March 22, 2011                    HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVI  No. 2


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to ask hon. members to welcome a new Page to the House of Assembly, Mr. Jonathan Moore, who will be serving with us during this session.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome and recognize the town council from Hant's Harbour accompanied by their mayor, Mr. Don Green.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; the hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to the Town of Harbour Breton and the Sunny Cottage Corporation for an outstanding summer of events and activities in 2010 that marked the 100th Anniversary of Sunny Cottage, a prestigious, historical merchant's home that stands proud and tall in the centre of the community.

Sunny Cottage is a Queen Anne style residence that was built by Mr. John Rose in 1910, one of few in this entire Province. The registered heritage structure tells the history of the families who lived there and offers a glimpse into the era of resettlement along the South Coast. Guides in period costumes provide tours of this magnificent structure and tell you the many stories associated with the home.

The anniversary was celebrated during a 100-day period from May 1 to September 9. Among the activities that took place were school tours, local entertainment at the tea room, a garden party, a museum day, a Stewart family day, and a birthday party with everyone invited. The volunteers did a remarkable job, and I would particularly like to thank Mr. Doug Wells, a local historian and Chair of the Sunny Cottage Corporation, as well as Ms Heather Blackmore who was quite busy all summer fulfilling her role as Miss Sunny Cottage.

I had the pleasure of attending the Pea Soup day as well as the Stewart Family dinner, along with the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who is responsible for the Volunteer Sector. We had a great evening with lots of stories about this wonderful place that has become an icon in the cultural heritage of the entire Coast of Bays region.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the board and town for a job well done!

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.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the Labrador Straits Development Corporation on recently receiving a Newfoundland and Labrador Community Economic Development Award.

Mr. Speaker, this award was presented at the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Economic Development Association, known as NLREDA, awards event that was held in Gander this past fall. NLREDA is an organization that works as a unified voice for the nineteen regional economic development boards in the Province and awards outstanding initiatives made by individual regional boards.

The Labrador Straits Development Corporation received the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Economic Development Award for its intercept campaign, a campaign that involved an invitation and discount coupons for 50 per cent of businesses from Cartwright to L'Anse au Clair being distributed Labrador-wide. It was hugely successful and certainly provided added economic activity and was a tremendous marketing campaign for the region.

I want to recognize the Chair of the Labrador Straits Development Corporation, Mr. Gaius Trimm, their board and their staff, Barb Marshall, Bruce Moores, and Doreen Belben for the tremendous work that they do in that region.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join with me in extending my congratulations to the Labrador Straits Development Corporation on their recent accomplishments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations to the Mings Bight Volunteer Fire Department upon celebrating its thirty years of service to the community. On March 4, I had the privilege to witness the outstanding support and appreciation that the Town of Mings Bight demonstrate to their dedicated firefighters. Approximately 118 residents of this small town packed the town hall to recognize the extraordinary dedication and commitment of the twenty-member volunteer fire department.

Mr. Speaker, the Mings Bight firefighter department spend countless hours of raising funds for personal firefighting equipment, engage in training to keep them abreast with current technology, and unselfishly serve their community with passion and with pride.

At their thirtieth fireman's ball, it was gratifying to see Fire Chief Boyce Mitchell and Fireman Eugene Regular honoured for their thirty years of service, along with Deputy Chief and Mayor Danny Regular who was honoured for twenty-five years of service. In addition, the firefighter of the year award was captured by Evan Haas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating the award winners, and also in applauding the Mings Bight Volunteer Fire Department upon reaching the thirty-year milestone of dedicated, unselfish, fire protection, not only to their town but also to their region.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Tracy Pittman, a former resident of Cook's Harbour who recently received the Dominion Command Bursary from the Royal Canadian Legion. Ms Pittman was one of two provincial recipients who were presented with this annual award. Recipients must be enrolled in a two-year program and be a child or a grandchild of a member of The Royal Canadian Legion. The bursaries are presented across Canada and come from the Poppy Trust funds.

Ms Pittman is currently studying midwifery at Ryerson University in Toronto and plans to return to the Province to work when she has completed her course. The $1,000 bursary will be used towards her studies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Ms Pittman on receiving this bursary and to wish her well in all her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House to congratulate Dr. Michael Bland of Grand Falls-Windsor for being inducted into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Dr. Bland was born in England, served in the British Navy, and then went on to become a veterinarian. In 1970 then moved to Newfoundland and Labrador, where he worked for the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Agriculture as the first large animal veterinarian in Central Newfoundland.

He opened and operated Exploits Valley Animal Hospital, a commercial egg layer production operation called Hamer Farm, and also started Elixir Organics Ltd. which produces 4,000 sea-buckthorn trees, and is also raising organic beef.

Dr. Bland has been a member of many boards, such as, to name a few, Newfoundland and Labrador Egg Producers Board, Newfoundland and Labrador Egg Marketing Board, Central Newfoundland Mid-Island Egg Producers Co-op, the Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Veterinary Medical Association, President of Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, and President of Wooddale Agriculture Society.

I would ask my hon. colleagues in the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Dr. Michael Bland as being a very worthy inductee into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome two other guests who are visiting us here today from the Town of Bishop's Falls, Mayor Bob Hobbs, and the town manager, Randy Drover.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge a tremendous achievement.

Yesterday, it was my great honour to be on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to represent the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and our Premier at an historic announcement that marked a giant step forward in reaching a land claims agreement with the Innu. I witnessed the completion of a financial agreement between the federal government and the Innu Nation, signed by the hon. John Duncan, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Joseph Riche, Grand Chief of the Innu Nation.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement advances the Innu land claim agreement into the final stages of completion, and it also serves as a major step forward for the Lower Churchill Generation Project. I understand the Innu Nation is now making preparations to bring the agreements arising from the Tshash Petapen or New Dawn Agreement reached between the Innu and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to its membership for a ratification vote.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am not sure there are words to express how I felt standing in Ottawa yesterday, taking part in an announcement that means so much to the Innu people, to Labrador, and to our entire Province. As an Aboriginal woman, I have some understanding of the great weight of responsibility that lies on the shoulders of the Innu leadership in securing a land claim. While they negotiate with the provincial and federal governments, these dedicated men and women have to weigh what is best for their communities, their loved ones – families, husbands, wives, children and grandchildren – while acknowledging the proud legacy of their ancestors who walked Labrador for thousands of years. A land claims agreement must take all of this into account, and more.

As Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I commend the Innu leadership and the Government of Canada on this achievement. Just a few months ago, I was part of a provincial government delegation which accompanied the Innu leadership to meet with Minister Duncan to discuss and advocate for progress on the Innu land claim.

Mr. Speaker, today, here we are, just a short time later, and history has been made. I ask my hon. colleagues to join me and acknowledge this tremendous accomplishment for the Innu people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not clear if the standing ovation was for the minister who read the statement or for the Innu Nation on achieving such a milestone after twenty years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that we are very proud to congratulate the Innu Nation of Labrador today on the tremendous milestone they have reached. It has not come easy for them or for their people.

I remember the late 1980s when I worked in Goose Bay as a journalist, and I saw the struggles of the Innu people then when low-level flying was starting to take off in Goose Bay. They would camp at the end of the runway to make their plea known to government: This is our land, and we deserve to be treated with respect; and we deserve, Mr. Speaker, to be compensated for the impact that civilization is having on the world as we know it.

I witnessed that for many years, Mr. Speaker, having lived in Labrador, living amongst all three Aboriginal groups. I know and understand the tremendous significance of the financial agreement that was reached yesterday between the Innu people of Labrador and between the Government of Canada. I also realize, Mr. Speaker, the importance and the significance of the lawsuit that is being launched today by the people of NunatuKavut, simply because they are today where the Innu was nearly twenty years ago in demanding respect from their governments for the occupancy and the developments of their lands.

Mr. Speaker, this is an historic milestone in many ways and I want to congratulate Grand Chief Joseph Riche. I want to congratulate some of his predecessors, Mark Nui and Peter Penashue who have been strong leaders of the Innu Nation for a tremendous period of time; people like Ben Michel, who is no longer with us but certainly made the presence of the Innu people known in Labrador, in the Province and across the country. They have had tremendous leadership in their community which has helped them reach the milestone they have today.

Mr. Speaker, government likes to tie this to the Muskrat Falls deal, but I want to give them a word of caution, this does not mean that the Innu has already ratified a deal on the Muskrat Falls. I want you to pay close attention to what they have said in their environmental hearings, the fact that they feel there is more to be gained for their people, the fact that their communities, like Natuashish, have been left out of any power plans for the future in that region.

I ask the government to keep an open mind, keep your ears open to what the demands of the Innu people are, because I think you will hear a lot more in the days to come. Mr. Speaker, we congratulate them on this significant agreement they have reached today.

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

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

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

It is more than a pleasure to stand here today and to congratulate the Innu people. I feel very privileged as a person from the Island of Newfoundland, that my relationship with the Innu people goes right back to 1970 actually, when, as a principal here in St. John's, I went into a school that had accepted four young women from Davis Inlet to go to school in St. John's. One of those was Ms Katie Rich. They have come a long way since that day forty-one years ago when children were being sent out to go to school. It has been a long struggle for them.

In the 1980s I was also privileged to be involved with them in a lot of solidarity work as they did their efforts. I, too, am privileged to know how much work has gone into this by the Innu Nation and the tremendous leadership that these people have shown, and continue to show. I congratulate them on their patience and on the long road that they have hoed as a people in Labrador, an Aboriginal people of Labrador.

This is what yesterday was about; that if the Innu people become involved with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with regard to Muskrat Falls, it will be on their terms, it will be on their land, and it will be the way that they want to do it. So I encourage us with patience as they go through that process because patience is something one does have to have as people struggle to find their voice and to make sure that their voice is heard.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, each member of this House of Assembly will acknowledge the significant role municipalities have, and the important contribution elected councillors and municipal administrative staff make to our Province. Our government certainly recognizes the importance of these individuals and has made a strong commitment to work with our partners, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, the Combined Councils of Labrador, the Professional Municipal Administrators and others to provide training on a wide variety of matters important to the functioning of a municipality.

Last year, we provided approximately $100,000 in funding, including Matched Training Funding to the Municipal Training and Development Corporation, to provide training to councillors, town managers and town clerks. Financial assistance for those working with a municipality so they may attend training sessions throughout the Province was also a part of this funding.

The Department of Municipal Affairs is leading the way in the training which is offered to the municipalities. We have stepped to the forefront and provided sessions on important matters such as the Gas Tax Program, municipal budgeting, Integrated Community Sustainability Plans, and Public Sector Accounting Board Standards – programs critical to the financial health of municipalities across the Province. As well, my staff offered training sessions regarding water quality, emergency response planning, the roles and responsibilities of councillors and other topics as requested of us by our partners and their membership.

In the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, we have organized approximately ninety training sessions which have been attended by over 2,000 people. This is no small feat but one I believe is having a direct impact upon our municipalities.

Recently I had the privilege of attending the swearing-in of the inaugural council of the Town of Fogo Island. At the community ceremony, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador was represented by Mayor Al Hawkins of Grand Falls-Windsor who stated that this government has had a better relationship with municipalities than any he has experienced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Such a statement is an important one and I believe is a result of the engaging and collaborative approach we have undertaken with our municipalities.

In the upcoming months, Mr. Speaker, more training opportunities are being made available on topics such as councillor roles and responsibilities, and municipal infrastructure roles and responsibilities. I encourage each of the 275 municipalities we have in Newfoundland and Labrador to contact the Department of Municipal Affairs for further information and to take part in these sessions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Certainly we want to acknowledge, as he suggested in the statement, that as a Member of the House of Assembly, the significance of municipalities and the important contribution that elected councillors make – and in most cases they are volunteers – and the administrative staff as well that work in these municipalities is very important to the functioning and the overall health and well-being of the residents that they represent. Certainly, we want to acknowledge that contribution today.

From the perspective of training, again, certainly training is critical in any aspect of life. For the municipalities and their staff that are often under resourced, the training dollars that are made available and the programs and so on that the training encompasses are very important to their future and to their well-being.

I would also suggest, to improve the health of municipalities, this government needs to bring forth what it has been asking for, for some time: a new fiscal arrangement with the municipalities, with MNL. Certainly, that would be important to them.

I also would like to just make a note of other unincorporated municipalities. This statement mentions water quality. I had the opportunity to meet with a local service district just this past week. They have been on a boil order since 1997, continuing to have their water sampled and so on every thirty days, whatever the timeline might be.

So there is a lot out there to be done. We acknowledge that training is a good part of that, and certainly we would want to see us doing more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously what he is announcing today is good, because the work that is being done by Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador is essential work for the development of our Province and especially for the smaller communities in our Province. So money going into training for people who are involved in governance is absolutely essential to the development of a basic municipal structure in this Province.

We know that a lot of responsibilities have been put on municipalities, small and large. At the same time that that has happened over the years we have had the funding arrangement with municipalities change. So, I encourage this government, and I encourage the minister, to look at the need for going back into municipal grants and to making sure that the municipalities have enough money to do the work that we expect of them.

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador is certainly working with the communities to help develop the ways in which they can work together. Even as they come together in regional groupings and cooperate regionally, they still need more resources to be able to do the work that we expect of them.

We cannot expect the smaller communities, for example, to be able to do the upgrades to water and sewer. Even with the 90/10 it is too much for some of them. Water is certainly the serious issue. Today is the World Water Day – and I know that the Minister of Environment has made a statement about it – but we still have approximately 230 communities who are regularly on boil water orders in this Province. So, when we see that ended, then I will stand and congratulate the minister.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to inform hon. members of a unique and thrilling sporting event that continues to attract international attention to Labrador – the Cain's Quest Snowmobile Endurance Race.

For countless generations, Labradorians have travelled throughout the Big Land to trap and to hunt, to gather supplies and provisions. Today, the region provides adventurers worldwide an opportunity like no other to celebrate this proud heritage in a contest that is exciting, challenging and gruelling to the extreme. A true test of the human spirit in the Labrador wild. One that serves as a tribute to the men and women who walked this land before us.

The Cain's Quest Snowmobile Endurance Race is a 2,300 kilometre contest that takes competitors on a course through some of the toughest, most rugged and breathtaking, beautiful terrain in existence. It was pleasing to see so many competitors from North America, and even as far away as France, take part in this competition. A total of twenty-six teams participated, also featuring a strong representation from Labrador. Starting from Labrador City-Wabush, racers headed to Schefferville, Kuujjuaq, back to Churchill Falls, before returning to Labrador City.

With every race, there is a winner, and each competitor should be proud for taking part in such a challenging competition. Robert Gardner and Richard Knipping of Maine were this year's winners. The finish was indeed exhilarating, with the first and second-place teams only minutes apart. I was particularly pleased to see the Labrador West team of brothers Gary and Chris Travers place second, even after an accident at Churchill Falls caused some bruised ribs for Gary. Congratulations, gentlemen, on a very fine showing. All of Newfoundland and Labrador congratulates you.

Mr. Speaker, an event of this calibre is a tremendous undertaking that takes months of co-ordinating, planning and preparation. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is proud to partner with the Cain's Quest Snowmobile Endurance Race event. Our investment of $130,000 is assisting Cain's Quest to showcase Labrador far beyond our provincial borders, both for extreme sports and adventure tourism.

This world-class competition continues to break new ground for extreme sporting in Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement, and certainly we are pleased to see that government funds events like Cain's Quest Snowmobile Endurance Race in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this particular race started out like a lot of other events in our Province but has grown to be one of the most popular snowmobile racing or endurance races in North America. It attracts people from all over, and not just people to compete but people who come to watch, people who come to be volunteers, people who come to get engaged in the whole process of competition like that.

