

The first will require the Energy Corporation to submit to government, for approval, procurement principles that follow best industry practices for procurement and contracting, including transparent supplier, development, monitoring and support.

Mr. Speaker, this ensures that the process that the Energy Corporation follows will have to be clearly articulated and publicly available for scrutiny. This provides an open, transparent and accountable process that is consistent with the way this government does business and our principles outlined in the Energy Plan.

The members opposite did raise concern related to Public Tender Act exemption for subsidiaries that have not yet been established. My second amendment provides that Cabinet may declare that a subsidiary is subject to the Public Tender Act where it is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates that we have been listening to the debate. This amendment looks to the future and, if a subsidiary of the Energy Corporation ever does get to the point where it is making widgets, Cabinet can make the determination whether the Public Tender Act should apply.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased last week when the issue of energy efficiency was raised in relation to the Energy Corporation. This is an important issue for us as we outlined in our energy plan. It was asked last week if the Energy Corporation will be establishing an energy efficiency subsidiary. Mr. Speaker, we have committed on our energy plan to establishing an energy conservation and efficiency partnership to develop a coordinated and prioritized five-year energy conservation and efficiency plan. We have also committed to an initial investment of $5 million to this partnership to coordinate and assist with energy conservation and efficiency initiatives. We are continuing to develop this five-year plan and will be announcing a number of initiatives in the near future. This partnership will identify initiatives, as well as the best approach to move them forward and implement them, Mr. Speaker.

With that said, we feel that the suggestion brought forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party for the corporation to consider an energy efficient subsidiary certainly has merit and we will pass this suggestion along to the corporation for consideration. I thank the Leader of the NDP for that suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, an important issue was raised in debate in regard to what happens if there is fraud and embezzlement at the Energy Corporation. Mr. Speaker, this corporation will manage billions of dollars of investment and we want to ensure that our investment as taxpayers is protected. We have not limited the Auditor General's office from conducting its reviews of the Energy Corporation's operation and management in any way. We strongly believe that the Auditor General's office should continue its oversight role in regards to government investment in the Energy Corporation.

If the Auditor General becomes aware of an improper retention or misappropriation of public money, or another activity that may constitute an offence under the Criminal Code or another act, the Auditor General can act. If, in his report of this activity, the Auditor General plans to disclose commercially sensitive information then this report must be provided to the Cabinet as opposed to released publicly. In this event our proposed bill states that the Auditor General must provide notice to the House in his annual report that he has submitted such a report to Cabinet.

We have heard the concerns in debate over the time lapse between the Auditor General submitting a report to Cabinet and notice being provided in his annual report. We acknowledge this concern and I will be bringing forward an amendment that will require the Auditor General to immediately provide a report to the House including a general description and the date it was reported to Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, for the Energy Corporation and the CEO we mirrored the accountability placed on MHAs in regards to improper criminal conduct found by the Auditor General. We lifted this section directly from the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, which came out of the report of Chief Justice Green. But, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment we actually went beyond the Green report, what the Green report requires from members of the House. We are now requiring that the Auditor General immediately provide his report to the House. In regards to MHAs, as my colleague should know, the Auditor General reports any findings in his annual report.

Mr. Speaker, last week debate also went into the area of what authority government has to ensure that the Energy Corporation or its subsidiaries do not sell off significant assets including shares in subsidiaries that the taxpayers have paid for. The purpose in creating the Energy Corporation is to receive a greater share from the development of our energy resources for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Whether the development is hydro, oil and gas or wind we want to return greater benefits from the development of our resources to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intent to establish this company to develop our natural resources and then sell parts of the company to the highest bidder. It is not our intent to privatize it like the former Liberal Administration attempted to do with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: If we were to sell off parts of the corporation to the highest bidder we would no longer be in control of our resources and that is absolutely and totally contrary to our intent and purpose.

Section 14.1 of the bill states that the corporation shall not dispose of or deal in shares of a subsidiary or of another company without the prior approval of government. It also states that a subsidiary may not do the same without the prior approval of the Energy Corporation. In this context there is protection against the sale of all or part of subsidiaries. During the course of debate, however, we heard the significant concern in regards to protecting against the corporation or subsidiaries from selling off significant assets without prior approval. We share this concern and this was not the intent of the bill.

To provide the greatest protection possible, we will be bringing forward an amendment that will require the Energy Corporation to obtain shareholder approval for the sale, lease or exchange of a substantial portion of an undertaking, property asset or business operation.

Mr. Speaker, with this amendment we are ensuring that in the case of the sale of an asset by the Energy Corporation, government, as shareholder, must provide approval. In the case of subsidiaries, approval must be given by the board of directors of the Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we have established our Energy Corporation to lead this Province into a new era of resource development, an era where we become the developers of our resources and the recipients of the greatest return. With this bill we are providing the Energy Corporation with the tools it requires to succeed.

I have appreciated the issues that have been raised by the members opposite and we have listened to them, and will continue to listen to them through debate as we go forward today. I have had my officials review all the suggestions for improvement that came forward, and I hope that the amendments to this bill that I am bringing forward in Committee certainly address many of those concerns.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward six amendments in Committee, two of which are housekeeping and four that reflect what we have heard on the floor of the House over the past week. I believe, Mr. Speaker, this shows that we are listening to and value the input of our colleagues opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling those amendments now for review by Members of the House of Assembly, and I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, I did not mean to usurp, either, the speaking of the Leader of Opposition, but she got called away from the House for a few moments so that is why I am up ahead of her.

First of all, I would like to say right off the top that I am very pleased with the approach that we are going to take here in second reading, because it is possible, under the rules of the House, to get so bogged down in procedural manoeuvring that we lose focus on what we intend to do here, which is to deal with this very important and significant Bill 35.

I appreciate the minister, for example – obviously, last Thursday our speaking was not in vain. In fact, some politicizing and people who see the big picture, I guess, from a lot of people, we did get drilled down into some of the detail last Thursday in this House and pointed out what we felt were serious and significant concerns with this piece of legislation. I am pleased to see that, contrary to some people who just close their eyes and might think that we did not have anything worthy to say, the government is coming forward with six amendments, and that is good to see.

Now, whether or not we are going to end up on all fours in agreeing with all of those six amendments we will see as the debate goes on; because, obviously, up to now, the time of the tabling of these amendments, and the bit of context that the minister just gave us, which we have not fully digested yet, we have not had an opportunity to read the amendments and see exactly where they are going to take us compared to where we were last week, but I certainly appreciate the fact that we are taking this approach to things.

Just for the record, too, to put this in a bit of historical context, I went back and just checked out some of the news clippings from 1968 to 1969 in The Evening Telegram of the day. Sure enough, you say history repeats itself, there was no House in session at that time, by the way, so I guess we have made a significant advance in this bill versus back then in the Upper Churchill contract because the House was not even in session back then.

By the way, for the record, I don't believe there were forty-eight members but there were three Opposition members at the time. The numbers were pretty well skewed like they are today in terms of majority versus minority. At the time in The Evening Telegram all of the clippings were: A great deal for the Province.

First, there was all kinds of confusion leading up to the deal of the Upper Churchill. Then, a gentleman, a staff writer, by the name of John Carter in The Evening Telegram says: A great deal, everybody wins. Quebec wins, Newfoundland wins - because they did not call it Newfoundland and Labrador back then; they just called it Newfoundland - Newfoundland wins, Quebec wins.

That was the headline in The Evening Telegram. Notwithstanding that, if you go to the editorial sections, there were all kinds little letters to the editor saying: How does John Carter know we got a good deal? History is going to prove us wrong; we did not get a good deal.

Even then, everybody thought they were right then. We had a government then of, whatever, forty-seven people who thought they were right. By the way, the Opposition members of that day voted for it, when it had to be voted on. There was nobody, there was absolutely no dissent in the House of Assembly to the Upper Churchill deal.

Our word of caution, when we at least ask for - and, by the way, I appreciate the opportunity that the Premier, the Government House Leader and the minister here have taken in allowing us to have the time to bring these things forward, because I think it is important. History has already proven us once to be wrong; something was wrong. Maybe it was nobody's fault, but it happened. That is why it pays to take the time.

If we throw out one nib of information in the course of this debate - and we have already thrown out six nibs, because obviously there are going to be some amendments here offered by the government - that helps improve this deal, we are all better off for it, and that is the purpose and focus of where we are coming from. I am pleased to see that we are heading down a road today of being focused. Instead of having treetop discussions and debates, as I call it, where everybody says this is a great piece of legislation and we do not really drill down, I am very appreciative of the minister having listened to us on Thursday, having gone and analyzed what we said, and come back now and put in the context why we were right or why we did not have a full picture to give us a better understanding of where we are going here.

We also have proposed – and, by the way, anybody who reads this, it is not a long bill. It might be complicated, I guess, in a lot of respects, and we will find that out as the years go on, but Bill 35 is not a big, long bill, but the very issues that the minister hit on is where our amendments are. By the way, I am going to table the same - we have six amendments as well. One of them, I think, is broken up into two parts of it, but basically six amendments.

We had concerns about the application of the Securities Act, or the non-application of it. We had concerns about access by the Privacy Commissioner and the members' interests and so on. We had those concerns. That is where one of our amendments is directed to, the appeal process that would come into play there. We had a concern about what is revealed - and I do not think the minister alluded to this. This is another one we have a concern with, and that is the nature and type of information that comes from the annual reports filed by the corporation and the subsidiaries. We will get into that. There is an amendment that we are putting forward here to suggest that the current reporting content, shall we say, that is being put forward does not go far enough and we would like to address that in debate and make a suggestion as to how it could be strengthened. That is included in ours.

We do have a concern about the Auditor General, still, what he can and cannot do. The nature of our concern, by the way, and the minister alluded to this, everything under this bill is intended to be done in the context of what is commercially sensitive information. That is where the bill starts out in number one. We have no problem with the fact that you need to protect from disclosure commercially sensitive information. The issue is: What becomes commercially sensitive information, and what happens to other information that is not commercially sensitive? Our fear is, if what we read here - and we have put our heads around this. There is only the three of us. We have gotten some outside advice from people who we thought might know something about this corporate law piece and whatever else. The perception of what we are being told, Minister, is that the bill does not currently go far enough when it talks about other information. It is like they have given a carte blanche here to this corporation and its subsidiaries to do what they like not only for commercially sensitive information but that the process has been restricted for every other piece of information as well. That is where the concerns lie.

If we are protecting commercially sensitive information only, not a problem, but if it is other information - and we are saying that Bill 35 does not properly designate what is and what isn't. You basically start out in number one and it says that anything that the CEO wants to define as commercially sensitive, he or she is going to do it. Then we go from there: you cannot have this, you cannot have that, if it is commercially sensitive you cannot have it, whether you are a commissioner of interests, whether you are the Privacy Commissioner, whether you are a trial judge in the Supreme Court or whether you are the Auditor General. We are saying, whoa, back up a minute. What if there is information in these subsidiaries and corporations that should be out there? We do not think the act is clear enough, specific enough, and gives enough comfort level so that we do not walk down that path. That is where we are coming from on that one.

We had some issues, again, about non-agencies of the government. We read through that one. Again, explanation things that we do not have the knowledge of, but we have some questions of. I am sure as the debate goes on, you have the personnel who could certainly provide us with some comfort level and explanations in those areas.

Another big one, of course, is the Public Tender one, which I notice that you are going to put forward an amendment on, so we will get a chance to look at that on the Public Tender piece.

At this point, I will just table – I have copies here for the Premier and the Government House Leader and the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Leader of the NDP as well as for the table officers, so they can circulate them or whatever. I guess, the next move will be, as we debate we will take an opportunity to look at each other's amendments if we could and anything we agree on, obviously we do not need further debate on.

It is not our intention, by the way, to browbeat this thing and be repetitive. We just throw out what our concerns are and see what government is prepared to do with it. We can only make our concerns known. We are not so foolish to think that at the end of the day it is not going to pass. Whatever government wants to pass is going to pass. We know that. All we are about here is: let's put it on the table and see how government reacts to it. If it makes sense, fine, maybe they are prepared to listen to it. If not, that is all we can do about it as Opposition members here.

I will just clue up my comments at that point with the submission of these amendments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It indeed is a pleasure to be able to stand in this House this evening.

This is a piece of legislation that I really, really wanted to speak from a, I suppose a political perspective but also to speak to it from a personal type of perspective.

In listening to the Opposition House Leader, when a piece of legislation like this comes across the floor, it is certainly not something, I do not think, that anybody on this side wants to, if we can use the analogy, shove through or to shove down somebody's throat or something of that nature.

This is such an important piece of legislation – the Opposition House Leader used phrases and words such as: he is pleased that we are taking this approach; that he is putting forward stuff that he wants explanation for and he has directed some questions to the Minister of Natural Resources that he wants explanation for, and she is over here saying that certainly she will provide that; and thirdly, that he is very pleased that we are providing the time here to have serious debate on this matter.

I think that speaks to, that as a government what we want from this debate and legislation is to put forward the best piece of legislation that we possibly can, and at the end of the day get the best possible deal that we can get for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in my five years in this hon. House there have been a number of occasions that I feel are historical, and the Opposition House Leader went back to some articles that are – 1968: he talked about news items, he talked about editorials that spoke about good deals and everything they thought was right, and that everybody in the House supported the piece of legislation that came forward at the time, but in the end, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are elected to do here. We have to come to make decisions, and you base the decisions on the information that is put forward to you, and in the end, you hope that it is the best decision possible. There are no guarantees, there are no 100 per cents in these jobs, but you make the decision with the best information that you have put before you. Then history will dictate whether it is was the right decision or not.

I know, since I have come in to this House we have had different types of legislation that go through, and as much as we are always attentive to the happenings within the House, there are certain pieces of legislation that stand out more, if I could use that. These are pieces of legislation that everybody is very keen on getting all of the information about, and are very in tune with the debate that is going on.

I recall, a few years back, when the Inuit Land Claims Agreement came through, you knew, Mr. Speaker, that as those documents were proceeding through the House and the final agreement arrived at, that you were sitting in the presence of something happening that was historically significant. It was going to impact very much on the lives of the Inuit who were involved in it, but also it was an important piece of legislation for the people of the Province. You knew it, you felt it and you were very proud to be a part of it.

Then there were happenings outside the House, debates go on. The Atlantic Accord is one that certainly comes to mind. The fact that you can be in a situation in this House where you are a part of that speaks very powerfully to me as a member representing a constituency and it also speaks to what will happen in the future for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this piece of legislation. As I have said, the Opposition will raise questions about our presentation, the presentation that they were given. They will throw out things that will raise doubt in the minds of some people. Certainly, that is their role, that causes people to think and that is certainly not a bad thing.

