The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; and the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

Before I ask hon. members for their member's statements the House of Assembly would like to welcome two new Pages, Mark McKelvie and Amanda Warr, both are students at Memorial University. Mark is enrolled in the Bachelor of Arts program and Amanda, the physical education program. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the two new Pages and ask all members to show (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the 4H movement in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular the Summerside Rockets 4H club.

Mr. Speaker, this club is the oldest in the Province and very successful as result of the wonderful volunteer leaders within the club.

Mr. Speaker, on June 6 of this year, club members and leaders from all over the Province travelled to St. John's to compete in the provincial competition held at Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, all members of the Summerside club who participated won their competitions for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the winners are: Wilfred Bellows, won the Single Junior Demonstration, Sonya Loder won the Single Senior Demonstration, Melissa Taylor and Booke Otto competed and won the Double Junior Demonstration, Abigail Blanchard won the Junior Public Speaking competition, and Janelle McAuley won the Senior Public Speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for all members here today to recognize the accomplishments of these fine young people and thank the volunteers as they continue to promote the 4H movement in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to stand in this House today to congratulate a magnificent young woman from Red Bay who has just recently been crowned the new Ms Canada Galaxy.

Mr. Speaker, Sherrylynn Butt recently competed in Ottawa as Newfoundland and Labrador's representative in the Canada Galaxy National Pageant and walked away with the title. As winner of this competition, she will now go on to represent Canada at the Galaxy International Pageant being held in Orlando, Florida in 2010.

Ms Butt is originally from Red Bay but now lives and works in St. John's as the marketing and sales manager for Provincial Airlines. She is also a very strong volunteer in the community. She has represented this Province as Miss Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003, and won her first national title in 2006. Ms Butt won over the judges with her personality and her confidence, which is a major part of the competition. She will now carry on with the responsibilities of being title holder and immerse herself in Galaxy's chosen charity, which is the Sunshine Dreams for Kids. She also plans to continue her efforts in promoting literacy.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ms Sherrylynn Butt, who is a great ambassador for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a resident of Mount Pearl and a constituent of mine, Ms Betty Osmond.

Betty attended and participated in the Canadian Council of the Blind Atlantic Sports Weekend held in Bathurst, New Brunswick, in May of this Year. Betty, who lost her eyesight in her late twenties as a result of a car crash, has never allowed her disability to stop her from participating in life's activities.

Now a senior citizen, Betty, along with her teammates, achieved great success at the Blind Atlantic Sports Weekend in Bathurst and brought home an impressive eighteen medals – quite an accomplishment. Betty is truly a great role model for others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Betty Osmond and all of her teammates for their recent achievements. I wish them all the best in future competitions and hope that their great success continues.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize three young women from my district who received Fry Family Foundation scholarships for 2009. These young women have been involved in the Virginia Park Community Centre for most of their lives, first through participation in the centre programs and then as volunteers exhibiting initiative and leadership.

The mission of the Fry Family Foundation is to help in the education and the development of students. The foundation also provides assistance to battered women and children, and enhances the lives of senior citizens. The three young women from the Virginia Park Community Centre have proved themselves in the areas of concern of the Fry Family Foundation.

Tara Dillon received a $5,000 senior scholarship and plans to use the money toward a psychology degree at Memorial University. Tara just finished Grade 12.

Melissa Hiscock, also finishing Grade 12, received a $5,000 senior scholarship which she will use to pursue a nursing degree.

Natasha Gaulton received a $1,200 junior scholarship. She plans to pursue a career working with children so she can, in her words, be the light in the face of a child.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me today in congratulating these three marvellous young women on their scholarships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the achievements of three outstanding swimmers from the Springdale Bluefins Summer Swim Club, namely Emily Edison, Brady Huxter, and Ben Melindy; and two outstanding swimmers from the Baie Verte Dolphins Club, namely Molly Traverse and Hayley Shave.

On August 27, they captured the top achievement award in their respective age divisions at the Provincial Summer Club Swim Meet Championships that was hosted by the Town of Gander.

There was lots of excitement and nail biting races generated by the nine registered teams, totalling 366 swimmers, creating lots of entertainment and tense moments for frantic parents and grandparents.

Perseverance, tenacity, dedication and determination are all adjectives that describe these top achievers. They, along with their parents, coaches, and towns are to be commended for a job well done.

Hon. colleagues, please join with me in applauding the exceptional efforts of our talented top achievers who splashed their way to the top at the 2009 provincial swim meet championships.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Southern Avalon Community Youth Network on the outstanding summer program offered to youth in our area this summer.

The program consisted of a daytime recreational program for youth ranging ten to fourteen years of age, weekly special events that included bowling, swimming and movie night just to name a few. They partnered with other community groups to offer training for their summer staff, such as St. John Ambulance and Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

The program ended with a summer social which I had the pleasure of attending on August 13 in Cape Broyle. The day's events included activities such as open mic, a comedian from Yuk Yuks Canada, and members of the Celtic Connection performing for all in attendance.

The Southern Avalon Community Youth Network has only been operational for two years. They have made a tremendous contribution in enhancing youths' opportunities for participation in social and interpersonal development in our area. It is indeed an honour to have such an organization as part of the District of Ferryland.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the Southern Avalon Community Youth Network for their success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to inform people of the tremendous progress made by our government as part of the Provincial Infrastructure Strategy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: In February, I was pleased to join Premier Williams to announce $800 million in strategic infrastructure investments in this fiscal year alone. I am delighted to announce today that contracts valued at $600 million have already been awarded, and we expect to tender the balance of the projects in the coming months. Our expenditure this year, coupled with the contracts we will continue in the coming years, will see the total value of infrastructure projects tendered this fiscal year at $1.6 billion.

We have never witnesses this magnitude of infrastructure spending in our Province's history. In the education sector, we have made significant progress. I am happy to say we have awarded tenders for the construction of nine new schools –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - and have awarded the tender for construction of a new college campus in Labrador City.

In the transportation sector, I believe, Mr. Speaker, our progress speaks for itself, and anyone who has taken a drive around our Province this summer would have to agree. Virtually all the tenders for road projects have been awarded and we are actually getting a jump on next season by calling tenders now for next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: However, Mr. Speaker, the highlight of our roadwork this year has to be the start of hard-surfacing on Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Our second biggest achievement, Mr. Speaker, again in Labrador, will come later this year when we complete Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we promised a road link right across Newfoundland and Labrador, and in November of this year, we will deliver it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: We have also made major strides in the health care sector. The long-term care facility in Clarenville is complete and fully operational and we expect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I have not gotten that much applause since I gave up playing hockey.

The long-term care facility in Clarenville is complete and fully operational and we expect to call tenders for two new long-term care facilities to replace Hoyles Escasoni, Mr. Speaker, in St. John's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: - and a new hospital, the tenders for a new hospital in Labrador City will be called before year's end.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: In Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, the long-term care facility is nearing completion and we are continuing our aggressive planning for a new acute care facility. We expect to make an announcement on a site for this new facility in the coming weeks.

Another major project nearing completion is a new courthouse in Corner Brook, and work is underway to expand the RNC complex in St. John's.

Throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, we are investing in various municipal infrastructure projects to strengthen services for residents including water and sewer projects and waste water management initiatives.

The projects I have outlined today are of course just the tip of the iceberg; our government is proving time and time again that we are committed to stimulating our economy, creating employment and rebuilding the critical infrastructure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador depend on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement and I hope to say that it is a tremendous statement, no doubt about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: But, Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments I do want to make with regard to that and I have to go to his second paragraph where he said, "We have never before witnessed this magnitude of infrastructure." True, Mr. Speaker, never before have we witnessed the revenues coming into this Province from natural resources, Voisey's Bay, and other projects that were started by other Administrations. Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition want to congratulate government and say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition want to congratulate government and wish them all the best with any ventures they want to bring forward -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned the roadwork that is being done, and I congratulate you on that, but there is one thing I do want to say after travelling across our Province, and I know some work is being done with brush cutting, but there are areas right throughout this Province where much more brush cutting has to be done because there are many accidents that take place.

I was pleased with the announcement with regard to the long-term care facilities and I am looking forward, and I see my hon. colleague from the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace smiling. Hopefully, the day will come when we will be able to have an announcement on that new facility, minister.

Mr. Speaker, overall I have to say that the work that is being done is wonderful, and with regard to the health care system, I just caution you that with regard to the X-ray labs and so on, I know there is much gone into health care but I just ask government that you would reconsider some of the decisions that have been made recently.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I would like to see some of the hammers in hands, though, that he has talked about being used on our offices on the fifth floor. That would really make me feel really happy, Mr. Minister.

We know this is an ongoing issue and I was not going to say that, but when I stood up I thought that is what I have to say, because I sent the minister a copy, or an e-mail, telling him how frustrated I am that we have been waiting months and months and months for some new spaces so that I do not have to have meetings out in the reception area of our office with my staff, because that is all we have.

Having said that, I do congratulate you on getting some of these projects up and going. Some of the tenders have been called, and we know that there is somewhere work has not happened yet, and what I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, from the minister, and at some point maybe he can provide this information, is how many new jobs happened this summer because of the projects that he has talked about, and how many new jobs do we expect for the other projects that are still ongoing. One point six billion dollars should bring us an awful lot of jobs, and I would love to have a report on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to advise my colleagues that the Province's highly successful resident tourism marketing campaign, For the Love of Newfoundland and Labrador, has been extended into the fall, with all households expected to receive the promotional brochure in their mailbox by the end of this week.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, there was concern expressed in all Canadian jurisdictions this year that the tourism industry would be hard hit by the global recession, as economic uncertainty tends to impact negatively on people's travel plans. I am therefore pleased to report that early indicators to the end of July show that the Newfoundland and Labrador tourism industry is performing very well this year.

In fact, as noted in a news release issued today by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, overall visitation has increased slightly, by almost 1 per cent over the same period last year. In addition, traffic at the provincial visitor information centres is up 9 per cent. Non-resident traffic on Marine Atlantic is up 4.4 per cent, and occupancy at roofed accommodations is up one percentage point.

Mr. Speaker, we are determined to keep this momentum going. Tourism operators tell us that our early decision to bolster this year's summer resident campaign has been beneficial to them, and when the first fall campaign literature started flowing to households last week we received an e-mail from one participating bed and breakfast operator who said he received eleven bookings within just one day. That kind of response is, of course, music to our ears.

Over the past several years we have made a concerted effort, in co-operation with Tourism Industry Association and Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, to extend our tourism season beyond the traditional peak summer months. We have increased our marketing budget to $13 million annually, and also invested in product development, training initiatives and marketing partnerships specifically designed to allow the Province and individual tourism operators to take best advantage of our year-round tourism potential.

This year's resident campaign has clearly struck a cord, and I believe Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are becoming increasingly aware that some of the best vacation opportunities in the world are indeed right here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the House to encourage our residents to continue to support our tourism industry by thinking about taking a fall getaway to a place they have never been, or to a favourite spot they would like to revisit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is great, of course, whenever we see higher numbers in our tourism industry, because not only do these people come here but they spend money and if they are within the Province then they move around. Whether it is a B and B operator or a restaurant operator, it all means money for the economy and it means, of course, that people get employed in the course of providing those goods and services.

We surely did not feel too optimistic back last Christmas when we knew the economic turmoil that took place, and the fact that it might negatively impact not only our tourism industry, of course, but a lot of different industries. Fortunately, that does not seem to have been the case and it is great to see that even under those straining circumstances we still have increases taking place.

Now, there are still a couple of issues that we have had in the tourism industry despite the numbers. It is great to see, of course, that the government has backed off on its Gros Morne piece, which is a crown jewel in our tourism industry, I think, and not to have the transmission line there.

We still have some issues with our gravel pit campers and so on, that probably was not handled properly and could have been handled differently. We still have some issues with our signage problems. Some people felt that the communication of that issue was not sufficient and it is not the best way to go. Personally, I think it is. I have no problem with it, but some people do not feel the same way.

Of course, probably the most troublesome issue in the tourism industry this year was the Marine Atlantic ferry service. Having lived in, and live in that town, of course, Port aux Basques, which is one of the main terminals –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks.

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

Having lived there and experienced every day the people who feel those frustrations, the truckers and the tourists who come here, and want to come here, and cannot get here, and want to get off and cannot get there, they have obviously had some major problems with the Vision. Hopefully those problems will be rectified.

Aside from the infrastructure which we know is falling apart terribly at Marine Atlantic, there are service issues which I feel could be addressed which probably have not been given a high priority. So hopefully with those improvements in Marine Atlantic as well we can look forward to even higher numbers later and we look forward to seeing the official numbers once they are due.

Thank you.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I am very pleased also to see the increased numbers, both in terms of our own people in our Province and those coming from outside.

I would like to relay just a little experience I had this weekend, not by anyway a criticism whatsoever but to point out something else that we need to deal with. I did some of my own local tourism this year and finally went to the Beothuk Interpretation Centre in Boyd's Cove. I have been trying to get there ever since it opened and I cannot tell you what a wonderful time I had Sunday afternoon. The centre itself, this wonder provincial historic site, and the beauty of this site, everything about it was a wonderful experience.

Yesterday, when I was sharing that with some people - a number of people, actually - in Central Newfoundland, I was shocked that every single person I spoke to - it does not mean every single person there - but everyone I spoke to said to me they did not know about the site; they did not know about the centre. They certainly knew about the centre in Grand Falls, but they did not know about the one in Boyd's Cove.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says in the end that he invites all members of the House to encourage our residents to continue to support our tourism industry by thinking about taking a fall getaway. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what the department has done with regard to the particular site I am talking about, but highlighting our provincial historic sites and doing this kind of encouragement would be something I would encourage the minister to look further at in the ministry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, today we are debating a bill that is relative to the Lower Churchill Project and I just have a couple of questions for the Premier, to start.

Government's latest shift in position on the Lower Churchill has been to announce that Gros Morne is officially off the table as a transmission route, and this was after the Premier and his government had adamantly defended this route as being $100 million cheaper, money that they would have rather seen invested in health care, I think were the comments that were made, but them a few days ago the government said: We are just kidding.