We are very proud of this event in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and I want to congratulate all of the people who have been involved in organizing it. I think that snowmobiling right across this Province, Mr. Speaker, is an industry that is yet untapped in terms of its tourism potential. I find it very disheartening when I hear of people like the Snowmobile Federation talk about the challenges they have had this year, because the reality is that snowmobiling brings money into rural communities right across Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a great winter tourism activity. It is one that we need to continue to invest in. I think we need a strategy in this Province, Mr. Speaker, in terms of where we will take the snowmobile industry in tourism context over the next few years. I think we need to invest in our trails and in our infrastructure so that we can afford to have events like this, not just in Labrador but in other areas of the Province, an event similar to it.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the race went off good in Labrador again this year. I congratulate those who took home awards as a result of it. I am glad to see there were twenty-six teams participating because it shows that the interest is continuing to grow.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador, not unlike the rest of the Province, has some gaps in its snowmobile trails. Because the government opposite withdrew funding for many of those trails across Labrador, there were places this year where we did not see the trails groomed, we did not see the trails open and marked in the way that they should have been. Mr. Speaker, we think it is a step backward, not a step forward, and I would ask the government to have more vision than that and start looking at this as a real icon in the tourism industry, and not just an ad hoc piece that we leave to others to develop with no leadership (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

I think everybody in the Province now follows very closely Cain's Quest when it is taking part. I am sure when it first started it may only have been people in Labrador. I think two years ago I was actually in Labrador when it was starting and staying in the home of parents of one of the participants. That certainly got my attention going. It is a wonderful event. It is something that is very important for winter tourism, especially in Labrador, and it is the kind of thing that government should continue to fund.

I do want to take this opportunity to congratulate Gary and Chris Travers, in particular, being the two from this Province who came in second, and a very, very close second. It is good to know that people are interested in keeping this going and that we had so many teams taking part this year.

I will use this opportunity to give a message to people here on the Island, that the Big Land is a wonderful place to visit, whether it is summer or winter. I encourage people here on the Island, when looking at taking a holiday just do not stay here on the Island, think about going to Labrador. There are certainly more snowmobilers here on the Island who probably should think about taking part in Cain's Quest as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. In the Throne Speech yesterday you wrote that, "Every year, we generate a good portion of our electricity on the Island from the oil-fired plant in Holyrood." A good portion was the words that you use, but is it not true that just 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the Island's electricity comes from Holyrood and most of that is used in the winter months?

I ask the Premier today: How much of our electricity is actually generated at Holyrood and at what periods?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the question because in her reply to the Speech from the Throne yesterday there was so much misinformation and contradictions, it would have been hard to pick anything out of that to respond to.

Mr. Speaker, what happens in Holyrood depends on a number of things. One of the most important things that it depends on is the hydrology, which means how much rain we have in this Province. The more rain we have, the less amount of electricity that has to be generated in Holyrood. Mr. Speaker, it changes year over year. It has been affected, the last number of years, by the fact that we have two pulp and paper mills shut down and we have had a lot of rain.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe we could get to the facts and get a straight answer from the Premier. Is it true that only 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the consumption of power on the Island actually comes from Holyrood, and is it true that most of that power is consumed during the winter months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have power on the Island generated from hydro and also generated from Holyrood. Mr. Speaker, more power is consumed in the winter months in Newfoundland and Labrador because that is when the greatest demand is, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Either the Premier does not know the answer and is misleading the people in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: -or she is refusing to provide the information here in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that most of the electricity consumed on the Island portion of the Province is clean, green hydropower; power that comes from Cat Arm and Bay d'Espoir and other hydro sites.

Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Last week when Emera President, Chris Huskilson, told a business group in Halifax that Newfoundland only needs Muskrat power in the winter, I ask you Premier: Was he lying or did he have his facts straight?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the use of Holyrood is very much determined by the amount of rainfall; but, yes, Mr. Speaker, Holyrood is used primarily in the winter. Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the fact that we generate most of our electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador from green energy sources. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the reasons why we want to develop Muskrat Falls, so that continues. As demand grows, Mr. Speaker, we want to be able to provide electricity to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in not only a cost-effective way but in an environmentally friendly way as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we use less than 20 per cent of the energy coming out of Holyrood is what we consume, given the fact that we use most of it only in the winter months, confirmed by the CEO of Emera and by the Premier today, given that, I ask the question: Isn't $6.2 billion a lot of money to pay for 20 per cent of the electricity we need for only a few months out of the year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's lack of vision is never more clearly demonstrated than in the statement she just made.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is growing; the demand for electricity is growing. Mr. Speaker, they are so proud of Voisey's Bay. We need 85 megawatts of power for Long Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, what is her answer? How is she going to grow Newfoundland and Labrador? Because anybody who listens to her, there are no answers, no vision, in anything that she presents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will not grow Newfoundland and Labrador based on gouging the people of this Province, I say to you, Premier, like you are about to do: jacking up their light bill, leaving a debt in this Province for the next five generations of children to have to pay down. That is the kind of actions that your government is taking.

You want to talk about vision, Mr. Speaker? Yesterday in the House, the Premier heckled that the only way to decommission Holyrood was Muskrat Falls. We know that there are other options for clean, cheaper power, Mr. Speaker. Is she not aware of an inventory that was commissioned by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in which 160 small hydro sites, with a total capacity of 850 megawatts, were deemed feasible on the Island portion of the Province? All, I say to the Premier, could be developed and provide cheaper power to the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she is getting her information, but she really ought to check her sources.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not develop Muskrat Falls, we will have to develop Island Pond, Round Pond; we will have to bring on some wind, and we will have to build more thermal generation. We will have to do precipitators and scrubbers at Holyrood. The price tag of that alone is $3.3 billion, Mr. Speaker, and we are still tied to oil, which is forecast to continue to rise.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro did its research. Mr. Speaker, Nalcor knows of what it speaks, Mr. Speaker. Muskrat Falls is the most cost-effective green energy solution for the demands of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor might have done their homework, but the Premier did not do hers, because if she had, she would know today that in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's own documents is the exact information I am providing in the House today on the assessment of other hydro projects in the Province. Mr. Speaker, it also states what the capital cost is of developing these particular projects, and that they range anywhere from $3 million to $5 million per megawatt, compared to the $7.5 million per megawatt for Muskrat Falls power.

Premier, why do you insist on stating that Muskrat Falls is the only and the cheapest way to decommission Holyrood when, clearly, it is not and it is in your government's own documents?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor Energy is required, by legislation in this Province, to provide to the Public Utilities Board a plan for meeting the energy needs of today and into the future. They have to do that in the most cost-effective way, Mr. Speaker. That plan is laid before the PUB, analyzed by the PUB, and would not be accepted by the PUB if a more cost-effective solution was available.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent ten years planning this project. Nalcor knows of which it speaks, so does the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Muskrat Falls is a good project for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is actually laughable when you hear the Premier say we have been ten years planning this project. They have only been in government for eight of those years, Mr. Speaker, to start with. The other piece of it, if that is the best they could come up with in ten years, I suggest they take another ten years and go and have another look at it because the project they are proposing is going to gouge the taxpayers of this particular Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Throne Speech the government talked about the fact that replacing Holyrood was going to be somewhere between $600 million and $800 million. We heard the Premier today say that cost was going to be somewhere around $3 billion. We have heard a number of figures out there in the media, everything from over $1 billion to $3 billion, to $300 million which was in one of their submissions to the PUB.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I ask the Premier today, for the record, for the people of the Province: Can you tell us what the number is today to do the work that needs to be done at Holyrood?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad she had the name of the CEO of Emera right today, but the rest of it is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, it will cost between $600 million and $800 million to install precipitators and scrubbers and to do some renovations at Holyrood. Mr. Speaker, that does not clean up the greenhouse gas problem we have there. Within the next several decades, Holyrood will have to be replaced completely. The $3.3 billion includes the development of Round Pond, Island Pond, the precipitators and scrubbers in extent and renovations for Holyrood, as well as some wind and thermal generation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, they toss around numbers that suit them on any given day to try to sell their concept to the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, one day we are talking about cleaning precipitators and replacing them at Holyrood, the next day they are talking about replacing the plant which is something that might occur twenty, thirty, or forty years into the future. Mr. Speaker, they are confusing the people of the Province with their numbers.

Let me ask you this question, Mr. Speaker, because she talks about her good friend Mr. Huskilson in Emera Energy, the President of Emera Energy, the one we are giving all the power to and the good deal; grateful, appreciative Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we are. Mr. Speaker, he said in his remarks that there is no capacity to move excess power from Muskrat Falls through the Maritimes and into New England. According to him, Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question and if she would kindly refrain from reading direct from a document that was written by others.

I ask the hon. member, if she has a question, to pose it now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but these are notes that I wrote myself and I am just referring to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier and it is this: If the CEO of Emera is saying that they do not have the transmission capacity to transport Muskrat Falls power, how do you expect to get it to market without building new transmission lines across the Maritimes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is doing to Mr. Huskilson what she does to me on a regular basis, I can tell you that what she has put forward has likely never fallen from the man's lips.

All I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that the Maritime link has the capacity to carry over five megawatts of power from Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, the one terawatt of power that we have sold to Emera will use 33 per cent of that capacity. The remaining 67 per cent of that capacity is available to Newfoundland and Labrador to wheel power through that system into the Maritimes and into the United States, Mr. Speaker. We know that capacity exists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier wants to confirm what her good friend in Nova Scotia is saying – the one she is giving the power to – she can look in TheChronicleHerald because all of his speech is outlined there, I say to you, Premier.

Mr. Speaker, he is saying if they had to move 60 per cent of Muskrat power at any time they could not do so because they do not have the capability to do that. He is also saying that to build more transmission lines across the Maritimes would be too expensive.

I ask you again, Premier: Tell the people of the Province how you expect to transport that power and to sell it to the US, which is what you and your counterparts of Nalcor have been saying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have an agreement with Emera that we can use their infrastructure to move the 1.9 terawatt of power through the Maritimes and, Mr. Speaker, have access into Maine because of their commercial arrangements and the fact they own an electricity company in Maine.

Mr. Speaker, on top of that, unlike any other place where we would have to wheel power, we would have to pay for that capacity all year. In this agreement, Mr. Speaker, we only have to pay for that transmission when we are using it, saving millions and millions of dollars for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, Emera has committed to us to build redundancy in their line so that if some extraordinary situation arose where we could not get it along one pathway, they will build the second pathway for us at no cost, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, we do not have a clear answer as to how you are going to get that power to market. We know there is no customer and I guess the reason there is no customer is because there is no way to get it there. When the President of Emera is in TheChronicleHerald saying that they do not have the capacity, it is hard to sit here and believe that all of a sudden all of this has been worked out in advance. Why would the president be out there saying that today, Premier, if that was not the case? Why would they be saying the capacity does not exist and that there is not an access if indeed there was one?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition assumes that the same amount of ignorance exists on this side of the House, or within Nalcor, as exists in her office.

Mr. Speaker, we understand very well what the transmission capacity is, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but in the Maritimes and through Quebec and Ontario. We have spent years doing those studies. That is all part of the open access transmission tariff process. You have to understand how much capacity exists in order to apply for it, Mr. Speaker, or to commit to build it new. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to commit to markets in 2017 today. We are not going to negotiate it. If we developed everything in Eastern Canada, we would not be able to supply 25 per cent of the demand in New England today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier might try and sell a bill of goods to her own crowd on the other side but she is not selling me a bill of goods, Mr. Speaker, because we know the difference.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are getting more information out of Emera, our good friends we are giving power to in Nova Scotia, than we are from Nalcor or the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Under the term sheet that was signed in November it is clearly stated that Emera Energy will be the 100 per cent owner of the Maritime link running from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. Given that Emera owns the link outright, why would you and your government agree to pay half of all the cost overruns on Emera's $1.2 billion line?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Emera will own the line for thirty-five years, at which point it will be turned over to Nalcor; the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will own it after thirty-five years. Mr. Speaker, they will use 33 per cent of the capacity on that line for thirty-five years. Mr. Speaker, we will own 67 per cent of the capacity on that line for free for thirty-five years. Then we will own 100 per cent of the line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why would you, Premier, and your government agree to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the overrun on a line that Emera Energy is going to own? Why should the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador have to foot the bill for 50 per cent of the overrun cost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the total arrangement on overrun. The first 5 per cent of the overrun will be paid by Emera Energy, the second 5 per cent will be paid by Nalcor, and beyond that they will split the cost 50-50. So you really should get your facts straight.

Mr. Speaker, as I said –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – 33 per cent of the line will be used by Emera Energy for their one terawatt of power; 67 per cent of that line is under the total control of Nalcor and will be used to transmit our electricity to markets in Atlantic Canada or in the Eastern United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why would you agree to cover 50 per cent of the overrun cost on a line that Emera is going to own? Why would you want to do that, to guarantee the profit of a private corporation in Nova Scotia, and have the taxpayers in this Province pay for it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, effectively, we will own 67 per cent of that line from the day it comes into operation for thirty-five years – for thirty-five years – at which point we will own 100 per cent of the Maritime Link – the Maritime Link, Mr. Speaker. Sixty-seven per cent is completely under the control of Newfoundland and Labrador; after thirty-five years –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – we own 100 per cent of the line.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, for thirty-five years, a private corporation in Nova Scotia is going to own the Maritime Link. They are going to get free power for the customers of Nova Scotia because of it. If they go over their $1.2 billion in building that line, we are going to pay for half the cost here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Get this, Mr. Speaker, get this, because not only are we talking about cost overruns here, but if the operating costs on the Maritime Link comes in at 20 per cent more than Emera can recover from taxpayers in Nova Scotia, Nalcor has agreed to cover the shortfall.

Will you confirm that is true, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this project will provide 824 megawatts of power, of which 20 per cent will be going to Emera, 80 per cent will be under the control of Nalcor, and therefore the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the capital cost breakout: 80 per cent for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, 20 per cent for Emera. Mr. Speaker, the maintenance and operation cost breakout: 80 per cent for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and 20 per cent for Emera over the life of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All great spin, Premier, you know, sell the bill of goods; do whatever you need to do. But let me ask you this question: Why are we guaranteeing a rate of return for Emera to the point that if there is 20 per cent more that Emera has to recover from its ratepayers that we are on the hook in Newfoundland and Labrador? We are going to cover the shortfall. Why did you agree to that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again in this House, the costs of this project have been allocated fairly between Emera and Nalcor. Twenty per cent of the cost, 20 per cent of the operations, 20 per cent of the power goes to Emera. Eighty per cent of the cost, 80 per cent of the maintenance and operations, 80 percent of the power comes to Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a great deal for Emera, there is no question about it. We believe in fair deals. We know what unfair deals do to relationships, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to negotiate such a deal with anybody Mr. Speaker, but we are going to negotiate fair deals protecting the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we have done in Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of questions on this, and we will be getting to them over the course of the session of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this Premier has been trying to distance herself from the secrecy of her predecessor, and her first decision was the secret appointment of Ms Elizabeth Matthews to the vice-chair of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Now, Mr. Speaker, government usually floods the world everyday with press releases and announcements and statements in the media, but we never heard a word of this one. Not one.

So I ask the Premier today, what was the process for considering Ms Matthews for this appointment, and did you discuss this with the former Premier before making the appointment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Matthews is a highly competent, intelligent, articulate, skilled individual, and I make no apologies for making her nomination to the C-NLOPB. Members of the Opposition certainly should be familiar with her many talents, given that she worked for them for a number of years, and as I understand it, was a very valued employee.

Mr. Speaker, they also ought to know that any appointment to a vice-chairmanship or chairmanship is a two-step process. You first nominate to the board, then, because it is a joint decision on the vice-chairmanship, it has to go to the federal government for concurrence. Once that is received, Mr. Speaker, an announcement will be made in due course.

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, after the tragic Cougar Flight 491 crash in 2009, Sikorsky brought out a newly designed replacement main gearbox which must be inspected every ten hours because it still cracks. In December of last year, an international aviation magazine reported on Sikorsky's plans to introduce a third main gearbox, but last month Sikorsky said this new gearbox will not be available for a couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, if safety truly is the number one priority of government, as she claims, then what is government doing to address the continuing serious problems with the Sikorsky S-92?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has endorsed the Wells Commission recommendations – all twenty-nine recommendations – in response to the unfortunate tragedy with the crash of the Cougar helicopter. As we are aware, there was a Transportation Safety Board report that we are reviewing, and we have also initiated our own separate independent review through Captain Mark Turner.

So in terms of answering the question, what are doing to ensure safety, all of those, and anything else that we see that we can do, we will certainly do in consultation with the other regulatory bodies to make sure that the offshore is as safe as possible for the people who work there.

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.