I am willing to bet that since this piece of legislation has come forward this has been debated in kitchens, it has been debated between first and second periods of Detroit and Pittsburgh games, and it has been debated, no doubt, at cabins on the weekend past. What we talking about here, I believe, is something that will impact my children, my grandchildren and it will extend well into the future and impact many future generations of this Province.

I am looking at this piece of legislation, and I truly do believe this, Mr. Speaker; this will be another landmark, or if you want to term it a trademark, of good decisions that will have been and will continue to be made by this government.

I believe that the premise of this legislation is again in getting the best returns on our provincial resources. I know I started out in 2002, winning the election in 2003, and that is one of the things I campaigned heavily on, and I am certain that a lot of my colleagues on this government side campaigned on, that we had seen too many giveaways from our resources; we had not reaped the benefits of our resources.

I come from the Burin Peninsula where fishing was key to our operations, fish plants on the go, and that was always the thing: We are not getting the benefit from the resources, our fish, to the benefit of the people of the Province.

This evening I stand here to speak to this piece of legislation that will no doubt be debated again and again; and, as I have said, history will dictate as to whether this is the right move. Certainly, personally, I strongly believe in this piece of legislation and I have been discussing this with people; because, when you get out in your district and you meet people from your district and you meet people from across the Province, these are the types of things that they want to discuss with you. They want to get some of the ins and outs because we, as members, are involved in this discussion day in and day out. We come into this House. We were here last week, we are going to be here this afternoon, we are going to be here tonight, and the discussions are going on, but for some people out in the Province who are watching this on TV, they may get to see it periodically, they may read about it in the papers, but they want to ask you questions about it, and questions about the Auditor General's role, and what does commercially sensitive information mean? We are the people they look to for information.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, one of the bottom lines for me is about common sense. They say sometimes that it is not all that common, but this piece of legislation, to me, speaks specifically to a bit of common sense. I suppose we could all bring up examples, but in my thinking if I have a company that wants to come and do business with me, or anybody else for that matter, they may bring some information to the table sometimes that they would not want divulged to some of their competitors.

If, for example, one of these companies were Hebron, or some of the other oil companies - and we will use that as an example - and they stand to lose if that information is released, well, it is going to do one of two things. First of all, it is going to cause them to be very, very cautious and, if they are going to be dealing with government, rather than something happening within a month, let us say, this might be something that could take six months to eight months because they are not going to take the chance on having that information released. So, what they are going to do is, they are going to work with government but they are going to be extremely, extremely cautious and they are going to make sure that every base is covered before they move ahead. Secondly, and worse still, they may renege and pull out from any negotiations or talks with government. If that were the case then we, as a Province, are losing.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we are no longer a population of 500,000 people who are confined to the dealings of the people within this Province. One of the key points I think the Minister of Natural Resources spoke to when she got up before, she spoke about we are in a global market here. You can be assured that with the technologies that we have before us today, once we make a decision in this Province, whether it be in the fishery or whether it be in the oil industry, it is not within a matter of hours, it is within a matter of minutes and seconds, that people from all over the world who are involved in that industry know about what is happening. We are no longer dealing in a very confined provincial setting. We are now in a global context and we have to be prepared to do that. We also have to be prepared to participate in that market, that very competitive global market, and we had better stay on our game. If not, Mr. Speaker, what happens is that you get left behind.

Whether that is in the oil industry or in the wind industry or if we are into further development of the Lower Churchill, then we are dealing with major companies. We are dealing with corporations who want protection through confidentiality. It provides a business advantage and there is no one can tell me, whether it be the oil industry or the fishing industry or production of wind industry or whatever it is, it is all a matter of business, and we are dealing in that business context.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just take it to a district level. One of the major employers in my district is Peter Kiewit Sons, and they are a major international contracting company who get work through large projects, large scale projects. A recent completion - it is going on three-and-a-half years now and it only seems like yesterday - in this industry, the SeaRose FPSO was constructed in Marystown. That had 1,200 people working there. Mr. Speaker, my point is that those types of projects are the projects, the deals that exist between companies in conjunction with, for example, the Province; those are the types of deals that we come up with. I shudder to think that we might lose some of these deals and some of these contracts because these larger companies are kind of hesitant to enter into discussions with us, or that they cannot get things moving as quickly as they would like to. Therefore, I think the legislation that we have before us deals directly with that kind of thing. It allows companies, the Energy Corp. here, to be working with the Hebrons, the Chevrons and the ExxonMobils to work out the deals and work them out in a timely, timely manner.

I think, for the majority of people, they will debate this and they will raise good questions, but what I have to look to, Mr. Speaker, is being convinced myself that this is the right deal. The first thing that I have to do is to understand what the legislation is all about. Then, before making a final decision, you do some of your own research.

If you look at what has been already spoken about in this House, the folks who have been involved in this - the Energy Corp. people, government - have all looked at exemplary models in other places. We have looked at them in Denmark; we have looked at them in Norway.

Mr. Speaker, the question was asked, I believe, of the Minister of Natural Resources: Well, have we looked at the examples that have been in the country, and why aren't we following some of what has happened in other jurisdictions within the country?

Mr. Speaker, not to diminish the question or anything, I think that we, as a Province, have taken a lead in the last number of years, the last five years, in particular, on many fronts within this country. The fact that Quebec may not be doing something this way, or B.C. may not be doing something this way, or Alberta may not be doing something this way, certainly should not be an indicator that we, as a Province, should hold back. In fact, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think this Province has taken the lead on many occasions and in many files, and as a result of it we are seeing the better benefits to the people of the Province, and therefore we will see it well into the future.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, very important - and I think this is one of the things that people would want resolved more than anything as they enter into this debate, is that they want to make sure there are safeguards put in place here. The Minister of Natural Resources got up just a few minutes ago and went through a list of them.

This is not about keeping the AG out. As has already been said, the AG can get in there. He does his annual reports. Secondly, people who are shareholders in any companies do so knowing that there are annual reports that are being put out, that there are annual meetings and that the shareholders have a say in it. As the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out, and as others have said in this debate, there will be annual meetings that give the right of people to ask questions. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that through that debate the media will certainly be asking questions. They do not ever seem to be shy about asking questions about other things that are in the political arena, asking questions of any groups or organizations, and I would imagine they would have questions of their own to put before it.

To say that it is confined, I certainly do not see that, and to that fact, this legislation will certainly ensure that there is an openness and an accountability and transparency to the degree that it can, but at the same time, making sure that negotiations that need to happen in terms of the protection of commercially sensitive information can be carried out, and the dealings of the people who are involved here would be protected, and we can get on with the business at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude with these few remarks. Again, as I started out by saying, I have been in this House now for five years and I have seen legislation that has gone through here that I think will leave a significant, positive impact on the people of this Province.

I feel strongly that this piece of legislation will ensure, first and foremost, that we get the benefits of our resources that allow us, as a government, to be able to put in place many of the social networks that people in the Opposition have raised and we, as a government, continue to implement.

Finally, and most importantly, it sets the course for the future. It speaks to how my children and how my grandchildren and future generations will be able to live in this Province. This is what this piece of legislation is about. It is about getting the best deals, getting the best return and making the best that we can for the people of this Province.

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 certainly want to contribute to the debate that is ongoing today around Bill 35.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I will agree with that the member did say is that this is somewhat a historic piece of legislation in that it will establish, for the first time ever in this Province, an Energy Corporation, a corporation that will take the investments of public money and invest in deals with private sector enterprise and be set up somewhat arm's length from government in terms of how they negotiate, how they report and the types of activities that they will engage in.

From that perspective, yes, it is historic, but it is also from that perspective, Mr. Speaker, that we have to ensure that all the safeguards that need to be put in place to protect the people of the Province, to protect the corporation that is owned by the shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador, the residents, and to also ensure that this corporation has full openness and transparency in terms of how they do business and how they invest the people's money in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, many people may not realize this, because they often associate Energy Corporation sometimes even with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but it is a very different entity altogether. In fact, under the new Energy Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro becomes a subsidiary company. They become only one of the companies that make up this whole corporation or this whole division within the Province, so it is very different. As you know, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro falls under its own particular act and is governed by the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro while it will be one subsidiary of this corporation, they have a different mechanism, bylaw, under which they report and also by which they are accountable to the people of the Province. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but their regulatory regime is set up through a Public Utilities Board Commission of people who are appointed and who review all aspects of the corporation; everything in terms of the kind of expenditures they have, the kind of rates that they charge, how they collect money and so on within the Province. It is done in a very public way and I know that because I have been involved in that process many times in my political career representing my constituents on fair hearings related to oil and gas or hydro rates and diesel generated rates and power within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a Crown agent of the Province whereas these new subsidiaries that will be setting up will be, first of all, non-Crown agents which means that they will be removed more from government and they will fall under different particular laws and legislation which will be governed through two acts in this House; one through Bill 35 which we are debating today and the other one through Bill 28 which we passed in the spring session of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, also, let me tell you, under Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro there is also a public tendering process by which they are accountable under the tendering act. Now they can file for exemptions on any particular occasion that they need to and those exemptions can be granted by the minister and council, but, Mr. Speaker, there is still a mechanism by which they are reported. There is transparency and there is also a level of accountability that accrues to them.

The new corporations or subsidiaries that we are looking at establishing in the Province now will fall under different regulations; therefore they will not be subject to the Public Tender Act. Therefore, any particular contracts will not go out to a competitive bidding process whether that be through a Request for Proposals or through public tendering by notice in the newspaper or online whatever the case may be.

They are two very separate ways of doing business within the Energy Corp. Those laws that I outlined that govern the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which will be only one subsidiary of the corporation are very different than what government is asking to implement as rules or legislation that will govern new subsidiaries in the Province.

For example, Mr. Speaker, while Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, if they are going to go out and replace transmission lines around the Province or if they need to hire contractors to do a certain amount of work as we have seen in the past - before the Energy Corp was set up, they were doing a lot of work on the Lower Churchill, environmental assessment work and so on - well then a lot of that work would have been done through a public tendering process or Request for Proposals. In the future, under these subsidiary companies, the government is asking that, that not be the case.

Also, Mr. Speaker, and I will get back to that in a few minutes, the other piece to this is with regard to how they deal with the officers of the House in terms of other pieces of legislation, such as the Auditor General's Act, the Citizens' Representative, the Privacy Commissioner, the Freedom of Information. All of these acts govern departments, corporations, within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are all acts of this House of Assembly and they are all approved, Mr. Speaker, and managed through the Management Commission of the Legislature.

I am a member of the Management Commission, along with seven or eight other members within the House of Assembly, who make up the Management Commission, and we, Mr. Speaker, review the work plans, the budgets, the mandates of the offices of the Child and Youth Advocate, of the Citizens' Representative, particularly as it relates to this, the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner and so on, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we understand what the role and responsibility of these offices are, and why they were developed.

They were developed, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there was full transparency of work being done within government departments, anywhere throughout government's system or Crown corporations or agencies which fell under that act. That was the whole purpose of establishing it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that many of these offices work in terms of doing the job that they have to do. For example, it was the Citizens' Representative who, upon a complaint being filed with him, took it upon himself to review the correctional offices in Labrador and to report back to the House of Assembly that, indeed, there was insufficient capacity, that they were not being able to meet what the need was, and entailed all of that in a report, a report that was tabled publicly and which government is attempting to respond to. Mr. Speaker, that is one particular incident and that came about because someone had requested that role be taken on and done by the Citizens' Representative.

The Auditor General files in the House of Assembly each and every year a full report of government departments, whether that report is – and it does not always have to be things that are negative, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General reports on all kinds of things that are happening, whether they be exemptions that were granted, whether it be accounts that were settled, whether it be misappropriation of funds in some way, whether it be a violation of government policies, but they also go back and report on government's actions following that report.

For example, if there was an incident reported within a government department of which they were administering money under policies that were not in place and therefore in violation of some law, well, that would be written up; but, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, a year down the road when he filed his next report, he may say that he had met with that department or that board, and they have now corrected that information and now they are reporting in a different way or they are meeting the requirements of their act or legislation.

I have seen that lots of times, so it is not just reporting on things that are not going well but also reporting when corrections are made and things are being followed as per the recommendations within that report.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular act, what we are saying is that the Auditor General will not have the same authorities right now as they would have within other departments, mostly because of the fact that government wants to ensure that commercially sensitive information that could jeopardize the negotiations or deals that are settled within the corporation could be put in jeopardy if some of this information is disclosed inappropriately or untimely. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they are saying that different rules will apply.

We wanted to point that out, because the rules that are here do not apply, necessarily, to any other corporations, including the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation. Mr. Speaker, that was another aspect of the particular legislation that we had some problems with and that we are attempting to address, first of all, by reviewing the amendment that has been put forward by the government, but at the same time tabling some potential amendments that we are looking at ourselves. Whether they will reach the floor of the House or not, I guess, we will determine after we have a clearer evaluation of what is in the new amendments that will be added to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our goal through all of this is only to ensure, not to undermine the government in any way whatsoever as to creating an Energy Corporation within this Province, but only to ensure that if there is a way to have greater openness and greater accountability then that needs to be looked at, not just for the sake of what could happen in the corporation in the next six to twelve months, or the next two to three years, but on a go-forward basis as well.

The mandate that governs the Energy Corporation - as you can see in the bill when it was established in the spring of last year - is a very broad and all-encompassing mandate. They pretty well have free rein to look at any kind of energy development projects, Mr. Speaker, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador but anywhere in the world – anywhere in the world. In fact, even this act provides for them the ability to establish corporations under the laws of other jurisdictions in order to be able to carry out that work, and it does not matter if that is in South Africa or China or in the United States or right here in Newfoundland and Labrador; the act provides for that already.

So, Mr. Speaker, the amount and the type of industry that they can engage in, from an energy perspective, is very, very broad. It does not deal just with hydro power – because we talk a lot about the Lower Churchill Project – and it does not just deal with the Lower Churchill Project, but it deals with any kind of hydro power initiative on the globe, Mr. Speaker, that this corporation will now have a mandate to get involved in.

The same with wind generated power, any kind of wind generated project, Mr. Speaker, that they may want to initiate, themselves, as a sole initiator of a business proposition, to do that, or as a partner with any company that wants to look at getting into this type of development within the Province.

The same thing with gas development, Mr. Speaker, the same thing with oil development projects, they have the autonomy to become partners, to buy into these corporations, to own shares, to own equity and so on.

It is very broad ranging in terms of what they want to do, so therefore we need to ensure that we provide for the best possible legislation within the House of Assembly, on a go-forward basis, for this corporation; because we have no idea, Mr. Speaker, ten years, fifteen years, twenty years from now, we might have a corporation here that could be the world's largest producer of solar panels – I have no idea – but that might be one of the aspects of energy development that they may want to look at.