Mr. Speaker, kidding about causing permanent damage to a UNESCO World Heritage Site was an unbelievable statement for me to hear, but my question to the Premier today is: How serious are you about a north-south grid of power for the Lower Churchill Project, or is that just another joke that is being proposed by the government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The first thing you should do is lighten up. You must have had a bad summer; there must be something going on. I saw you yawning over there a minute ago when the House Leader there was speaking. Anyway, that was a very light comment that was made in the course of a speech. It was said jokingly, and it was received that way, and I would say it again.

From our perspective, we are very serious about the Churchill. We are not going to go through the process that the Grimes' government went through, and had it all signed, sealed and delivered, and were giving it all off to Quebec, and Quebec were going to market it and they were going to build it and they were going to sell it and they were going to construct it, and we are going to give it away - another big giveaway of the Lower Churchill. We are not going to do that.

We are very serious about what we are doing. We have put a lot of time, we have put a lot of money, we have put a lot of hard work, and we have put a lot of effort into this. We have the best people, the best experts that money can buy. We have the best people in the Department of Natural Resources, we have the very best people at Nalcor Energy, and we are going to do it right.

When we do it, we are not going to give it away to Quebec, and if it means we are going north-south and we can avoid Quebec, we will, because they are trying to skin us again. They are buying power from us, from the Upper Churchill, at twenty-five cents, and they are selling it for over $9, thirty-six times what they are paying for it from us. It is disgraceful, and we are not going to let them get away with it, so we are serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reports today indicate that New Brunswick is refusing to consider a plan from Prince Edward Island to transmit power from P.E.I. wind projects through New Brunswick into New England states. Their reason is insufficient line capacity.

So, given that any overland route to New England has to pass through New Brunswick, what plans does your government have in place with the Province of New Brunswick to wheel power from the Lower Churchill Project north to south through their province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained in this House before, and we have explained publicly a number of times, there is, because of Quebec's commercial arrangements in the United States, a process now under their FERC regulations called Open Access Transmission Tariff. Basically what that says, Mr. Speaker, is anybody who wheels power through states in the United States has to have reciprocity and allow states or other provinces to wheel power through their states or provinces.

Mr. Speaker, under that OATT process we have made two applications into Quebec to wheel power through Quebec, and one application through New Brunswick. Mr. Speaker, the Régie will hear the application; they will find if there is room to wheel power through New Brunswick. If there is not sufficient room at this time and we are not able to come to an agreement with people who hold capacity then they will tell us what construction needs to happen to allow the power being used in that province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should know that the report released today in New Brunswick outlined that a year ago New Brunswick's utility tendered out some of its transmission capacity for use by other jurisdictions but all of the excess was bought up by Quebec. Prince Edward Island did not bid during that process, and today they are left out in the cold.

I ask the minister: Did Nalcor participate in this tendering process and, if so, did they secure any transmission capacity at that time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have an old application in through New Brunswick; we have had it in some time. Where you are in the process depends on when you apply, because it is first-come, first-served.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the Régie looks at our application they will look at the capacity on their line through New Brunswick; they will see if that capacity can be reconfigured to allow Newfoundland and Labrador access to go through.

Newfoundland and Labrador can apply to New Brunswick Power or Hydro-Quebec who now hold the extra capacity on that line and we may come to an agreement where they may let us use up some of that capacity, or the Régie will tell us what kind of infrastructure is required to have new capacity through New Brunswick and we will work that process through with New Brunswick or with other utilities, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister is: A year ago, when the utility company in New Brunswick offered up the power capacity on the line, did Nalcor Energy tender in that process at that time? If they did not, I would like to know the reason for that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back and check the exact time that we made application under the OATT –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: That is the only process that is available to us, I advise the Leader of the Opposition, and you really ought to make yourself more familiar with the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, it is on a first-come, first-served basis; so, once you make the application, whatever capacity is available you have first dibs on that capacity. Our application was made some time ago, Mr. Speaker. It obviously was made after New Brunswick and Hydro-Quebec made their application. It is now being looked at. If the capacity can be found on existing lines it will be awarded to Newfoundland and Labrador. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, new infrastructure will have to be constructed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week government announced that they would remove lab and X-ray services from health facilities in Lewisporte and Flower's Cove, and Mr. Speaker, hopefully they were just kidding when they made that announcement, but we will find out I guess. But this will certainly negatively impact the services to thousands of people in dozens of communities in these regions of rural Newfoundland.

I ask the minister today: Why is government attacking basic front-line medical services in these rural communities that some have had the ability to enjoy for nearly fifty years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we put this whole thing into context here. The fact of the matter is, is that this government is investing unprecedented amounts of money in health care in this Province, certainly in the Lewisporte area. When we look at all the services that are provided throughout this Province we have to look at sometimes streamlining services that we may provide, and that is exactly what we did here in Lewisporte. We looked at it in Lewisporte, we looked at it in Flower's Cove, and we understood that we need to be able to make advances in promoting and providing services, for instance, to seniors in Lewisporte.

We were given a task by Central Health in saying we want to see a priority of building a new long-term care facility in Lewisporte, for instance. As a government we listened to that, but again, we have to look at ways to streamline the system in order to be able to provide funding for these type of things, and to provide quality service to people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the rationale I am hearing from the government when you say to people, because we give you infrastructure in your community it entitles us to take something away. It is an absolutely ridiculous statement!

Mr. Speaker, I listened to a CBC interview that the minister did last week when he stated: I have no idea if there is any money savings or not, I have no idea. Mr. Speaker, I was appalled that a minister would announce such a significant closure of medical services without completing the due diligence of looking at the cost measures.

I ask the minister today: Have you looked at cost at all in this case, and if so, what are the savings to government on closing services like X-ray and labs in rural areas of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, is when I was asked the question I certainly did not know what savings there were involved. This is not only about saving money, Mr. Speaker. This is about streamlining a system to make a system work better for people. Just because a service is actually in your small community does not mean it is the best service that we can provide as a Province. At that time, Mr. Speaker, we were not looking at exactly how much money we were going to save. However, I can tell you that the program in Lewisporte, for instance, costs about $400,000 a year to keep lab and X-ray in that particular community. We look at that, Mr. Speaker, and we decide, can we go ahead and provide a service as good or better by removing that particular service? And not only removing it put it in a different location, centralizing that particular service. We feel very, very comfortable with what we are doing and it is a final decision. It is the right decision for the people of the area. It is the right decision for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, two weeks before this announcement was made the Minister of Health was in Lewisporte and met with the local health care committee and toured the local health facilities. At that time residents there told me he was encouraging them to continue to lobby for improved X-ray and laboratory services.

I ask the minister today: Were you aware when you visited Lewisporte two weeks ago that this announcement was coming, and if so, did you hide the information from the people in that area? And if you did not know, why didn't you know as the minister two weeks before a major service was being closed in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I do not know - you know, I do not really know how the Opposition operated because I was not around when they were government you know, and we do not hide things in this government. You know, we are upfront with what we do. We could have decided to leave the announcement on laboratory and X-ray and waited until we built the new facility and then we would go out and tell everybody that we are not doing it now.

I met with the people in Lewisporte back two, three, four weeks ago whenever it was, and we were very clear with them. This particular facility would not include X-ray and laboratory services in the new building that we are building, just as simple as that. It was just as clear as that and that is exactly what I delivered to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Officials from Central Health have stated that they had no role in the decision. They only found out a couple of hours before it was actually announced and it came as a complete shock. Local doctors in both Lewisporte and Flower's Cove believe this is downgrading patient services and patients' health will be negatively affected. In fact, I heard a doctor from Flower's Cove on the radio state that lives will be lost as a result of this decision.

So I ask the minister: Why did you refuse to consult with professionals within the health boards and why did you not accept advice from professional doctors who are working in those communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where the Opposition is obviously not listening to what is being said by Central Health. Central Health was very, very clear. Karen McGrath, the CEO of Central Health, was very, very clear when she said we were a part of this whole discussion. We have always been a part of this discussion. We understood exactly what government was looking at doing here. We understood that there had to be some decisions made. In fact, Central Health, Mr. Speaker, were the people who came to us. They came to us and asked us if we would consider doing this piece of work to be able to continue on and, for one thing, create a cost savings, and number two, to be able to provide quality service to the people of Lewisporte and area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also hinted in the media that Lewisporte and Flower's Cove will not be the only areas that are affected by this –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Why don't you go meet with your constituents in Flower's Cove and explain to them why you are closing their service as opposed to shouting at me across the House of Assembly?

Mr. Speaker, when the minister was discussing it in the media he said that there may be more to come, and I ask the minister today: What other areas of the Province are slated for closure and when will those communities be notified?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, we were very upfront in telling people that we are now doing an assessment of all X-ray and labs throughout the Province. As we know, the Cameron report was very, very clear in its recommendations that we had to look at laboratory services. I can tell you now that we are assessing every particular site in Newfoundland and Labrador. The assessment is not complete yet but when it is complete we will certainly be back, and we will certainly be making announcements as they become available.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2007, during the last Voisey's Bay strike, I questioned the government on their plans to bring forward anti-replacement worker legislation in the Province. The minister at that time and his colleague, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, indicated that this was a priority for their government and a review was taking place. It is two years later, we have another strike related to the Voisey's Bay mine that is currently taking place and we have not seen any anti-replacement worker legislation.

So, I ask the minister today: What is the status of this legislation and when will workers in the Province see some kind of a bill being presented to the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be clear, business, labour and government committed to reviewing that particular legislation, and I should point out that that particular review is underway. What we are trying to do is to try to find ways to modernize all labour legislation. The review is ongoing. When the review by all three parties, business, labour and government, is completed we will bring forward the appropriate legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is easy for the minister to say that, but today while striking workers are on the picket line replacement workers are being flown in to take their jobs. Two years ago your government announced that they would do this, and I ask you today, minister: How much longer is it going to take, and when will we see some action from your government on this legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I point out once again, that that process is underway, Mr. Speaker. It is a piece of work that we have picked up that we said we will review. We are reviewing however, in consultation and in partnership. This is a tripartite procedure that is happening between or among business, labour and government. All partners here are working diligently toward this end.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The deadline for registering home heating fuel tanks was reached on July 31, 2009, meaning that it is now illegal for oil to be delivered to any unregistered oil tanks in the Province. We have received numerous calls and inquiries from seniors, low-income earners, people with disabilities, and social assistance recipients who require oil tank replacements in order to maintain a heat source.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I ask the minister responsible, Mr. Speaker, can you confirm that there are close to 5,000 families in Newfoundland and Labrador that are unable to meet the regulations due to financial barriers, and I ask what action has been taken on their behalf?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, about 50,000 out of 60,000 people have had their tanks registered. As the hon. member opposite mentioned, the deadline was July 31, 2009. That was after several extensions within seven years. As the minister would know, the environmental cost of not registering your tank is far greater than the cost of doing so. The cost to your own property, your neighbour's property and to the environment can sometimes lead up to $250,000 we have seen, to clean up these. I am sure the hon. member will agree, because it was his government in 2002 that brought in these regulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to the minister again because she failed to answer my question.

Since this issue has resolved, I have been dealing with officials with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing who have confirmed that there are 5,000 people that they deal with or HRL&E deals with, who are unable to look after this expense. I have been in touch with officials, and I also spoke with the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and they have confirmed with me that various provincial agencies are looking at alternate considerations and it could take up as high as two months. People have concerns knowing that the winter months are upon us.

I ask again: What has been done, and when will we hear some word on what those various agencies are planning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member heard me correctly but I did say 50,000 out of 60,000 have registered. So, if you subtract from that, there is 10,000 left. At the time when the government opposite brought in the regulations they also brought in a $300 rebate at that time, and while that does not sit with my department, I am sure the Minister Responsible for Finance can very eloquently speak to that; that $300 rebate remains in effect today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will let it go for now but the question has still not been answered. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with officials with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I have also had correspondence with the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, I have her e-mail here.

So, I will go to my second question. Mr. Speaker, oil companies -

AN HON. MEMBER: Third.

MR. BUTLER: Third, I am sorry.

Oil companies and licensed inspectors have been backlogged with requests from homeowners who have the ability to pay for inspections on their unregistered oil tanks for some time. The Minister of Environment is allowing homeowners leave to receive oil deliveries while they wait but we also know that there are communities in rural areas of this Province, such as the North Coast of Labrador, who have yet to receive inspections.

I am asking, what assistance is your department offering oil companies and licensed inspectors in meeting their urgent demand for fuel tank replacements in areas such as the remote areas of Northern Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we did hear from the industry that there was a capacity issue out there, and that is why we extended. We had said that anybody who has an arrangement in place with the oil companies can continue to receive oil until March of 2010.

In terms of Labrador and various parts throughout Labrador, the member from that area has met with me. We have discussed this with the Nunatsiavut government. They have gone forward and hired somebody to come in and inspect the oil tanks there, and that is moving forward and they have until 2010 to do it, but I cannot emphasize enough that this has been seven years now. You know, I agree with the move that you took back in 2002 to bring these regulations into effect because the year before that there were over 600 oil spills. We are down to twenty-nine in recent years. So it was a good move and we are following through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: A final question, Mr. Speaker, is for the minister. She has stated that her department has made an arrangement with the oil companies to allow them to deliver oil to households waiting for inspections and we applaud that because those people were placed in a very awkward position. However, some of those people are calling now and asking: Can you check with the department or with the Minister of Environment, in the event of a spill from my unregistered tank while I am waiting, who is responsible? Will the department bear the financial cost, or the oil company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any responsible homeowner would certainly have an insurance policy in place, I would expect. If there is a tank that an oil company sees it is not fit to deliver, they will not deliver, and that is the practice that they have been following for years and years. If a tank is not suitable for delivery, then they will not do it, as part of their due diligence, anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, over the past week, residents of Stephenville have been reeling over news that the Stephenville Airport Corporation has reached a breaking point in its capacity to pay their employees and the Canada Revenue Agency. There was, as we were aware earlier, funding available through the Building Canada Fund that saw $3 million invested into the Deer Lake Airport, I believe, along with $3 million from the Province.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Has your department identified the Stephenville Airport as a priority, and is there any application pending for financial assistance with the federal Department of Transportation under the Building Canada Fund that might be able to assist Stephenville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member pointed out, we have provided funding and the feds will cost-share funding for infrastructure improvements at Deer Lake Airport.