I point out to the minister that I was asking a specific question with regard to safety and the Sikorsky helicopter. He mentions the Transportation Safety Board. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Transportation Safety Board did have recommendations, one of which was that all category A helicopters, including the S-92A, prove that they are able to fly for at least thirty minutes following a massive loss of main gearbox oil. Mr. Speaker, Sikorsky will not specify the run-dry capability of its latest gearbox, and that will not be ready anyway for at least two years.

Mr. Speaker, workers in the offshore must be protected; they are asking for the protection. They must have reliable helicopters. So I ask the Premier, if safety really is the number one priority, as she continues to say and the minister has just said, then will she demand that replacement helicopters be brought in?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: safety is the number one priority and the actions of this government have shown that we are concerned about safety and that we are responding to safety by the adoption of the twenty-nine recommendations that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I appeared before a committee of the House of Commons to discuss safety and had a discussion, which the member opposite was also present at, with people about safety down there, made a number of recommendations. We will continue to respond as we have in a very proactive way to ensure that the offshore and the people who work offshore are as safe as they can be given that they are working in a very challenging environment. We have endorsed all of the recommendations of the Wells Commission, I have said. We have our own separate Turner Report that is out there. We are doing what we can to ensure the safety of our workers, 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, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am receiving phone calls and e-mails from workers on a daily basis and they do not feel safe. They are saying that they do not feel that going back and forth in Sikorsky helicopters is safe for them, so I ask the Premier: If this knowledge is public – and it is, I am able to find this information about Sikorsky – why is this government keeping the continuing serious problems with the gearbox of the S-92 helicopter from the public? Let people know this is a serious issue and deal with it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this government, as I have already indicated – I am not quite sure where the member is coming from that we are keeping some information from the public, I am not sure exactly what she references by that – we have already said publicly that we support the twenty-nine recommendations of Justice Wells. We have said that we support the separation of the C-NLOPB regulatory and safety agencies, so we are supporting a separate safety agency. We are engaging with the federal government on the creation of that separate safety agency and we will do everything that we can within our power to ensure that the workers who are working offshore are as safe as they can be. I also have spoken to workers who are working offshore and they are very happy with and very supportive of the actions that this government have taken and are asking us to continue to stay on the same course that we are on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the 2011-2013 Business Plan for the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, Bill 3, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act, Bill 3, and that Bill 3 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 3 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 Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act", carried. (Bill 3)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 3 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, Bill 4, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 4 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 Government Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act", carried. (Bill 4)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Accountants Act. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 4 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 4 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, Bill 5, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved by the hon. the Government House Leader that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 5 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 Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005", carried. (Bill 5)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005. (Bill 5)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 5 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 5 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 5 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, Bill 6, 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 Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act, and that Bill 6 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 6 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 Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act", carried. (Bill 6)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Standard Time Act. (Bill 6)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 6 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 6 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 6 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 7, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. the Government House Leader that Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 7 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 Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999", carried. (Bill 7)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 7 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 7 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act, Bill 8, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader that Bill 8, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act, be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 8 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 Justice and Attorney General to introduce a bill, "An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act", carried. (Bill 8)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Repeal The Law Reform Commission Act. (Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 8 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 8 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to inform the House that I have received a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask all members to rise.

The letter is dated March 21, 2011.

As Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I transmit a request to appropriate sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending 31 March 2012, by way of Interim Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of section 54 and 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend this request to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.:______________________________

John C. Crosbie, PC, OC, ONL, QC

Lieutenant Governor

Please be seated.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that the Message, together with a bill, be referred to the Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board is that the Message, together with a bill, be referred to a Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole on Supply

 

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now considering the related resolution and Bill 2, An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 2012 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 2012 the sum of $2,669,600,600."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I get into my remarks on Interim Supply, I would like to offer my congratulations as well to the new Premier on becoming the new Premier. She was the Premier during the last session when we were here, and since that time she is now unanimously selected by the members of my party, and the members of this side of the House, as being the new Premier. I want to wish her well as the first woman Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and point out the fact, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned yesterday, there are now three women leading the major parties of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We enter upon a very new and interesting age, and based on Question Period today, I am sure that the days ahead will continue to be interesting.

I want to join with those in welcoming back to the House of Assembly the Leader of the Opposition. She was certainly missed, and the fact that she is now back, I am sure that –

MR. KENNEDY: I did not miss you, Yvonne.

MR. MARSHALL: Well, apart from the Minister of Health, most of us are very pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition back in the House again. The Leader of the Opposition has always impressed me by her ability to come into this House on any given day and get up and make five or six speeches on many different topics. I was kind of disappointed yesterday when I saw her actually read a speech. I was going to yell out I wonder who her speech writer was. I think she should fire him because I think he probably goes by the name of Herbert Hoover, based on what I heard yesterday. Anyway, we will leave that debate for another time.

I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island on his election to the House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: - and his taking his seat here in the House. He is no doubt an excellent public speaker and I certainly look forward to hearing from him on many occasions as he fights for the people of his district.

Again, I want to congratulate my neighbour from the other side of the border in Corner Brook from Humber West. As you saw when he came into the House yesterday, he is the type of man who lets nothing get in his way. When he was walking up to be introduced to the Speaker yesterday the table and chairs were in his way and he threw them out of his way and he got where he wanted to get. I say the people of Humber West are going to be very ably served by the hon. Member for Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: I enjoyed the Speech from the Throne yesterday. I like the concept that we built a foundation over the past eight years, a tremendous foundation under the leadership of the former Premier. That foundation has enabled us to run surpluses in this Province instead of deficits, and those surpluses in turn, those five surpluses - we have had four, and I can tell you as I said at midyear, this year will be the fifth. Out of the last six years, there will be five surpluses which enable us to lower our debt, which has been lowered by one-third. It has allowed us to make our tax system competitive. It has given us reliable infrastructure, minimal red tape, progressive public services. We now have the fiscal capacity that we can do a very important thing, and that is to leverage our non-renewable resources from the oil and to leverage those into revenues coming from renewable resources such as the hydro potential of the Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls, Gull Island and then eventually we will see the power from the Upper Churchill be repatriated to the people of this Province.

When we started this process today - this is the process of Interim Supply - the process could not start without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor. That is set out in the Constitution of Canada, the Constitution Act of 1867, which says it is not lawful for - with the wording of section 9, it would not be lawful for this House to pass a resolution, an address, a bill and an appropriation of any part of public revenue that has not first been recommended to the House by a message from the Lieutenant Governor. I learned that for the first time last year, and that was the message that His Honour, the Speaker read.

Now we are into Interim Supply. As everyone knows - and I will say this for the benefit of the new members and for people who may be in the galleries and people who are watching it on television - this government cannot spend any money unless the appropriations are first approved by the elected representatives of the people elected to this House of Assembly. What we have to do each year, we come in with what is known as the Budget bill, more formally known as the main Supply bill. We bring the main Supply bill before this Assembly and we ask the people of this House, the elected representatives of the people, to approve our spending for the year. The year means the fiscal year, which is from April 1 to March 31 of the following year. For the year 2010-2011, the fiscal year we are in right now that will come to an end on March 31; money will run out on that day. That is the Budget bill, the Supply bill that was passed last year, or I should say this fiscal year.

The Minister of Finance will bring forward the main Supply bill, the Budget bill. Then that Budget bill is going to be debated for, I think it is about seventy hours. I looked at my notes from last year and it said seventy-five hours. I do not think that is correct, it is seventy. There will be lots of debate and there will be the Estimates – seventy-five. There will be Estimates, committees will meet to discuss the Estimates and debate will take place. At about seventy-five hours we will ultimately have a vote on spending for the year; but, of course, in the meantime the money runs out. So we are here today asking for what is called Interim Supply, which is money to pay the bills of the government for the next three months while we debate and ultimately pass the main Budget or main Supply bill.

We are seeking this year, in Interim Supply, the sum of approximately $2.7 billion which represents about 36 per cent of the 2010-2011 budgeted Current and Capital Account, Gross Expenditures. This, of course, will provide departments and public bodies with sufficient cash flow dollars to manage expenditures for the period April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011, which is the first quarter of the fiscal year. More than one-quarter of the Budget is required for those items which will need to be expended early in the year, as well as to provide for the calling and the awarding of tenders and the encumbering of funds.

Mr. Chairman, this is an increase of $271 million, or 11 per cent to Interim Supply being requested this year over what was requested last year. This includes provision for increased infrastructure spending, annualization of the 2010-2011 Budget decisions, salary increases and other program growth. Again, the money is to keep the government going with ongoing housekeeping expenditures, including funding for six pay periods and funding requirements applicable to the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

I am advised by the Comptroller General that this legislation needs to be passed and receive royal assent by March 24, 2011 in order to allow sufficient time to meet the payroll, to meet the income support cheques, and other cheques that will have to be sent out to rural parts of the Province and Labrador in time for April 1, 2011.

Mr. Chair, in getting ready for the Budget – and of course, the Interim Supply monies that are approved here in this House will be subtracted from the monies that are approved in the main Supply bill, which of course is the Budget. In preparing for that, it is customary for the Finance Minister to travel around the Province and hold what are called pre-Budget consultations. This year, I continued that practice. I know that there are people in the media, particularly The Telegram, that every year write the same editorial which says that this is a waste of time, that the Budget is already done; and they are wrong. They are wrong, Mr. Chair.

I had the opportunity to go to Labrador West and to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I like to mix it up; I do not like to go to the same places every year. So, this year I went to Port Saunders. We did Corner Brook, Stephenville, Deer Lake, Grand Falls, and Gander. We went down to St. Alban's for the first time this year. We went to Marystown, Clarenville, and there were two sessions held here in St. John's –

MR. F. COLLINS: Placentia (inaudible).

MR. MARSHALL: - and Placentia, of course. Yes, the hon. the Minister of Justice – we did go to Placentia and had a very good meeting there.

Last year, I went to Springdale for the first time. What I heard in Springdale was different from anywhere else I heard in Newfoundland and Labrador because they said they did not want any money. They said: Balance your books. They said: Tell us what the rules are, then get out of our way and let us create jobs and employment for the people of the Province. That was Springdale.

This year, I went to Baie Verte and heard representations from their very talented Member of the House of Assembly who talked to us about the need for medical facilities in that community.

Mr. Chair, we have, as I indicated, around four consecutive surpluses and we are going to have another one this year. At the beginning of this year, 2010-2011, we forecast a deficit of $194 million, but by mid-year, based on steps that we had taken in 2009, 2010, and 2011 by my colleague the present Minister of Health and steps we took in this Budget, our economy started firing on all cylinders. As a result of that, more and more revenues started coming in. As our Gross Domestic Product went up because our economy was growing, after losing 10 per cent the previous year, growing by about 5.4 per cent this year, what had happened is that our fiscal revenue started increasing because the economy was growing. We had more personal income tax than we expected, higher sales tax than we expected, higher corporate income tax than we expected. As a result of that, instead of a $194 million deficit, we were forecasting at mid-year a $12 million surplus, and we all know what has happened since that time.

Well, I can tell you what you do not know, and that is that the revenues increased even more, because of the economy, because of the fact that the Newfoundland economy was recovering. You may recall, I know the Government House Leader would remember last year when we were doing this, when we were at this stage, we were not sure what was going to happen. The previous year we had seen a major recession, but we did not know what was happening at the beginning of this year. We knew we were back in recovery, but we kept hearing words like uncertainty, that the recovery was very uncertain. Then it was increasingly uncertain and that it was fragile and that there was not much traction.

As a result of that, we were trying to determine what the best fiscal policy for the people of this Province was, and whether we should continue to stimulate or whether we should go back to a balanced budget or a surplus. We decided that we would continue to stimulate the economy, and we deliberately planned a deficit of $194 million in order to provide jobs and opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador families. Fortunately, things worked out, the economy grew. We did not have to raise taxes; we did not have to cut spending to balance the books. The economy grew. Because the economy was growing, it generated new income and enabled us to have a surplus now – the fifth surplus in the last six years.

Mr. Chair, in addition to that, we lowered our net debt by about a third. It was $12 billion. That is what the taxpayers of this Province owed, $12 billion. It has gotten down now to $8.2 billion, reduced by a third. The surpluses that we ran have now given us a flexibility to do things that we could not do before.

The federal government, and other governments in the country, are running deficits this year. They are making efforts to attempt to get back to surplus, and intend to do it over a number of years. The federal government is having that problem. Well, fortunately for the people of this Province, we do not have that problem. We are running a surplus this year, and it will be substantially more than the $12 million I said it would be at mid-year. The Auditor General in his most recent report acknowledged the significant surpluses and the reduction in debt and the substantial improvements in the Province's fiscal capacity.

I should mention that the Leader of the Opposition criticized us, she criticized us for spending too much money on health care, which is a criticism I do not really understand. So, we will look at what the outsiders have to say. We will look at what the world experts have to say. I refer to a report that came out in March from Standard & Poor's. This is a global credit portal from a credit rating agency and here is what they said: We are raising our long-term issuer credit and senior unsecured debt ratings of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from A to A+. The highest credit rating that this Province has ever received from that particular company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: "The upgrades reflect our view of Newfoundland's much improved economic standing, declining debt burden, solid budgetary performance, and strong liquidity position."

Mr. Chair, in addition, Standard & Poor's also talked about our spending. In light of the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, they have pointed out that the Province achieved solid operating surpluses in recent years that allows this Province to stockpile liquidity, repay debt, and deliver tax relief thanks to tight cost management and the emergence of offshore oil – tight cost management.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Again, Newfoundland has a strong liquidity position reflecting its past operating surpluses and, listen to this, Mr. Chair, prudent spending practices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: That is what Standard & Poor's said.

Mr. Chair, in addition I should say –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: A minute to clue up, Mr. Chair?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, by leave.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to add that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business just released a report expressing concern about the spending practices of provincial governments right across this country, but what they also pointed out was the two provinces that were leading the country in fiscal prudence was Saskatchewan and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank God we are doing very, very well, and as the Premier said in her remarks yesterday: The best is yet to come.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few remarks in debate of Interim Supply. The process, as outlined by the minister, is fairly straightforward. Of course, government needs to operate and pay the bills after April 1. In order to do that, you need approval of the House of Assembly to spend, usually, about one-third of what the Budget will be in the forthcoming year if they put it into Interim Supply, and that gives them authority, because the Budget itself probably will not get approved until sometime in May or June. So, that is the process.

The good thing about Interim Supply, from the point of view of the Opposition of course, number one, it is a money bill, which means that the latitude of the things you can talk about are a bit broader than if you were doing a legislative bill. You have more latitude in what you say and the type of issues that you can talk about. We have been somewhat restrictive in the House in recent years as to what you could or could not say. When I first came here, it was pretty wide open years ago. You could say what you wanted pretty well whenever you wanted it, but the rules have been tightened up a fair bit in the last number of years.

This is indeed a money bill and gives you a lot of latitude as to what you can say. This is a great opportunity, because normally, other than putting out press releases, doing what you can through the media, whether it be through letters to the editor, Open Line shows and so on, Oppositions do not often get a chance to challenge their government. On TV, for example, when everybody is listening, question the government, not only in Question Period but throw out a lot of stuff that people were not aware of, and God knows, there is a lot of stuff that the people in this Province are not aware of from this, the most secretive government in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Bar none, the most secretive government in our history, and we are going to peel some of the pieces off the onion in the next few weeks.

I only have fifteen minutes here today but over the course of the next couple of months of course I get a fair amount of time to respond to the Budget itself, usually up to about three hours; depending on who speaks first, another hour here or there. I sense, Mr. Chairman, they do not like to hear me speak a lot of times. Some people told me it is because the truth hurts. Others have said it is because they do not like the way I do it. They think that sometimes I am lecturing, they think that other times I am being too rough on them; but, unfortunately, that is the way it has to be because the people need to know the truth. As much as it might hurt, you have to face it and you have to deal with it.

First of all, many people are quite surprised that we are back here because this government, in addition to being secretive, does not like to be in the House of Assembly; does not like to be in the House of Assembly.

MR. KENT: We love being in the House.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I see the Member for Mount Pearl over there saying we love to be in the House. Well, I can tell by how many times he has been on his feet in the last four years just how much he loves it here. You might have seen him up on his feet maybe two or three times; usually to congratulate and pat the back of the former Premier, but we will see how often he is up in this session. We will gauge it. We will see how often he is up on his feet in this session telling us what he thinks.