In doing that we need to proceed very cautiously, because with each of these subsidiary companies comes an open and accountable process in terms of responding to the people of the Province, because it is our money that will be used.

As of today, this corporation has the mandate, given to them by the House of Assembly, by the government opposite in the last session of the House, the ability to borrow up to $600 million, Mr. Speaker, without coming back here for any permission, to talk about any project, to look at anything that they want to do. They have full autonomy to go out and borrow, based on government guarantees, that amount of money and to invest that into any kind of energy project that they see financially beneficial to the people of the Province at the time.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have invested ourselves as a Province. Out of our $1.4 billion surplus this year, over $300 million of that money was invested in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Energy Corporation. Over $100 million went in to offset the equity ratio within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, bringing it up and elevating it, Mr. Speaker, to a higher level, putting it on a better financial footing and giving it more stability. We do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, the other portion was to invest something like $219 million into an Energy Corporation. That money will be used as investment dollars. It is the people's money. We could have used it to do any number of initiatives in this Province. It could have been put into homecare, I guess, which is an issue we have talked a lot about. It could have been put into maintaining teachers in rural schools. It could have been put into any number of initiatives within the Province, but it was the choice of the government of the day to take the $219 million and to invest it in the new Energy Corporation that is being established. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a level of accountability for that.

I am not in favour of giving this corporation carte blanche permission to go out and do whatever they see fit and report to no one at the end of the day, nor should anyone else. It is alright to say, I am in the Cabinet, as the Minister of Justice said last week, and I will make sure that this does not happen. Well that minister may not be in the Cabinet six months from now. We have seen ministers in the last twelve months leave Cabinet pretty quickly; pretty rapidly actually. They go to bed one night and they are the top dog in the Cabinet and they get up the next morning and they are gone. Mr. Speaker, there is no assurance in that for me and I do not think that there is any assurance in that for any of the members in this House, and that is the reason why is it important that government bring forward amendments - they have proposed some today - that will ensure that there is a level of accountability here, for not only the almost $1 billion that I just talked about but the many other billions of dollars that will be earned on behalf of the stakeholders, the people of this Province, and reinvested on a annual basis over the long-term.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to look very far. The member opposite, I think it was the Minister of Tourism, was talking earlier and he talked about how this is a great deal and great for the people of the Province, setting up this Energy Corporation. Well, I say to the member that when the Churchill Falls deal was done, you go back and look at every single piece of information that was reported in 1969 and every comment made by a member, Conservative and Liberal, it was positive, because this was the best thing that ever could have happened in this Province. Churchill Falls deal: everyone is a winner. Mr. Speaker, that was all the headlines.

Do you know what they got bogged down with, Mr. Speaker? They got bogged down with having a mega project. They got bogged down with having some jobs ongoing in the Province. They got bogged down with an opportunity to earn some revenue that they did not have before. Mr. Speaker, it was those issues that took the mindset of the people of the Province and it was not the details at the time that were debated. What was debated was from the tops of the trees, Mr. Speaker. We have to be careful because I have heard a lot of members speak in the House in the last few days and they all spoke from the tops of the trees, from the fact that this is a good corporation and this is a good idea and this is our legacy piece and so on and so forth. You just cannot talk from the tops of the trees because we have seen it happen before. You have to start digging into the laws and the policies that you put around it, because, Mr. Speaker, there is surely more than one BRINCO corporation on the face of this earth and I am sure that there are many companies, and we have seen it.

We heard the Minister of Business talk a few weeks ago about how there were potential deals that could have been done with businesses. He never gave us any details. I just take the comments that he said. He said, but when we did diligence with these companies they did not meet the smell test. They did not measure up, so, Mr. Speaker, we did not spend our money. Well that was good because there were provisions in place to evaluate it, to ensure, Mr. Speaker, before you went out and invested and procured the service or introduced a new business; there was a process that was followed.

Now, maybe I might not agree with that process but obviously the minister did and he felt it did not measure up to the standard that was established. Well those kinds of provisions have to put in this bill as well. We just cannot say to ten subsidiaries of an energy corporation that you can go out and sole source contracts, participate in investments, buy equity, and buy shares on behalf of the people of this Province. Who is going to measure that up at the end of the day? Who is going to even know about it at the end of the day if the reporting mechanisms are not in place?

Mr. Speaker, while this concept generally may be a great concept and one that many have bought into in this Province as a catalyst to see new developments and new opportunities, you must not side step the fact that there are many other aspects of this that we have to look at and look at very carefully to ensure that, at the end of the day, we will have a corporation that will not, Mr. Speaker, be just a headline in a paper thirty or forty years from now, but will, in its entirety and substance, have been a good investment for the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have the amendments from government, we have provided six amendments of our own and we will take an opportunity to look at those to see if they go far enough to meeting the kinds of standards and open and accountable responsibilities that we think the corporation should measure up to. If they do, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we can work out a reasonable agreement here to have a conclusion to this passage of legislation. Until that time, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to debate the different aspects of it until we are able to come to some resolution, at least to a vote in this House of Assembly.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, it is an honour and a pleasure to get up in this House of Assembly today and to be able to debate what I consider to be a very historic moment in this particular session, and indeed in the House of Assembly, in general, throughout its years.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about bringing forth an amendment to the Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35. As the Leader of the Opposition just alluded to, this is certainly a different type of a bill. Of course we are into over thirty in this particular session, Mr. Speaker, and this one certainly stands out because of the way that we are going about our debate. There is no doubt in my mind that on both sides of the House we are on the same wavelength, that we are trying, as best that we can on both sides, to engage in a debate that will strengthen the Act, that will bring about the amendments that will protect the interests – in this case, our energy interests throughout, our resources for many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very pleased, and I would have to compliment the Minister of Natural Resources on the way that she has approached presenting this bill, and as well for the homework – and I say homework, Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher, because I know that whatever we do with regard to life, I suppose, we should always make sure that it is based upon informed decisions. Our minister, bringing forth this amendment to the Energy Corporation Act, has certainly done her homework, and has presented today, even as we listened, six amendments that she feels, in light of the debate that happened in the last number of days, that she has put forth six amendments that she believes will certainly address the concerns that were brought not only from members on this side of the House but from both of the official parties on the other side in opposition. Mr. Speaker, that is very, very encouraging. Also, I commend the Opposition members for bringing forth six amendments as well, because it shows that we are into a healthy debate, and a very important healthy debate, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, because we need to make sure that, as we move forward, we are doing this right.

You know that the intent of the bill is to bring about amendments that carry on from the creation of the new Energy Corporation, and that was brought about by the Energy Corporation Act. It is all right to put this Energy Corporation together, Mr. Speaker, but we must ensure that it is the vehicle which we are going to use to develop our energy and to create a warehouse here in this Province that is going to be comparable to anything in the world, and I say even more than comparable, Mr. Speaker. I would say it is going to be the best in the world, because we are, as the minister and the Premier has indicated, breaking new ground here in many, many different ways. Of course, this is the vehicle by which we are going to bring about the maximum benefits to the shareholders of this corporation which indeed is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that shareholders are there, of course, to make sure that any corporation is held accountable for their actions, because these shareholders are the ones that are looking to get the benefits from it. If we have, as the shareholders, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I certainly feel very, very confident that they will make sure that this corporation is truly accountable, that it is truly transparent, and that it truly carries out the wishes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is to make sure that unlike, I might add, Mr. Speaker, former deals like the Upper Churchill, that we do get the maximum benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have learned the lessons of history when it comes to making deals. Of course, that does not mean that we cannot debate. That does not mean that we cannot drill down. That does not mean that we cannot ask for amendments. As the minister has clearly indicated, we, as a government, are open to changes, even as we speak, to ensure that what the corporation is intended to bring about will indeed happen.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader took a look in the rear view as well and went back to 1968-1969. Of course, I remember a number of things about the sixties, some of which I am not going to talk about right now, but the things that I do remember with regard to politics were, I suppose: the Come Home Year in 1966, which was a great year; the Trans-Canada going across the Province, the "Finish the Drive in ‘65". We had great memories of the sixties, but also there is not anyone who lived during that time that did not have some understanding of the hopes and dreams of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with regard to the Upper Churchill development.

Of course, that was a major development in Newfoundland and Labrador and one which we feel, right up until this present day, could have been handled differently, that should have been handled differently, and that has continued to go forward as a thorn in our side as we see the billions of dollars going to Quebec in light of the fact that we get very, very little.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we do need to do that rear view mirror look and to make sure that any mistakes that were made in the past will not indeed be made in the present and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 35 is part of the balancing act to make sure that we do give this Energy Corporation the tools - the teeth, I should say - to compete in the global marketplace, to be able to carry out their mandate as to what has been given to them by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe the debate that we are having here now, and, of course, the bill that is presented, Bill 35, will indeed balance that off so we do have them being able to carry out the businesses, that the corporate structure that has been outlined will indeed allow us to carry out, or allow them to carry out, what they have been asked to do, which is to be the vehicle to make sure that maximum benefits are returned to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With regard to these amendments that we have put forth to the Energy Corporation Act, these are not necessarily reinventing a wheel, because there are all sorts of examples throughout the world whereby we can see that there are models or practices, or best practices, that we can incorporate into this bill to make sure that this corporation is able to carry out its mandate as it goes forward.

Of course, as the minister has already pointed out, there is some, I guess, reluctance on the part of the Opposition Leader to look at the homework that has been done and saying, well, it has not gone far enough. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, the homework that has been done has brought us amendments that I believe are very, very pertinent. Of course, we did not just look within Canada. There was some comparison made between British Columbia and what we are doing now. There are some other comparisons within the Canadian jurisdictions, but the minister has indicated that she was not confined just to this nation. She went worldwide and found that the more successful and best practices could be found in the international world, and she brought back that understanding, their ways of doing it, and applied it here as well.

Mr. Speaker, the end result I see is again driving home the point that the amendments are there to strengthen this act, to strengthen our position as a government, but more importantly to make sure that the amendments are going to return maximum benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, the minister certainly brought forth a very strong set of amendments into Bill 35 but she said, and as the Premier also indicated, that they were prepared to go to greater lengths and to even look at amendments while these amendments were going forward. Of course, she listened, the last couple of legislation days, to the members in the Opposition and to members in government, and from that she came back and she stood in her place today, Mr. Speaker, and, I thought, went down point by point by point of the debates that came forth over the last number of days and responded, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to each and every one of them.

Of course, there was a question on the CEO of the corporation as having the final say when it came to what sort of information would be released to the Privacy Commissioner under ATIPP, as an example. The minister came back and said that is not the picture; the CEO does not have the final say. What it is, there is a clear process and really the big thing about releasing information was to make sure that it was not commercially sensitive. That is an important consideration, because again we realize that you cannot release commercially sensitive information because it would seriously compromise the corporation's position with potential customers or potential partners. That sort of thing is just a natural given when it comes to this..

With regard to the access to the Auditor General, once again no problem with access of the AG to any of the corporate structure, in the sense of operations and such information. In the AG's case again the CEO would certainly have no final say. It would be the AG who would certainly, if he could not get the satisfaction or she could not get the satisfaction from the Chief Operating Officer, that it would come to Cabinet, that the AG would release it to the House and releasing it to the House would release it to the public.

The minister referred to, I guess, the Public Tender Act and the question as to whether the Public Tender Act should be changed to accommodate this particular energy corporation. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, again if that were the case not only would it be time sensitive but also the fact that the Public Tender Act would have to present so many exceptions that it would become inconsequential with regard to the type of projects and work that have been done. Again, there is an assurance, Mr. Speaker, that with, I guess, procurement practices with regard to this corporation that they would be certainly open and transparent, that they would be seeking best value, open competition, and it would be monitored and evaluated as well.

The other aspect about the Public Tender Act, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we want to make sure that we have the Principles of Adjacency with regard to local involvement. Through this process we would ensure that at least the maximum benefits would accrue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When it came to the Public Tender Act again the amendment would clearly indicate that where it would be appropriate the Public Tender Act could be invoked. There is provision made for that as well.

With regard to other aspects of it, what came forth from the minister was six amendments. Two were looked at as housekeeping and four came about as a result of the debate here. I would say to the members of the House, and certainly to the general public, that this has been fleshed out as good as it can be in any debate. I am very, very confident in moving forward as we continue this debate, as we get to where we need to be in order to ensure once again maximum benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On those words, Mr. Speaker - I am sure I might have another opportunity - I will leave it at that.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand and to continue in the debate that is going on with regard to Bill 35.

I was very pleased this afternoon when the Minister of Natural Resources took time to go through the various points of debate that have been raised in the House so far, all of them important points of debate and I thank her for that. I am also pleased that she has presented some amendments to try to deal with some of the issues that have been raised in debate. Dare I say that maybe they will not be the only ones, maybe more will have to happen. We will see as the debate goes on.

I am struck today by the extreme importance of the debate that we are having, because yes, indeed, this is a historic moment. I know that last spring, when we passed the Energy Corporation Act, we were all involved in doing that, or those of us who were sitting in the House at the time were involved in doing that last spring. It struck me then how important that Act was, that what we were creating with this Energy Corporation was a major institution and we were getting into a whole new field of endeavour as a government. It struck me then: wow, this is big!

When we look at the objects of the corporation - and I know the minister went through these today when she was making her presentation, but I think it is okay to refer to them again to remind us the objects of the corporation are massive. With the creation of this corporation, we are getting into a field on a level where we have never operated before, because we are into development, generation, production, transmission, distribution, deliveries, supply, sale, expert purchase and use of power from many, many areas, almost all the ways that power can be generated.

We are also committing ourselves, through this corporation, to the exploration for development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of hydro carbons and products from hydro carbons.

We are also committing ourselves to research and development through this corporation and to the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of energy related products and services.

In other words, we are entering, through this corporation, into the whole industry of oil and gas and the complexity of that is something that is really striking me today, probably more so than it did even a year ago when I thought it was pretty big what we were doing.

When I talk about the complexity I see that complexity on many levels, the complexity of just the whole structure of having a public corporation that is under government and yet has to be free to operate as a corporation, a corporation that is in a field where it too has to be able to make money, not for the sake of profit for individual shareholders but for the sake of the government owned, the public corporation, and for the sake of everybody in the Province. It has to make money.

The complexity of the whole structure that is being proposed is striking me today as well with regard to the subsidiaries and how you maintain the tension between subsidiaries that are not going to be agents, except for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro at this moment. We have seen the amendment that is speaking to that. At the moment, the majority of the subsidiaries are seen as not being agents of the Crown. That complexity of them being Crown Corporations, yet at the same time having freedom from the Crown in order to be sure that the Crown does not have liability for what they do as companies, the complexity of that is amazing. To see us here, like last Thursday and today, trying to deal with those complexities in this situation is no joking matter. I think about the old story that some of us know of an elephant that is put together by a committee, and we have to be very careful that we are not creating something that is not going to be able to work.