I did have a teleconference with people in Stephenville back I guess it was back in May, if my memory serves me correctly. They inquired, at that time, as to whether or not we would entertain a proposal from them, as we were as well inquired of by the people in Goose Bay. We told them that anybody who wanted to put forward a proposal, we would entertain it; we would provide the appropriate level of analysis, do our due diligence, and if it made sense we would go forward to the federal government.

As of today, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that there has been any application made by the Stephenville Airport Corporation to our department or the feds for any support when it comes to infrastructure improvements in Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We know that the Town of Stephenville, within the last few days actually, has committed to giving the Airport Corporation $200,000 to keep the operation open. We also know that this is only a temporary band-aid solution.

I ask the minister: Is the Province prepared to invest in the Stephenville Airport, with or without federal assistance, given the precarious situation that they are now in?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has invested in the Stephenville Airport Corporation. We have done it now for a number of years. There is an operating line of credit, for instance, that the government has guaranteed for the corporation. We have also given some money to them so they can do some business planning. We have also provided some funds for them so that they can do some short-term planning that they are currently involved in.

In direct response to the member's question, if the Stephenville Airport Corporation has any needs, they have, in the past, approached government; we have been able to satisfy them, we have been able to work with them, and I would assume we will continue to do that in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in spite of all the expertise that government has had working for years in Nalcor and in the Department of Natural Resources, we are here now in a special session of the House to enshrine in legislation the correct definition of the Lower Churchill River in what is, without doubt, a very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he could tell the House how it came to be that the Lower Churchill River definition was not properly worded in legislation in the first place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know, certainly in terms of legislation, that you try to be as careful as you can as you construct the legislation so it expresses clearly what you mean; but, Mr. Speaker, when lawyers go at it - and will all due respect to lawyers - there can be different interpretations of what the legislation actually says.

We are very comfortable with the legislation, Mr. Speaker, but the lawyers for CF(L)Co feel there is some ambiguity around the definitions. Rather than argue the point, Mr. Speaker, or to add to any kind of confusion, we decided that the right thing to do was to come into the House of Assembly, address the ambiguity so it is absolutely clear what it is we are talking about, so Nalcor can get on with the work of developing the Lower Churchill.

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 probably agree with the minister a bit on what she is saying about lawyers, but maybe if they had a GPS in their hands at the time they may have gotten co-ordinates straight, because that seems to be what is clearing up the ambiguity.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because of this poorly worded legislation that has led to confusion between Nalcor and one of its subsidiaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this situation, in one way, because it brings to light the negations that are going on between these two bodies, Nalcor and CF(L)Co, and highlights the fact that the water rights of this Province are not sacred, and we have known that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is it the intention of government to allow Nalcor to give away, in the future, more of the Province's water rights?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we had a situation when we came to government that the Province was not the steward of our water resources here in the Province. We brought legislation here under the Water Rights Act to ensure that the Newfoundland and Labrador government held true responsibility for all the resources of this Province, Mr. Speaker, including our water, which is extremely important to us.

Mr. Speaker, when we brought in legislation setting up our energy company, we put into effect in that legislation the governance of that company and under what circumstances they could – in terms of their assets, what they could do with those assets. Nothing can be divested from Nalcor unless it comes back to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

We had a great debate about this in this House, Mr. Speaker. We abandoned the rules for a week so that everybody's questions could be totally satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and they could have a comfort level as we move forward with the establishment of this company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, following up, then, on what the minister has said, what is this government going to do to ensure that, having given that right to Nalcor, that any government coming after is going to have the right intention to say no to Nalcor doing something which would be giving over water rights?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is refer the Leader of the NDP not only to the legislation governing Nalcor itself but also in terms of the legislation governing water rights in this Province, and the body that will have the ultimate authority with regard to water rights in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is the PUB.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Notices of Motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS subsection 8(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to suspend the Child and Youth Advocate; and

WHEREAS following correspondence sent to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by the Speaker of this House dated August 17, 2009 expressing concern about the operation of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council suspended the Child and Youth Advocate; and

WHEREAS subsection 8(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act states that a suspension "…shall not continue in force beyond the end of the next ensuing session of the House of Assembly…"; and.

WHEREAS in correspondence to the Clerk of the Executive Council dated September 4, 2009 the legal counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate has stated that the advocate requires additional time in which to prepare a response; and

WHEREAS it is proposed that the Child and Youth Advocate be given the time she has requested for the preparation of a response;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly, under the authority granted by section 7 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, concur in the continuation of the suspension of the Child and Youth Advocate by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council until the next ensuing session of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker: WHEREAS government announced on August 31, 2009 that X-ray and laboratory services in Lewisporte and Flower's Cove will be discontinued and that Flower's Cove will operate on a twelve-hour basis; and

WHEREAS residents of these communities and surrounding areas will be forced to travel much further distances to receive these basic health care services; and

WHEREAS on September 3, 2009, hundreds of residents from both communities and regions protested against this decision by government to discontinue services; and

WHEREAS doctors have publicly stated their fears for the health of residents will be compromised and that doctors will be forced to leave these areas; and

WHEREAS discontinuing these services will not improve health service to these communities directly affected nor to the surrounding region;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to reverse their decision and continue X-ray and laboratory services in the communities of Lewisporte and Flower's Cove; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon government to reverse their decision and keep Flower's Cove as a twenty-four-hour operational clinic.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Petitions.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity again to make the government aware, of course, of the need for dialysis services in Port aux Basques and region. As I have indicated in my previous fifty-two petitions in this House this year we have a serious situation where, at any given time, ten to fifteen people from Rose Blanche, La Poile, Grand Bruit, up to the Codroy Valley and so on, need and use, on a regular basis, dialysis services. In order to get those services, they currently have to travel three hours at a minimum. They either have to go to Stephenville or they have to go to Corner Brook.

That is a pretty costly event, in and of itself, the transportation cost alone, to say nothing of the emotional and physical toll that it takes upon the people who need the service, particularly those - and most of these people who use these services get it three times a week. Three days of their lives are spent in a taxicab or a vehicle to travel into Corner Brook to get hooked to the machine and then travel back again.

Now, we have seen some improvements over the years. We have some dialysis services now in St. Anthony. We have some done in Grand Bank. Of course, everybody knows that you cannot do everything at one time, but we have been quite some time now waiting. This issue has been brought to government; we have had successive ministers. I have not had an opportunity yet to meet with the current Minister of Health, in his new position, but I will. I did meet with the former one, and albeit they paid lip service, that was about it. They paid lip service. There was no indication that it was going to be dealt with and so on, but hopefully, with the new minister, if I can get his ear sometime, hopefully we can see something done in next year's budget to address this issue so that the people out there do not have to be disadvantaged to the extent that they are at the present time.

We have had the Premier, for example, and others, talking about how you try to make people's lives safer, for example. This is an example where people are improperly, unjustly, putting themselves through terrible anguish in order to access this service.

Now we see, of course, government is cutting back on some services, trying to streamline them, they claim, and X-rays and so on, and laboratory services. Unfortunately, for these people who are hooked to dialysis machines it is not that simple. So if there are going to be savings, if there are going to be priorities as to what can be done to assist people, surely the ten or twelve people who live in the southwest corner of this Province deserve the same treatment, the same respect, and the same facilities that everybody else in this Province have. You do not need and you should not discriminate against these people. The need is there, the need has been justified, and I suggest we are in a better time than we have ever been financially to be able to do this.

It is one thing to have physical infrastructure being built, which we see a lot of, and it has been acknowledged here today by the Minister of Transportation, for example, great to see those things, but I think even more importantly than that we have to make people be as comfortable and secure as they can when it comes to getting their treatment. It is no good to have a big, fancy building that is full of equipment if somebody has to travel through, and I would say torturous winds like the Wreckhouse three times a week to get dialysis. It is just unacceptable. They are being treated as second-class citizens and they deserve better treatment.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of people in the Lewisporte area who have been campaigning and lobbying government to ensure that they do not have a cut in their X-ray and laboratory services and facilities in that particular region.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions are signed by hundreds of people in that region and I am assured that there are thousands of people that are signing petitions that I am sure will be sent along later. So you can look forward to a long fall of these petitions, unless government is only just kidding and decides to not cut the services in these particular areas.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is dealing with Lewisporte, but really it is no different than Flower's Cove. These decisions, Mr. Speaker, to cut services in health care is always usually dependent upon providing a better service for people in a region or it is done as a means of saving money for government.

When I listened to the Minister of Health in his comments on the radio I was absolutely astounded to learn that in making this decision and hastily running out and communicating it to the public, he did not even do diligence in looking at whether this was a cost relative issue or not, whether it was going to cost government more money or the consumer more money, meaning the patient, or if it was going to actually save money. To me, Mr. Speaker, that was unbelievable because you would think that any minister making a decision to cut services like this would, first of all, look at all the facet of the decision that they are going to make, and it is quite obvious that he failed to do that in this case.

Mr. Speaker, this is really an attack on primary health care in rural regions. You can colour it up anyway that you want, Mr. Speaker, but that is exactly what it is. Am I standing here today saying that government should put a laboratory and an X-ray in every single clinical operation in the Province? That is not what I am saying, but I am not saying that you should be cutting services in areas where they have been provided and have worked for fifty years to people in this Province. It is an unacceptable decision for government to make, especially at a time when they can financially afford to maintain services like this to people in the Province. So, Mr. Speaker, why would they do this?

I remember back in 2007 this same government went into Robert's Arm, in Green Bay, and they were going to close down the local clinic that was there, the medical clinic. At the time, the people really got out, they lobbied against it and at the end of the day government reversed its decision. That was an attack again on rural health care. If the people in that area did not get out and fight that decision, I am sure we would have seen more of it happening.

So what I would say to people in the Province, it might be the region of Lewisporte petitioning government today but if you have those services and you live in a rural area in this Province, that you should be out there fighting to defend and support the services that they get because you could be next.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to be able to stand and present a petition on behalf of the tenants of MacLeod Place, here in the City of St. John's. Seeing this is the first petition, I will read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS housing is a basic human right to which every person, regardless of income or circumstances, is entitled; and

WHEREAS repairs are necessary from time to time to maintain housing accommodations for continuous and safe occupancy; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation rents and manages housing accommodations located at MacLeod Place, in the City of St. John's; and

WHERESAS the persons residing at the aforementioned housing accommodations, including seniors and others on fixed income, are not in the position of being able to reasonably afford the cost of maintaining their accommodations;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to take whatever actions are necessary to immediately address the issue of the maintenance of housing accommodations located at this particular address.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, this is a petition that has been brought forward, and I know for a fact that those residents have been in contact with their MHA, they have been in contact with the minister responsible, also with officials at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I know they were promised that an engineering technician would drop by to visit the property and it is my understanding that has been done Friday past.

The concern that they have is that this has taken place before and people have come by and taken pictures but nothing after that has happened, and what work has been done is not to a standard that they believe that it should be once you are spending taxpayers' money to upgrade those facilities.

The main concerns they have there are safety issues, Mr. Speaker. They believe that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is responsible and not their responsibility. In their petition and the information received, they mentioned numerous items that they feel should be taken care of with regard to the steps to the units. Apparently, the gentleman who goes around delivering the mail has been injured and said that he would not be delivering mail. The eavestroughs are dropping off the houses. They found mould in their bathrooms and bedrooms, and Newfoundland Power even has advised them that meters have to be replaced because there is a strong possibility that there may be fire in the panel boxes.

They understand, Mr. Speaker. Those people understand fully that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing has some 43,000 units that has to be done, but they believe that the work, when it is to be done, should be done up to a standard that those issues that they are presenting today should not be a concern.

We know today there was an announcement made with regard to Greenwood Crescent with regard to repairs, and that's wonderful, which comes under the $14.5 million fund, Building on Our Strong Foundation. So we are just calling on behalf of those residents, calling upon government, hopefully that funds can be made available where they can see that the work, the safety issues that they bring forward, can be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to once again deliver a petition on behalf of the people of Ramea, François and Grey River, with respect to the provision of medical services to those communities. I have given dozens of these petitions in this House, and now, of course, we are months removed from the last time I had an opportunity to do that, but the circumstances, they have changed somewhat. The petition is still relevant. We did, of course, always have, or supposed to have two nurse practitioners in the Town of Ramea which services that area. We have always been short one. The most we ever were successful in having was one nurse practitioner. Lo and behold, that person, that individual has given notice that effective September 14 she is leaving. In fact, she submitted her resignation to Western Health and moved on. So we are left now with absolutely, or were left up until this Friday, I understand, with no nurse practitioners here whatsoever.

Now, thank you to the people of Western Health who deal with this. They have been fortunate, so far, as a temporary remedy, to contract two nurses who would service the area on a temporary basis, two weeks on and two weeks off. I think they have a commitment from one nurse but they are still waiting to confirm the availability of the second person, but again, it is temporary. It is not permanent and it does not give the necessary stability that a person needs, because when this individual goes there to work now, he or she, they are on call 24-7. For the two-week period they are there, they are on call every minute of every day for fourteen straight days.

Also, we pointed out to the minister in the past some idiosyncrasy, shall we say, between how people get treated in other parts of the Province versus how they have been treating them. God knows that Ramea, Grey River and François are as remote as any place you are going to get in Newfoundland as a remote community. It is certainly as remote as many of the communities on the Labrador Coast. No different. Yet, if you are a health care provider and goes up to the Labrador Coast, you get incentives. They give you an incentive to recruit you and an incentive to retain you. There are also provisions, for example, whereby if a person comes into town they will assist them with their daily living allowances. They can provide them with facilities.