MR. KENT: Stay tuned.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Stay tuned, cannot wait for it. The Minister of Finance actually said that to me the first time years ago. He said stay tuned, when I asked him a question one day – stay tuned. Guess what? Since 2003, I am still tuned in waiting for the answer to that question which he never, ever gave.

Anyway, in seriousness – but before I get totally serious, people have often asked me, because I often refer to Joe Chesterfield. People say: why do you refer to Joe Chesterfield? Well, there is actually a Joe. There is a Joe who lives in my district. He is a human being, very much a human being; a very compassionate, knowledgeable, informed human being. I just use the word chesterfield because that is where Joe likes to sit when he actually watches the proceedings of the House of Assembly, and he never misses them. I have actually left here and he will call me and say: I was interested in what you were saying today but I did not fully understand all of it. Could you give me the rest of it, what is it about? I get called when I am at home: What about this I heard in the media? He is a very interested, concerned citizen. Of course, I do not want his privacy to be infringed upon so that is why I call him Joe Chesterfield, as if he is representative of everybody in this Province who sits intently and wants to understand what is going on.

You can be sure Joe Chesterfield is out there again today listening and he will be listening for every day that this House is open. I am only going to get an opportunity in this short fifteen minutes – nine minutes, fifty-seven seconds that is left actually – to gloss over some of the things that we will be getting into as the debates go on. There are surely a lot, we will not get our heads around it all. I am sure the government wishes we did not bring up some of that, but there is going to be a lot of it. This government, since 2003, have progressed from being proud to be the government, happy to be where they were, to a state of almost absolute arrogance in the last year or so, in the last couple of years actually.

The people of this Province, they do not mind people being successful. They do not mind seeing a government that does well. In fact, this Opposition has given this government credit whenever credit was due because you just cannot be a critic. If it is justified and something that someone does and they deserve credit, they should certainly get it. As an Opposition member, you have a responsibility as well to point out the things that the government does not want the light shed on. There is always a little bit of mould and sometimes there is a lot of mould. In those cases you need to turn on the light, you need to find out where the dirt is and you need to get rid of it. As much of that mould that a government can keep hidden, the better they like it. That is our job sometimes, to show there is a little bit of rot there. They might be good in some things but they are not so good in other things, and we want to point out what those other things are. The people, of course, look at the balance factor. Some people might say: Yes, I like what they did, but do they have to be so arrogant about doing it? Do not tell me I am so good; do not tell me I am good in everything I did.

As the Leader of the Opposition mentioned today in one of her questions, there has been no government in the history of this Province that inundated the airwaves and the media with spam, I call it; a lot of the news releases and press releases, some were good, but some of the stuff we have seen come out of this government in the last four or five years… virtually anything. If they have a birthday, they put it out that it is their birthday. I do not think they have missed anything that you could possibly – and not only that, they do not put it out once, they repeat it.

We had, for example, the announcement on the hospital that was going to go in Lab West - not six, as Mr. Smallwood would say, not seven, not eight, not nine, but ten different announcements on the same hospital in Lab West. Now I do not know if they thought people were not aware of it; I am sure the people of Lab West were aware of it. No, the government had to make sure: We have to keep pushing this because that was a good thing we did. So we have to keep telling them.

We are going to have an opportunity to talk about some of the Auditor General stuff in the next few weeks. That is the words they hate, by the way. The government hates to hear the words Auditor General, and boy did he have a fistful. I think he highlighted fifteen different things. I think he highlighted fifteen different items.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, you know you have struck a chord when they start to respond. That is good, because I take encouragement from that. When I see the government ministers start to respond to what I am saying, that means you have struck a chord. I am going to strike as many chords as I can throughout the spring, never you mind.

Now, beside the Auditor General, of course, there are a lot of other things. The Throne Speech yesterday, there was a lot of stuff in there, a lot of good stuff in there for debates about where this new Premier is going to take us. There are a lot of things she wants to do – Muskrat Falls, of course. I strongly encourage every member of the government, and I will bet my bottom dollar to this day if they were all truthful, that not every one of them over there read the documentation on Muskrat Falls. Guaranteed, they have not read it; and, Mr. Chairman, they are going to go out around this Province, they are going to go out around this Province and try to convince the people of this Province that we have a good deal here. This is good. You should accept without question the fact that we are going to double your light bill. We are going to double your light bill. Not only every resident in this Province – and I say to Joe Chesterfield, get out your light bill that you got from Newfoundland Power and look at it and see what you paid for this month, and Joe, in 2017, when this deal is supposedly done, your bill is going to have been doubled. You are going to be doubled.

Now that is the first bill of goods you are trying to sell to people. Buy into this because your bill is doubled. By the way, there are all kinds of other things there. The Premier, by the way, I noticed today I found her a bit uneasy. She could not answer or would not answer any of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition put to her. Not a good sign. Not a good sign, because if you try to sell this to the people only along the treetops, you have a serious problem. People are going to say, just a minute, wasn't that a straightforward question that the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier? That was a pretty simple question. How come the Premier could not give a simple answer? How come? I must not be hearing things right, Joe is saying out there. Joe is saying she asked this and she did not answer it. Now, why is she not answering it? There must be some reason that she is not answering it.

That is only Muskrat. We have hours and hours of Muskrat to come. We have some issues, not only in my district, for example, issues that come from other members' districts. We sat here last year, for example, and put in petitions on behalf of one member who would not put the petition in on behalf of his constituents. They went to him, he would not do it. We had to put in petitions from his district. Now that says a lot about representation. I have stood up here in this House when I was a member of the government and put in petitions that the government was on paper as being against. Never mind do I know where they do or do not stand, because as an MHA your responsibility to your constituents comes first and foremost.

You are here as an MHA when you stand on your feet, and some constituent of yours – you do not have to say I agree with the petition; you are bringing the petition on behalf of your constituents. To say that you do not even have the intestinal fortitude to bring it here, that is just unfortunate. That is most unfortunate when the members do not do that. The member knows who I am talking about; in fact it was the Member for Port de Grave who had to put it in for him. He does not mind speaking out, not only for his own constituents in Port de Grave, he does not mind who he has to speak out for but deserves to be spoken out for. That was not lost by the way. I travelled to that member's district three times since that happened and on all three occasions I had that pointed out to me. I had that pointed out to me - very unfortunate.

Speaking of lunch, the Minister of Natural Resources brings me to another nice topic we have had in the media and we will get to that one, about the famous dinner. We are going to have lunch, let's have dinner. There was a famous movie one time, I believe 1968, starring Sydney Poitier, Spencer Tracy and Candice Bergman – cost $7 million to make and he turned a profit of $54 million. Guess what it was called folks: Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. Well, I have a new movie we are going to make now shortly, on April 1; it is called Guess who is not coming to dinner. Guess who is not coming to dinner.

Now I should not bring that up, of course, and just for Joe-public, Joe Chesterfield needs to know. I am sure you are confused about what I am talking about here. What that is about, for the interest of the people of course watching is, they are having a big convention and the former Premier was supposed to be guest actor but he has announced he will not be there.

MR. BUTLER: An honorary dinner.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: An honorary dinner in his honour and he does not want to accept the honour. Going to give him the key to the city, the key for life to the party, but, nobody knows why he is not going. Now I thought the Minister of Natural Resources was pretty coy in the media today, he is the chair of that dinner. Can you imagine folks you are hosting a dinner, you are the host of the dinner and somebody says they are not going to show up. Now if you are such an important host I think the first thing I would say was, excuse me I am having this dinner for you, you are not going to show up? What is the problem? You do not like what is on the menu or you do not like the company? I am just curious because that particular host, who is the Minister of Natural Resources, he says, I do not know.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I do not know. Anyway we will follow up on the dinner later.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I will certainly not ask for leave, my time is up but I will be back.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to stand today. We are doing government business on this side and we will continue to do it. We have done it now for seven-and-a-half, eight years. We have done it very well, the people have shown that. Yesterday, we had another example of the good work that this government is doing when the Premier walked in with two more MHAs who will sit on this side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: We make no apologies on this side of the House for doing good government business, I tell you that. Now, if the members opposite want to continue to get up and be nasty – that is what I will call it, being nasty – talk about what is going on in outside circles, party business; if that is where they are going, they are not going to go very far. The House of Assembly should really be about doing the people's business. When you bring in partisan politics to people's business, I think you are a little bit off-track – I think you are a little bit off-track.

I will not go any further with that because I do not want to go down that track myself. I just want to make the point; I just want to advise the members opposite of where their focus should be. I would have thought after having a whole winter to think about what they wanted to come into the House and speak about, the last thing they would have been coming in to talk about would have been petty partisan politics, but obviously that is where they are. We will leave it at that – we will leave it at that.

What I want to talk about are the things that this government is going to be doing. We had a great Throne Speech yesterday. I am just going to take a second, if I could, to have a quick look. When I was listening to the Throne Speech yesterday, I had three little Post-It Notes here that I was just jotting down some of the wonderful things that the Throne Speech referenced. I went as far as thirty-one items on my three Post-It Notes and guess what happened? I ran out of Post-It Notes but there was still more in the Throne Speech. Had I had more Post-It Notes I would have been able to get more information down.

I just want the people of the Province to know that when we get up in this session of the House, as the member opposite just alluded to, there is a lot to talk about; I am going to talk about thirty-one positive items that are referencing what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to be doing while we are in the House. They will come from the Throne Speech document. I am not going to be out looking for news clippings out of The Telegram to see what some guy said yesterday about some partisan political event that is going on. I am going to be in here doing the people's business, and that is what the people want us to do and that is what we are going to do while we are in this House.

The members opposite talk about – and I am trying to understand where they are coming from with this – they talk about us being a very secretive government. We have been in the House two days and I bet you I have heard it four or five times in two days. Right after I hear that secretive government, I hear them talk about a flood of news releases. This government is always putting out news releases about the things they are doing, telling people all the things they are doing, telling people all the stuff that they are involved with. Well, if we are doing all of that, I am having difficulty understanding how we can be considered to be secretive. We are telling people about what we are doing, but we are being secretive. It does not match up with me. I am having difficulty understanding how it matches up.

Then they talk about having to try to - convince people I think were the words that were just used – convince people that they should support Muskrat Falls. I state for the record right now, Mr. Chair, we are not going to try to convince people to support Muskrat Falls. That is the last thing this government is going to do. What we are going to do is bring the information out for the people to see. We have a load of it posted on the Web site of Natural Resources, there is a load of it being posted on the Web site of the environmental assessment process that is going on right now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and there will be lots more information that will come out.

What will happen is people will make up their own minds. They do not need Shawn Skinner, anybody on the government side, or anybody on the Opposition side to convince them what they should do. They will come to an informed decision. I have enough confidence in the people of the Province and enough respect for the position and the opinion of the people of the Province to say that I am not going to try to convince them. I am going to give them the information and let them make up their own minds. That is what is going to happen: people will make up their own minds on this.

Let's just take a second to talk about the Muskrat Falls project and see what it is that people are going to be getting when the Muskrat Falls project comes to fruition. Right now, we have no connection to the North American grid as a Province. We are the only Province in Canada that does not have that direct connection. We do not have a redundancy. We would be isolated. Basically, we are called an isolated system here in the Island portion of the Province.

One of the responsibilities that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has is to continue to monitor the electrical needs of the Province to ensure that we have a sustainable and reliable supply of electricity, and that we get it at the least cost possible. So, there have been a number of studies that Hydro has undertaken and a number of options that have been looked at. When they have looked at those - and I will not go into it now because I do not have time, but I will come back to it because it is important that people hear it and I want to say it here on the floor of the House of Assembly. Suffice to say for now that they fall into five broad options. When those five options were looked at, one of those options came out to be the best option in terms of least cost, in terms of reliability, in terms of sustainable electrical power, and in terms of making sure that we are connected to the Canadian power grid. That option was the Lower Churchill Project.

It is really two phases: Muskrat Falls and Gull Island. I have people say to me they sometimes get confused when we talk about Lower Churchill because we talk about Muskrat, then we talk about Gull, and then we talk about the Lower Churchill. They are all the same; it is just that the Lower Churchill Project, for the people who are out in TV land listening to us, really consists of two phases. The first phase being Muskrat Falls and the second phase being the Gull Island portion.

Now, what is Muskrat Falls? What is it that we are attempting to do here? We have gone with a generation station that we are going to build that is going to capture for us, or create for us, 800-plus megawatts of power. Those 800-plus megawatts of power is going to satisfy the demand increases that have been projected in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The work that is being done by Hydro shows that our demand is going to increase into the future. It has been mentioned by the members of the Opposition that our demand has tailed off a little bit in the last few years. That is quite correct, by the way. There is no denying that.

It has tailed off because, basically, we have lost two paper mills; that is why. There are number of factors relating to it, but the two big users of electricity are the paper mill in Grand Falls-Windsor and the paper mill in Stephenville. So they have closed, and because they have closed, there was less demand for power. That little dip that we had is now starting to come back up again. It is coming back up because every one of us in this room, in this House of Assembly, and everyone out who is watching us on TV is using more power. As we grow as a Province, we are using more power.

In the forecasting that Hydro is doing, we are looking at things like Vale in Argentia. They are going to need - I think the number is around sixty or seventy megawatts of power. That will come on in a year's time. We will need to have that power available. When we look at some of the mining developments that are happening in Labrador. An underground mine in Voisey's Bay, for instance, might be something that will happen. They are going to need significant amounts of power. We cannot meet that power now unless we do something.

We looked at all the options we had available to us, and the something turned out to be because it was least cost, because it met the needs of the power, and because it was something that was green, and it was something that was reliable and sustainable, was Muskrat Falls. So, we are going to do Muskrat Falls. We will build a generating station. We will run a power line that will come across the Straits into the Island, down into Holyrood. We will then run another line and do some upgrades back across to the west end of the Province. We will run a maritime link, as it has been referred, and we will have 824 megawatts of power. We are going to, as my hon. colleague says, the Minister of Finance, we are also going to shut down Holyrood. We are going to get rid of all that dirty emission.

So, there are a whole bunch of things I could talk about, but I just want people to understand that the reason we are looking at doing Muskrat Falls is to ensure that people have reliable, sustainable green energy at a cost that they can afford. When people talk about the electricity rates going up, they are quite correct. If we do nothing, if we do not build Muskrat Falls, guess how much our electricity rates will go up in the next five years? Thirty-seven per cent if we do nothing; that is what going to happen. Muskrat Falls is not the problem here, Muskrat Falls is the solution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Because if we do not build generation facilities, our cost will continue to increase. So, Muskrat Falls is what we need to build so that the spike that is going up like this, which is our energy costs, it is going to continue for the next five years, there is nothing we can do about that because we have to build generation; but, in five years' time, instead of continuing straight up like this, it will go up for five years and then it will continue on a much, much more gentle increase. Point seven per cent increase, less than 1 per cent, is what we anticipate after Muskrat Falls versus 4 to 6 per cent, which is what is happening now without Muskrat Falls.

I will come back to this, Mr. Chair, I see my time has expired and in recognition of the other individuals who wish to get up and speak. I just wanted to lay that out and I will come back to it at another time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am happy to have this opportunity to stand this afternoon and speak to the bill that is on the table, an important bill, Bill 2, because it is a bill that will have us approve monies to be spent on the government works, the government departments, in the interim between now and the approval of a Budget when that happens sometime in April.

The money that we are approving covers all of the different aspects of government expenditure, everything from administration, physical infrastructure in the Province, resource development, and right through to our social programs. Because of that, because it is a bill dealing with government expenditure, which covers all aspects of government, we can speak to various issues under this bill that concern us.

With this discussion coming right on the heels of the Speech from the Throne, I think it makes a lot of sense to look at what the government promised yesterday when we heard the Lieutenant Governor deliver the Speech from the Throne.

It is always interesting to get these speeches because they give you some sense of where government is heading. That is why I was rather disappointed in some of the things that I heard in the Speech from the Thorne. One, in particular, was with regard to what government is calling a comprehensive child care strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador. When I first saw those words I said: Well, that is good. I really want to have a comprehensive child care strategy in this Province. I want to have a universal child care program in this Province. So let us see what government is going to do, what is their strategy. Naturally the first thing I hoped was that I was going to hear that this government was going to be producing more child care spaces, so I was hopeful. I thought, oh, this is great maybe we are going to get more child care spaces.