Obviously, what we are saying here on the floor and the things we are doing is not the essence of the work that is going on. I would imagine there are probably hundreds of people outside of this room who are working on this legislation, and that has to be. The work that they are doing and the expertise that they have is absolutely essential to us coming up with the legislation, but at the same time we have a responsibility as the people on this floor of the House to make sure that what they come up with really does meet the needs of the people and of the Crown. That is the serious responsibility that we have. I think that is why we have all agreed to a suspension of the rules of discussion both for last Thursday and again today and I suspect for as long as we need to, so that we can have as open a discussion as possible without the restriction of the rules of the House so that we really can explore, because we recognize how serious it is. I think we all do. I do not think any of us are joking about that. We know how serious it is, and when we raise questions it is not questions to be obstructionist; it is questions to really try to get clarity, to try to understand what it is that we are dealing with, because we do have a responsibility, and the questions that we are asking are questions to make sure that everything is absolutely as clear as it can possibly be.

I am not ready yet, I will be before the evening is out, I am not ready yet to address the amendments that have been brought forward, obviously, because we just received them about an hour ago, and I have both the amendments from the Minister of Natural Resources as well as the amendments that are being suggested from the Official Opposition. I have to sit, along with my small staff, and look at those amendments, and look at them in the light of what already is an amendment - the bill that we are dealing with is an amendment to the act - to look at them in the light of that amendment and to have something further to say about them when we come back this evening. I will be able to do that.

In talking about the complexity of what we are dealing with, some would say, well, we already have Crown corporations; but, it is one thing to have a Crown corporation like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which manages a utility, and to have a Crown corporation that is at the heart of an industry, and an industry that is very, very powerful, and an industry that has such an international dimension to it.

While I am not going to speak to the amendments, there are a couple of things that the minister mentioned when she was talking earlier, and I guess I will put them out just to sort of explore where my mind is going at the moment, and to sort of suggest where I might be headed when I speak further. It is some of the things I want to explore for myself, and be able to speak further on, later on, but I do notice that in the suggested amendments that have come forward from the government, in talking about procurement – and this is an issue that I am concerned about, and I really appreciated the minister coming up with her comments on it, and an amendment dealing with it – I just want to write a word down now, so I do not forget a thought that I just had – what this clause recognizes, in the amendments that have been brought forward, the amendments to the bill, what they acknowledge is that there are recognized procurement principles in this industry. These are not secrets. These are recognized. They are there. They are best practices. What this amendment is suggesting - that the corporation shall develop and adopt procurement principles that follow best industry practices for procurement and contracting, including transparent supplier development, monitoring and reporting, and those principles shall apply to the corporation and its subsidiaries - that speaks rather directly to an issue I raised on Thursday, because my question was, well, what does happen out there? What do the other Crown corporations do, whether we are talking about Denmark or Norway? What are the principles that they operate out of? I am assuming that is what this is getting at.

Now, I will have more questions around that later on, but just to name one area that has struck me in particular, because the way it was happening was, all we had was a statement that the Public Tender Act would not apply, and that was it, and that was not adequate.

Now, I have questions about how this will work, but that is another issue, and I will not go into that detail now, but this is recognizing something that I was trying to get at. Yes, there are practices out there. Yes, they may not call it public tendering, but there are procurement practices that are recognized on an international level among all these big players. What are those procurement practices, and how do they play out?

I think that we, as the representatives here on this floor, and the public want to know what those practices are, so that we are not saying this is a secret society, the society of oil and gas industry. It is not a secret society. It does have open and transparent ways of operating. While you might have private companies who do not have to be, you certainly have Crown corporations involved in this industry. We are not the first ones who will have a Crown corporation involved. So, what are those practices? What are the principles? Let us acknowledge that they exist, and I think that is something that will get at the concern that I have and that others have with regard to that.

As I said, I am not quite ready to speak to the specifics of the amendments yet. I will, later on this evening, be ready to do that.

I was also interested when the minister spoke to the fact that she mentioned that she, I guess, and government in general, did take seriously the suggestion that I made last week with regard to the Energy Corporation having a subsidiary that would actually deal with energy efficiency, and to have that as a separate company so that it can focus on those items. I am really delighted; I was delighted to hear the minister say that. Now, I understand that the way she put it was - and I may want to ask more questions about this later - that the government would be wanting to make recommendations to the Energy Corporation with regard to a subsidiary that would deal with energy efficiency, and I guess, as a shareholder in the Energy Corporation, that is probably the only way the government can do it. As I said, I will ask more about that later.

I am glad to hear that suggestion was taken seriously. I think it really is a way to go, and it is a way of showing how important energy efficiency is. The recognition that the Energy Corporation cannot probably take on those separate pieces of projects, almost - not that energy efficiency is a project, but in the light of all of the pieces of work that are being talked about as the mandate of the Energy Corporation - to recognize that, having subsidiaries to deal with, separate major pieces is the way to go. I am really glad that the government is going to pursue that notion of a separate subsidiary of the Energy Corporation for energy efficiency.

I agree with the minister in talking about having to give the corporation the tools to proceed, but we also have to make sure that the corporation has the tools both to proceed as a company, to proceed in a highly competitive culture of oil and gas development and production, to proceed in being successful in that industry, and yet also to succeed as a Crown corporation, to succeed in being accountable to government and to being accountable to the people who basically own the Crown corporation. This is not easy. Doing that is not easy.

The responsibility of government right now, and the responsibility of all of us here in this House of Assembly, is to try to come to an understanding of how those two responsibilities can work together. It is not just a responsibility to the corporation so that it is free to proceed as a business in this highly competitive culture, it is also a responsibility to the people of the Province that what is being done is being done responsibly for them as well and for the future of the Province. I know we all want that and we all recognize it, but that is why we have to work together in making sure that, to the degree possible, every i is dotted and every t is crossed in this amendment that we are doing. It does not mean that changes cannot be made. I think anything like this is a work in progress. We started with a bill a year ago which was the first step in that process and now we are going through another step in that process. Even as we are doing that, we are making amendments. Discussions are leading to other amendments. I think that shows the complexity of what we are dealing with.

I do not know how long these amendments were worked on, but even the minds who worked on these amendments are back there listening to us and listening to the discussion and they are saying: oh yeah, that is something we did not think about, or if we did, maybe we did not think seriously enough and now we are going to think further on it and there is an amendment that can be made.

It is a work in progress, and we have to make sure that we are not rushing that work in progress because if we rush it we may be sorry down the road. We want to make sure, even though it is a work in progress, that no step is rushed. I am glad we are taking the time that we are taking to make sure that that does not happen. I think, Mr. Speaker, I will leave my comments there for the moment and I look forward to speaking further in the debate.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like many of the previous speakers, I am certainly pleased to rise today and have the opportunity to participate in this debate and this discussion of a very important piece of legislation that is before us.

Certainly, it is a crossroads in many perspectives for us here, as a government, providing leadership in the Province, a crossroads towards resource management and how we approach the management of our resources and the development of our resources. One of the things that we have always been committed to as a government is to focus on the future. I think that this is not only a new approach but it is presenting new ground. We are breaking new ground as we move forward.

Some of my colleagues have used the term ‘an historic debate' and I guess I have not participated in many debates here in the House up to this point in time, but certainly from my perspective it is an historic debate as well, because it is going to lay a different direction, a new direction for the future for us in this Province, in how we look at our resources and how we manage our resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the legislation, but before I do I just want to talk a little bit about some of the direction that we have taken as a government and some of the approach that we have applied to all of the decisions that we try and make here in providing leadership to the Province. As we witnessed in the recent Budget, we have always tried to have a balanced approach with respect to our decision-making, in terms of budgeting in particular, as we look at debt reduction, but also investing in the people of the Province and the programs and services that we deliver.

I guess it is with that comment in mind that I say this is certainly a new approach that we are trying to take here. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us would acknowledge that, as a government, it is important that we, in planning for the future and in making decisions for the future, learn from our past mistakes. I certainly believe that this legislation today not only represents a new approach to how we are going to do things but it represents, I think, a learning of past mistakes that have been made in this Province.

I do encourage all members to participate in the debate, Mr. Speaker, and to add their view and their commentary to how they see things proceeding and what they are hearing from their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, as many of my colleagues have already acknowledged, that we do put forward the best possible legislation that we can as we debate the whole Energy Corporation piece and the amendments to the Energy Corporation Act. It is important that we put the best possible legislation forward. It is important as well, Mr. Speaker, that the input of all members be considered and we have heard acknowledgements, I think, over the last number of speakers, from all sides of the House, that they are seeing a willingness by government to listen and entertain suggestions for change that might improve on the current legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is just reflective of the priority that we have, as a government, which is certainly that we only have one priority and that is to protect the interests of the people of the Province, and it is with that priority in mind that this legislation is being brought forward.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to say in that train of thought, as my colleague from Burin-Placentia West said, everybody recognizes, any time you bring forward a piece of legislation that opens up the kind of debate that this one has, there are no guarantees. We all recognize that. There are no guarantees about what is going to happen in the future, and the Leader of the Opposition alluded to that a few moments ago, but we do know, Mr. Speaker, a couple of things. One is that we want to do the best that we possibly can do for the people of the Province, and that is what we are trying to represent in this legislation. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that any time we are entertaining and considering big decisions, decisions like we are debating here today, big decisions mean higher risk, and that, I suppose, is what is generating a lot of debate that we are hearing here today; but also, Mr. Speaker, with big decisions and higher risk come a greater possibility for greater success, higher success, and greater returns on the resource management for the future.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is coming, I think, that is evident in this commitment to this legislation, or is demonstrated, I should say, in this legislation, first of all, is the political commitment that is being met. Our government has committed in the recent election, and many times since, that we want to maximize the benefits from our resources. That has been the first and number one priority with respect to resource management, to maximize the benefit of the resources for the people of this Province, and it has been part of the Energy Plan that was released some time ago by the Minister of Natural Resources.

I say, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is guiding our Energy Plan and guiding the thinking of members of government today is that we want to avoid the past mistakes, and I will mention one that has been mentioned many times, Mr. Speaker, just several days ago by the minister, around the Upper Churchill and the 2007 profits for the Province of Quebec, $1.4 billion, and for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, $67 million. I say that is not good enough. It is not good enough for us as a government; we do not accept that. We want to learn from that, and we want to make sure that, to the extent possible, every single benefit that we can accrue for the people of this Province is accrued. That is where the Energy Plan is coming from. That is where the amendments are coming from, to make sure that we get the best that we possibly can. It is important, as I have said a couple of times, that we make sound business decisions. We are going to compete in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, and it is important that we make sound business decisions and we position ourselves to be able to compete.

People, Mr. Speaker, often have to make choices. I would submit to you that the people's preference today would be to support the legislation that is coming forward with any particular amendments that are needed to strengthen it and to tighten it up. Mr. Speaker, I would submit to you that people, if they had a choice between the past giveaways that we have seen in this Province versus the choices we are about to make that will lead us on the road to prosperity, I would say, Mr. Speaker, it is the latter that they would choose. We want to avoid the past giveaways.

If it is a choice, Mr. Speaker, between bad deals and poor returns, as I just highlighted with the Churchill deal, or if it is a choice to see success, increased revenues, investment in programs and services, and investment in people in the Province, then I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the choice would be the latter, that people want to see us make choices for success, choices that invest in people, in services, and in the development of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased, as a member of this House and MHA for the District of Grand Bank, to support the Energy Corporation bill and to support the amendments that are proposed by the minister. I am certainly pleased to be able to have a few minutes here to talk about that today. As I said before, I think it is important that all members voice their position on this issue, and make sure the public is aware of where you stand.

Mr. Speaker, just by way of a quick summary, I suppose, the Energy Corporation, as I said before, was established as part of our political commitment in the Blue Book. It was established to make sure that we maximize the benefits for the people of the Province, to maximize the benefits of our resources for the people of the Province. It has been a key part of our plan, a key plan of the vision for the future, for the management of resources and development of resources, and certainly that has been the premise upon which the corporation was established.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us would agree, or I hope all of us would agree, as we talk about pursuing energy development, not only in terms of the particular developments that are on the horizon right now but any other new developments that might come on the horizon, whether it is alternate energies or wind development, Mr. Speaker, for example, like is occurring in my own district, in the community of St. Lawrence right now, I think everybody would agree that we need to give the corporation a strong mandate to not only protect the resources that we have but to go hard to develop the resources that are out there untouched right now for the betterment of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With respect to the current legislation, Mr. Speaker, certainly through my reading and through the briefings that we have been provided, and my own careful consideration, I do applaud the minister and all those who have been a part of developing the legislation. There has certainly been an extensive amount of time and energy and research gone into this, not only internally, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but there has been external analysis throughout Canada and throughout other jurisdictions in the world, and it has involved, Mr. Speaker, many, many experts who have had input into this.

It is not a piece of legislation that has been drafted in a corner by two or three people who do not know a lot about what they are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about people who work at this for a living. We are talking about professionals and experts who have been doing this for a living for many, many years, so I certainly have a lot of faith, Mr. Speaker, in the process that has been employed to develop this piece of legislation, and I certainly have a lot of faith in the intent of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about accountability in this debate, by members of the Opposition, a lot of talk about whether or not we are being too secretive, or the potential for being too secretive in this, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make a couple of comments, first of all, with respect to the accountability. As I have considered carefully the things that I wanted to say, and what is included in the legislation, I certainly see a great deal of accountability, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the role of the Auditor General, and the Transparency and Accountability Act, and the ATIPP Act, the Freedom of Information, and I have listened intently today to the minister as she has highlighted a number of amendments intended to strengthen what we currently have there. I certainly think people can take some solace, Mr. Speaker, and be comforted in that this is going to be an important piece of legislation; it is going to be a tight piece of legislation that will protect the interests of the people of the Province - there is no question about that – but I think the other thing that is important, Mr. Speaker, for people to know, is that this legislation will give this corporation the ability and the flexibility, for the first time in our history, to compete with private enterprise, Mr. Speaker. That is very significant, because most of our history is focused on Crown corporations, public corporations, trying to compete through a government philosophy with private corporations who operate in a significantly different environment than we are used to. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that have been debated very often here is the whole issue of commercially sensitive information, and I want to touch on that for a moment because I think it is critically important.