My understanding is that there are two such facilities on Ramea Island that is owned by Western Health, where the nurse practitioners or the nurses can stay but if they come in on a short-term basis the department actually charges them rent. Now, can you imagine! Not only are you having difficulty getting somewhere, you have a facility there that you own and you get somebody to come in to provide the service, and you tell that person you have to pay for the rental? I mean, that is just unbelievable.

Hopefully, the distinctions that currently exist between how practitioners get treated in those areas of rural Newfoundland versus how they get treated in other areas of our Province, I think we should have some consistent tools that we apply so that again, everybody gets treated fairly. The solution is only temporary, it is not permanent. Hopefully, the new Minister of Health will get an opportunity to address it so that we can have a permanent long-term solution for the medical needs of the people of those communities.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of issues I would like to address, by leave. The first I would like to address is that we request leave, and I understand there is mutual agreement from the members of the Opposition, that we will proceed with the bill as given by Notice of Motion by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, Bill 37. Today it is our intention to do first and second reading, if time allows, in the House this afternoon to continue with first reading and second reading of Bill 37, which certainly would not be the normal procedure that we would follow in order to see a bill progress through this House.

With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to move through first and second reading this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Government House Leader have leave to proceed with first reading and into second reading of Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

The hon. the Government House Leader, by leave.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated, there is another issue that I would like to address by leave as well. Considering that we have initiated this particular sitting of the House of Assembly in order to primarily address Bill 37, but we have also had a resolution put forward by the hon. Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board for another matter we have to address.

Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances of the House of Assembly we would have Private Members' Day on Wednesday and the time of the House for that particular day would be from 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. So again, Mr. Speaker, we request by leave, and I understand through mutual agreement with the members of the Opposition, that tomorrow we will continue with Bill 37 or the resolution that has been put before the House by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. So we will proceed with regular House business tomorrow and that we also would request, by leave, that the hours that we sit tomorrow would be from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. as opposed from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the request by the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Yes, we would certainly consent, by leave, to deal with tomorrow as a regular business day as opposed to Private Members' Day. Just for the record, the Leader of the Opposition did read in a Private Member's Motion earlier. That was done, not because we thought we were having a Private Members' Day tomorrow, but just to give notice of it so that whenever the opportunity rolls around again that that resolution could be dealt with as a Private Member's, that it would be. That is all.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Government House Leader have leave to forego Private Members' Day tomorrow and continue with government business and to set the regular government hours from 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.? Consent from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Opposition House Leader, by leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader, by leave.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To continue on with business, our first request for leave. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act, Bill 37, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act, Bill 37, and that Bill 37 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce Bill 37 and that this bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act," carried. (Bill 37)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37 has now been read a first time. When shall the bill be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like call second reading of Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act." (Bill 37)

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill that has brought us all back into the Legislature this week. Bill 37 will provide for an amendment to Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that a technical briefing was held with the two Opposition parties last week by officials in the Department of Justice and Nalcor Energy. I trust that was helpful in providing context around why we are here and the purpose of this amendment. I know the media also had a briefing this morning on the bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act was introduced into the House in the spring of 2008 to provide water rights to our Energy Corporation, Nalcor Energy, for the purpose of developing the Lower Churchill Project. This act is the vehicle that enabled us to issue a water rights lease on the Lower Churchill River to Nalcor Energy.

Mr. Speaker, issuing these water rights to Nalcor Energy triggered the requirement under the Electrical Power Control Act for a water management agreement to be negotiated between the two operators that hold rights on that river.

Under the Electrical Power Control Act, where two or more operators hold water rights on the same river, they must conclude a water management agreement to ensure that the benefits of the river are optimized for the power generators and the people of the Province.

Any water management agreement reached between the hydroelectric developers must be approved by the Public Utilities Board. In any instance where the developers cannot come to an agreement on a timely basis, the PUB can impose an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, an issue has come to light during the course of Nalcor Energy negotiating a water management agreement with the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation. It is this issue that has brought us back to the House of Assembly this week.

CF(L)Co is the operator of the Upper Churchill generating facility and holds the water rights to the Upper Churchill waters. During negotiations between Nalcor Energy and CF(L)Co over a water management agreement, CF(L)Co advised that it felt aspects of the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act infringed upon its water rights for the Upper Churchill development. Mr. Speaker, that was not our intent.

We are here in the House of Assembly to give CF(L)Co the assurance it requires to enter into a water management agreement with Nalcor Energy, on behalf of the Province, free of any ambiguity as to the Province's intent when we passed the original legislation to enable the granting of water rights on the Lower Churchill River to Nalcor Energy.

This amendment changes the definition of the Lower Churchill River to provide clarity as to what waters are included in the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act. In drafting the act, we had to define exactly what water rights are included under the legislation. Very simply, this is the clause that we are revising.

CF(L)Co interprets the current act as including waters of the Upper Churchill in the Lower Churchill, which was certainly not the intent. We are certainly agreeable to amending the legislation so as to avoid any obstacles to the successful conclusion of a water management agreement.

Mr. Speaker, you can see the current definition under section 2(b). It states that the: "Lower Churchill River" means that part of the Churchill River below the 425-foot contour line, or all the area that lies below elevation 425 feet as referenced in Appendix A of The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, downstream to the intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of 60 degrees and 45 minutes west of Greenwich (PRONOUNCED: Gren-ich), and includes all waters that originate within the Churchill River catchment area and all rivers that naturally flow within the catchment area or from diversions into the catchment area..".

The concern identified here by CF(L)Co is the closing portion of the definition. Precisely the wording they have issue with is; "…and includes all waters that originate within the Churchill River catchment area and all rivers that naturally flow within the catchment area or from diversions into the catchment area...".

CF(L)Co considers this to mean that the Lower Churchill River includes the waters granted to CF(L)Co for the Upper Churchill in the CF(L)Co Lease Act. That was not our intention, Mr. Speaker. Our objective in bringing forward this definition was to clearly define the Lower Churchill from the Upper Churchill and not to overlap in any way, shape or form with the Upper Churchill water lease.

As such, we are addressing the concern raised by CF(L)Co by more clearly defining the Lower Churchill River and stating explicitly that the Lower Churchill River excludes the area identified as the Upper Churchill in the CF(L)Co Lease Act.

You can see the wording of the amendment. It now reads under Section 2(b), the "Lower Churchill River" means: that part of the Churchill River below the intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian 63 degrees and 40 minutes west of Greenwich, downstream to the intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of 60 degrees and 45 minutes west of Greenwich, and all waters that naturally flow into, or by diversion flow into, the Churchill River between these two points, and that part of the Churchill River upstream of the point of intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of 63 degrees and 40 minutes west of Greenwich that lies below the 425-foot contour line or below elevation 425 feet, as referenced in Appendix A of The Churchill Falls(Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, and all waters while they are in that area. In Section 2(c), "diversion" means "diversion" as defined in the Water Resources Act.

We are changing the definition of the Lower Churchill River to provide CF(L)Co with the assurance it requires to finalize a water management agreement. The proposed amendment is intended to alleviate the concern that the definition could infringe on CF(L)Co's rights to the Upper Churchill River. It will facilitate, Mr. Speaker, the ongoing discussion between Nalcor Energy and CF(L)Co on a water management agreement. The successful conclusion of this agreement will allow us to move on to the next steps in the planning process for the Lower Churchill project.

If this definition issue caused CF(L)Co to delay entering into the agreement Nalcor Energy still had the option of placing the proposed agreement in front of the Public Utilities Board and asking for an agreement to be imposed upon the parties. This would be a legitimate process, Mr. Speaker, as provided for under the legislation, but it would take up valuable time - time that is better applied to other tasks before us in advancing the project.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if the agreement was put before the PUB for consideration, the PUB will be considering a proposed agreement that was subject to the same ambiguous definition of the Lower Churchill River raised by CF(L)Co.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and to avoid potential confusion and delay, the amendment to the act is the most prudent course. We want to ensure all pieces are in place so that this very important project proceeds and moves forward to the next phase. The next steps for the project include, among other things, continuing discussions on power purchase agreements and finalizing market options.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate our government's commitment to the development of the Lower Churchill project. The project is continuing to move along on multiple fronts, including the environmental assessment process for both the generation and transmission projects. Nalcor Energy is also continuing its investigation and analysis of market access options and market destinations, and it is continuing negotiations with the Innu Nation on an impacts and benefits agreement.

As the minister responsible for Nalcor Energy, Mr. Speaker, I meet regularly with the officials of the Crown agency to get updates on the outstanding issues that need to be addressed before project sanction. In this context, Mr. Speaker, project sanction means the very important decision by Nalcor Energy and the provincial government that gives the project the green light to proceed. This decision is critical and will only occur after a number of outstanding issues have been resolved. Some of these outstanding issues include ratification of the New Dawn Agreement with Innu Nation; an environmental assessment, which is expected to be complete next year; finding customers for the power, and obtaining financing for the project.

Mr. Speaker, we are confident that these issues are not insurmountable and that the project will proceed. These issues, however, do take time and we want to be certain that we remove any potential obstacles to moving this project forward.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we eliminate any impediments to the development of the project, and that is why we have no issue in addressing the concern raised by CF(L)Co by bringing forward this amendment.

The recurring question I have received since we announced the reopening of the House last week, has been: Why must this amendment be done now? That's simple, Mr. Speaker. We have an identified issue, and a simple resolution. Let's get this done so we can move on with project planning. It is important that we address this difference of interpretation to move forward and conclude an agreement.

To ensure, Mr. Speaker, that no impediments to this agreement remain, government has agreed to recall the House earlier than usual. We want to conclude this agreement so we can move on to the next piece of work.

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 have a few words with regard to the bill that we are debating today. Of course, this particular bill was introduced by the government and the House was called to specifically deal with it. I guess for us, we have continued to question what the urgency has been by government to actually call the bill at this particular time. Not that we have a problem with being in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, because I am certainly prepared to stay now until Christmas, now that I am here, but the reality is that we were scheduled to open in a few weeks.

Obviously, when you look at this particular bill that is defining the water rights and the water catchment areas for both the Lower Churchill development project and the Upper Churchill, or at least for the Lower Churchill, therefore giving better clarity to the catchment area for the Upper Churchill, one would have to ask: What is the urgency? We have certainly asked that question of government and of officials when we were going through the briefings. Unfortunately, we did not really get a response that indicated urgency in any way. In fact, the only response that we were given is that negotiations between Nalcor and CF(L)Co, who are the owners of the Upper Churchill project, would have been at a stalemate without defining the catchment areas on the river. Mr. Speaker, any delays there, of course again, would have only been a matter of weeks and not necessarily a matter of months or years.

So, you know it is really difficult to understand what the motivation would have been for government at this time to bring forward this bill and to call an emergency session of the House to deal with it. If there was an understanding that they were close to signing off a deal on the Lower Churchill maybe I could understand it, Mr. Speaker, but what we do know about this deal so far is that there is no market. There is no signed, sealed market for the power. We also know, Mr. Speaker, there is no financing in place for the project. We know that the New Dawn Agreement with the Innu in Labrador has yet to be ratified. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the environmental assessment process if not completed, and we also know that government has not even determined a route for the transmission of the power, so why there would be urgency in clarifying a catchment area in the river is somewhat mystifying in the midst of all of this. Therefore, you know, we can only assume that there are other factors that motivate government to move with this legislation immediately. Mr. Speaker, I do not deal in conspiracy theories but I have very little trouble when it comes to speculating sometimes as to what a certain situation might be.

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that both CF(L)Co and Nalcor have been granted rights in the Province to the same body of water as a source for the production of power on the Churchill River, and in the context of trying to negotiate an agreement for the purposes of operating both projects in a manner, I guess, that would result in effective production on a go-forward basis, for both the transmission and the distribution of power, they are required under the act, under section 5(4) of the Electrical Power Control Act of the Province, to actually define those particular parameters and catchment areas.

So, in terms of looking at the bill itself and being asked to support this amendment, we certainly have no problem with supporting the amendment; however, Mr. Speaker, we have a number of concerns and questions relative to the Lower Churchill Project that we feel government has an obligation and a responsibility to the people of the Province to provide clarification and to provide answers on.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is very important to have a negotiated settlement with regard to the water rights both by CF(L)Co and by Nalcor Corporation; however, the government's officials in the briefing, and the Premier himself, indicated to us that this legislation is coming forward at the request of CF(L)Co at this time, and that CF(L)Co is asking that there be a clear definition so that negotiations can continue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, even though the act allows and says that there has to be clarity around this, meaning the Electrical Power Control Act, it also allows for, I guess, a resolution dispute by the Public Utilities Board if, for some reason, there cannot be a negotiated settlement.

We also know that Hydro-Quebec owns 33 per cent of the shares in CF(L)Co; I think it is 33 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-four.

MS JONES: Thirty-four per cent, is it?

I know that they own a percentage of the shares, whether it is 33 per cent or 34 per cent of the shares, in CF(L)Co, and we also know that Nalcor Corporation, to date, and the Lower Churchill Project, would be solely owned by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador unless, of course, the government opts to allow for private investment in the project as a means of raising financial capital. I guess those things will remain to be seen as time goes on, but it is very important that there be a clear definition, that there not be any disagreement of overlapping rights, and that is in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if for some reason there cannot be a negotiated settlement, then there could be one reached through the Public Utilities Board. They would have the option to impose an agreement that would clearly define what the catchment areas are on the river for both the Lower Churchill development project and there, in essence, giving parameters to the Upper Churchill Project. That does exist; because, even though we are changing the act today and we are making those amendments, there is no guarantee that CF(L)Co and Nalcor Corporation will reach a deal and a settlement around a particular water rights agreement.

We know that in order for the financial piece to fall in place for the Lower Churchill development project, water rights have to be defined and it will be one of the key components in terms of raising money to be able to finance this project, whether that is monies that we will invest as a Province, the federal government, or from other sources.