I also hoped that I would hear something in the Speech from the Throne that showed that this government is committed to working towards a public child care program for this Province, universally accessible and public. I have to say, Mr. Chair, that so far what I have seen is not encouraging me. The Speech from the Throne, when it finally made a statement about child care, said that the government is going to announce a significant initiative in child care with a focus on infant care with the potential to increase child care spaces. I honestly had to say, Mr. Chair, what are they talking about? It says that "the beauty of this initiative is that it will benefit families not only in larger centres but also in rural regions where child care spaces are especially scarce." So now I have to sit and wait to see what is going to be in the Budget that might potentially increase child care spaces.

What really stymied me was that the Speech from the Throne says that there is going to be a focus on infant care. Now that really made me question, why a focus on infant care? First of all, if we are talking about a woman who has been in the paid workforce and has had a child, that woman can use EI in order to take maternal leave. So the mother is at home for the most part – whether she is a working mother outside the home or a woman who is working only within the home – the mother is home for the first six months at least of the child's life. Then, in many cases, men are able, fathers are able, to take time as well to add to the time that the mother has taken. So, why is it first of all that whatever they are coming up with – this initiative that they are talking about – is going to focus on infant care? I am really curious and I am dying to find out what that is going to be.

What really disturbs me is that we are being told that this initiative – which is this nebulous idea out there, we have no idea what it is – that this initiative could potentially increase child care spaces. You know, Mr. Chair, the parents in this Province, and especially the women in this Province, are not interested in being talked to about potential child care spaces. What they are saying is we need child care spaces and we need them now. We need more child care spaces, many more than the child care spaces that we have. Yes, there is a need in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and there is also a need in urban Newfoundland and Labrador. We have waiting lines in urban Newfoundland and Labrador; people not able to get their children into facilities, having to find individuals to come into their home – whether they want that to happen or not – because they cannot find a child care space.

This thing of possibly creating new child care spaces with this new initiative that we know nothing about really boggles the mind. What is the game that is being played here by government? They use the language, it makes it all sound nice and fancy; strategy, it is comprehensive, and it is a nice initiative that has potential. When all is said and done they told us nothing yesterday about their commitment to child care and to the creation of new spaces. I am willing to bet that whatever it is that comes out in the Budget, when the Budget comes in April, I am not going to be very happy with. My mind is already looking at potential things that the government could be talking about. If they were to come up with some of the things that my mind is thinking about, such as having money maybe so that grandparents can take care of a child, then I am really not going to be very happy, Mr. Chair, I have to say. That, I have to wait for – that I have to wait for.

What really disturbed me about the Speech from the Throne was, again, another example of lack of clarity of language. The Throne Speech talks about providing opportunities for parents and removing barriers to their full participation in the workforce. Well you know, Mr. Chair, you know the parent who has the biggest problem with barriers to being in the workforce – having children and being barriers in the workforce – is not the male, it is the female; it is the women. It is the women. It is the mothers who have the problem being in the workforce. I am really disappointed to have a Throne Speech which is afraid to say that it is women who are disadvantaged when they become parents and are trying to be in the workforce. It is mostly mothers who are missing out because of the scarcity of child care spaces.

In a recent report from Stats Canada, and it came out in December 2010, it said that 13.4 per cent of women working part-time in 2009 cited caring for children as the reason they did not work full-time. Only 2 per cent of male part-time workers cited this reason. So this is not just a problem for parents in general. Not having adequate child care spaces is not just a problem for the family in general; it is particularly a problem for mothers. It is particularly a problem for women. I am really disappointed to hear this government afraid to say that it is an issue for women.

We hear in my office, I am hearing over and over, of young mothers who are deciding to stay home because they cannot find adequate child care. They cannot afford it or they cannot find it. Afford is one of the big issues. As long as we continue to have the majority of our child care spaces in the private sector, where they are being run by organizations who also are trying to make a profit, then child care in this Province is not going to be affordable and this government, according to what I heard from the Throne Speech yesterday, does not sound to me like they are going to come up with any great plan that is going to change that, Mr. Chair. Not only that they are not even going to come up with a plan that is going to give us new spaces in the present. They might have some spaces in the future.

Mr. Chair, I am really, really disappointed with what I have heard so far. We know that having adequate child care and having good child care, having accessible child care, having a universal program is not only good for families, it is not only good for mothers, it is also good for the economy.

I see my time is coming to an end so I will wait till the next time I get to stand, Mr. Chair, to go into how having a full blown universal child care program is good both socially and economically.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I want to start by congratulating the Premier on her first day in the House in terms of Question Period and I do commend her on the work that she is doing and the leadership which she has taken, Mr. Chair.

It is good to see, as someone mentioned yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition back here. After today, I think it is safe to say that she is in full form. There is no doubt about that.

I want to welcome the two new members to the House. I have to say, my first time coming to the House and my first time speaking, it was a bit of an intimidating experience. While some of us complain about having to be in here, there are times when we would rather be out of it, but it is the people's House and we are here to do the people's work.

Mr. Chair, I think I would be remiss, from the fishing sector, if I did not mention Japan. Any of us who have watched the media as of late have seen the devastation. Japan is such a trading partner with Newfoundland and Labrador around our seafood, that certainly I think everyone in the Province, our thoughts and our prayers are with the people of Japan. I really do think the rest of the world can learn a lesson from how they have handled this earthquake and this tsunami.

Mr. Chair, I thought I had more than ten minutes. I thought I was going to hear the "f" word from the Leader of the NDP. I thought she was going to say fish, but she did not, Mr. Chair. She did not say it, but I am sure somewhere in this session she will say it.

Mr. Chair, we are at a pivotal point in this Province in terms of the fisheries. Some people have accused me of taking a hard stand, but, Mr. Chair, I make no apologies for it. I make no apologies for it, and I do so on the grounds of a couple of points. One, I think the Opposition need to look back to 1998 when they were in power, 2003 when they were in power, when a fellow by the name of Vardy wrote a report on the crab and shrimp sector. While there were many things contained in those reports, the words that came through it again and again were structural changes. In 2003, again, there was another report that was commissioned. There had been commissioned reports: Eric Dunne did a report; Jones did a report; Gregory and Broderick did a report around implementation of the shrimp, how we are going to reorganize and implement changes in the shrimp industry.

Then, if we go on and we look to the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy, when the fishing summit was called the key point at that particular time was that status quo was not an option. We find ourselves in a process of the MOU whereby there were three parties. Many of us will recall the shrimp fishery was delayed by some three months or so. In the middle of the summer in 2009, the fishing industry came in and asked for a couple of things. The processing sector said, well, you address the fees that we are being charged. So, we as a government committed to that. To the FFAW, and both parties, we said: well, we will support you. They asked for our financial support, and on-ground support to bring forward proposals that would see a rationalization and a restructuring in the industry.

Well, Mr. Chair, I received the report in February, just a short while ago, and the one thing that struck me was that there were issues around rationalization but I did not see them around restructuring. Now, I will say that Professor Clift did produce a great report, a good report. People have said it is probably the best financial analysis that has been presented in the fishery. The reason for my stand on it - well, let's start with the processing sector. The processors asked for $80 million at 2.5 per cent over thirty years. They wanted to restructure the plants within three years, or move in that direction. I have to ask myself, does the union and the plant workers agree with that without knowing how that is going to occur? Do the communities that have plants in them, are they in agreement with that, or have they been asked the question? I will tell you what the responses that I have been getting, in many cases, is: You did the right thing. We all know there has to be some rationalization of plants, but boy, if you are going to bring forward to me a proposal, just do not ask for that amount of money to do it over this length of time and that we will assure you that we are going to pay back the $80 million over thirty years, in the uncertainty that exists within the fishing industry.

Then, from the harvesting side, the FFAW asked for a 30 per cent reduction over ten years, which would, in effect, take 3,000 harvesters out of the industry. The report says on page 7 that there are 500 people leaving on an annual basis and that that trend is likely to continue. At 10 per cent, that is going to be 5,000. Now Mr. McCurdy says – he used, I believe, 7.3 per cent. Well, yes, you are talking about the core licenses because there is buddying up and combining that is occurring, therefore that is more stable. The number of people exiting boats - and from where I sit, the harvesting sector includes more than just the license holders, it includes a deckhand.

I would assume that the Member for the Straits & White Bay North is going to get up after me. In his area, in 4R –

MR. DEAN: He was not, but he is now.

MR. JACKMAN: I would expect that you would, sir, because if you look at the numbers that are in your area, this report is saying that to make it viable in your particular area you could require as much as 80 per cent rationalization. You stand and tell me that you support an 80 per cent, or a 60 per cent, or a 70 per cent rationalization of the harvesters who are in your district, or you stand and tell me that you support a rationalizing of plants in your particular area when you are uncertain as to which ones are going to come out of it. More importantly, I would certainly like to ask this question. In the reports, in the crab sector it says that at a 30 per cent rationalization the wages of plant workers will go from $6,700 a year to $9,500 a year. The shrimp one is a bit better, it goes from like $8,700 a year up to $11,000. Now tell me how we are going to attract and retain anyone in the plant sector? If we say that we are not going to attract and retain, we are heading down two roads. We will go one or the other, or a combination. Do you know where that is going to lead us? Foreign workers coming in to work in fewer plants or we are going to be freezing at sea. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, unless I missed something in this report, I am not willing to stand and accept that.

My time is almost up, and I do not expect I will get a half an hour extension, which I would love to. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Chair, I have written a letter to both parties, because it is awful easy to place this in the lap of government. That is how come we have had report, after report, after report, after report. Do not leave it in the lap of government; industry has to come forward with some semblance as to how restructuring can take place. That is what I have indicated in my letter and I will await their reply.

But, Mr. Chair, it is clearly evident, if we do not do something, as I said, about the processing sector, the plants; if we do not do something we are heading down a road whereby we will not see processing in this Province unless it is in one of two ways that I have indicated. I do not think there is anybody in this House, or in this Province, who would be accepting of that.

From the harvesting side, one of the most bothersome things –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: If I could have just one minute to clue up.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, by leave.

MR. JACKMAN: One of the most bothersome things that I had said to me this past week was from a thirty-four year old harvester who said: I am not looking for a buyout. Give me a means to access finances and I will take care of what I need to do in this industry.

Mr. Chair, that is one of the directions we need to head in. I am asking that the industry come forward with us to make the tough changes that need to be made to make this an industry that is a better one for those who participate in it, and, more importantly, that it becomes a viable, sustainable industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was not going to follow the Minister of Fisheries, not realizing, of course, that he was speaking, but the fact that he did, I will put aside the subject that I was going to speak to –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: If you heard what I said you would not have to ask the question, but that is okay. I understand. You have difficulty hearing and comprehending at times.

I will respond and say, Mr. Chair, first of all, it is good to be able to stand and to speak again. It has been a while since we have been here. As my colleague suggested, it seems like the time in the House of Assembly seems to be getting less and less each session, so it is good to be back again.

When it comes to the fishery and the disappointment that has been caused by the way in which the MOU, the way in which the recommendations came forward and were accepted by this minister and by this government, certainly has shocked the entire Province. That is not to suggest that we would accept and adopt – as the way forward – all of the recommendations and so on that were put forward by the ASP and the FFAW.

Certainly, when we go back to July of 2009, and we look at the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed, first of all by the government, and secondly by the ASP, and then by the FFAW, we certainly believed that it started us on a process where over a period of time – suggested at that point to probably be less than six months or so – but we understood that over a period of time, and with a budget to take us there accordingly, that we would have a document which would suggest to us a path forward for the industry in terms of rationalization and restructuring as well, in this Province.

So, when February came and the document came out on a morning and the next day, or that same day – whatever – the minister came out and totally condemned that report, that caught us all off guard because that was not what we understood the process was about. That was not where we understood this process was going to take us. Nothing could be further from the expectation of the people in the industry and the people throughout the Province than what happened on that day.

Nothing has defined better the culture of this Province historically and from an economical value for some 500 years – since our Province has been settled – than our great and our wonderful fishery. We hear lots of excitement and so on these days from this government about the oil industry, about the benefits of that and so on. We are glad it is there, and we are glad that we are reaping what we are doing from that industry right now, but we all realize, as was suggested yesterday in response to the Throne Speech by the Leader of the Opposition, that it is not there forever; it will begin to decline, and at some point or another the royalties and so on, the income from the oil, will be gone. Yet, we have this renewable resource, our fishery, that has been in crisis for years, and this government has had eight years to recognize that, to put a plan in place, to go back and look at the reports that came from previous governments and so on.

We can continue to go back there for as long as we want, or we can look forward and we take a plan of action of our own. The MOU was to be that process. It was to be that vehicle that would give us direction that would take us to wherever we needed to go, in terms of an industry. While it focussed especially on the shellfish fishery, in terms of shrimp and crab, it was to kind of chart the course for us. What we have today, as recent as today, when we read the media releases from today and comments from the union leaders and so on, there seems to be just complete dismay in terms of how the government, and the minister in particular, have reacted to this, how he is handling this, and we really have no idea of where we are going to from here.

Yes, we have had numerous reports on the fishery; we have had lots of ideas and so on. I would agree with the minister that this particular report is a well-written report. Yet, it seems to have very little credibility in terms of being a vehicle of something that can take us forward as a government and give us direction into restructuring the industry.

When the report came down, one of the things that I remember hearing the minister say, as he asked me in the House, on several occasions, whether I supported the MOU – and I stood as a Member of the House of Assembly, I stood as fisheries critic, I stood as a member of the Opposition to say yes, I support the process. I was not about to say that I would support the outcome because obviously we did not know what that outcome would be. I supported the process of the MOU, I support today the process of three parties, of those involved taking that process forward, allowing us to get to a place where we understand where the industry goes.

I will recall that one of the first things that was to be done with that MOU process was that it would be taken to Cabinet. It would be taken to Cabinet for deliberation, for discussion so that his colleagues at the Cabinet table could have their input into it, could understand, could discuss the document, and then from there, I would assume as government would do, to give it a path forward. We know that did not happen – it did not go to Cabinet. It really did not seem to go anywhere, so to speak, as was originally planned.

I believe while the process gave us the recommendations of ASP and it gave us the recommendations of the FFAW, those two partners in the process as well as all that they represent, are waiting today for the reaction of government. They are waiting for government to come back and say okay, here is what we will do, you have given us your recommendations, there has been a great financial document written by a very intelligent man and it summarizes all of the findings and so on. Now, government, Mr. Minister, we are waiting. Ms Premier, we are waiting for you to come back and tell us what it is that government is going to do. That is what is missing; we do not know what government is going to do. We have had eight years for this particular government to tell us what they would do with the fishery and we are not hearing it. We are no closer today to a resolution than what we were eight years ago.

It is fine to talk about reports that were written during the Liberal Administration, the reign, or twenty years ago, or ten years ago. That does not help us today; that just helps us to understand some things that we already know in terms of things that were done, of reports that were written and recommendations from decades ago. It is important that we know where it is that we are going to go today and really the industry – I find it disturbing, to be honest, as I read The Telegram this morning to hear the Minister of Fisheries talk about the fact that the whole industry is really rationalizing itself at, I believe it was, 5 per cent a year, as he mentioned a moment ago. So we can just let it unfold by itself, attritional kind of thing, and it will solve itself within the next few years.

Well, I find that very disturbing. Because, as the minister mentioned a few moments ago, my district is one that has heavily relied upon the fishery. It is one that will be heavily impacted by the recommendations of the MOU, should they be put in place depending on which particular way they go and so on. To suggest that we just let it happen over a period of time, to suggest that we leave our harvesters, our plant workers, those associated with the fishery to just feel the impact and to allow attrition to happen naturally, I believe, is very irresponsible indeed on behalf of this government.

I know several harvesters in my district; I know others throughout this Province. I have spoken with people throughout this Province in the past five or six weeks in terms of response to the MOU. I have had people call me from Ramea. I have had people call me from Twillingate. I have had people call me from Marystown. I have had people call me from the North Coast, the South Coast, all around the Province I have had people call to talk about the MOU and their position and how they felt things should go forward and so on. So, it has been great to have that kind of dialogue.