One of the things that perhaps we have not done in our Province by many, many governments is recognized how the business world operates and what it takes for us to be competitive with the business world and what it takes for us to be able to negotiate and get the best deal for the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, it is not about being secretive. It is not about not wanting to share information in this House. I would submit to you that some people believe that all information respecting dealings on behalf of the people should be made public and laid out before this House. While I do not disagree with that in principle, I think it is important to recognize that you cannot always have it both ways. If the focus of our people and the focus of our government is to maximize the benefits from our resources by competing with private enterprise then we have to give the corporation the tools and the flexibility and the mandate to succeed. That means, in some respects, Mr. Speaker, shifting away from some manners in which we have done business in the past. It means we cannot always do things the way we have done them. Consider, for example, as the old saying goes, if we always do things the way we have always done them then why would we ever expect to get results any different than we have always gotten.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this piece of legislation and the intent of the commercially sensitive information being protected is extremely important in giving the corporation the flexibility to succeed and giving them the mandate to be able to work with private enterprise and big oil companies who are out there competing; competing, I might add, to get every ounce of money they possibly can out of this Province and every stretch of revenue they possible can from our resources. That is what they are trying to do. They have shareholders as well who want to make money, but at the same time we have to have someone on our side, the Energy Corporation, who is going to do the same thing for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot set them up to fail, Mr. Speaker, we have to provide legislation that gives them the tools and mandate to do that.

 

Mr. Speaker, back to my previous comments around the whole issue of commercially sensitive legislation, I say to the members of the Opposition who are talking and using language, probably fear mongering language in some respects, that we are trying to hide things, we are trying to mislead the public, we are trying to restrict public debate, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the legislation that has been laid out by government and laid out by the Premier and the minister is very clear, it is to arm the Energy Corporation with the tools and the flexibility and the mandate it needs to act on behalf of the people of this Province; plain and simple. There are lots of stopgaps built in through the role of the Auditor General to ensure the people of the Province are protected and the resource of the Province, belonging to the people of the Province, is protected. There is no question about that.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, as a government that we take not only responsibility for our decisions but that we provide strong leadership and strong vision, and I think that is what this piece of legislation is showing us today.

I say, Mr. Speaker, relative to a number of comments around the debate from members opposite, members of the Opposition, I should say, opposite, with respect to asking questions for clarity, I think the Leader of the NDP used that comment a few moments ago when she made two comments. One, Mr. Speaker, was that her questions are intended for clarity and not to obstruct. Well I say, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that because our intent as a government is not to obstruct either but it is to bring forward legislation that is in the best interests of the people of the Province.

I certainly say, Mr. Speaker, based on comments made by the Minister of Natural Resources today, I say to you and say to the people who are listening, that we are listening. The minister has introduced - I am not sure of the number - five, six, seven, eight amendments today, I believe, Mr. Speaker, amendments to the legislation as a result of feedback we have heard from members opposite, members of the Liberal Party and the NDP Party. We are listening. I think we are demonstrating that we are willing to make changes, Mr. Speaker, as they are needed. We are willing to entertain their suggestions and to make changes, changes around procurement, subsidiaries and the Public Tender Act, the reporting of the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker; all amendments brought forward today by the Minister of Natural Resources which demonstrates and highlights that we are listening and we are interested in hearing what all members in the House have to say and doing what we can to tighten the legislation.

As the Leader of the Opposition, the MHA for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, has said, Mr. Speaker, her interest is getting the best legislation possible. On that I think we will all agree. That is the entire focus of this debate here.

The other comment that was made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is that it is an important debate because we have - I will not say quote because I am not sure I am exact - but we have no idea what will happen in the future. Mr. Speaker, all of us agree with that. None of us know what is going to happen in the future. If we did we might not need this debate here today. What we do know, Mr. Speaker, is what has happened in the past. We do know the decisions that have been made by previous governments in the past as the figures I just highlighted a few moments ago on the Churchill deal. We do know the decisions of the past and we do know the injustices that have been done to the people all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. On this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we do know that that is not where we want to be in the future.

This debate, this legislation, the whole focus is to get us to a point where we are better positioned to anticipate the future, Mr. Speaker, we are better positioned to anticipate the future and be prepared to respond accordingly so that we are doing what is in the best interests of the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am extremely pleased to participate in this debate today. I am pleased to hear the members opposite adding to the debate and certainly pleased to have the opportunity to add my comments in support of the amendments tabled by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today on a bill that I think holds the greatest of hope and the greatest of promise for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I feel privileged, like many of the people who stood before me, and honoured to be able to speak to this particular bill. Never did I think that I would be here speaking to something as historic as this, but I indeed take this as a privilege and as an honour and something that I accept with a great deal of responsibility.


Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this debate out in a couple of different areas and then try to pull those threads back together later to weave them into what I think is a clear picture of why I need to stand and support this particular bill.

I want to start by talking about the process of discernment that brought me to this House in the first place. It was a matter of actually being at home, being very comfortable as the Deputy Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor and very happy with that particular role when people started coming forward to ask me to run for the PC Party, to seek election on their behalf and to represent their views. In doing that I thought the basic premise of what will decide this for me is, can I make a difference for the people who I represent, can I bring forward their views, but more importantly, can I make a difference to them.

As I started to examine that I looked at the policies of various governments and in this PC Government, and particularly with this leader, I was able to see policies and I was able to see frameworks that would, in fact, make a difference for the people of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, because mine is a district that I think is a little bit different. It is not going to benefit directly from oil and gas. It is, perhaps, not going to benefit directly from many of the things that this Energy Corporation will propose. Hydro electricity I will talk about again in a second. Generally speaking, there will not be jobs in my district for this. Mine is a district that is different. It is a mining district, and in that sense we are looking at Teck Cominco's development out there, $6 million generated by Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, by the people who work in that area. It is a project worth $172 million in investment.

I look at my district and I see that the aquaculture industry runs right through Grand Falls–Windsor, from the Springdale–Triton area down through the Connaigre Peninsula, so we in my district service that industry as well. There have been many procurement sessions that have told us how we can service that industry out there.

Of course, we have been the beneficiaries for more than 100 years now of a newsprint industry out there that spills some $38 million into our economy and pays out hundreds of millions more every year in the sense of spinoff jobs.

That is a little background on what my district looks like, but again my ultimate question was, how can I make a difference? Well, Mr. Speaker, we service about 100,000 people from Grand Falls–Windsor, and 100,000 people represents one-fifth of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to look at what their real needs are, and there are needs in my district in terms of health care. We need improved facilities. We need renovations to the hospital out there, to the labs, to the surgical units. Education, as well; we service, as I said, one-fifth of the population in terms of post-secondary education as well. I am happy to see that many of the issues that we had around education and post-secondary education have been looked after through Budget 2008. We are looking at diversifying our economy out there as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, again I say that when I looked at the decision to run, I said, how can I improve those needs in a service-centred district such as Grand Falls–Windsor–Buchans? How can I make a difference so that things will be achieved in terms of their needs? That decision was really made easy, again, when I started to look at the basic policies and values of this government, because I was able to hear and see and feel a real hope and a real possibility for the future, predictions of becoming masters of our own destinies and leaders in our own right, and they resonated with the residents of my district, Mr. Speaker, and they told us so on October 9, that they liked the leadership that we are being provided with, that they liked the direction that we are taking. Therefore, they saw great hope as well.

Our polling today tells us the same thing: this government is a very well–respected government. It is a government that has shown a great confidence in its ability to guide and to move this Province forward, to achieve those goals and objectives, and to define our destiny. People like that forward-looking, outward-looking, innovative, creative approach to charting our future. We want a viable, sustainable future for generations to come. I want to be able to encourage my children to stay home and to tell them that there will be jobs here. I want to encourage my relatives to come back, because there will be jobs here, and I want to get rid of that negative image that says there is no reason to stay here; you might as well look elsewhere.

I want to get rid of that, and I believe that we now have some tangible results of that hopeful future, Mr. Speaker. We have the lowest personal income tax in Atlantic Canada, for the first time ever now, putting $75 million back into our pockets. Our unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in twenty-six years. Our personal income is experiencing real growth for the first time.

Mr. Speaker, under the capable and visionary direction of our Premier, and of the Minister of Finance, I do believe that we are on the cusp of becoming that have Province, a concept that my parents could only have dreamed of.

Mr. Speaker, we are a new Newfoundland and Labrador today, and events of our past have to be put behind us but we also have to learn from them. In my district there is an event that I need to mention, that we have to learn from, and that particular event is the one known as Star Lake.

Star Lake was one of our precious resources for my district and, Mr. Speaker, it was given away. It was given outright to a private company, Abitibi-Consolidated, now AbitibiBowater. With the stroke of a pen, the resources of our people, a valuable resource know as Star Lake, is no more available to us. Today, a hydro facility has been built on that lake at an estimated value of $10 million worth of power, that is not in any way connected to the production of paper at the Grand Falls-Windsor mill, and that, Mr. Speaker, is shameful. That should never be allowed to happen again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Star Lake, Mr. Speaker, is a cash cow for the shareholders of AbitibiBowater, the people who reside in Montreal and Quebec City and New York and Arizona. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador? No, Sir, not one penny. Again, I say, for the people who live adjacent to Star Lake to watch their money be put into the pockets of shareholders from afar is a very, very difficult thing to look at and it is something we have to learn from. That disaster, disasters like Upper Churchill, should never happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our government, I believe that this Premier, and I believe that this Minister of Natural Resources, want to do business in a different way. They want to use our natural resources and develop them for the good of the shareholders, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The basic premise of their operation is really quite simple; it is not complicated. We want to develop our natural resources to achieve maximum benefit for every resident of this Province so that we have that future that is bright and sustainable and prosperous and exemplary, so that we have a future that is built on pride and sound decision-making and insight and vision and concern again for the primary stakeholders. I think we need a chorus of saying it: The primary stakeholders are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We do not want to see any more mismanaged deals. We do not want to see any more Star Lakes, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to the development of our resources, we want to see maximum returns, maximum profits, maximum dividends accrue to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that results are the best measures of accountability, and I believe that we will see huge results through the megaprojects that the Energy Corporation will undertake on our behalf. Those projects are the ones that will allow us to pay for the health care services we all want to provide to our districts. Those projects, Sir, will help us to develop the educational facilities that we need and want, and the roads and municipal infrastructures that we need and want and deserve . Through the process of achieving these goals we will ensure public accountability, because we are a responsible government, because we are a government who listens.

I think we displayed that here today. The Minister of Natural Resources stood and said: I listened to the debate. I heard you questions. I have acknowledged that some very good points have been brought forward, and I am prepared to work with you on amendments to some of the points that you have brought forward.

We are, Sir, a very responsible government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: There has been much discussion around the issue of accountability and I appreciate and understand the Opposition's concern in this regard. I think it would be irresponsible of us not to listen to this debate, one of the most historic events ever to take place in this House of Assembly. It would be irresponsible and so I eagerly listened.

I have done some reading of some of the things that were presented to us last Thursday and I have examined the process a little bit myself, because, Mr. Speaker, I want to be part of making the right decision here. Nobody here wants to make a decision that years down the road will be shown as being the wrong decision. We all want to make that right decision.

I was home this weekend, Mr. Speaker, as I do every weekend and I went to the Cancer Relay For Life event. Mr. Speaker, if ever you want to see people who believe in hope, who believe in pushing forward, those cancer survivors are able to help show us the way. I listened to their comments and their comments were much as we have heard here many times in the last two days of debate. Their comments were, whatever you can do to make this Province a Province of hope, whatever you can do to show future viability, to bring our families home, that is what we need to do here.

Having examined the information and listened to the information presented by the Minister of Natural Resources, having listened to the information presented by the Department of Justice and our Minister of Justice with regard to the legal opinions and having listened, as well, to the experience garnered from other jurisdictions, not just nationally but internationally, I feel that the accountability we are looking for will be provided for. There will be an annual report, there will be an annual general meeting, there will be a consolidated, audited financial statement, and as well, the Auditor General will be able to review and audit the Energy Corporation and provide recommendations. The Auditor General will be able to alert the Lieutenant-Governor in Council if he suspects any wrongdoing and the Auditor General will be able to inform this House of that concern.

Mr. Speaker, we are about to embark upon a journey through this new Energy Corporation that will see the creation of a future focused vehicle, an economic passport, as my colleague from Placentia–St. Mary's called it, that can achieve for us the futures that we all want and, Mr. Speaker, the futures we all deserve in this Province. To do this, we have to give the corporation the tools necessary to achieve that success in a competitive environment that is different from most in which we have played. We have to give them the tools necessary to encourage and entice major partnerships with corporations around the world and that will put us on the map in ways that we have never existed before.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for this piece of legislation and I will be voting with a happy, confident, buoyant, hopeful heart that sees a future for my children and perhaps maybe one day my grandchildren, that sees a Province that is healthy and prosperous and full of promise.

This Energy Corporation offers us all the futures that we were only able to dream of. It is not a windfall, Mr. Speaker, it is the result of hard work. It is the result of vision and an understanding of how the business world functions. It is the result of a government and a leader that knows how to operate in a competitive business environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is driven by a desire to make a history statement the likes of which has not been made since Cabot first came ashore and declared this to be a new found land. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we are a new Newfoundland today with new found hope, with a new found spirit and with a new found pride. Mr. Speaker, supporting this bill just makes sense.

In raising my children I have always told them that life is about choices and that generally speaking there are two options. We can sometimes have little tweakings of those options or little amendments to those options, but generally speaking it is pretty clear. We have two options and in this case I believe the same. We have two options, we can look at the status quo, same old, same old, sense of reticence, sense of waffling, not sure, better not do that approach, accepting mediocrity as being good enough, or, Mr. Speaker, we can look at what I call the carpe diem approach, the seize the day, the seize the opportunity approach.

Mr. Speaker, the time has never been better to move ahead with the development of our natural resources. The stage has been set and the actors in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, are amongst the most competent, the most hard working, intelligent, impassioned players ever to have been assembled. We just need to give them the final script, an opportunity to go and negotiate for us the deals that can transform us into a province that will be the envy of this entire nation and that will provide for each Newfoundlander and Labradorian a future that we all want a piece of to bring back to our districts. I said I would try to pick up the threads and bring it back to one image and that is it. What do I want to bring back to my district from this deal? I want to bring back the security of a future that can provide the best of health care, that can provide the best of roads and municipal infrastructure, and that can provide the best in terms of educational opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve no less. This Energy Corporation has the potential to lead us to that prosperity and to that future. I know, very clearly, which of the two choices I will make.

Thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am just going to take a few minutes, because when my colleagues are out back negotiating and going over the amendments I have been noted in my lifetime to put many things off of the rails, so I so not want to put anything off of the rails here this evening.