So, the nature of the bill is important; however, the urgency of it is unclear in my mind. That is one of the concerns that I have in terms of government bringing it forward, as to why it could not have waited a few more weeks to have the act amended to clearly define those particular catchment areas, as opposed to having it done immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about the fact that we certainly do not feel a deal is imminent any time soon. In fact, if you listen to the tone and the language that was used by the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources a couple of days ago in the Province, in referring to Quebec as being obstructionists in this entire deal, one can only conclude that there are no documents being drafted for a Lower Churchill deal between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Quebec, or Quebec Hydro, any time soon. So, with that particular piece out of the way – and, as you know, anyone who has followed this project will have realized that the routing of the Lower Churchill Project through Quebec with open access to the lines and the markets may have been the most feasible and definitely the most profitable route for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to take, and anyone who understands simple mathematics could sit down and figure that out for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the tone and the language being used by the Premier in taking Quebec on - in fact, what surprised me was a comment made by the minister when she said that they had been getting nowhere, making no progress with Quebec, which certainly left me with the impression that they have been approaching the Province of Quebec as a part of a negotiation on the Lower Churchill, and that they have been asking and pleading and begging for the Province of Quebec and Quebec Hydro to get involved in this particular project, but obviously it has been to no advantage for the government opposite and they have been unable to build that level of negotiation. So that was the context in which I had taken the comments that she made in the media just a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of that, what are the options for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in developing the Lower Churchill Project? I guess one of those options has been the one that has been touted by the Premier on a number of occasions, and that is the one that talks about a north-south grid. What that is, it is a transmission line that would come through Labrador into the Strait of Belle Isle, across the body of water in the Strait of Belle Isle; it would come down through the Northern Peninsula, across the West Coast of the Island; it would go underwater across the Gulf of St. Lawrence; it would go through three provinces, two other provinces in Atlantic Canada - Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - and then it would go through five states on the Eastern seaboard before it reached the market. That is what the north-south route is.

The north-south route is not just bringing power to the Island of Newfoundland; it is really about bringing power to the Island of Newfoundland as a means of accessing the export markets. So it means crossing two bodies of water, running a transmission line through three provinces and through five states, in order to access the market.

Of course, people will look at this and they will say: Well, that is a significantly higher cost project to be able to do that, significantly higher cost, going to require a great deal more investment, it will provide for a smaller return for the people of the Province, and it will take a longer period of time to pay for itself because of the cost that will be involved.

Then, Mr. Speaker, people say: Why isn't there more of an effort? Why hasn't there been more of an effort to negotiate with Quebec? From what I am understanding from the minister's comments there were efforts to negotiate with Quebec, but Quebec did not want anything to do with Newfoundland and Labrador and did not want anything to do with the Lower Churchill Project. The reason for that is because, while the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have been courting the fiddler in the entire project around the Lower Churchill, Quebec has been writing their own ballot and moving on with the game. That is the reality.

You look at what they are doing on the Romaine River right now in Quebec, which will generate every bit as much power as what the Lower Churchill will generate in the four phases of their project, which will take probably a little longer period of time, but if you look at what they are going to generate there, something like 2,000 megawatts of power, or 1,500 megawatts of power over four different phases on that river - and they have already started. They have already started. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are spending like $30 million this year on the Quebec Shore connecting communities and building roads to the Romaine River where the power project will be developed. They have equipment there. They are already started, Mr. Speaker, the development process on that by building the roads that will connect the communities right to where the source of the power supply will be developed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the reason that Quebec is no longer interested. Although the minister has been knocking on their door and now the Premier is out with the fighting words for them, calling them obstructionists and so on, Mr. Speaker, the reality is, while the government opposite was dragging their heels and trying to figure out if they were going east, west, north or south, whether they were going to pay for it themselves or have private investment, while they were out figuring all of this out and joking around with the national government on putting a line through a park - a UNESCO world site in the Province - while they were out playing the little jokes, Quebec was moving on. They were moving on with the development of power. They were moving on with filing the applications to access the transmission lines to be able to transport the power that they are going to develop. Mr. Speaker, that is the reality of what we are dealing with in terms of Quebec. That is the reality. So we are back talking about the north-south route again.

One change that has already occurred with this route has been the fact that we will not go through the park, apparently, although in every single interview since last spring when the Premier was interviewed, when the minister was interviewed, they defended the route through the park. They defended it. They said it was $100 million cheaper. That was the huge consideration, $100 million cheaper to put this route through the park. In fact, the Premier went as far in one of his clips - because I have it here - saying that I would rather spend $100 million in health care in the Province before I would spend it in putting it through the park.

So, Mr. Speaker, after being out there and defending that particular route, I was absolutely astounded, my jaw dropped, and I do not mind admitting it, when I heard the rationale, when I heard that government was withdrawing from this route and that they were only joking. He said: I am only joking. I was only kidding, testing the mettle - he says - testing the mettle of Parks Canada and the federal government.

An unbelievable statement, and I know there are something like three communications people or something up in his office, or two at least, and I am sure they would not have advised him to use that as a rationale for changing his mind and changing his perspective. It is absolutely amazing, amazing that you could defend something so adamantly and then casually throw it out as a fact that you are just kidding.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the north-south route, whether it is going to cost $100 million more to run a transmission line through the Northern Peninsula or not. Let's talk about it, because the news out of New Brunswick today causes some doubt in my mind as to the north-south route. The news in New Brunswick today, Mr. Speaker, is that they are not granting the Province of Prince Edward Island access for the transmission of wind power through News Brunswick into the New England States. This is the very same line in the very same province that we need to be able to access if we are going to do the north-south route; unless, of course, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is also going to pay to build transmission lines through all of the other Atlantic Provinces as well. Maybe we are going to build the transmission line right down through the Eastern Seaboard; those are the kinds of details that we do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the news out of New Brunswick today is saying that while the P.E.I. government might have announced a $1 billion, ten-point plan for wind energy development that would see the island increase its wind production to 500 megawatts by 2013, that there will not be any available access on their lines. They are saying that all of our access is tied up. In fact, New Brunswick Public Utility, and I am quoting right from them, is saying that there was a bid, a tender that was out a year ago for its transmission capacity to be used by other jurisdictions, whether that be Newfoundland and Labrador or Prince Edward Island or Quebec. They are saying all of the excess was bought up by Quebec at that time. They said that Prince Edward Island did not tender in that process and if they wanted to export wind power to New England it must have negotiated with New Brunswick Power or with Quebec at this stage in order to do that.

No different; no different than what we were being told back in 2002 by the Province of Quebec. If you want to access the market, if you want to wheel the power you have to negotiate with us. Well, this is what New Brunswick is saying today to Prince Edward Island. They are saying if you want to transmit power to here you now have to deal with us or you have to deal with the Province of Quebec, because they have won the tender to access all the excess capacity that is on the lines through the Province of Quebec. What I would like to know is did Nalcor Energy tender? Did the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador even tender a year ago when that capacity was out on the open market in New Brunswick and available to other jurisdictions? My guess is they did not, because just like when Quebec developed the Romaine River and moved in right under their noses, they were too busy caught up with all the games. They were too busy caught up with joking around with people over whether they were going east, west, north or south and what route they were going to take. This is what has been happening. Government has been at this for six years; six years in terms of trying to move forward with a development on the Churchill River, on the Lower Churchill Project. They did nothing only be critical of what other people have done in the past but yet they have not moved forward themselves; not moved forward themselves. Now, whether you want to go north, south, or east or west it is going to cost you a lot more money, undermining the feasibility of the project for the long term to be able to do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I would like know at this stage is why Nalcor and why the provincial government did not tender for capacity on that line through New Brunswick if they were serious about a north-south transmission route? If they were serious about building a transmission line through Labrador, cross the Strait of Belle Isle, down through the Northern Peninsula, cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence, through Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick, and through five States to get to the market, why did they not tender a year ago when that capacity was open? If they did tender, I would like to know why they were not successful in gaining some access. Because, what has happened now, the minister gets up and talks about the agreement that allows for other provinces to apply for access on transmission lines through other provinces. Well, that is a whole different ball game. That is a whole different ball game as well, because when we are applying for access on that line now it is also going to involve a negotiation with New Brunswick and with Quebec. While they may not be able to restrict us, they do now have capacity for use themselves that we do not have access to unless they want to give it to us. That is the reality.

So, I would like for the minister to clarify some of those questions when she stands on her feet to talk about this particular bill, because, Mr. Speaker, those particular aspects are very important. They are very important. Because, Mr. Speaker, if government has not been able to determine a route, and an effective route, how are they going to determine and secure markets?

Let's talk about the market access piece for a minute. How are they going to secure and determine those particular markets that are going to be required? Well, first of all, we know, Mr. Speaker, that they had an MOU with the State of Rhode Island. We know they signed an MOU with the State of Rhode Island. They called a press conference on it and they said we have signed an MOU with the State of Rhode Island and so on, and we are going to work together. It was done back in June of 2007. We are going to work together; we are going to look at what are some of the options; we are going to access and implement the expansion of the market for the sale and purchase of renewable electricity generated by the Lower Churchill Project. That was the essence of their MOU.

Now we did file, Mr. Speaker, and in fact, we asked in the House of Assembly, I asked in the media, for copies of the MOU that the Province signed with the State of Rhode Island. Well the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, in their openness and their accountability policies, refused to give us a copy of the MOU that they had signed with Rhode Island. But it does not matter; I have a copy of it, Mr. Speaker. I got it from the State of Rhode Island government is how I got it. They were much more open and accountable than what the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was.

Let me tell you what was in the MOU that they signed with Rhode Island, very little, very, very little. In fact, I was absolutely astounded when I sat down and read the agreement after they had sent it to me to learn that it was all pretty willy-nilly stuff. However, one of the things in here was this, one of the things that might have had a little bit of substance in this whole MOU that they signed with Rhode Island was the fact that they were going to develop some terms and conditions for the long-term sale and purchase of a portion of the capacity and the energy to be generated on the Churchill River development. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they even put time lines around it.

In Phase I of their agreement, Mr. Speaker, which was supposed to be completed by December 31, 2007, nearly two years ago, it was during that time period that they were supposed to have completed a long-term sale and purchase arrangement and the action plan to address the technical regulatory and statutory requirements for the transmission of Lower Churchill power. That was the agreement that was supposed to be worked out nearly two years ago between Newfoundland and Labrador and Rhode Island.

Now I would like to know if that was ever done, because when the Province signed this MOU with Rhode Island, they called a big press conference, talked about their agreement, their MOU with Rhode Island for the purchase of Lower Churchill power. Certainly, there are probably not enough households in Rhode Island to consume the amount of power that is going to be generated by the Lower Churchill Project. So you are going to need more than one customer, more than one market to be able to make the project work.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the government called a big press conference, announced the MOU, refused to release it to the public in Newfoundland and Labrador, refused to give it to the Opposition. We had to go to the State government in Rhode Island to get a copy of the agreement, and what do we find in the agreement? Very little, with the exception of one undertaking. The one undertaking which was supposed to be defining the agreement and the negotiation with regard to the long-term sale and purchase agreement between the State of Rhode Island and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it was supposed to be completed by December 31, 2007.

Now, I would like to know why there has not been another press conference announcing the agreement, because if it was done it would have been done nearly two years ago. So why is there no press conference talking about secure purchase agreement for market access of Lower Churchill power even if it is only with one State? Is it because it does not exist? Could it be because it does not exist and that the agreement was never ever finalized, never ever negotiated? I would like to know the answer to that. Maybe when the minister stands up today to close debate, or tomorrow, whenever she speaks to close debate, she can provide some answers with regard to that MOU that caused so much fanfare back in June of 2007 in the Province because we have not heard a word about it since then; have not heard a word about it.

The other thing it said in the agreement is that upon the completion of Phase I, which is the power purchase agreement, then they would move into Phase II, and Phase II would be to negotiate a binding form of agreement. That agreement would be how they were going to execute the deal and that they would report within ninety days on the initiation of the Phase II activities; within ninety days. So that would be three months. Still, we are talking nearly fifteen months ago that that part of it would have been finalized. So we are talking a long time now. If this MOU was ever worth anything than those agreements should have been in place for an extended period of time and that they should now be released to the public.

Outside of this, where is the other market access for Lower Churchill power? Not only have they not determined what route they are going to take, not only have they got Quebec and Quebec Hydro not even prepared to talk to them because they are developing their own hydro projects, they will be much more advanced in the development of those projects than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be and therefore will probably secure access on the lines before we do. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, they are talking about a north-south grid. They have not even got a deal with the Province of New Brunswick to wheel the power through New Brunswick, and yet we know they are out there today saying to the Province of Prince Edward Island, who only wanted capacity to wheel 500 megawatts of wind power, that you are not going to get it; that you are not going to get it. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, not only have they not determined the route, they have not even determined how they are going to negotiate or how they are going to finalize a deal on either of these routes. Both of them are completely up in the air in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and they are no closer to finalizing any of this today than they probably were six years ago when they came into office and started talking about the deal itself. That is one issue.

Now, let's talk about the markets again. Other than the MOU that was signed with Rhode Island, where is the market access for power for the Lower Churchill? Where are the market agreements? I am tired of listening to people in Nalcor and people in government saying: look, there is a demand for power in North America. There is a demand for energy in North America. Well, that is all well and good. There is a demand for energy in Canada too, right across the country probably. There is a demand probably for power in Lake Melville today because they do not have enough hydro power and they are supplementing it with other power sources. There is a need right across Labrador, so do not talk about need. Tell me where the market access is. Who are you signing deals with? Who are you negotiating with? Other than the big press conference and hoopla around the Rhode Island piece, we have not heard tickety-boo in terms of market access. We do not know where the markets are for the Lower Churchill Project, what the Province is signing on to, what Nalcor is signing on to as part of that deal. We do not know that, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing we do not know besides the route they are going to take, besides where the market is, we do not know how they are going to pay for it. We have no idea how they are going to pay for it. What we do know is that back in February Gilbert Bennett, who is the vice-president of the project, the Lower Churchill Project with Nalcor, was in the media saying that they know now that the project went from $6 billion to $9 billion to $10 billion. This was back in February. In February we were talking about a $10 billion project.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily have a problem with the fact that it could cost $10 billion. I do not know if that $10 billion is a route that takes us through Quebec. I do not know if it is a route that takes us through three Atlantic provinces, across two bodies of water and down through five States. I do not know what the $10 billion figure contains. No one has broken it out, in terms of what is contained. I do not know if the extra $100 million for the routing of the transmission line around the park is included in that amount of money. I do not know if included in that is any benefit agreements for Labrador. I do not know if included in that is any kind of investment into future power supply for Labrador communities. All I know is what he said in February, that it is not $6 billion any more, it is not $9 billion any more; it is $10 billion.