There are people today who are selling their businesses. I know several who are downsizing because they cannot afford to stay where they are. They have waited for the past two years. The past two fishing seasons, they went through the difficulty and they have said I will hang on because this government is bringing forward this document. There is going to be a plan. There is going to be a path forward. Finally now, with the announcement that the MOU is basically a dead document, it is in limbo, that there is no support from this government, it is not going to Cabinet and so on, they have decided to take into their own hands what they can do and to basically get rid of their enterprises, to downsize, to do other things that really they have been trying to avoid for the past two years.

I believe it is not good enough. We do not agree with parts of the MOU - I do not agree with parts of the MOU. I do not agree with the devastation that is suggested there in terms of doing it immediately, but one thing we have to agree on is that -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Leave to just finish up?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, by leave.

MR. DEAN: Thank you.

Certainly, as a representative of a large part of the fishing industry of this Province, I am anxious to know today what this government is going to do in terms of its response to the MOU. I wait to hear from the minister in days to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the member of the Opposition for his comments because I think all of us recognize that there have to be changes in this industry. My referencing all the reports over the years was not targeted so much at the Opposition; my referencing the reports is targeted at that we in this fishing industry seem to go from crisis to crisis. Whenever we reach a crisis, we will have people who will show up on our doorsteps or we get to a point where we are at loggerheads, and what do we do? We commission a report. So, we commissioned a report in 1998, we commissioned a report in 2002, and we commissioned two reports, I believe it was, in 2003.

All of us that were government at the time remember the RMS stuff. We almost shiver just to speak about it. Mr. Chair, then we went to the Fishing Industry Renewal where all of the stakeholders – communities, harvesters, and processors – all represented and said that status quo was not an option. Then we arrive at a point where this MOU started and the parties were supposed to bring forward proposals, which they did. One of the things, Mr. Chair, that came out of this report – not recommendations, they were conclusions that you could draw from the financial analysis.

I can tell you one thing, Mr. Chair, my comments in the paper this morning had nothing to do with that I want to sit down and we as a government sit back and allow attrition to naturally occur. Mr. Chair, there are things that we can do. As I said in my last few minutes speaking, one harvester said to me: If I can access financing, I will do it. I have done some combining myself to this point, but I need to be able to access capital in order to carry it further. His words were: If I can get that, get out of my way. Let me do what I need to do. Mr. Chair, I contend to you that if we can do that, then that is where we need to be.

Where does this always end up if the industry is not going to come forward with concrete examples as to how we can make a difference? Clearly, in this one, the harvesting sector has asked for $190 million to take out basically 3,000 people over ten years. Then, the numbers itself said that there would be more coming out of it if we do nothing. That is going to occur, but let's not sit back and let that painfully evolve, Mr. Chair. What we have to do is we have to find a way to get into it, but clearly it cannot be just government's responsibility. The Opposition member said: What is government going to do? My question is going to be reversed: What is industry going to do? What is industry going to come forward with, what suggestions that would make structural changes in this fishery? That is all I am waiting for. Come back to me with some means as to how we can move forward.

The Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy outlined a number of key points. One was that the fishery would be a sustainable, viable industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, that there were going to be means to attract young people and retain young people in the processing sector and in the industry generally. Mr. Chair, I have to say, and I have said it publicly, I think there is a bright future for many young people in the harvesting sector. I have heard from them, I have had them in my office, and I have spoken to them. The member mentioned some of the phone calls that he has been getting from people around the Province, well, I have been getting them too and I have been getting some e-mails.

People are genuinely interested in getting on with the business that needs to be done here. I think, when people opposite talk about leadership, the leadership cannot only come from government it has to come from industry as well. That is what I am asking of the people who were engaged in this process from the harvesting and processing side. We have also had representation from SPNL. This is a group of individuals who come together as the smaller processors. They are putting forward how they see things going. Now, we are looking at it from the broader context.

The member opposite talked about my reaction to it. Again, I have to say, Mr. Chair, I do not apologize for the stand that I took, because I was simply not interested in the next part, being: okay, we have done this work, let's sit again and talk. We will talk, and maybe in two year's time somebody will say: Well, we should do something else. They will look back at the MOU and say: Do you know what? That is no good, that is outdated, let's do something different. We continually engage in the cycle of talking but never really getting down to what the root of the problem is, and that means there has to be structural changes.

Some people will argue and have said that restructuring was not a part of what was outlined to the parties in the MOU. Well, I hope people read through it, because it certainly is referenced in there about restructuring. If they did not get it there, well, they should follow a list of news releases that went out. The Minister of Fisheries at the time, on July 14 sent out one, and here is a phrase in it: develop restructuring models; long-term structural improvements; restructuring our industry. That was on July 14.

Then on August 15, the steering committee, in the second last paragraph: industry restructuring. Then I can go on to December 2, when I came into the portfolio: Agreement on Fishing Industry Restructuring; the fishing industry over the long-term; and on and on it goes through the news releases. March 5, March 18, and again in July of this past year, the word restructuring are in them. Either I did not do a good job of getting my messages out in these news releases or the parties that were involved chose to ignore it.

I also said, and I am willing to bet the member opposite remembers me saying that I certainly was not interested in going forward to my government with an ask of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, the total ask in this proposal comes out to be around $440 million to $450 million; to me, that is millions of dollars of ask. Added to that was the rationalization piece but no hint of how restructuring is going to take place, other than you are going to downsize the number of harvesters and you are going to downsize the number of plants without a plan being laid out as to how you are going to do that.

Mr. Chair, when you talk about it, rationalization and restructuring, the rationalization piece was there but it is quite evident the restructuring piece was missing. Again, I do not want to echo it too much, too often, but I would like to get the message out there that right now the letter has been forwarded to both the ASP and the FFAW; the reason being in that these were the signatories to the MOU. Government was the party that was asked to provide finances so that the industry could bring forward proposals.

Mr. Chair, when I met with the parties on December 30 last year, I indicated to them that I would like their proposals by January 22. Mr. Chair, to the point, we even paid for those parties to have those submissions written. We were to be the facilitators of the process. The industry was to come forward with the proposals and then government would act and react. Well, I reacted, because the piece that I saw missing was around the restructuring. Clearly, now it is back in the hands of the industry and I certainly hope in the best interest of the entire Province. The member opposite is right, and I totally agree with him, that this is a renewable resource. Oil and minerals have the potential to run out. This renewable resource –

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: – has sustained us, and will sustain us. Mr. Chair, I hope the industry recognizes that and comes back with a response accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back again and respond to some of the things that the minister said, and elaborate a little further on our position in terms of the MOU and what we see the issues as being. It is clear that this government seems to have a problem with clarity. Their agenda seems to be one of confusion.

Again, I go back to the quote this morning from the head of the FFAW, Mr. Earle McCurdy. He described the minister's letter, the one that three weeks ago or so the minister had promised there would be a letter coming forth and it did. His response to the letter was that either he is confused or he is trying to confuse people. Now, I give the minister the benefit of the doubt. I do not believe he is trying to confuse people. I certainly do not believe that but people are confused, that is the bottom line. They are confused about where we are in terms of what we understood or where we thought we would be, and what a process would be and what a process has been. There is total uncertainty around this whole process and we just do not really know where it is going.

Yesterday, in the Throne Speech, the Premier stated that there were some parts of the MOU that are favourable. Yet, a couple of weeks back, we had the minister basically, totally condemning the report; again, more confusion. Is there good, or is there not good? Because it seemed to be not good and now suddenly it seems as though there might be some good. It just causes more confusion.

I noted in the Throne Speech yesterday and just read it again a moment ago, where the Premier says: "My Government is not prepared to cut communities adrift." That is a good comment, said the government in its section on the fishery. Yet, ironically, in her reply to the Throne Speech she does not even mention the fishery. It is not even the four-letter word, as the minister mentioned a moment ago about expecting to hear the four-letter "f" word from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I thought we might hear the four-letter "f" word from the Premier in her response to the Throne Speech, but she did not, it was not there. What was there was a lot of time and obsession with a term sheet on Muskrat Falls. It seemed to be very important that we understand how viable it is, how feasible it is, and all of the reasons why we need to do it and so on. There was plenty of that there in her response to the Throne Speech but there was nothing on the fishery.

Back to the MOU for a second, and what I consider to be a lack of leadership from the Premier and certainly from the minister as well in terms of where we are going with this. We cannot expect industry and we cannot expect the FFAW, those involved, to take the leadership, the government role, in terms of taking us forward and so on. What is it that we support? Probably I can give you a couple of nuggets of information, if you will, Mr. Chair, that will help this minister and help the government in terms of where we should try and go with this MOU process.

First of all, let it be understood - and we have tried to get this message out there as an Opposition - that we believe the MOU report in and of itself is neither to be condemned nor fully embraced. In other words, we do believe there is good in there but we also believe there are things that are just not rational, that are just too much, and that we would say no to if we were asked as to whether we support it, as to whether we would implement it. There are things here that we obviously would say no to. The report, I believe - based on the minister's own comments a few moments ago, in the fact that it is a well-written report, then that would suggest the report provides something to build upon. It gives us a foundation, if you will, to use the words of the Premier today, and others who have spoken, it gives us something that we can build upon in terms of rationalizing and restructuring our fishery. So just to condemn it and put it on the shelf is not the reaction that we would expect from the government. That is why it took us all by surprise.

We support what we consider to be a negotiating process towards strengthening the industry in all of the coastal communities. You know my goodness gracious where do our coastal communities in this Province go if there is not a fishery for tomorrow? I mean quite honestly, how do they survive? So it is very important, it is a fundamental responsibility of this government to see that we have a sustainable fishery, to see that we have something that is viable and to see that this MOU takes us through a process of rationalization and restructuring so that we get to where we need to be.

We believe that a fully voluntary exodus by harvesters from the industry is a good thing. If people are ready to leave the industry, then I believe that we need to try and accommodate that. What is it that people need to be able to do that? If people are ready to put their enterprises aside, if people are ready to exit the industry, if they are willing to move on from there to another profession in life or retire as would be the case for many people, then I would expect this government to understand what their obligation needs to be to help those people accommodate that and to realize it over this next little while.

Now I would say the MOU is not the be all and end all to all of the issues and challenges in the fishing industry. I realize it was never designed to be that, but it certainly was to be the document that really carried us forward; that gave us good direction. Mr. Chair, government cannot allow this document or process to be solely industry driven as well. That is one of the concerns that I have when we shelve the industry, we say well it is the industry that is speaking, it is the processors and it is the harvesters and so on. Well, quite frankly, that is all we have asked for in terms of information. We have not asked anyone else for their opinions.

Down through the past year since I came into the House of Assembly and took on the role as fisheries critic and began to understand the MOU and the process that was intended and so on, one of the things that I was always critical of is the fact that there was no involvement of public consultations. The communities that are going to be impacted by the recommendations and the implementation of the MOU process were not involved in being consulted in terms of having their say about how it would impact their community, of giving ideas of how this could be done and so on. That piece was totally missed. We went into this agreement believing that we did not need them there, all we needed was the ASP, all we needed was the FFAW, and all we needed was the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not even need the federal government, even though we would be going to them and looking to help us with this $500 million bailout or buyout that we have in front of us. Yet, we saw no need to go to them or invite them to the process, to have them there in July of 2009 when we began this process. We have said before – I have said as fisheries critic – that is fundamentally wrong, that it was flawed, that it was one of the major problems with this whole process. Yet, I have not seen along the way, Mr. Chair, where we have tried to rectify that, where we have tried to correct it.

I do know that when the report was released and when our minister provincially condemned the report, saying that he would not take it forward to Cabinet, that we sent a copy off to the federal minister. Now I have no idea what we would expect the federal Minister of Fisheries, for the government of this country to do with that report when we have already said that we do not buy into it, we do not agree with it, we do not plan to implement it, I have no intention of taking it to Cabinet and so on. It is difficult to try and understand what we are expecting from the federal government and from the federal Minister of Fisheries, in particular, when we have a document that we do not buy, that we do not agree with and so on, the fact that we did that – I am not really sure why we would do that.

There are many shortfalls of the MOU and sometimes it is easy to pick things to pieces, I understand that. There are legitimate shortfalls of this whole process. I have mentioned a couple of them: not having communities involved, not being willing to consult, not having the federal government and so on. Basically, what it amounts to is that from the very get-go it has been too narrow, if you will. It has been done behind closed doors and that public piece has been missing. The expertise that is out there in so many other circles and so many other avenues that could have helped steer this process to a more agreeable position – to a more agreeable finish, if you will – the expertise that was there that could help us with that, this government chose to ignore it, to not having the process, to not have it at the table, to defend the fact that they did not need them, that when it was appropriate when the report was done, whatever the case might be, we would advise the public or we would get some feedback from some of the municipalities, from some of the municipal leaders and whatever the case might be. If we had brought that in at the front-end, I would suggest, I believe the whole process might have had a better outcome and we might today be closer to rationalizing the industry, which is what we set out to do two years ago.

Again, Mr. Chair, just another few words. There will be much more debate on this issue, I am sure, and I look forward to doing it in the days and weeks to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is great that this debate is going on. The heading of The Telegram article this morning was that I was confused or I am trying to confuse people. Well, boy, if that is the case, it certainly was not my intent.

We can get into this war of politics and the member opposite saying what we did or we did not do. Mr. Chair, I could go this route: I could say that the fishery is so important to this Province that in the first day back in this sitting there was not one question on the MOU during question period. Now, I can go that route, but, Mr. Chair, I think –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: No, I expect that there will be. The only way we will bring clarity to it is that we do that. Mr. Chair, that becomes the problem. That becomes the problem in this fishery because we let politics interfere with really what needs to happen.

I was taking the points down that the member opposite was talking about. Rather than go from the beginning of his points, I will work my way back. He finished by saying that one of the problems with it was that he felt that it was too narrow. I have to take him back to how this process started. There was a shutdown in the crab prices in the crab fishery when one group said we cannot process for forty-two cents and the other one said we cannot fish for forty-two cents. So government came in. They requested a meeting with government, and there were parameters developed whereby the shrimp fishery started, I believe, at forty-four cents.

The process was this: government was to facilitate – was to facilitate – proposals by both the harvesting and the processing sectors. That was the agreement because it was around that particular fishery. At that point, it was that the parties were going to develop proposals around rationalizing and restructuring the fishery. That is what it was. They were going to come forward with a proposal as to how that could happen. Well, indeed they came forward with the rationalizing, but there was not much on the restructuring end.

Now, the piece about the federal government. Mr. Chair, I contend that if we are going to get something from the federal government, we had better go forward as a unified voice as opposed to not in agreement with it, as does happen so often in this Province. I think the federal government just dismisses us from time to time. Because what they see happening is that we head down one road and then all of a sudden the parties in this industry seem to be at each other's throats and then they can dismiss us because we are fighting within our own Province amongst ourselves. So, when is it we are going to get at the job that really needs to be done? That means getting down to what really has to happen in this Province and those things are around structural changes.

The public consultations, I would expect, people would be interested in, as to once you come forward, with how you are going to restructure it. If that means that we have the union and the companies coming forward and saying that this is where we need to downsize this harvesting sector or we need to take these plants out, then, at that point, that is where we are going to have to certainly have communities involved because right now the communities have no indication as to what the outcome is going to be.

If the member opposite wants to have clarification, well, here is what I would say where we need to go. He is right - and I do truly believe it - that this MOU provides the foundation to build upon, certainly; but the most critical point about why I took my stand is the next part, it is the foundation to build on, now you have to start to tell me what it is that you are going to build and how you see it being built.

Again, I will say it, the letter is gone. The questions that I put in there - I do not know if this will work or not, but is there a possibility of extending seasons? Are there possibilities that we can alternate species around the Province to be caught? Are there licensing policy combining types of changes that can happen so that it makes it more viable for somebody in the harvesting sector? Are there technologies that we can use to make processing facilities more efficient? These are the types of things that I have put back to the industry.

While someone might say - again back to the leadership part of it – well, it is quite obvious that government has attempted to lead on a number of occasions. I cited the number of reports that have been done. These were reports that were done by governments, not only by our government, by the members opposite when they were in government. Mr. Chair, what happened? The reports were written, we did not get a lot of it done and –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JACKMAN: You know someone is over there, opposite now, heckling me about the RMS. That is where the root of the problem is. We get down to this type of debate and we never really get to what the problems are. I am asking the Opposition to take the politics out of this and allow the industry to come forward, and together industry and government move forward with a plan as to what really needs to happen in this fishery.