I do want to make a few comments, because I have listened, with great interest, as we started debate on Bill 35, and, I guess, last week listened to the minister as she went through her explanations as to why. We all know Bill 28. I think it was the spring session last year when we discussed that. If I am not mistaken, the hon. Opposition supported that piece of legislation at that time. Mr. Speaker, we know what is being done here has to be done. I think many of the hon. members have mentioned so far, on both the Opposition and the government side, saying that we do not want to see what happened in the past with one particular deal, and I will get into that a little later one.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that the minister today stood in her place and stated that some of the amendments that have arisen through the negotiations and talks last week here in this hon. House have been considered. I believe she is putting forward, if I am not mistaken, five or six amendments. I know the Official Opposition have also put forward five or six amendments and that is being reviewed now, and hopefully, before too long a time, that an agreement can be come to, that the concerns that were put forward by the Opposition, on behalf of individuals throughout the Province who have called us, that we will be able to say that everything is fine with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, like many hon. members have mentioned, no doubt about it, this is a history-making piece of legislation and I guess from time to time throughout our history we have seen several other pieces of legislation similar. What has to be done, Mr. Speaker, we want it done to the fullest, that any concerns that are brought forward will be dealt with, and the minister and the Premier, over the last couple of days, have seen to that, and the various issues that have been brought forward, they have agreed that they will review them. From time to time both the minister and the Premier have stepped forward and consulted with the Opposition on where they may be going from here.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the issues that are brought forward, there have been concerns and they have been mentioned on both sides of the House, but we know that there has been considerable consultation done, not only within our Province but throughout our country and even other countries of the world, and that has been noted by the minister as well.

Mr. Speaker, some of the issues that were brought forward were, I guess, the annual general meetings, the information that could be provided to the Auditor General or the Citizens' Representative, and the Public Tender Act. All of this has been explained, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: My hon. colleagues are telling me about the clock, but I was told we are closing at 5:30 so I guess I will keep going for another few minutes.

MS BURKE: Take all the time you want.

MR. BUTLER: Take all the time I want.

I thank the hon. Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, we have also heard the minister explain the issues that have been brought forward when it comes to clarification on the commercially sensitive information. That was one of the key issues, I guess, that has been brought forward. My hon. colleagues now are going over those various issues.

I guess we all saw the piece in the paper, and lots of times we talk about the Opposition bringing up issues just for the sake of bringing them up, but I read with tremendous interest the Information Commissioner's comments in the paper. I think his comments were, and I will quote: Oh, my God!

I guess that is where a lot of the people call us for clarification. First when they saw it, they just took it for granted what was there and just wanted clarification on it.

Nobody in this Province, and I can assure you the members in the Opposition do not want to see the figures happen again what were announced and quoted here by hon. colleagues on both sides of the House with regard to the Upper Churchill: $19 billion as versus $68 million.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill is all about, not only with our water power but any other energies that may come on stream in the future.

Mr. Speaker, there have been good projects. I do not think for a minute that everything has been a giveaway. We have three oil fields that are operating today. I believe, personally - I know a lot has been said, but there hasn't been much done about it since the new Administration came on - with the Voisey's Bay deal, that was another historic moment here in this hon. House of Assembly back a few years ago, Mr. Speaker.

Many times we hear the comments that the Opposition are just bringing up issues for the sake of bringing them up, just totally against anything that is brought forward by the government, but I think, through this session of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, that is deniable, because I thought some hon. colleagues mentioned this week that we went through some thirty-five to forty pieces of legislation, and we are down to the last two or three now. I believe that the Opposition and government are working together to see that the best interests of the people of this Province are dealt with, Mr. Speaker.

It is like I said earlier, with regard to some of the legislation, I do not have a legal background, like some hon. colleagues here, and yourself, Mr. Speaker, but in listening to other people we learn the issues, we learn what is going on and what is the best way to put it forward; because, as I look around this hon. House, we come from all walks of life.

There are members who have gotten up and said they were fishermen, others were teachers, construction workers. Between us all, I think we bring the interests of the people here to this hon. House, and no doubt, this piece of legislation will be an historic moment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I heard, I think it was the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, last week, when she was having her speech on the debate, and she said there were two issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a member!

MR. BUTLER: I agree she is an hon. member.

There were two issues, she said, and I cannot help - the comment that she made about the Toronto Maple Leafs, because some of those major projects could take many years, and I think Toronto is going to win the cup before some of those projects come to reality.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there are other debates that have taken place. I will always remember, even though we were on the government side, the debate that took place on the Voisey's Bay deal. That was a time, I guess, when many things were brought forward by the Opposition of the day with regard to the Voisey's Bay deal.

We have heard that there were so many loopholes you could drive transport trucks through it, but since this Administration took office – that is five years ago – I hear so many good things about Voisey's Bay, and I am sure the people of Labrador have and will continue to benefit from the Voisey's Bay deal, and hopefully when the facility is built here on the Island portion it will be a tremendous thing for us all.

I know, back at that time, I made some statements that I got ridiculed for in the newspapers, and that goes with it, but I remember coming here to this hon. House when the Premier of the day, I guess, was the Opposition Leader, when he wanted a total debate here in the House with regard to the Statement of Principles, before the final deal was inked, and some hon. members here now were here at that time, and he wanted to have a good debate about it. It was a debate just on that issue alone, and each and every member at that time was given the opportunity to go back to their districts to get the feedback from their constituents and come here. I guess every individual voted. It was a free vote, and everyone voted. That was some of the concern that I have now, that some of the people say, well, will that happen with Hebron, will it happen with the Lower Churchill deal, that, before the final thing is inked, that type of a debate will take place here in the House of Assembly?

Mr. Speaker, hopefully that will happen. I cannot say that today, but those are some of the issues that have been brought forward by constituents and so on. Mr. Speaker, that was a good debate in itself, and I believe to this very day that it was an historic event. I remember one of the meetings that we had; we went outside of St. John's. There were, I don't know, some thirty-odd members then, I guess, on the government side. We had a meeting that started around lunchtime and went to the wee hours of the morning, trying to decide, each and every one of us on the government side at the time, did we agree with what was happening?

At that time I know there were five or six issues that came forward and we were supposed to, I guess, agree between ourselves, would we proceed? I remember very clearly the Premier of the day - someone said: Boys, look, it is time for us to make up our minds what we are going to do here with this deal - the Premier of the day said: We are doing nothing now. There were concerns brought forward by some of the backbenchers. Those issues are going to have to be dealt with before we agree or proceed with this project.

So, we were given another few days to consider it. That is how that went ahead, and I guess history will tell us whether it is a good deal, down the road. I believe it will turn out to be a really good deal for the people of this Province.

You know, we talk about the giveaways of the Lower Churchill, which is some forty-odd years ago. Mr. Speaker, when we think back to that time, I am sure the individuals, regardless of what their political strip was, they thought they were doing the best for this Province at that particular time. You know, even the legislation we are debating here now, forty-five or fifty years from now probably someone will be standing in this hon. House and saying: Boy, what a mistake or what a great deal they made.

Forty-five or fifty years is a long time with new minds and young people coming forward, but I believe that, at the end of the day, what has to be done here with this piece of legislation is what is being done now: bringing the concerns forward, regardless of who they are from, and the government listening, the Premier and the minister listening, to what the Opposition members are saying. Mr. Speaker, that is what has to be done, and it has to be done so that it will be for the best interests of the people of this Province. That is key and foremost.

Like we have said, Mr. Speaker, all the other issues that have been brought forward as concerns by members of the Opposition, I know they are being considered and there are amendments being put forward.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I am going to take the advice of some hon. members and hopefully, who knows, maybe before this night is over we will be out of this House and will be able to watch the Stanley Cup coming to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it being ten past five by the clock, I move that we now recess until 7:00 o'clock this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands recessed until 7:00 o'clock.


June2, 2008                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS       Vol. XLVI No. 36A


The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper number 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River." (Bill 36)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I have already recognized the hon. minister but, for guidance from the Government House Leader, are we going to revert to our Standing Orders or are we going to carry on as we debated Bill 35?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that we did not operate under the Standing Orders for the debate on Bill 35 only. Now that we have moved into Bill 36, it is my belief that we will continue with the Standing Orders for the House of Assembly.

Thank you.

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 36, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River.

This government is committed to ensuring that our energy resources are developed to the benefit of the people of the Province. As outlined in our Energy Plan, the Lower Churchill Project will play a key role in our renewable energy future if the development is sanctioned and proceeds as planned.

The Lower Churchill Project, if developed, has the potential to have a significant impact on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would lead to increased employment benefits and economic development in this Province. The project is particularly important to the people of Labrador who will receive a significant portion of the jobs and business spinoffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this bill simply provides the legal framework to issue water rights to the Energy Corporation for the Lower Churchill when requested.

Mr. Speaker, we created the Energy Corporation with the passage of the Energy Corporation Act last year. We have provided it with a mandate to pursue energy development and manage the Province's interest in these developments on behalf of the people of the Province. Advancing the Lower Churchill Project is part of its mandate.

The Premier announced in May, 2006, that the Province would lead the development of the Lower Churchill hydroelectric resource after going through an Expression of Interest process. Since that time, the Energy Corporation has moved this project along on several fronts, including market access options and applications, as well as the environmental assessment processes. We are ensuring due diligence and best practices are followed in proceeding with the planning of the development.

Throughout our history, Mr. Speaker, we have had many interested parties that have sought to develop the hydroelectric potential of the Churchill River. To ensure that there are no legacy rights on the Lower Churchill River granted by a previous government, we are bringing forward this legislation to extinguish any unknown water rights that may exist. It also provides that no compensation will be paid to an individual or company whose rights have been extinguished. This provides the Province with the necessary protection from future claims.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come in the Lower Churchill planning process to introduce this legislation so we can continue to advance the project. In this bill, we are providing Cabinet with the authority to issue water rights to the Lower Churchill when requested by the Energy Corporation.

The Lower Churchill Development Act created the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, which is co-owned by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the major shareholder. An option to obtain water rights on the Lower Churchill is currently held by the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. This corporation, which is now inactive, was established in 1978 as a means to develop the project.

Mr. Speaker, normally, water rights on rivers in this Province are issued through the Water Resources Act. In the case of the Lower Churchill, however, issuing water rights is optioned under the Lower Churchill Development Act. When this act was proclaimed, the option to obtain water rights was granted to the Lower Churchill Development Corporation. Our government will not be exercising this option.

This action is consistent with the direction we laid out in our Energy Plan of developing the Lower Churchill resource. Through this bill, we will be giving Cabinet the authority to issue water rights to the Energy Corporation on this river. This action does not preclude federal government support of this project, which we will continue to pursue.

We recognize that this is an important project, not only for Newfoundland and Labrador but for all of Canada as well, and there is an opportunity for the federal government to participate in and benefit from this project.

As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, this bill is important in the planning process and timelines for this development. It allows Cabinet to issue the water rights to the Energy Corporation prior to the completion of an environmental assessment.

I want to be clear that government will not be ignoring the environmental assessment process in granting these rights. This process is currently underway and the water rights, when granted, will be conditional on the successful completion of the environmental assessment.

To conclude my introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, this bill simply allows the Energy Corporation to proceed with project planning and financing which are critical to at project-sanctioned decision. The passing of this bill is consistent with the goals and objectives set out in our Energy Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the Churchill River belongs to the people of this Province and it is the responsibility of government to ensure that it is developed in such a way that maximizes its benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill will ensure that the Energy Corporation can fulfill its mandate, that the Lower Churchill Project team can proceed with the planning of this development and that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador benefit fully from this development.

We need to get the most from our resources for the long-term benefit of all people of the Province. This has been the objective of this government, Mr. Speaker, from day one.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for her comments in presenting this bill in the House of Assembly.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Bill 36 will look at turning over the water rights on the Lower Churchill development or the Lower Churchill River, along with all of the tributaries that run into that river, to the property of the new Energy Corporation that has been established in the House of Assembly back in the spring of last year.

Mr. Speaker, I guess this bill obviously has raised some questions for us over the course of the past week, since it has been tabled in the House of Assembly, and we have been able to have clarification from the minister, government, and her officials with regard to certain aspects of this bill; but, Mr. Speaker, I guess the most critical point to this, and the point that pursued, was with regard to Aboriginal rights and how they would be impacted here.

As you know, in Labrador there are two Aboriginal groups that feel they have very distinct rights when it comes to the waterways on the Lower Churchill River and the lands that surround those waterways as well I might add. They would be the Innu Nation and the Labrador Metis Nation.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week when we did have consultation with the Innu Nation legal counsel they did offer, initially, some concerns around the legislation in terms of whether their rights were being protected, although they felt, because of previous Supreme Court decisions, primarily the Sparrow case dating back to 1982, that they would have certain protections under the federal Constitution and the provisions which provided for that.

At that time, they had pursued with us the possibility of having an amendment to the bill that would include a derogation clause, and a clause that is sometimes a standard in bills throughout the country but not always a prerequisite in terms of upholding or protecting those rights. Of course, since that time there was a discussion that occurred between the Premier and the President of the Innu Nation, Mr. Nui, I think it was. As a result of that conversation and subsequent letter that was sent to them, they feel that the language that now is contained within the bill is satisfactory to meet what their agenda was.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that they were very concerned about the fact that they may have, down the road, some possible infringement that would require them to take court action; however, they have been assured, in this particular letter that was sent to them, that will not be the case. In a discussion that I had with the minister following that, it was also understood that the same would apply to the Labrador Metis Nation. They, too, would have the same protections under the 1982 Constitutional Amendments and they, as well, would be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act.

Mr. Speaker, we were able to communicate that, as well, to the Metis Nation. I can only assume at this stage that they would be satisfied with the legislation. Of course, as you know, the Metis Nation is not as far along in a land claim negotiation with the federal government as the Innu Nation would be. The Innu Nation have been engaged now for the last ten years in trying to sort out their treaty agreements with the federal-provincial jurisdictions and getting very close, as I understand, to having that done. Of course, the Metis Nation has made application and certainly has applied within the courts to have certain decisions upheld in terms of where they would be consulted on major developments within Labrador.

The most recent one, I guess, we saw was back in the spring, or in the fall, when there was a decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the decision that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was required to consult with the Metis Nation on Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway and the failure to consult was not looked upon favourably by the courts. In fact, there was a ruling asking that in the future they would consult, and that they should have.

While the provincial government appealed that decision, and I am sure appealed it in the hope that they could overturn it - if not, why would you appeal it? – but, in fact, appealed the decision and lost the appeal. In fact, the Supreme Court did not opt to hear the appeal and dismissed it from the courts.

So, Mr. Speaker, the ruing is upheld, and the ruling states that there should be consultation with the Labrador Metis Nation on major developments like this in Labrador. It does not only apply to the Trans-Labrador Highway; because, as you know, these court decisions are set in precedent, and precedents that follow into other developments like the particular development that we are talking about on the Lower Churchill River. So, in fact, there would be a requirement for the Province down the road, unless they want to see it in the courts again, there would be a requirement for them to consult with the Metis Nation on that particular development.