The rationale for that is the increased cost of materials, the increased labour market costs. All of those things are contributing to a higher investment required in order to make the project work. So, what is the situation now, six months later, seven months later? What is the situation now? Is it still $10 billion or is it not?

These are the pieces and the questions that we do not have answers to. We do not know what the $10 billion includes. We have no idea what makes up that particular figure in terms of the investment cost. We do not know if the payout on the IBA agreements with the Aboriginal people in Labrador is a part of that $10 billion agreement.

Mr. Speaker, they are talking about raising money, raising money to finance the Lower Churchill Project. How do you raise that money? Where are the sources of revenue that are going to make up that $10 billion? The government has not told us. They have not told anyone in the public. They have made statements like: We will go it alone.

For example, you have to remember, you have to go back a few years. Some of you may forget, but it was your government that, going back a few years ago, put out the Request for Proposals to develop the Lower Churchill Project. Do you remember that, and do you remember one of the proposals that came forward at the time? I am not saying if it was a good proposal or a bad one, because I have never seen the details of it to be able to make that kind of an assessment, but it was a proposal that collectively defined markets, routing and financing, three of the things that your government has not been able to define in the last four years since; have not been able to define in the four years since. So, Mr. Speaker, at that time they said we would go it alone. They would look at this megaproject; they would arrange the financing. To date we have not seen any indication from government of their ability to be able to do that.

They also said that it is their preferred option to lead the project. Well, this is what they have criticized every other government for in the past: that they would not be the sole 100 per cent leaders of the project.

I would expect that any deal going to be done by the government opposite would be 100 per cent owned by the Province, 100 per cent owned by the Province, the very thing that they were so very critical of, everyone else is for having buy-in, having investment into the project. That was the critical and pivotal moment for the government opposite when they were in Opposition, was to take that particular perspective. So we would expect that all the financing would be not only go it alone in terms of raising the capital in the Province but it would have 100 per cent leadership of the project and controlled interest of the project at 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, that was what I thought the sole reason was three or four years ago when they rejected the offers that were put to them; the offers, as I said, that talked about securing markets, with secured markets, secured access and secured financial investment. Whether it was a good deal or a bad deal I have no idea, because no one has ever showed me the actual document, but what I will say is that this government has failed to produce any of those three things so far in the context of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Lower Churchill project is a major project. We know that with today's technology, with the proposed development, that we could actually see the number of megawatts on that river increase in the development. We could see it probably at 3,000 megawatts in the full development phase of the project, which is probably 250 megawatts more of power than was originally assessed in other deals when this was ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, still it begs the question as to whether the $10 million is the figure quoted on a routing that will take us through Quebec or the north-south grid. The other fact that remains is where the money will come from. There has obviously been no commitment by the federal government - obviously, to date, no commitment by the federal government - however, I think that if the Province was to look at the north-south grid they have the ability to be able to provide power to other provinces of Canada which would make it more palatable for the federal government to invest; and, in fact, I would expect them to invest. They are investing in power development projects in Prince Edward Island, in New Brunswick, in Ontario, in Quebec, so why would they not invest in power development projects in Newfoundland and Labrador if part of the power being developed was going to be used to provide a power supply to other parts of the country? To me, that would be sensible, it would be palatable, it would be a good investment for the Canadian taxpayer in this country.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, we do not have that investment; it has not been defined. That investment has not been defined by the federal government. I hear all kinds of speculation about the Province or about Nalcor actually going to the markets to raise money for the Lower Churchill, putting so many shares on the market and therefore, of course, putting it out to private shareholders to purchase. I do not know if that is true or if it is not; it is what people have told me. It is obviously a very popular option for large projects and large companies when it comes to raising capital.

We see it all the time in the mining industry, for example, where they go to the markets and list a project in order to raise capital. Maybe it is an option, but if it is an option it is still not going to be done without defining where the markets are, what the routing is, and what the cost is. So that is an option. I guess if it surfaces as one of the things that Nalcor Energy, under its subsidiary company that will make up the Lower Churchill Project, if that is an option they look at, well it is certainly one, I am sure, that will be largely debated within the Province, because it is one of the commitments that this government made: that it would have full leadership and control and that it would go it alone on a project. So that would certainly restrict them from having private shareholders buying in to any particular development.

Mr. Speaker, the other piece of it that is out there is, in the absence of the federal government putting an investment and the ability of the Province to be able to borrow this amount of money, what are the other options that exist? Maybe that is what the government should be telling the people of the Province: what are the other options. I just talked about one. Listing it in the markets is always an option, of course, for major projects. If they are feasible then it is a way to raise capital.

What is the other way? Private investment is the other way. Is government looking at that? Is that an option that you are exploring? We hear you make statements to the effect that you are going it alone, but do we take confidence in those statements or are you just joking and kidding with us and maybe you are out there trying to look at private investors as part of this project. Those are things that we never get information on, that is never being disclosed to the public, and it is a very important part of it.

The other piece is with regard to the redress on the Upper Churchill. When the Province entered into this negotiation – and this was a huge issue for the Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, was getting redress on the Upper Churchill issue. In fact, I think his comments that I have in my file on that issue go back nearly eight years, because that is how long he has been in the Legislature, I think, and they go back that far - six years in government - but what we do not hear today is: One of the key components for this Administration, is it still the redress on the Upper Churchill? We do not hear them talk about it anymore, but originally their statements were that, without redress on the Upper Churchill there would be no Lower Churchill deal. Those were the comments that were made, but we do not hear about that anymore.

Last week, of course, we heard the tone and the language used in dealing with Quebec and calling them obstructionist in this entire project, so I can only say that it is very unlikely, at this stage, that there are any negotiations going on with Quebec around redress on the Upper Churchill. So the question remains, Mr. Speaker: Is that still a condition for a deal for the current Administration? Because it was a hallmark to a deal only seven or eight years ago, so is it still a condition to a deal right now by the current Administration, Mr. Speaker?

There are more questions, Mr. Speaker, than there are answers, there is no doubt about that. There are a lot more questions than there are answers, and it is really hard to know where they are coming from, because one day they are going east to west, and the next day they are going north to south. One day they are trying to knock on the door of Quebec, and the next day they are slamming the door. One day they are talking about wheeling it through Atlantic Canada, and then they had the door closed on their face over there. So, Mr. Speaker, they do not really know what they are doing. They do not really know what they are doing. They have no agreement with anybody. They are out there, Mr. Speaker, playing with the change in their pocket because they have 3,000 megawatts of power to develop, and what they are failing to see is that everyone else is running circles around them, developing all kinds of power: nuclear power, wind power, water power. Running circles around them. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are caught in a situation where they have two routes; yet, they are not sure if they have anywhere to go. They are not sure if they have anywhere to go.

Mr. Speaker, this is the quote in which I think it was the Premier who made this quote a couple of days ago, "It is disappointing and frustrating that Hydro-Quebec is not doing everything it can to enable this project…" - meaning the Lower Churchill Project – "…given Hydro-Quebec's exorbitant profitability from the Upper Churchill, which will go on for two-thirds of a century."

Mr. Speaker, one form of redress on that issue, one form of redress would be to develop the Lower Churchill and to do it in a way so that we are earning money on it. We know what the profits of Hydro-Quebec are. Every single year we can pick up their financial statement, and it is probably sickening and disheartening to every single person in this Province. It is sickening and disheartening, but does it bog you down for the rest of your life? Does it bog you down for the next ten years trying to secure a deal on the Lower Churchill?

If you are any good to negotiate, if you were good negotiators, you would have all of these agreements in place now. You would have it all in place. You have been talking about it for eight years. You have been in government for six years, trying to do a deal, and you are no further ahead today. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they probably have more roadblocks today then they had when they started. They might be proceeding forward with their environmental assessment. They might be getting their legislation pieces in order that they need to do, and every time they go out on a piece like that maybe it is signalling to the public that we are close, we are close to getting a deal, but they do not talk about the real factors that make up a deal, the real issues like where the markets are, where the money is going to come from, what right you are going to access, who you are signing deals with for the transmission of power. These are all the things that we do not hear about.

The other piece we do not hear about is why the Aboriginal agreements have been delayed, why there has been no ratification of the IBA agreements, the New Dawn Agreement that was signed, or was supposed to have been signed, with the Innu Nation, and why there have been delays of a year in the ratification of that particular deal. You know, these are all the questions and concerns that people in the Province have. They want information.

When the vice-president of Hydro, of the Lower Churchill Project, is out saying the Lower Churchill is not going to cost $6 billion now, it is not going to cost $9 billion, it is going to cost $10 billion, well, can you tell us what we are getting for $10 billion? Can you tell us what is driving the price? Can you tell us what is included in all of that? Because none of those things are ever clarified; it is just statements. It is all just statements, very broad, meaningless statements that have no information, absolutely no information.

Mr. Speaker, you never know where this government is coming from because you know if anyone were to listen to the statements that were made with regard to the lines through Gros Morne and the perspective transmission of power through the park, one would have been convinced that irregardless of a World UNESCO Heritage Site, one would have been convinced that this government was going to bulldoze its way right through the most pristine piece of landscape that exists up through the Northern Peninsula. One would have put their money on it if they had to listen to the Premier in the news talk about it. Then what happens? A few months later a complete back flip. I am just joking boy, I was just kidding with you. You know, this is the statement. Then you expect us to sit back and accept broad statements around the Lower Churchill. Sure we have no idea when you are serious or when you are joking. That is the problem we are dealing with now.

The same problem they are dealing with out in Grand Falls. The people out there who live in that area who want to see a return on the hydro power that is being generated on the river there, and they know that there is money being passed through the coffers of government. They know that if their community do not have a power access base they do not have the opportunity for long-term energy. What are they being told by the government? It's not on boy; we are not doing a deal with you. We do not do deals when it comes to adjacency. But this is the same government who will sit at the table of the feds and want adjacency on fish stocks, want adjacency on other resources in this Province, but yet you are prepared to stand up and say to the people in Grand Falls-Windsor you do not deserve to have adjacency rights on a power supply that you have owned and operated in this region for 100 years. What kind of a statement is that? That is what I call talking out of both sides of your face.

Mr. Speaker, it is no different, because in the House of Assembly in the spring I asked dozens and dozens and dozens of questions of the ministers and the Premier about why they would not pay out the severance and pension benefits for workers in Grand Falls. Everyday they stood and gave me a full litany on why they could not pay out those benefits but at the end of the day they did a complete flip-flop and they paid out the benefits any way. So, Mr. Speaker, how do you know when the information that is being provided to you, as sketchy as it is, as broad as it is, as detailed lacking as it might be, how do you know, Mr. Speaker, if it is actually for real or if it is just one big joke? How do you know? How do you know when the next flip-flop is going to come? That is the problem that I have. That is why today out in Grand Falls when people are out there trying to determine how they are going to get some access to the rights and the profits that are being generated on that river - and they are claiming adjacency. They have even asked for equity shares in a new power utility company. Something the government is really big on, equity shares. You are buying equity everywhere. You are buying equity in everything that is able to move in the Province. So why wouldn't you allow the poor buggers out in, the poor people out in –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) buggers?

MS JONES: No, it is unparliamentary and I will withdraw it, Mr. Speaker - the poor people out in Central Newfoundland to have the same opportunity? So, Mr. Speaker, it is all about saying one thing and doing another thing when it really suits us best, and that is what I am seeing here.

It is just like today when I heard the minister get up and talk about: oh well, we are putting a pile of money out in Lewisporte. We are going to build a long-term care facility, so therefore you should not have a problem with seeing your X-ray and lab services cut. That is the kind of mixed messaging that you get all the time. So when I stand up and ask twenty-five different questions on the Lower Churchill deal, like I just did today, for clarity around this deal, it is important to get information, it is important to get answers, because it is those answers that will allow people to make educated decisions and to participate in the debate in a fair and equitable way, and without having that information it is very difficult.

Having said all of that, Bill 37, obviously, has to deal with defining the catchment area on the Churchill River as a means of moving forward with negotiations between Nalcor and CF(L)Co. We do not have a problem with the bill, Mr. Speaker. We do not have a problem with defining the legislation that is in this bill. We do not have any problem with that, but as I said, we have questions around the project. We have a lot of questions around the urgency of bringing this forward now and what is motivating government to do this, because government does know that there are so many other factors that have to fall in place before there is a deal with regard to the Lower Churchill. Unless they are willing and ready to sign off an agreement in the next few days, which I sincerely doubt, or the next few weeks, what would be the urgency in bringing this forward now?

So I guess those are the questions that remain. I am sure when the minister stands to close the debate tomorrow or the next day that she will have all the answers for me to all the questions that I have just posed today to the government benches and I am sure they will be in full detail, Mr. Speaker. Maybe she could even give me a copy of the power purchase agreement that was negotiated with Rhode Island that was supposed to have been done since December of 2007. Maybe when she stands to close debate she could actually, Mr. Speaker, table that particular document so that we have access to it as well.

So I think that that will be certainly very important information because it is all about market access. If you are talking about raising money for the project it is really contingent on two things, the route that you are going to take and the market that you are going to sell it to and what the profit is going to be. The minister knows that, and in the absence of those two things, to talk about raising money is a little bit foolish, and she knows that as well. Because, Mr. Speaker, without having the other pieces in place, what are people investing in? What is the government of Canada investing in? What are the people of the Province investing in? You talk about the financial arrangement and we do not even know what route we are going to take. We do not know what market we are going to access, so how do we know what we are investing in?