I would like to think, and I have to say the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, I do believe that he is sincere in how this needs to unfold because the impact on his district, the impact on 4R - and the Leader of the Opposition needs to be very aware that 2J is another area that is cited here as these two areas being in the most critical points where the highest level of rationalization needs to take place. If these two members take this report seriously, I hope, Mr. Chair, that they will support my role in this, and that being that I want to see industry coming back to us with recommendations around restructuring.

We have to see changes, as was stated by everybody who sat around the table at the fisheries summit that former Premier Williams held, that status quo was not an option. Mr. Chair, we are here standing now three, four years later and status quo is exactly what is out there. Again, we have not really dealt with the issue of making it a sustainable, viable industry in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We have not dealt with how it is going to attract and retain people in this industry with salaries that are going to take someone from $6,700 up to $9,500 a year and think we are going to bring young people into this industry. Well, boy, anybody who thinks that, I think they are sadly, sadly mistaken. Now, we can offer supports whereby the harvesting sector can move to rationalization, and that is one of the points in this. The positive points in this report: marketing.

I was at the Boston Seafood Show this weekend. If anybody in this Province thinks that we can operate in a global context without marketing, they are sadly, sadly mistaken, and I would hope that if we come forward with financial supports on that marketing end, that the industry will come to support our move. Remember, in two points forward that was not the case. We offered to buy the FPI marketing arm, and the former Minister of Fisheries brought forward funds for the Seafood Marketing Council, and that was turned down. So, I hope that both parties in the industry will come forward this time and accept our support if we get there. I am also willing to explore the further options around financing that will allow harvesters to access capital.

So, there are good things in this report: the two things that I have outlined. How can we engage the federal government? Well, the federal government has a department that will support marketing initiatives. Those are things that we can take forward to the federal government. It is time for us to get on a unified front here, and I am more than willing to sit with the parties whenever they want to come back, but I am asking them to come back with initiatives that support restructuring.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, one of the bigger problems that I see in this whole process again is the fact that we are not talking about rebuilding our fishery. There is really no discussion on the go about rebuilding our stocks, about rebuilding the fishery that has sustained us for so many years.

I go back to the point that I made a little while ago and the fact that this is a renewable resource. We understand what took place in the early nineties in the cod moratorium and how years later we are no closer to a rebuilt fishery. It seems as though we are accepting, as a government, the fact that we have to reduce, reduce, reduce, and without a plan to really try to rebuild our fishery, to understand what the challenges are, to understand the ways it can be done, to understand the leadership that government can give it and so on.

Again, as we look into our Throne Speech and as I look into this MOU process that took us some nineteen months to see from a government perspective, when I look at the document I see from the processors and I see from the harvesters essentially what I would expect to see. You go to a bunch of business people, with all due respect, and you say: How can you improve your business? How can we make you more profitable? What are the issues that need to be addressed and so on? You get exactly what you got. Essentially, in that regard, in the MOU process, you basically got what you asked for. I do not know that any of us should be surprised at that.

What government has failed to do, it failed to advance its own vision and action plan. In that MOU process, after nineteen months of eighty-plus meetings, as the minister has suggested, and after these committees have been together and so on, we should be able to open up that document and the very first thing we should see is the vision and action plan of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to tell you, it is missing; do not look for it, it is not there. That is one of the fundamental problems I see with the process that we have gone through.

It is fine to say that we are going to wait for the ASP and we are going to wait for the FFAW to come back now with restructuring plans. We have seen the rationalization. We want to see more meat on the bones. We want to see how they are going to restructure the industry. Well, I want to see what the government's vision is for this industry and this Province. It is no problem seeing their vision for the oil and gas industry. They are out front and giving leadership to it, as they should, in that whole industry as they are in other things, but in the fishery there is a total collapse and there is a total absence of leadership from this government. That is one of the things that is really so disappointing. It amazes me that it is where it is. Therefore, when Professor Clift did up his report he did not have three points of view. He could only put two in there because he had no idea where this government was coming from. He gave us the view of the ASP, he gave us the view of the FFAW, but we have been waiting for the view of government. Where would government like to take this industry? Where would they like to see it go? What is their whole vision and plan for it?

The minister or the government can pretend all they want, that he did not commission a rationalization report but I am going to read you a quote from the minister from back in February, 2010, on the MOU. He says, and I quote from The Coaster, "We need to rationalize the fishery (buy out fishing licenses of those who may want to leave) to see if we can support harvesters who want to stay.

"Once we buy out some licenses, we will see if we can provide a quota for those who want to stay in the fishery that is reasonable. I think there is room for us to do that. We have supported the FFAW in their development of a proposal which has been submitted to the federal government on this issue." He says, "The bottom line is that we need to get to a place where a fisherman will have a degree of stability from year to year." That is talking about rationalization. To finish his quote, he says, "So, we're hoping to achieve…" - talking about the MOU - "…some kind of rationalization program that will help stabilize harvesters' jobs and incomes – that's where we want to move all of this."

What we have when that process is finished then, is really a useless $800,000 report and twenty months of wasted time and energy. That is essentially what we have. We have people in our industry, as I said before, who would like to voluntarily retire, but basically what government has said is that it is survival of the fittest. If you can survive, survive. If you can find a way to do it, find a way to do it. If not, then I guess that you might be one of the first ones out the door.

In today's Telegram again, I want to reiterate what the minister said in his statement. He says: "how can I justify, going forward looking for $190 million dollars, to justify a 30 per cent reduction…when the report clearly says that if you leave it alone it will restructure to an even greater degree than the (proposal) that the FFAW put forward?" Now what leadership is that? What kind of a government would say leave it alone and let it fix itself? It cannot happen, Mr. Chair.

This industry is looking for leadership; this industry has been looking for leadership for some years from this government and it is not seeing it. This is the same government who wasted seven years at a fisheries summit back in 2006 but have not invested any significant amount of money into the fishery, except perhaps in aquaculture. We recognize that as a growing part of the industry, we are pleased to see it happening and yet, that is really the only place in which this government has really, really invested anything.

Yes, I do represent a region; I have cause for concern, because I do represent a region that is very much centralized around the fishery and I know that many communities in my district depend upon it. I see the impact today of communities that once had good, fish processing operations that are no longer there and they are struggling to survive. They are looking to government, they are looking for the answers, and they have been waiting for the MOU process to unfold.

I want to offer the minister a couple of recommendations this evening, if I can, Mr. Chair. Hopefully, as he acknowledged a moment ago, and I appreciate the fact that he said I want to positively contribute to this, if you will, and I certainly do. It is not all about getting up and tearing it apart and so on. I agree with that, but at the same time we have to hold government's feet to the fire to acknowledge that: listen, you have had a long time to do something and nothing has been done. This has been another failed opportunity.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, the MOU process and the dialogue that we are having has to continue. We cannot just put it on the shelf and leave it there. It cannot become another report that somewhere down the road, some government, some minister, some Premier stands and says: Well, look at what you did when you were in government back so many years ago, via the famous MOU. I do not agree with that. I believe it is a report that needs to continue, it is a dialogue that needs to continue, otherwise the document is useless and the process has been nothing more than a sham and a burden to the taxpayers of this Province.

The second thing I would say, Mr. Chair, to the minister - and this, I believe, is very important. I do not know that this has been done to this point. I do not believe it has, but I believe that government must lead this process and work this thing through. We cannot leave it to the union and to the ASP to take that leadership position. That is a position that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and him as the government's representative, as the Minister of Fisheries, I believe the onus is on him to do it.

Another recommendation I would give in the last minute that I have, is to say that we have to commit, and I would like to hear the minister commit, the government commit to enlarging that circle. There has to be a greater group of people who become involved as stakeholders in this process. It is fine to say that we are going to show them the document after we have it. It is fine to say we are going to go out with the conclusions of the ASP, the FFAW and government, and say: What do you think of that? What I am suggesting, what we are trying to say is if you had those people involved in the process your conclusions might be different, because you have had a dialogue with people who have experience, you have a dialogue with people who have know-how and therefore they would take you down a different path, so to speak, simply because of their experience. I would call upon government to hold public forums on this whole issue. Let's get out, let's talk about it, let's see what people have to say, let's get their input so that as we continue the dialogue, as we continue the MOU process, if you will, it takes us somewhere that we need to be.

The last thing I would say in closing, Mr. Chair, is that I believe it is a report the minister committed to vetting through Cabinet that did not happen. I believe it needs to go there as well for their debate and dialogue as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is again an honour to stand here as the MHA for the great District of Lake Melville, the Minister of Labrador Affairs. I want to say Lake Melville is a great district. It is home to the Upper Churchill. It is home to the Lower Churchill. It is home to 5 Wing Goose Bay, home to the headquarters of Labrador Grenfell Health, home to the Nunatsiavut Government, and home to the Innu Nation. A great district, Mr. Chair, a great district in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to take a minute and I want to certainly welcome my two new colleagues, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and certainly the Member for Humber West. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, again the public, the people, the constituents of those districts saw the vision, the leadership in this government and again voted these particular individuals to represent them in this great House of Assembly, Mr. Chair.

I also want to say, in all sincerity on a personal note, to my friend and colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, how good it is to see her back. I certainly want to wish her well as she moves on with her treatment and the challenges she has had with her cancer.

I can tell you we saw yesterday that this particular leader is under some great strain, and make no wonder, when you have good friends like John Efford and Danny Dumaresque and some of those out there supporting her the way they are and we all know what I am talking about. She has some great challenges ahead. She has some great challenges ahead. I mean let's just take a minute, Mr. Chair, and talk about Danny Dumaresque, let's talk about Danny Dumaresque, the same fellow, Mr. Chair, the same fellow that the former Premier of the Liberal Party said he could not sleep at night knowing that Danny Dumaresque was in Confederation Building advising one of his ministers. Imagine. The same Danny Dumaresque who was President of the Liberal Party that put us $600,000 in the hole and all the executive around him resigned. So she has some great challenges, Mr. Chair, some great challenges.

I am not going to go on and on about Danny Dumaresque, but I can tell you that is not what I am going to talk about here today. I am going to talk about – certainly yesterday was a great day for the people of Labrador and for this Province. I want to congratulate my good friend and colleague, the Member from Torngat Mountains, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who yesterday inked a deal with the Innu Nation and the Federal Government; something that has been some thirty years in the making, Mr. Chair. I can tell you a lot of work has gone into that.

I also want to recognize the work of our former leader. One of last things he did before he left office was he took a delegation of thirty Innu, along with myself and my good friend and colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and we went to Ottawa to make the case that this was a deal that we needed for the Innu people, for the people of Labrador, and for our Province, and yesterday that was delivered. You know, governance, Mr. Chair, is about leadership. It is about leadership. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, while we have a great leader that has left us, we also now have a great leader in our Premier, Kathy Dunderdale, who has taken this government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: She has taken this government on in a seamless transition, in a seamless transition, and she has taken on the challenges with the vision to instill the pride that we all have in our Province and in our districts, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, over the last seven years – and I want to talk just for a minute, because I have not got a whole lot of time, but I want to talk about the good things that are going on in Labrador, Mr. Chair. Right now, Mr. Chair, we have a major project that is about to come upon us. We are going through the environmental assessment hearings on the Lower Churchill. The environmental assessment hearings on the Lower Churchill are an opportunity for people throughout the Province, and indeed, most importantly, the people of Labrador, to come out and to find out about this project. An opportunity, Mr. Chair, for people to have their say, to voice their concerns. I can tell you those hearings are going very well, Mr. Chair.

Let us talk about the Muskrat Falls Project just for a minute. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, I grew up on the Upper Churchill. My father took his family to the hydro project at Twin Falls, and then we moved from Twin Falls to Churchill Falls, and I grew up on it. I can tell you what, that project should have been a whole different deal than what it was. Mr. Chair, when we talk about energy, we talk about the future. It is not about John Hickey, it is about our children and our grandchildren and the future for them as we move forward, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Just the other day in my district I was talking to some of the young linemen that are taking a course now at the College of the North Atlantic. I can tell you what; they are not following down the road of Danny Dumaresque. They are not following down the road of Todd Russell and Chris Montague. They are not. They see opportunity here, and they want to live in Labrador with the rest of their families. They want to see a future with good paying jobs. That is what the young people of Labrador want, Mr. Chair. We do not want to be, as parents in Labrador, visiting our grandchildren out in Fort McMurray. That is not what we want. We want the benefits of this resource right in our backyards to be developed to its full potential.

Mr. Chair, more than 75 per cent of the work for the Muskrat Falls generation facility will take place in Labrador, including the construction of the dam, the powerhouse, and the transmission lines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: What a far cry, Mr. Chair, what a far cry than 2001 when the Grimes government wanted to pass it all over to Hydro Quebec. That will not happen, it will not happen under this government's watch, and that is why we have done a new deal. A deal that will benefit this Province in years to come. No longer will Hydro Quebec hold the four aces in the cards when we sit across the table to have future talks with the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier of this government. Those days are over.

Mr. Chair, an estimated $450 million in income will be earned solely by Labradorians and Labrador-based businesses, with an average of 1150 people per year employed in Labrador from both the generation and transmission components. The first consideration, and this is paramount, and let there be no mistake, the first consideration for employment will go to the Labrador Innu and to the Aboriginal people of Labrador; the second will go to Labradorians; and the third priority will go to the people of the rest of the Province. That is the way it should be, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, close on fifty information sessions have taken place throughout the region to inform Labradorians about how they can partake in the project through employment and to supply opportunities as they become available.

Let me say this, last year myself, and again my good friend and colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, we sat together in Happy Valley-Goose Bay –

CHAIR: Order, please!

Regrettably, I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. HICKEY: Just a small bit of leave, Mr. Chair, because I am on a roll.

CHAIR: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, just last year we signed a $30 million Labrador Aboriginal Training Partnership which was established to ensure that Aboriginal people have the necessary skills required to participate in resource projects like Muskrat Falls. Today, I am proud to say that over 200 individuals are currently participating in the Labrador Aboriginal Training Program as a direct result of what is going to happen at Muskrat Falls and the hydro development in Labrador, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, we are committed, this government is committed and our Premier is committed, to responsible resource development to ensure that this project will not be done at the expense of our environment. Muskrat Falls will not impact electricity rates, as the naysayers are saying, in Labrador. Currently, consumers on this system pay the lowest rates, Mr. Chair, in the Province, and if not, in the country, and we want to maintain that.

Our government has made significant financial investments to keep the electricity rates in Labrador low, particularly in coastal communities, Mr. Chair. The Northern Strategic Plan is the route and is the mould in which we have ensured that that happened.

We have 824 megawatts of power. Do you know the beauty about this project? We are going to be able to train our young people as engineers and technicians and linesmen and all of those trades on the Muskrat Falls Project, and they are going to be able to take that experience and roll it over when we do Gull Island, which is another 2,400 megawatts of power, Mr. Chair. That is a tremendous opportunity for us here in this Province. We will not let Danny Dumaresque, and we will not let Todd Russell and Chris Montague take that future away from our children, Mr. Chair, let there be no mistake.

I can tell you that as we move forward with this project – and I will have more to say on this, I am only just getting started, and this is early in the session - that I plan to be on my feet a good many times debating this with the hon. members of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to have a few words. I guess there are many issues that I could talk about today, but I guess since the Member for Lake Melville has just talked about the Muskrat Falls deal and the position of Labrador, maybe I will speak to that for a few moments first.

First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to say that people in Labrador have always wanted to see the development of the Lower Churchill. They have always wanted to see the development of Muskrat Falls and of Gull Island, and they saw it as an opportunity for them. As an opportunity for them to gain greater infrastructure, to have a better standard of living, to be a good, industrial, competitive player on the world market in terms of having the energy supply to be able to do it.

Mr. Chair, for many of us, I know for myself, growing up in Labrador, attending my first meetings at a very young age in which the Member for Lake Melville, who at that time would have been a mayor and a councillor in his town, sat at many tables with me, heard the voices of Labradorians for many decades, Mr. Chair, talk about the Lower Churchill Project and what it was they wanted to get out of it for themselves and for their communities. Because, Mr. Chair, they all remember very well what they gained from the Upper Churchill. It was not just Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a whole that lost because of a bad deal on the Upper Churchill, but Labradorians more particularly. They lost a lot.