Mr. Speaker, that was the major piece that we were concerned about here, the piece about extinguishing the rights of Aboriginal people, and that assurance has been given that those particular groups will be protected, both the Innu Nation and the Labrador Nation.

How it impacts upon the rights of ordinary Labradorians who live and use the area adjacent to it, I guess we are not sure; because what the bill really says is that it extinguishes all other rights, and that would not just include the rights of Labradorians who use that particular river but it would also extinguish the rights of any particular companies, developers, that would have had the potential proposals to develop any tributaries of that particular river.

Mr. Speaker, we have not gotten any full assurance from government that there isn't any right being extinguished under this bill. As the minister said, herself, they have done diligence in trying to identify if there was any right that would have been infringed upon but they have not discovered one to date. The only one that we were aware of was a proposal that would have been submitted going back a number of years ago for the Fig River, which is a tributary that runs into the Lower Churchill River itself, and that was by a private developer that was looking at doing some project, I think, around hydro power on that particular river. It did not happen. I do not know what the terms of that agreement were. Maybe the agreement has extinguished by this time; I don't know. Maybe it was a ten-year agreement, because I know it goes back beyond ten years. Maybe it was a ten-year agreement that has since been extinguished so it would have no bearing under this particular legislation, but we were still concerned and would prefer to have some greater certainty.

The other thing we questioned, Mr. Speaker, was the catchment area that would be included within the Lower Churchill River. As you know, this particular river was originally part of the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation and it fell under that particular act. As we understand, Mr. Speaker, from a discussion that we had with some officials in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in a briefing the other day, that particular agreement actually expires in the fall of this year, and that upon its expiry it will not be renewed. Although it was an agreement that was renewed year over year for the past thirty-three years within the Province, it will not be renewed this year. In fact, the water rights will no longer be a part of that lease agreement with the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation but, in essence, under this legislation, Bill 36, that right will now transfer directly to the new Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is some concern there over whether the catchment area for those waterways would take in the same jurisdiction. I asked that question in Question Period last week and I did not necessarily get an answer to it. In fact, basically I think what the minister said is that we are not doing anything different, we are just turning it over, but we would like to get some confirmation that the catchment area has not changed because in this particular legislation it does measure off in terms of the direction, Mr. Speaker, the longitude and latitude directions as well as the encompassing area that would be taken in, and the amount of evaluation that would be required.

I do not know if there was anything different in the last legislation that differs from those particular dimensions and if there wasn't then I guess we are talking about exactly the same piece of waterway that would have been, for the past thirty-three years, renegotiated under a lease agreement with the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill deals with a river that has become quite sensitive to Labradorians, and there is no doubt about that. This particular river has been the topic of controversy going back to the 1960s in Labrador. Today I talked about when the first deal was signed on the Upper Churchill project and the excitement that went on in the Province at that time. I think my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile talked about the fact that every single newspaper in the Province at that time carried the headline that the Churchill Falls deal was a win, win situation and that it was a good deal for all people that were involved.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is now many years later, forty to fifty years later, forty years later, when we find out that it was not such a good deal after all. In fact, for a long time we have known that based upon knowledge that we have had of this particular agreement, but all the headlines looked like this back in 1969. The Churchill Falls deal, everyone is a winner, and every person interviewed spoke favourably of this deal.

The three Conservative MHAs at that time, who sat on this side of the House of Assembly - it is ironic today, Mr. Speaker, that while we discuss the Lower Churchill, there are three Liberal members who sit on this side of the House of Assembly but back in 1969 there were three Conservative members who sat on this side of the House of Assembly and they had supported the deal. They supported the deal. You can read their comments. Their comments were all over the newspapers, in which they were interviewed. They were interviewed and they spoke well of it.

So, Mr. Speaker, it was not just the government of the day that was thinking this was a good deal. It was not just the government of the day; it was a number of other people outside of the government. It was ordinary people in this Province because what they looked at when they looked at the Upper Churchill deal, they were not looking at it in terms of what it would look like forty, fifty years down the road. What they looked at was jobs that were being created. They looked at how many jobs were going to be created. They looked at how much ownership they would have, the first time that they would have any ownership in a resource. They looked at investment opportunities that were there. They looked at subcontracting that could be provided to businesses. This is the kind of stuff that they looked at when they were debating the Upper Churchill deal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, not unlike the things that are going to be looked at when and if there is a Lower Churchill deal, that deals with this very river that we are talking about tonight and the legislation that governs it. Mr. Speaker, when that time comes there are going to still be people who are going to talk about the jobs and they are going to talk about the ownership and they are going to talk about the investment and they are going to talk about the business opportunity but, hopefully, they will look deeper than all of that because that debt was not there. That debt was not there. That is why I will never apologize for asking questions in this House of Assembly. No matter, Mr. Speaker, how many ministers get up and laugh at a question you may ask, no matter how many times you ask and do not get an answer, it is irrelevant. The relevance is always in if you do not know the information you should ask the questions. If you do not know the information that is exactly what you should do, and maybe by doing that you will stumble upon something or someone else will, that may need more careful attention, that may need to be looked at.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation, not just to the people of this Province but to the people of Labrador as well because this particular river carries with it, for as long as it flows, more history probably than any other river in this Province in terms of what it has done economically for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether that be positive or negative, whether it be good or bad, Mr. Speaker. With it comes - flowing from this legislation - a very long history and legacy around this river for the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, every time we talk about it we talk about it in the context again of looking at further developments. Well, where I live, and the people that I represent, want to see developments in the future on this river that are going to be done certainly taking into consideration the impact upon the people who live there, both the Aboriginal people and the settler people, taking into consideration that there will be opportunities there for them that they just will not be plundered by large scale corporation and developments. These are the concerns that have been raised by the people of Labrador. To develop any part of this river in the future will mean the flooding of lands. The flooding of miles and miles of lands, not just a small block of land, not just a pond but miles of land, Mr. Speaker, that will be flooded to accomplish any development that will occur in hydro power on this particular river. With the flooding of those lands becomes an impediment for the people who use the land as well; people who have hunted and trapped along this river all their lives. People who have built cottages and cabins, who have had an historic attachment to it going back 300 and 400 years in Labrador, not just the last thirty years or forty years since the development of the Upper Churchill but going back hundreds of years of attachment to this particular river.

So, any time there is legislation within the House of Assembly that deals with it, those points need to be made. People need to be cognizant that no matter who you turn over the rights of this river to, whether it be the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation or whether it be this new Energy Corporation, which we are doing tonight, there is always going to be invested interest here by the people of Labrador who traditionally use and live around that river and what the implication is going to be to them.

I remember actually being in Mud Lake just about a year or so ago when I was in the community. I think I visited almost every single resident in the community at the time that I was there. I talked to them, and almost every single home I went into, the number one concern expressed to me was how their community was going to be impacted by any diversions or flooding on the Churchill River. Because, Mr. Speaker, if members know their geography, they will know that where Mud Lake is situated, it is right along the riverbank of the Churchill River and any flooding on that river, expanded area or further developments could impact upon a community like that. They have very legitimate questions. I remember almost every house that I went into, this was one of the issues that they raised and one of the concerns that they wanted to talk about. I tried to give them some assurance that before there would ever be a major development on this river there would be a proper environmental assessment process that would take into consideration their concerns and that they would have an opportunity to voice their concerns publicly through consultation and through understanding what the developments would entail and how it would affect them. Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that would be the process, because that would be the process that I would certainly advocate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are others who have immense concerns as it relates to this river as well, not just those who use the land, not just those who feel they have an inherent right on that particular river, not just those who have communities that are situated along the riverbank but there are other groups as well. Groups that I call the environmental conscience of Labrador, people who have expertise in how mega projects can impact upon the social and environmental fabric of the region. These are people who take their business very seriously. So seriously in fact, that even Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has recognized this. Through their consultation and environmental process, have actually given resources and entertained the input of those particular activists, groups and organizations within that particular region. They have, I must say, gone out and consulted with some of the best experts in environmental developments in the country, to come in and give them information and to provide for them the information that they require in order to move ahead and move forward.

So, Mr. Speaker, that in itself speaks of a recognition that there are groups out there that have an environmental consciousness in Labrador, that are not willy-nilly but have very legitimate issues and very legitimate explanations and questions that they want to have answered. This is why they have been given the resources, to explore the environmental practicalities of projects the scope of the Lower Churchill and how it will impact upon them in their particular community or region.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, any new developments on the Lower Churchill comes with a blanket expectation for Labradorians that there would be more benefits accrued to them in their particular areas. Whether those benefits would be around procurement, whether they would be around employment, whether they be around royalties, these are the kinds of things that people want to talk about and want to question.

Mr. Speaker, I know in my own district, one of the biggest issues that I always hear every time the Lower Churchill is mentioned - every time the Lower Churchill is mentioned, every time the Energy Corporation is mentioned, every time a potential project is mentioned or a new call for environmental work, people in my district always want to know: when will we see some benefits in terms of what we pay for electricity?

Last year in the Budget government said, okay, we are going to put a $6 million subsidy in - a very small amount compared to what they are taking on recall power and winter availability sales on the Upper Churchill right now, where they are taking over $50 million a year, but they gave $6 million back to Labrador. So that is a bit of a benefit because for three years they gave none back, but they did give $6 million back to Labrador to subsidize residential power in coastal communities from L'Anse au Clair to Nain. What they did not do, Mr. Speaker, was address the commercial power needs of people in that area. Obviously, anybody knows in this Province today that when you look at industries outside the industrial sector, like oil and gas, and those kinds of projects, you are looking at economies of scale that are driven by small business. You are looking at economies that are driven by small businesses, in most cases, all around this Province. When you get outside of the industrial projects like oil and gas, and the mining activity, most of what you have left to drive the economy in forestry these days, or in tourism, or in the fishery, is small business. Well, it is these small businesses that are challenged the greatest between the areas of L'Anse au Clair and Nain because they pay the highest price for electricity of anywhere else in the Province.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I was living in Happy Valley-Goose Bay today and I owned a garage, I would be paying probably less than four cents a kilowatt hour for power. If I was on the Island of Newfoundland and I had that same garage, I would be paying about eight cents or so a kilowatt hour for power. In the district that I represent, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs represents, they pay almost nineteen cents a kilowatt hour. In some cases, they pay three or four times more than anyone else in the Province. Of course, every time they hear the word Lower Churchill and a potential deal on the Lower Churchill project, they want to know: how is it going to benefit me? When am I going to get a cheaper power supply so that I can operate my business and be somewhat competitive? Is it right that a garage in Happy Valley-Goose Bay can operate on an electrical bill that is going to cost them probably about $100 a month or $150 a month while someone out on the coast, who probably has 10 per cent of the business of what that garage has, has to pay anywhere from $800 to $1,200 a month for the same kind of cause? That is exactly where we are today.

When you hear talks about this particular development or any indication that it could move forward, these are the kinds of concerns that people raise, and they are very legitimate concerns and they need to be addressed. I have always said, I said it in a government that I was a part of and I will say it to any other government in the future, and that is that you cannot have a project like this go ahead in Labrador without first outlining what the real benefits are going to be to Labrador communities. That has to be first and foremost, and that should be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, while this bill does not talk about a project or a deal or even a negotiation, what it does talk about is turning over the greatest river resource that we have ever known in Labrador to a new Energy Corporation that is being set up by the provincial government to act as a brokerage for major energy development initiatives in the Province; projects like the Lower Churchill project, that would be a subsidiary company of this particular Energy Corporation or maybe many subsidiaries. We do not know that until it is started; but, Mr. Speaker, this is what the bill does. It turns over the water rights of that river that has been the product of controversy, has been the pride of Labradorians for a long time; it turns it over to this Energy Corporation.

All I would say, Mr. Speaker, at this time, is that we need to ensure that it does not extinguish the rights of other people in Labrador, such as the Aboriginal people, and we have the assurances on that, but also to ensure that any future development on that particular river is going to be done first and foremost keeping in mind the needs and the expectations of the people of Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 36, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River.

This bill is very small in terms of paper and words, but it is a major bill in terms of what the bill is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members if they would be kind enough to take their private conversations outside. The Chair is having great difficultly hearing the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

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

As I was saying, this bill is small in terms of paper and the number of words that are on it, but in terms of import it is quite a large bill, quite a serious bill.

It is interesting; our government, of course, is preparing itself for Lower Churchill development and it is putting all the blocks in place, as it were, to work towards their goal. Their goal, of course, is to develop the Lower Churchill, but we are so far away for this happening in terms of the kinds of things that would have to be done to allow it to happen.

I think where I would like to start first is talking about the environmental impact assessment that has to be done of the Lower Churchill. This is a process that should be taken very seriously because the whole import of an environmental assessment process is to look at a major development that could have serious adverse effects both on the environment as well as on the lives of people.

It has been decided by the federal agencies, the Department of Fisheries and Transport Canada, that, in actual fact, the development of the Lower Churchill will have major adverse effects, and for that reason they have said that an environmental assessment panel will have to be put in place to look at the Environmental Impact Statement that will be done by the proponent, which is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

I would like to remind my colleagues, as well as any of the public who are watching, that these processes, the environmental assessments, are extremely important because one of the things they do is, they just do not look at the impact statement from the proponent and look at paper and make decisions based on paper. Part of the process is to go out to the public and to hear what the public has to say. Hearings will have to happen and people will have to be listened to, both Aboriginal people as well as settler people from Labrador. All of their concerns will have to be looked at. The adverse effects that DFO and Transport Canada are concerned about will have to be assessed. They will have to assess whether or not those effects can be mitigated, whether or not there are benefits that can be put in place as well for people who will lose out because of the development.

This is something that did not happen before, you see. It did not happen with the Upper Churchill because we did not have this kind of process in place in our country when the Upper Churchill was developed. Actually, the very first assessment of this kind took place in Labrador around the Voisey's Bay development, and this process is new. It is new to people, but a lot of people in Labrador, because of Voisey's Bay, have taken part in one, so they are going to have expectations. They are going to have expectations about that process and how it will work, and they are going to have expectations about how seriously all levels of government take the process, as well, and what will be done with the recommendations of the panel, because that is what happens. A panel takes all the information. It listens to the public, it listens to the proponent, it listens to experts from all sides, and then the panel makes recommendations.

I remember one of the recommendations of the panel for the Voisey's Bay development. The number one recommendation was that nothing should be done until all Aboriginal land claims were taken care of. At that time, with regard to Voisey's Bay, the two Aboriginal groups, the Labrador Inuit Association at that time and the Innu Nation, were both into land claims. Since then, of course, things have totally turned around for the Inuit because, not only were their land claims settled, they now have their own land of Nunatsiavut. It was really interesting that the first recommendation of the panel was that those claims should be settled before Voisey's Bay was developed, and then every other recommendation was supposed to be hinged on to that first one.