So, Mr. Speaker, a few answers would not go astray in debate on this particular bill, but in terms of Bill 37, we will certainly be supporting it.

Thank you.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Deputy Premier on a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: It is more a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

In Question Period I was discussing the OATT applications, and I referred to the OATT applications going to the Régie. In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, the OATT applications go to the Régie de l'énergie. In New Brunswick they go to the New Brunswick System Operator. Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very pleased to stand this afternoon and to speak to the bill that is before us. Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act.

We were not expecting to be in the House this early in the fall but I am quite pleased to be here, and I am happy to have this bill before me to discuss. I want to acknowledge that the Premier, last week, did take time to meet with the Leader of the Official Opposition and myself to give us a heads up with regard to this piece of legislation before the piece of legislation was coming to the House, or before he made an announcement that the House was going to be open. I did appreciate that, and also the fact that we had a briefing, at which time we could ask all the questions that we needed to ask to prepare ourselves for getting ready for the opening of the House and for the debate in the House. I want to acknowledge that we did appreciate having the opportunity both for the meeting with the Premier as well as for the briefing that we took advantage of, both myself, members of the Official Opposition, members of our staff, et cetera.

It is interesting having this bill before us because it has opened up once again an issue that we have debated many times in this House since I have come in. We have certainly debated some of the issues around Nalcor and I think we also have brought up issues here in the House related to energy that have been long standing issues in this House. If there is one thing I think that we probably all agree on in this House, and probably every single person in Newfoundland and Labrador agrees on, is that the situation we have with the Upper Churchill is something that we never ever want to repeat.

In actual fact, the situation that we have because of the Upper Churchill agreement is one of the reasons why we are here, because the whole issue of CF(L)Co having the water rights that it has is an issue that really concerns me, and it is an issue that we need to talk about in this House and an issue that I began questioning about during Question Period today. Because if CF(L)Co had not been given the water rights we would not be here because we would still maintain all the water rights with regard to the Churchill River, whether we are talking about the Lower Churchill River or the Upper Churchill River. I think keeping the water rights and the management of water in the hands of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was absolutely essential. Now we know we cannot undo where things are with CF(L)Co at the moment because the agreement that we have has to live itself out until 2041. We know that. However, in everything that we are doing now we need to keep in the forefront and we need to keep on record and we need to keep in the psyche of people who sit in this House that we do not want to repeat what happened in 1961. That is not what we want to do, and that it is absolutely urgent that in everything we do from here on in, we will be sure to keep control in the hands of the Province.

Now I know in the act that covers the Energy Corporation, powers have been given to the Energy Corporation, to Nalcor with regard to water management. However, the Energy Corporation is completely accountable to Cabinet and to this House. That does hold them to what the government would want to happen with regard to water management and water rights, but it is extremely important that we think about this because we have to make sure that we never again lose control of our water rights in this Province. It is very interesting that we have our Energy Corporation, which is a mother corporation, which is the focal point for our energy policies in the Province, which is a way in which it has been put to us, the NDP in particular, but to the general public in general, by the President, the CEO of Nalcor, because he has said a number of times that Nalcor is the single point of accountability; that Nalcor was created to get accountability and responsibility clear.

So we have our energy company, you know this single point of accountability, the place where all of our energy policy is coming together and yet, here it is in a situation where it has to negotiate with a subsidiary, with one of its own subsidiaries with regard to water management. This is something that we do not want to see continued, obviously. As I said, we cannot stop it in the present. So we do have to make sure that good agreements are made between Nalcor and the subsidiary, but hopefully we would never again, once the Upper Churchill contract is renewed and new negotiations bring a new contract, that we would never again be in a situation where our key energy corporation, the Crown corporation which belongs to the people, has to negotiate over water rights in this Province. That should never be, and we hope that will never happen again.

The really important thing about this for me is that we make sure that Nalcor never, ever loses its vision, which should be the vision of the people of this Province, that Nalcor will always understand what its role is in protecting; that if they are the Crown corporation, they are the arm of government, they have to protect the rights of the people in this Province.

Now, it is good that they are doing the negotiations with CF(L)Co. Obviously, this has to happen if anything is going to happen with regard to the Lower Churchill - and I think that it should happen; I think there should be development, with a few caveats added to that which I will speak to in a minute - that if that is going to happen we have to make sure that any obstacle that might be in the way is removed.

As we heard earlier today in this House, both from the Premier and from the Minister of Natural Resources, we do have a lack of clarification in the current legislation with regard to water rights of the Lower Churchill that has to be cleared up, and that is what the debate is about this afternoon: the amendment to clear up the language that is in the act.

This is extremely important because we do want the Lower Churchill to go ahead - I think we do - but there are many things that have to be looked at, and a major thing is - four of them have been mentioned already by the minister and I want to speak to them. One is, of course, the ratification of the New Dawn Agreement, which is the agreement with the Innu Nation. We have to be really sure that in any development that happens in this Province, whether it is in Labrador or outside of Labrador, whether it is with Aboriginal peoples or not, we have to make sure that the development is going to benefit the people of the Province for as long as that development is in place and for after the development is over.

Now, there is one mechanism for that when it comes to the non-Aboriginal people in this Province, and that is the mechanisms through this government, and there are other mechanisms with regard to our relationships with Aboriginal peoples, and we need to be sure that, just as we are saying in this Province that we will never let happen ever again what happened, as happened with the Upper Churchill, that we will never again have a contract that keeps us in this Province from benefiting from one of our developments that sees another province benefiting way beyond, for the whole life of the contract, way beyond what we are getting from our own development.

Just as we say that should never happen again, we also have to recognize that cannot happen, either, when it comes to the lives of Aboriginal peoples in Labrador, and that Aboriginal peoples who have rights to the land that are going to be developed deserve exactly the same thing we are looking for, for ourselves. We have to make sure that the development that happens on the land that they have right to, that development will always, ad infinitum, right to the end, wherever that end may be, will always benefit the Aboriginal peoples on whose land the development is taking place.

That, I am sure, has been the spirit of the negotiations that have gone on and led to the New Dawn Agreement, but we do not yet have a fully signed, fully delivered agreement, and we have to make sure that is one of the things that is cemented in the agreement. If we want to be proud of that agreement, we will hopefully be able to stand with our heads high and say we made sure that the Aboriginal peoples of Labrador who are affected by this development got, from this, everything that we would want for ourselves; for example, new negotiations with Quebec, in terms of having our rights recognized, in terms of having our needs recognized.

So a lot of work has to go on with regard to the Lower Churchill, and that is what I want to speak about. One of the things the Premier assured us, both in the meeting that he held with the leaders as well as in front of the media, was that coming into the House today did not really have anything to do with the status of where things were with the Lower Churchill. It had to do with allowing Nalcor and CF(L)Co to take care of what they need to take care of so that Nalcor can continue its long-term planning. It is not an indicator, the Premier said, of where we are in the process with regard to the Lower Churchill.

I have to say I have to believe that, especially when the Premier has also publicly said to the media that he is going to run again in 2011 because of the unfinished business of Lower Churchill. So he has said publicly that he anticipates that in two years' time this is going to be an unfinished issue. It certainly will be, when you look at the things that have to be taken care of, the complications with regard to where the power is going to go.

I have a concern that the government is dealing with things piecemeal because for a long time, certainly for the last year-and-a-half or more, we have been hearing about the transmission line and the whole north-south route, and an environmental assessment process has been put in place with regard to the transmission line, not just with regard to the Lower Churchill development itself, and a lot of energy has gone into the talk, at least, around that transmission line, but now we hear the Premier saying, well, north-south, but, yes, it could be east-west now, and we could be looking east-west, and the east-west could be the route that also then becomes the north-south route.

Well, that is another whole kettle of fish, if we are going to look at what it would mean to wheel the power through Quebec, further west and also south. That is another kettle of fish. That in itself is another, to put it mildly, whole study. That in itself will take a tremendous amount of work to see if that is the route that needs to happen. The minister herself – the Minister of Natural Resources – referred today, herself, to the issues that come up, for example, if we want to wheel through Quebec, if we want to wheel through New Brunswick. Do they have the capacity to take all the power that we will want to wheel through, or would there have to be other infrastructure that is created in order for that to happen?

The implications of the size of the project, whether it goes north-south through the Island, or whether it goes east-west, is enormous; there is so much to be done. I am quite glad to hear the Premier talking about the fact that east-west is something that at least he is throwing out now. He was not throwing that out, but at least now he is. This is something we had been promoting as a party, and I am glad to know that the Premier is at least looking that way.

The amount of work that has to go into determining which direction, determining who the customers are - and I am sure part of the direction issue is being determined by who the customers are - and the financing, when we are not even sure which way it is going to go, or it could go both ways, that the amount of work that has to be done is astronomical. I would imagine that we are talking many years before all of that could be figured out.

One of the things I would like to speak to today has to do with the whole notion of the power from Lower Churchill going east-west, and if it does go south, going east-west from Labrador westward, and then southward movement happen through that route, so that you get east-west and north-south initially coming from the same source and moving in the same direction until they divide. I talk about this because I believe, and we as a party believe, that we should be looking at alternative energy sources such as wind power, and I know that Nalcor is looking at wind power; we know that. Wind power is part of their agenda, and we recently had the CEO of Nalcor, Mr. Martin, refer to Nalcor's, I do not know if plans are the word but at least looking at the potential of a 5,000 megawatt wind farm development for Labrador in what he said was the largely uninhabited area surrounding Lower Churchill. Now, that is an amazing concept: that, on top of the 3,000 megawatts that we are talking about from Lower Churchill, another 5,000 from a wind farm, and it is my understanding from the briefing we had, from a question that I put directly to the representative from Nalcor, that they do not see that power as benefiting power in Labrador in terms of power for people in Labrador. It would be power that would then be also part of what would be moving out of the Province and something that we would make money from. So it is not something that would benefit, for example, the Coast of Labrador; we can understand that. We can understand the whole notion of having transmission lines from Lower Churchill to coastal Labrador is not something that anybody is looking at; however, we do need to look at how wind power on the coast - and that is already starting; we do have a pilot project in the Red Bay area - how wind power on the coast could benefit the coast.

So, one of the things that I would like to put forward is the fact that we do not need the power to come down to the Island for the sake of the Island. That wind power, along with the hydro generation that we have on the Island, could actually, in the future, meet the needs of this Island.

Now, we have had some of these discussions with Nalcor with regard to wind power around the Island, and one of the things that has been put to us as a party is that, well, it would be very costly to have enough turbines, for example, to replace Holyrood; that 200 turbines could replace Holyrood and we would get rid of the dirty burning of the diesel fuel, the Bunker C fuel in Holyrood, and we would also remove an annual cost of approximately $150 million that is spent every year on buying that oil, but we have been told, well, that is pretty prohibitive, $2 billion to put up the turbines to replace Holyrood; however, we are saying that the transmission line - we do not even know how much it is going to be, do we? One of the figures that has been put out is $2 billion, but we are also told that if it does not go through Gros Morne, which I am very happy to note it will not be doing, apparently - the Premier now agrees with that - but how much more will it cost, whichever way it goes? The point is that transmission line would be even more expensive than putting turbines on this Island to replace Holyrood.

So, what concerns me is that in all of the planning all of those pieces have to be put together. Maybe they are there in the planning, and we are not at that table, I understand that, but I put it out, a challenge both to Nalcor itself, to the minister to whom Nalcor is responsible, to the Premier, that all of those pieces have to be looked at together. We cannot be looking at the transmission line by itself. We cannot be throwing out the notion of east-west as an idea and not comparing it to the north-south. We cannot talk about the transmission line without looking at, well, do we really need it for the Island and, if we do not need it for the Island, why go through putting it down through the Island if we can go north-south through Quebec and north-south, and through Quebec and further west? So my concern is, things seem to be piecemeal in the way they are presented to us and in the way they are presented to the public.

I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker; I see you moving. I will conclude now. I am glad that I have had the opportunity this afternoon to bring forward this notion questioning the transmission line, questioning how we use Lower Churchill, and I look forward in Committee of the Whole to raise further points.

Thank you very much.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to Bill 37, dealing with the Lower Churchill. It is a pretty important piece of legislation, no doubt. Anything that deals with the Lower Churchill, I would suggest, is of the utmost importance and interest to the people in this Province. It is unusual that we are here at this time of year. Traditionally, the House of Assembly does not sit in September; however, the Premier has deemed this to be a sufficiently important matter that he wants it dealt with now rather than in the usual fall sitting, which would take place after Remembrance Day.

Now, of course, that leads to two questions. First of all, what is Bill 37 proposing to do, and why is it of such urgency, or is it of such urgency, that we had to deal with in a special session of the House of Assembly?

When we talk, of course, about the Lower Churchill, a lot of us have opinions and we keep talking about the Lower Churchill always in the context of what happened on the Upper Churchill. I would submit that very few people in this Province, including myself, have a good, detailed understanding of what the Upper Churchill contract was actually all about.

In fact, I read an article recently by Professor James Feehan of Memorial University. He gave a lecture to the Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development and he outlined the history of the negotiations on the Upper Churchill. It used to be called the Hamilton River actually, but subsequently it renamed in 1965 in honour of Sir Winston Churchill who died that year, a former Prime Minister of Britain of course.

The negotiations started back as early as 1953. They were very convoluted, they were very complex. In 1961, we had certain lease agreements that were entered into. In 1968, we had a letter of intent signed between the parties.

By the way, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a signatory to the Upper Churchill contract. It is not a party to the contract. The contract is actually between Hydro-Quebec, CF(L)Co. Of course, the ownership of CF(L)Co, as it currently is, I understand is 34.2 per cent versus the Government of Newfoundland owing the balance. There are a lot of things, a lot of people say: Oh, we really missed the boat because we did not put in the escalator clause. That was certainly a big miss. At the time, of course, nobody knew about escalator clauses. Escalator clauses were not being used back in those days, nobody thought to put it in there. In fact, there were a lot more serious faults that exist with the Upper Churchill contract that we do not give much attention to today. We always seem to simplify it down to that one piece, that we are not getting our due because we overlooked the escalator clause.