As it turned out, the government of the day did not care about that number one recommendation and they did move ahead. Now, they did not move ahead without negotiations with the Aboriginal groups - you had impact and benefits agreements worked out with Inuit and with Innu - but they did not take that first recommendation of the panel seriously.

Here we are - I am trying to add up, now - nine years later and we have a new government of a different stripe, I think, and this government is now into an environmental assessment with regard to the Lower Churchill, and this time the Aboriginal group they are dealing with is the group that was involved with Voisey's Bay, who, at that time, did not have land claims settled and they still do not have their land claims settled.

Of course this government will move ahead, as did the government around Voisey's Bay. This government will move ahead and will, if they can, if the panel says yes, we think you should go ahead and develop, and if they are willing to put in place whatever the panel says should be put in place, they will go ahead and develop the Lower Churchill and they still will not wait until land claims are settled for a nation that is looking for land claims with regard to, a part of the area affected is part of their land claims.

It has to make us stop and think about the rights of people, and in this case we also have the Metis Nation who are in a different place than they were nine years ago when Voisey's Bay happened, and you have settlers in the area, so we have to make sure that if the Lower Churchill is developed – and/or when the Lower Churchill is developed - that it is developed on all levels for the good of the people, especially the people of Labrador. That it is good for them economically, that is good for them socially, that is good for them environmentally, that is good for them on every level, so it is not a process that can be sped up. It is a process that has to take the time that is required.

I understand the government wanting to have all its ducks lined up when it comes to its plans, and that is what this bill is about, making sure that when the Energy Corporation is set up and is able to look for the water rights that they are going to be ready to pass them over, so I understand, they are doing their planning, and they are really good at doing this kind of planning – I keep asking them to do certain kinds of planning and they do not take me seriously, but with this one planning is happening, and I understand planning happening, I ask for it all the time - but I also remind government that there is also a process here, and time has to be allowed and time has to be taken.

We have to make sure that nothing is short-circuited with regard to the environmental assessment process, or with anything that is part of the environmental assessment process. That we allow the time so that the right decisions are made, so that if everybody involved says yes, we think this should go ahead but this is what needs to be done so that negative impacts are mitigated, and also even cut back as much as possible, that government not move ahead until all those affected are ready to buy into that. That is going to be the issue. Will all groups who are affected going to buy in?

I would hate to think that the process we are going through now in terms of approving this bill in particular, and also in terms of approving Bill 35, when we go back to that bill - that we are not undermining and underestimating the process that has to happen in Labrador. I would hope that we would be here affirming that process and saying that nothing that we are doing is saying that process is not important, because that process is essential.

I dread it when I hear people – and I have heard people – make disparaging comments around environmental assessments; sort of, oh gosh, we have to go through that. Well, we should not take them for granted. We should not take environmental assessments for granted, and we should not undermine them, because consultation with people who are going to be affected is absolutely essential, and that is what we are about here in this House. We have just gone through, today and last Thursday, an interesting process of really trying to work together on Bill 35, and I am pleased with the work that we are doing, the fact that we are not there in conflict with one another but we are actually working together and trying to come up with a good bill. I am so very pleased to see that happening here in this House, and to know that it can happen. I hope that we will learn from it, and that we will not just let that be an anomaly with Bill 35, but that we will consult.

It is like what happened when I first got this bill and I heard my colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, say the same thing. When I first got this bill last week – I think it was last Wednesday - I looked at it and said: This is extremely important. I am not sure what the implications are, particularly for Aboriginal people.

I immediately made contact with the Innu Nation and asked them what they thought of this. I sent them the bill and asked them what they thought of it, and I think they were very happy to communicate both with the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself separately – we both did our own thing – and communicated with us, and gave us some concerns of theirs. Because I asked a question of the Minister of Natural Resources in the House with regard to the Innu Nation, the Premier told me that he realized he wanted to make contact with them, and that is when the discussion happened between him and Innu Nation, and they came to an agreement in a letter that affirmed that there is no way this act, this bill or any other bill, could ever extinguish the rights of Aboriginal peoples. No matter whether land claims are settled at the moment or not, no matter what, if they have Aboriginal rights, those rights can never be extinguished.

It is my understanding that – well, I know – that the Innu Nation was pleased with the discussion that they had with the Premier, and the Premier shared the letter with us that he sent to the Innu Nation.

I tell that story to show that is the attitude we need to have: immediately consult with the people who are most going to be affected by something. Find out what the issue is, from their perspective, and learn from them. That is what is going to have to happen during the environmental impact process, during the whole environmental assessment, that we have to be listening to the people of Labrador and we have to make sure that whichever way this project goes, if it goes ahead, whichever way it goes, that we do not do to the people of Labrador, and particularly to Aboriginal peoples, what was done to us by Quebec with the Upper Churchill.

We have to make sure that the people who are most going to be affected by this project, the people who live closest to it, should be benefiting from it; they should be the number one group to benefit. We benefit here on the Island, too. The Province will benefit, the government will benefit, but we have to make sure that if this goes ahead – because all parties say it should go ahead – that in twenty years time we do not have people in Labrador wondering why they were left behind.

So, it is a challenge to be planning and looking ahead and wanting to have things in place to allow the Lower Churchill to go ahead, knowing that you still have a whole process to go through, without making assumptions – and that is the challenge, without making assumptions. Without assuming we know what the end is going to be, because that is what we cannot do; if we do that, if we assume that, that is when we will make mistakes. That is when we might have a deal in place or an agreement in place that will not be there for the benefit of people who should most benefit. Because sometimes when we start assuming things, it makes us arrogant, and when we become arrogant we can make bad decisions.

This is a new challenge to us, the Lower Churchill. Should it happen or should it not? If it does, what has to be put in place to make it work for everybody? If it does, what has to be put in place, particularly to make it work for all peoples of Labrador? If it does, will we be as happy in twenty years time, or fifty years time, as we are at the time that we signed the agreement and whatever contracts would go with it?

That is my statement, Mr. Speaker. I understand the bill. I understand why it is needed. I will be voting for it also with the understanding that this in no way for me, assumes anything with regard to the Lower Churchill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words on Bill 36. More, I guess, for putting some things on the record than anything.

We started out last week and said we had two fairly significant – historic maybe even – pieces of legislation here; one, of course, dealing with the Energy Corp. in Bill 35, which is still being debated here in the House. It is my understanding we will be following that up tomorrow and hopefully bringing that to a successful conclusion.

Of course, the other one is Bill 36, which ties into that in a way, because what happens on the Lower Churchill is a piece – and a significant piece, I would think – of where the Energy Corp. wants to go in the future as to one of the things they might want to do. It deals with everything from wind, to oil and gas projects, to the whole thing - anything that involves energy basically, including the Lower Churchill development. So, it is significant.

Hopefully, before the night is out, we will have another significant event occur in this Province, and that is that hopefully a Newfoundlander and Labradorian is going to get to put his name on the Stanley Cup before the night is out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Hopefully, that will happen in the form of one, Daniel Cleary before the night is out. I cannot guarantee that we will all get home to watch it, of course. This historic debate has to take precedence, but it looks like there is lots of time to do both. Mr. Cleary is going to do one for sure, anyway.

Just to comment on the undertaking piece. We had some concerns about Bill 36 when it came to the Aboriginal rights piece. I was really pleased today with the minister. We had an opportunity to meet with the minister and legal counsel from the Department of Justice, and some officials from Hydro, Mr. Martin. I must say, it was very informative. The concern we had, of course, three of four days ago, or last week, was the Innu, for example, had contacted us and wanted to be on the record, through their legal counsel, saying that they were not satisfied with the current form of Bill 36. For example, they were an Aboriginal group, they wanted a non-derogation clause put in there and they felt they should have it. We asked about it in Question Period and the Premier confirmed that he had, in fact, been talking to Chief Nui. He gave them a comfort letter. They are satisfied, and they have since confirmed to us that they are satisfied. So, we are very pleased with that. That is a non issue.

The other concern that we had was regarding the Metis. Again, they have been in contact with us, the Opposition, and I assume been in contract with the government and wanted to know where they stood. I guess it is a bit different. I truly did not understand the full significance of it either. My understanding is that the Innu have been determined to be an Aboriginal group but they do not have a specific treaty with the federal authorities. In the case of the Metis, my understanding is they have not been technically designated, at this point, as an Aboriginal group and they certainly do not have any treaty rights.

The question in our heads, of course, was okay, maybe the Innu are satisfied because they have the letter of comfort, but what about the Metis? The other concern was, even if they get a letter of comfort or if they do not get a letter of comfort, what happens if the bill goes through, their rights are extinguished and later on they are determined to be an Aboriginal group, or recognized by Canada as an Aboriginal group, can they come back then to the Newfoundland Government and say: Whoa, we are now an Aboriginal group, therefore we want any rights that we had before Bill 36 came. The legalities of that I was not quite familiar with but, again, legal counsel has explained and we certainly accept his explanation, that regardless of what happens in the future, if Metis are determined by the federal government to be an Aboriginal group, that that will come back - they will have any and all rights that they normally would have had, hence the comfort that was given to the Innu would also apply to them. We take that at face value, and that is fine. A lot of the comments back and forth sometimes between people - and I referred today to the history of what has happened, how history seems to repeat itself.

I would just like to take a moment, if I could, to go through one letter to the editor we had. I do not know who this gentleman is, but it is public record. His name was James Morgan. We all, who lived in this Province of course, know a James Morgan. I do not think it is the same one because the article was written on May 19, 1969. It might have been. It was a gentleman here in St. John's at 70 Mullock Street, a letter to the editor. You talk about how things - it might be the same one. You talk about how sometimes things change but they always revolve and come right back to where they were. In his one page article that went to The Telegram, his letter to the editor. He talks about, in paragraph one he said: The government is presently trying to stop criticism of its policies, charging that the critics are doing harm to Newfoundland and placing the Province in a bad light.

Now, forty years later here we are, the same suggestions being made when the oncologists, pathologists suggestions were being talked about in the media that we might be putting our Province in a bad light, vis-à-vis attracting these professionals because we talked about it. Forty years later, but in a different context, we have a repeat of that kind of history.

Comments in paragraph number two. The Leader of the Opposition of the day, Mr. Ottenheimer, raised a question and said: Cabinet might be mismanaging their authority to spend large sums of money. Lo and behold, here we are today, in 2008, asking the same question when it comes to - like the Energy Corp. We have a Cabinet, for example, that just put over $300 million into the Energy Corp. in one way or another; $100 million-plus was put in to trade off the equity debt ratios that is in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the other $200 million or so was put in so the equity stakes that would come through the Energy Corp. could be purchased.

So, here we are again today - and some people are saying, whoa, what is going on here? We, in the Opposition, are asking the same questions as the then Opposition asked. My God, government is spending all these sums of money, is it right? Is it proper? At the same time, getting legislation like Bill 35 and Bill 36, in which that is done. At that time, believe it or not, a gentleman by the name of Mr. John Crosbie raised an issue, the same article, talking about conflict of interest. The reference was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I do not know, but forty years later, sometimes it is déjà vu. Some things have not changed, because this is one article - there are three issues right there that occurred the same thing back forty years ago as has happened here in the last thirty days.

The statement of Mr. Crosbie talks about, he says: Mr. John Crosbie, when he introduced his conflict of interest resolution in the House of Assembly brought statements from the Smallwood puppets, charging that Mr. Crosbie was damaging the civil service. So, some things never change.

Anyway, we think it has changed, at least to the extent that the Opposition are cognizant of what is happening here. Albeit we are only a couple of us, we hopefully have brought some serious matters to light and put it on the record.

I must say, in fairness to the government, in the past three or four days, albeit these are very serious issues, the government has strived to inform us, make us aware of information that we were not aware of, to help us understand some of the things that we did not understand, make the officials available to us so that we could have a dialogue back and forth and better understand some of the issues. I must say, based on the tenor of what transpired in some meetings and stuff that we have had, it is a good process. I think at the end of the day, if things work out and with that kind of dialogue back and forth, hopefully we will get where we need to go.

Being on the record and given our opportunity to make these comments in second reading, I believe we are going to be, no doubt, questioning and supportive of Bill 36. So, we look forward to closing off second debate on this matter and moving it along to Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now she will close the debate on second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my opening remarks, the purpose of this legislation is to allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, to be able to issue water rights to our new Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we have been issuing water rights to the Lower Churchill through the LCDC act since the 1970s. Every year we do that to the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.

As I said, again, in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, now that we have decided to use another vehicle to develop the Lower Churchill we have to have the mechanism to be able to award the water rights on the Lower Churchill to somebody other than LCDC, and that is the purpose and the only purpose of the legislation that is here before us. It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

In response to some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in terms of extinguishing rights, as I said before in Question Period, we cannot extinguish Aboriginal rights. There are only two ways that Aboriginal rights can be extinguished. They are either voluntarily surrendered or there has to be a change to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, the Innu do have established rights in this Province. At this point in time, the Metis do not have the same Aboriginal status as the Innu Nation but if they obtain that status, then they will enjoy the same protection as does the Innu Nation.

Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing, in one way or another in this Province, development on the Lower Churchill, on all of the Churchill River. It started with the Hamilton River, discussing development on the Hamilton River back in 1953. The name was changed. The name of the river was changed from the Hamilton River to the Churchill River in 1965. So there has been a lot of activity.

With the greatest respects to my friends opposite, I cannot let the occasion pass without remarking that we really do not need to go back to 1968 if we want to have a discussion about deals and bad deals in terms of development on the Lower Churchill. We have had two very recent examples of that, Mr. Speaker and the last one on the books certainly would have been where our members opposite sat as members of government and we nearly ended up with another disaster on our hands. We are working very hard to ensure that that does not happen, not only under our watch, if we are not able to go forward on the development at this time that if somewhere down the road, whatever hurdles we may encounter now are out of the way, that this development is done in a proper way. It is an exciting project but there are lots of challenges. We are doing it as methodically as we can. We are doing it as strategically as we can. We are doing the proper homework every step of the way to make sure that we do it right, that we get it right this time, Mr. Speaker, because we cannot afford to get it wrong again.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move to close second reading of Bill 36.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 36 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 36 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 36)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 36.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole is now prepared to debate Bill 36.

A bill, "An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River." (Bill 36)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 7, inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 7, inclusive.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Enable The Issuance Of Water Rights To The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador For The Lower Churchill River.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 36.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 36.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 36 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed him to report Bill 36 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BURKE: Reluctantly.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

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

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