Of course, the negotiations at the time, there is no doubt about it that Hydro-Quebec had CF(L)Co over a barrel and did what they felt they had to do in their best interest to get the best deal they could, and ever since, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been paying the buck because of that pressure situation that took place. Hydro-Quebec could force basically, given the circumstances, there would not have been any project. Hydro-Quebec used that circumstance that the project might not go ahead because there was such financial stress, and the long-term lenders would not finance the money, that they used that situation to their benefit and to our detriment. They squeezed and they got what they wanted. Two dollars a megawatt hour, I believe, which was ridiculously low even at that time. Even at that time it was a fairly low price to pay, but, of course, that is the situation we ended up in.

A lot of us are wondering where we are going to go in the future. Some people think that 2016 it's all over. We get a chance to renew the hope and the promise that we were going to suppose to always get from the Churchill. Some people think it is over in 2042, but according to Professor Feehan, it is a long ways from being over, a long ways. Yes, in 2016 we will have some options when it comes to taxation because right now under the deal there are no provincial taxes charged. Maybe come 2016 the Province could, of course, impose provincial taxes on CF(L)Co, but there are all kinds of issues around that, too. Can those taxes then be transferred over to Hydro-Quebec? Is it a constitutional issue that, can we do that? That will all be debated, no doubt, when 2016 comes.

Then when 2042 comes the contract has expired, but the bottom line is the lease has not. The lease agreement that deals with the water that was given for ninety-nine years, and that first one does not expire until 2060. The actual lease that controls the water that determines what power is made there does not get renewed until 2060. And guess what? In 2060, Hydro-Quebec has an automatic right to renew that water lease for another ninety-nine years. So we have lots of problems still with the Upper Churchill being renewed, and it is very complex. Hopefully, when we do the Lower Churchill, we will not find ourselves in such an inequitable position and we will be bargaining from a position of strength as opposed to a position of weakness because of financial concerns.

That is a little bit of the background. I would like, just for my own purposes of course, to try to get that framework of where we are going with the Lower Churchill here. So obviously we have two groups that are vying for rights on the same body of water. One has already got their rights based on a 1961 lease. The Upper Churchill and the government is telling us now that we have to determine now for more certainty, CF(L)Co I would think more properly. Hydro-Quebec shareholders of CF(L)Co are concerned because they are saying: If you go ahead with your Lower Churchill Project and you have not defined what the rights are, vis-à-vis the water, you may be encroaching on our rights under the old contract.

That is my understanding of what the government is saying here, is we want that certainty that does not exist right now. In fact, that is the wording that is used in the Explanatory Note in any case. It says, "This Bill would amend the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act to clarify what constitutes the Lower Churchill River for the purpose of this Act." So they want to bring some certainty to who, what company controls what water rights and CF(L)Co. For example, Hydro-Quebec shareholder of CF(L)Co is not pleased and satisfied that it is clear enough at the present time and they obviously have told Nalcor that we are not pleased with that and we need this change done.

Now, we were given a briefing on this, as were the media, and the explanation given to us by the Vice-President, Mr. Bennett, who is responsible for the Lower Churchill for Nalcor, and the Deputy Minister of Justice, was that as far as they know that is the only reason that they need to get on with negotiations. They cannot get on with negotiations because CF(L)Co needs that certainty, vis-à-vis, the water rights. So that is why we have to come and do this.

The first question, of course, that begs us: Okay, what stage of the negotiations - at what stage are they at that its such urgency that we need to do this in September of 2009 versus dealing with it in ordinary course? Are the negotiations off the rails if we do not do it? Why would, for example, a letter of comfort from the Premier who got forty-four bodies to back him, a letter of comfort signed by Premier Williams saying: Look, we are going to clarify this. Do we agree upon this new definition? Here is the letter. We will do this in December, November, no problem. But, no, we are not seeing that. That is a standard way of practice that you should give somebody a letter of comfort but no, no, we find ourselves here with an urgency to change this right now. I do not know, maybe all of the members on the government side know the reasons for the urgency. It should not stop the negotiations. The Lower Churchill negotiations have been ongoing for years and they are probably going to be ongoing for a lot longer. So why the urgency of having it here?

Well, I think there is a reason, and that is the motivation for it. I could be totally off base, and I am not a conspiracy theorist and so on. Not at all, because at the same time that we are being told that the reason for this debate is that we need to get clarity, and therefore we have to do it here in September, within twenty-four, forty-eight hours. So over here you have a sample where we are trying to be good negotiators, in good faith and fair ball, let's get on with this and let's do this so we can move the negotiations on between Nalcor and CF(L)Co. Within twenty-four hours the Premier is downtown saying they are trying to do us again, Quebec. They put stumbling blocks everywhere. The words he used today, of course, was Quebec was trying to skin us.

So, it is sort of like two mixed messages here. On one hand it is, let's get some clarity because we need this to further negotiations, and you have the Premier who stands up and says: Quebec is trying to skin us. So that is a little bit disconcerting when you say: What is going on here? Maybe this is some unique negotiating strategy that we do not know about, but I would think if you are trying to negotiate a deal and this is a piece of it, that keeping your powder dry and at least if you despise the person you are negotiating with, if you think they are skinning you, at least you might be quiet and say: Well, no point in me saying that because that is only going to inflame them. There is no need of doing that, but I think it is more basic than that. I think it is more basic.

According to the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, it is my understanding that these two parties, CF(L)Co and Nalcor, they have to make an agreement amongst themselves about what the water rights are going to be and if they do not do so, it is determined by our Public Utilities Board. That, no doubt, puts us in a pretty strong position ultimately. So they are sitting at this table, Nalcor and CF(L)Co and they are saying: Let's decide amongst ourselves what it is so that we can take an agreement that we all like and we will take it over to PUB. Obviously, then if it is a unanimous joint agreement, PUB is not going to have any problems with it. There will not be any big public hearings. There will not be any big disputes and we will just say here is the agreement that we have. It will be rubber stamped, ratified. PUB probably would never have to be involved at all. That is what you would hope that would happen, but we know folks that that cannot happen, and we know that that is not likely to happen, and we know it again because of the words of the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources.

I refer, of course, to the comments they made last week when they said Quebec has done everything to stymie this deal. They have done everything to stymie this deal. That makes sense because obviously if Quebec have done everything to stymie this deal there is no expectation that Hydro-Quebec is going to sit on the board of CF(L)Co and allow a joint agreement to be made, crazy. Quebec does not want to do anything that the Premier is telling us and the minister. Quebec is not going to want to do anything to expedite the Lower Churchill deal; not going to do a thing to expedite the Lower Churchill deal. We know that. So what does the Premier do? He decides that we are going to force them. So they are either going to agree with what we want, and this is what we put in here. So we are going to pass this legislation to give them the comfort that they want but if they are not satisfied with this we have a backup anyway, because our backup is going to be that PUB is going to decide it. I think that is what the end result is. I think this is a pressure tactic to get Quebec to do something; to get Hydro-Quebec to agree, knowing full well that if they do not we have the lever anyway. We have the lever because the PUB will decide, and there is no doubt PUB is going to rule in our favour. I mean former Mayor Wells is the Chair of PUB and the members of PUB now, no doubt, I would think, are going to give the Province what they want if we go to our Public Utilities Board. I would not think that is an issue.

It is also very telling here as to who has not spoken; very telling. The Lower Churchill, probably as I say, is one of the most important, talked about deals, matters in our Province's history. Yet, this file is so important that only one person or two people get to touch it. That is the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources. We have not, on this most important piece of legislation, we have not heard from the Member for Lake Melville, the person who represents.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I have been told they are not putting up any speakers, Mr. Speaker. One of the most important pieces of legislation and we do not hear from the Member for Lake Melville, who is the Minister of Labrador Affairs. I would think this is a Labrador affair that is pretty important and that he should be talking about. I would love to have the benefit of his commentary on what he thinks of the Lower Churchill Project and how it is being negotiated and so on.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I say to the minister, you will get your opportunity. I look forward to listening to you because so far you have not taken that opportunity.

It is like the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I would think she has a vested interest to get up and talk about this. I am certainly looking forward to hearing what they have to say. I mean, we only have four members in the House from Labrador, the Member for Lake Melville, the Member for Torngat, the Member for Labrador West – two of them who are ministers. I would certainly think they are going to be on their feet. The other member for Labrador, the Leader of the Opposition was certainly on her feet and had her two cents worth. Maybe it is because they are not allowed to have a few words. Maybe nobody else gets handy to the file, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, this is I believe - and I can say, one thing to say you agree with something. I have no problem that if two parties need to stabilize or make something permanent and letter of comfort and to be more comfortable with how something is defined. Not an issue with that, but I do not believe, do not believe for a moment, that the motivations of passing this bill at this time have been properly put forward. Do not believe it. Do not believe it, and that is why I wanted it to be on the record, because down the road I believe we will see and we will be able to figure out what the true purpose was of doing this in September of 2009. Not to say it is bad, not to say it is bad. Now, if we are in a position that this is a negotiating tactic by the Premier –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: – and it is going to give him that lever that he wants, and that is going to benefit us as a Province, that is great stuff, not a problem. If that is what it is going to do, if it is going to expedite the deal, if it is going to bring it to a close and it is going to put us in a position of strength, vis-à-vis Quebec or Hydro-Quebec, I do not think there is anybody in this Province who is going to say nay to that, I do not think at all, but it is just that the motivations need to be made clear, and that is the part, I think, that we have missed here so far.

We get a one-word explanation of what this act is about, one clause and so on, and that is it; just do this because we have to get the boys back to the bargaining table. They are not going to talk to each other if we do not make this change right now.

Surely, surely, there must be lots of other details concerning the Lower Churchill that Nalcor and CF(L)Co are talking about. Surely there must be some unresolved issues of marketability. Surely there must be some unresolved issues of what transmission route we are going to use. Surely there must be some unresolved issues concerning financing. I would think that is enough to have kept these parties at the table until the House had normally opened but, no, it is a strategy, and not a bad one, I think, not a bad one.

We are going to put this forward. If they are opposed to this and do not agree with this – and, God knows, we do not know, there might be 1,000 challenges to this, but the bottom line is we are going to get that piece done and if they do not agree, if there was a problem, the PUB will decide anyway. I am pretty sure that the Premier feels pretty comfortable in knowing that the Public Utilities Board and Chairman Wells are going to carry the briefcase for him on this one and put in the briefcase whatever he wants him to. I would think common sense would dictate that.

Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. Again, I would conclude by saying it is quite often we hear members opposite and members over here, we all go around shouting about what we do or we do not know about the Upper Churchill. Well, unless some of you, like the good Minister of Health who has a photographic memory and does not need briefing notes, I am certainly not of that calibre. I certainly have to go and read most stuff, and try to have people explain it to me and so on, and I still do not fully understand, and make no pretence that I fully understand, the details of the Upper Churchill let alone what is going on in the Lower Churchill.

I would just say that sometimes, instead of shouting back and forth about who was stupid or who was smart or who was whatever, sometimes having a basic understanding of what happens helps you make the right and proper comments instead of inappropriate comments.

In any case, I am sure we are in for some good commentary in the future. When we get words like they are going to skin us, that is a pretty good remedy and recipe, I would say, for two parties that are really, really, at loggerheads and might keep this thing delayed for awhile.

Then, that is not unusual with the Premier because that has often been part of his negotiating tactic: to come out and take your head off first and then go back and do a deal. That is not unheard of. We have seen that being done with the nurses' union in the Province. We have seen it being down with NAPE in the Province. That is just the way he negotiates: Here is what I want. If you protest it and have anything to say about it, knock the head off of you, say all kinds of nasty things about you, say you are going to skin me, and then turn around and say: Let's do a deal. That is a strategy, and each to his own, I guess.

Hopefully, if that is the case, the good people in Quebec will see the error of their ways and, based upon those comments by the Premier, maybe they will come to their senses and agree that it is better to move on and make a deal than it is to be obstinate and trying to skin somebody, as the Premier says they are trying to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, she will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my head is kind of spinning with some of the things that we have heard here today. There are conspiracy theories all over the place. So much of this, of what we heard this afternoon, is so far out in left field that I am not even going to bother to comment on it, Mr. Speaker.

It is what it is; that is what we are doing here today. We have come forward with an amendment because CF(L)Co's lawyers - and CF(L)Co's lawyers, as well as the members from Hydro-Quebec who sit on the board of CF(L)Co, and our own representatives from Nalcor, on the board of CF(L)Co, are all charged with doing what is best for the Churchill Falls generating facility and that corporation. They have a solemn responsibility, under law, to do what is best for that company.

Certainly I am not assigning, nor is this government assigning, any motive to the board of CF(L)Co. We believe that they are negotiating this agreement in good faith. CF(L)Co has an issue, the lawyers have an issue, with the definition as it exists in the current legislation, and because of that ambiguity that is in that legislation we are back here today doing the amendment.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we have a methodical, well thought out strategy for developing the Lower Churchill. All of the questions that are posed here today, and that will be posed in the ensuing months as we further our financial studies, continue on with our front-end engineering, as we develop PPAs, as we go through our environmental assessment, all of those will be answered when we go to sanction, and we will have all of the information; we will have everything in place. We will not come with a project that we are going to develop after sanction or after we have cut a deal with somebody. Unlike the former Administration, Mr. Speaker, we will have a deal. We will understand all the aspects of it. Then we will go and sit down with people and see who wants to come to the table; but, Mr. Speaker, all this is about is clearly what I stated earlier. Because we have this process in place we do not want to delay six weeks or three months. We have an environmental process underway. It is important, in light of that process, that we conclude a water use agreement between Nalcor and CF(L) Co. This needs to be done in order to facilitate that negotiation. That is why we are here, Mr. Speaker, no other reason.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that this bill 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 Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 37 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 37)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, because this is a special sitting of the House and we certainly had intentions to proceed today and hopefully get to the point where we concluded second reading, we have done that.

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

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'.

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

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