I have said it before, Mr. Chair, when the Upper Churchill deal was done, Labradorians were told you would have jobs, you would have business contracts, and you know they did. My father, when I was just very, very young, went away to work on the Upper Churchill Project. He used to leave home and go up to Churchill Falls; they lived in camps back then. He worked alongside of a lot of the French people from Quebec, because many of them were employed on the project at the same time, along with a lot of other Labradorians.

Mr. Chair, when the Upper Churchill Project was built and the jobs were over, my father came home. Came home and went back into the fishing boat, and for forty years we paid the highest electricity rates in this Province. That was the real injustice of what happened in deals like the Upper Churchill. So, to say it is about jobs and giving job priority to Labradorians or it is about business and giving business priorities to Labradorians, it is not enough, in my mind. It is not enough, in my mind. I know it is not enough for the Member for Lake Melville who grew up with the belief, as I did, that we should demand more and expect more. I think that is where Labradorians are. I think that is where they are on this deal, Mr. Chair.

It is not just the Innu people of Labrador who deserve to have IBAs or deserve to have a separate chapter on this deal, because God knows they do. They do, they deserve it, and they have an inherent right to it. They have been the users of the land. It is their land that will be flooded, but do not underestimate the fact that it is also the land of the NunatuKavut people. Do not underestimate that.

Just because today they may not have a land claim with the federal government, do not overlook the fact, Mr. Chair, that they do not have entitlement, because they do have entitlement. It has been recognized entitlement, and it may be recognized again in the court hearing or the court ruling that will come down in the next little while.

Mr. Chair, there are many who share the belief that those who suffer, those who have to give something up, those that are standing to lose the most should also be compensated. I think that is the real belief of what is happening here. If you were to do a survey right across Labrador, you would find that people are pro-development. They are pro-development in Labrador. You would find that people want to have a better future, they want to have growth. They want to have money coming into the economy. They want to have stimulus, but they do not want to be used, that is the difference. They do not want to be used. They want to see that they are getting something in return.

When I sat at the Combined Councils meeting a little while ago, it was not unlike a meeting that I sat at, Mr. Chair, going back, in fact to 2002, where there was a group of leaders, a group of politicians, municipal leaders from Labrador who sat in the room. Mr. Chair, they were saying that if the Lower Churchill is to go ahead there are certain things we want to see as municipal leaders in Labrador, things we want to see for our communities. A few weeks ago when I sat in a Combined Councils meeting in Labrador, the message was the same, and the message was very clear. That is, Mr. Chair, that we want more out of this. We do not want government to just say we are going to do a study on the power on the North and South Coasts and look at options. They want their government to say yes, we are going to provide you with affordable power. We are going to provide you with accessible power. No one is saying that; they are saying we are going to do a study.

Mr. Chair, two-and-a-half years ago we were led to believe by the same government that that study was being done, that it was actually being done, and thought it was full speed ahead, until the Muskrat Falls deal was announced and then all of a sudden: no, now we are going to do the study, that was just a preliminary assessment that we did. Now we are going to do the study. That is not good enough, Mr. Chair. We know where studies have gone in this government. This government paying $500,000 or $1 million for a study is irrelevant. It means nothing. They did that on the fishing industry and turned around and walked away from it. What kind of comfort is that to people in Labrador today who are depending upon diesel generated power on the North and South Coasts of Labrador for electricity? What comfort is that to them? It is none. They want to see something more long term. That is what the Nunatsiavut Government has been saying, that is what the NunatuKavut Government has been saying, and that is what ordinary Labradorians have been saying. The issue needs to be addressed.

The other issue that has been long-standing in Labrador is the power for industrial development; power for industrial development that is affordable. It is no good to give Labradorians power for industrial development that is so expensive that they will not be able to compete for that industry. That would be a real dilemma, Mr. Chair, because they would never have to recall it. They would never have the ability to use it. It has to be a power available to them for industrial development that they can afford to have. Right now, Mr. Chair, whether people want to realize it or whether they do not have the vision to see it, but Labrador will be the economic engine that drives this Province, next to oil and gas, over the next twenty years. We see it happening right away.

We had a company last week, New Millennium, that was talking about their project, the new mine they have coming on stream; a mine that will produce iron ore for the next 100 years in Labrador; a mine that is bigger than IOC, whom we are all familiar with, much bigger, a larger scale production. We have mines likes the Labrador Iron Mines that will go into production this year in Labrador. We have New Millennium's smaller mine that will go into production this year in Labrador. We have Paladin that just bought out the Aurora Energy mine on the North Coast of Labrador, that are waiting a decision from the Nunatsiavit Government on what they will do, to put potential and possible development in mining in that area. We have Vale Inco that is looking at doing underground mining now in Labrador, which I believe will happen because the price of nickel is good, the market is good. The outlook for that operation is all good. There is no reason why they would not go underground; another large expansion in mining.

Then we have IOC, who we know is going to ramp up their production over the next ten years, starting immediately and for the next decade, is going to continue to ramp up production of iron ore in Labrador West. Then you have Wabush Mines that has just been bought out by Cliffs, who are already looking at how they are going to expand. So, just in mining alone, next to oil and gas, it will drive the economy of this Province over the next couple of decades. Why would Labradorians, Mr. Chair, have a problem, or have a whisper at all about a Muskrat Falls deal that is going to be developed, which is going to hand them jobs that are short term, business contracts that are short term, but nothing long term? Why, Mr. Chair? Because while all of this development is occurring, not unlike it has been in all of their history, they are still going to drive over gravel roads, right from Goose Bay down to Blanc Sablon, to Red Bay, with no commitment yet from the government on paving those roads. In fact, I sat in meetings –

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will finish my comments when my next opportunity comes.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, just to respond to some of the points that the Leader of the Opposition just made, and as I said before, I grew up on the Upper Churchill, I was there, we were there, and we supplied the power to Wabush Mines and IOC, or Carol Lake as it was known in those days back in 1962. I have lived there all of my life, raised my family there.

Mr. Chair, I was at the Combined Councils meeting in 2002, and I understood the deal that was on the table, and the Leader of the Opposition says we want power for industrial development. Let me say this, I listened to the Danny Dumaresques and the Todd Russells and some of the rest of them, who basically are trying to kill the future of this project. Mr. Chair, I will say this, for those who say that at the end of the day we will only have, after the construction, a boom and bust situation of just fifty jobs, are so short-sighted it is not even funny. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, they are short-sighted, because I can tell you what is going to happen here and what this government wants. The industrial heartland of this Province will be in Central Labrador next to the hydro development of Muskrat Falls and Gull Island. I am talking to all of those companies too, none of the companies that the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned here today, I have spoken to them all, as has my colleague, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We have great opportunities here.

The Aurora project, just last week we met with the company Paladin. I will tell you, Mr. Chair, they want to do that project; they want to do that uranium project. There is a project right in the member's own district right now. She never mentioned it here today, a mining opportunity that is happening as we speak, in her own district, in the Port Hope Simpson, St. Louis area. Drilling is taking place now by Search Minerals in rare earth elements. There is a great opportunity there, the results are very positive, Mr. Chair, but she does not want to talk about that; no, no, what we will do there is continue on with the tripe about the power rates. Let me tell you, this government - and she did not do it when she was there - currently provides almost $20 million annually in grants and subsidies to provide electricity to residents in Coastal Labrador communities. We have said very clearly that upon the sanctioning of the Lower Churchill, Mr. Chair, that the commercial rates for the people on the coast will be the same as those in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We have also made a commitment to the people on the Labrador Coast; we put $2.5 million into studies for looking at hydro opportunities down there in that particular part of Labrador.

What is going to happen here is this is all going to be looked after, I can say to the member opposite. This is all going to be looked after. I agree with her, yes, Voisey's Bay Nickel does want to go down underground. They will need 50 megawatts to 55 megawatts of power to do it. We have a block of power at the Upper Churchill that we can access for industrial development, but she does not want to talk about that. Oh no, she wants to play politics with it and that is exactly what we saw here over the last couple of days.

Now, Mr. Chair, I want to talk for couple of minutes because I only have five minutes left then I will probably have to sit down. I want to talk about NunatuKavut and some of the comments she has made about NunatuKavut. Mr. Chair, NunatuKavut was formerly called the Labrador Metis Nation. When we look at the leadership there, and we always have to look at leadership, it was very clear. Chris Montague ran the last time and he ran against me. I certainly sent him on his way. I can tell you, I sent him on his way.

Then he recruited the former Liberal Cabinet Minister now who is running the show there, Kevin Aylward. We notice down in the courts there a couple of days ago, a former Justice Minister, Paul Dicks – we all notice the recycled Liberal cronies who have been involved in this organization. I can tell you what, Mr. Chair: Montague is not talking to the young Metis, to the young NunatuKavut, seventy of them that are going to the College of the North Atlantic in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He is not talking to them.

No, no, the time is over for games. My government has been very clear with NunatuKavut: They have to go and meet the same tests that the Labrador Innu and the Labrador Inuit met to get their land claims. That is in Ottawa. Guess what? They have one of their own up there, former president Todd Russell up there. What has he done for NunatuKavut? Absolutely zero – absolutely zero, Mr. Chair. A disgrace is what that Member of Parliament is. It is time for the people of Labrador to give him the royal order of the boot.

Mr. Chair, I also want to make a couple of comments when we talk about opportunities. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has written in a number of times and we said very clearly, hey, we would still sit down and have talks with the federal government, if we want to talk about health care and education benefits for those beneficiaries. We never got a response back. Not a response did we get back from the leadership, nor the Member of Parliament. A very, very sad case, I say, Mr. Chair. For her to get up on her high horse over there today and talk about the NunatuKavut, well, let me tell you their objective, and we have said this very clearly, you get your land claim with the federal government on Monday and this government will sit down with you on Tuesday. That is exactly the commitment we have always given to them. I can tell you what, we are not going to hold up the progress of Labrador and the future of young Labradorians until Chris Montague and his Liberal cronies gets their act together, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: That is just not going to happen. That is just not going to happen, Mr. Chair. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Chair, I was there in 2002, and I was there in 2001 and I dealt with them all. From Clyde Wells to Brian Tobin to Grimes, I have dealt with them all. I can tell you what: We got the shaft when the Liberal government was in power over on that side, I can tell you that. We, in Labrador, received the shaft. It was not until this government took over we started seeing investments in infrastructure and investing in roads, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: We made more progress on the Trans-Labrador Highway in the last seven years than was made in the previous twenty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: We saw Brian Tobin on a transport truck flatbed announcing it. We saw Brian Tobin up in Churchill Falls announcing the Lower Churchill, had everything all ready to go, all the brochures, everything was ready to go. Hey, guess what? They forgot they had to contact the Innu. It shut them down solid. Bouchard went back to Quebec with his tail between his legs. That is the reality, Mr. Chair. That is the reality. I can tell you -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not this government.

MR. HICKEY: No, no, this government never did that. We have done more investment – even in your own district you are seeing two new schools: one in Port Hope Simpson, one in L'Anse-au-Loup. We just saw $400,000 go into your hometown in Mary's Harbour of which seven houses, including your own, were hooked up on the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Seven houses, including your own, were hooked up on the point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: That is what we saw, Mr. Chair. We are seeing a brand new fish plant going up in Mary's Harbour. We saw a brand new fish plant going to start this year in Mary's Harbour, a crab plant.

Mr. Chair, she likes to pick and choose her little points to do her little twists and turns and everything else. Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, when you talk about investments, you take Labrador West - and I want to talk about my colleague and friend, the good Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: The NDP were supposed to have been looking after that district -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HICKEY: Two seconds?

AN. HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the hon. member there for outlining all the money I am after getting in my district. I know I am a great member, Mr. Chair, but I do not like to be out bragging about it all the time. The people up there, they know the difference, Mr. Chair, they know the difference, but I appreciate the little speech he gave for me today.

Mr. Chair, I have never heard such tripe in all my life as I have heard coming out of the Member for Lake Melville. If you want to talk about being hypocritical, let me tell you a little story. It goes back to 2002, you take a little ride down the parkway here and you come to Mary Queen of Peace Parish Hall on MacDonald Drive. Well, that was where the big rally that the Conservatives had because they were going to shut down Muskrat Falls, Gull Island, there was going to be no development. Who should show up? John Hickey, the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Well, Mr. Chair, he showed up that day - and I have his speech here. It is really different than the speech he is giving today, completely different speech than the one he is giving today I am telling you that.

One of the first things, Mr. Chair, he had to talk about in that speech was the adjacency of Labradorians, jobs are not enough, business contracts are not enough, we need more. We need more he was saying over at Mary Queen of Peace. Now, today, he is saying the jobs are okay, the jobs are okay now. In five years they will be over, but that is okay. That is all we are giving you and that is okay.

Back then, Mr. Chair, that was not enough. No, he wanted a heritage fund for Labrador. Yes, Mr. Chair, every Labradorian today wants a heritage fund. The only one who does not is the Member for Lake Melville because in 2002 that was his flag. He came to the Mary Queen of Peace Hall with his Tory friends and he put up the flag for the heritage fund in Labrador. He said, Mr. Chair, right here that there will be no development in Labrador if the people of Labrador do not get their heritage fund.

I challenge the member of the Crown today, the man who sits at the table for Labrador as the big Cabinet minister, I challenge him today, Mr. Chair, where is the heritage fund for Labradorians now? Where is that once touted heritage fund, the one you rose the flag on over on MacDonald Drive that night saying that this was where the line in the sand was going to be drawn? Without it there would not be a development. Well, I certainly have not heard of it; I have not heard of it yet. No one in Labrador has yet heard their Minister of the Crown stand up and say here is your heritage fund because that is the only condition that I would agree to this on.

That was what he campaigned on, Mr. Chair. This is the kind of stuff that he was elected on; standing up for the people of Labrador. Now all of a sudden he is in a position, Mr. Chair, not just to stand up but in a position to say aye or nay at a Cabinet table on what the fine print is going to be. What does he do? He sells out the people of Labrador; he sells out the people of Labrador, Mr. Chair. There is no talk of heritage funds today. There is no speech on the heritage fund today for Labradorians, the fund that he says we need so we can catch up with the much needed infrastructure in our communities. He goes on to make all the other points that goes along with it and the kind of infrastructure that we need from water and sewer, to roads, to cheap electricity. We do not hear any of those things out there today from the Member for Lake Melville, not like was in his speech, Mr. Chair, in 2002 when he was raising the flag and getting ready for an election in Labrador. Then he had a whole different tune, a whole different ball game.

Mr. Chair, there is something else in this speech I want to share with you, his view of the Metis, the NunatuKavut people, the Southern Labrador Inuit people of Labrador. Guess what he had to say about them, Mr. Chair? A whole different sentence than he had to say today. Back then, Mr. Chair, when he was at Mary Queen of Peace – up on the stage he was, up on the stage in front of the microphone talking about the demands of Labradorians - if there is ever a Churchill Falls development project in this Province the Metis people of Labrador must be recognized, and they must be recognized through partnerships in developing Labrador's resources and they must benefit. This is what he had to say.

At that time, Mr. Chair, he never said anything about them hiring some post-Liberal Cabinet ministers and undermining the legitimacy of their organization then. Back then, no, he was pounding his hands on the podium, he was grabbing the microphone, he was taking all parts of the stage and he was saying: I will not stand for the Metis people of Labrador being neglected. Now, would you believe, it is the same member? In the same skin, I say to the members opposite, in the same skin. It is hard to believe, I know, but it is all here in writing. I am sure you must have had it videotaped. I am sure your leader at the time, Mr. Williams, would have had all of that videotaped for posterity. You do not even have to depend upon the print copy, I am sure you can see a visual of all of this happening. At that time, Mr. Chair, the Member for Lake Melville said that the Metis should be dealt with, they should have benefits from Labrador's resources and it should be done through a partnership with their government.

Today, Mr. Chair, the Metis Nation, those same people who he believed that his government should deal with, has to go through the courts, through the Supreme Courts in this country; through the highest court in the land is where the Metis people have had to go to say we want to be heard. We want to be included in a development on Muskrat Falls. That is the difference, Mr. Chair. He is not banging his fists at the Cabinet table like he was at Mary Queen of Peace Hall that evening saying that the Metis people should be included and that they should have a resource development deal. It is very different, Mr. Chair, a very different perspective from the same individual. I know it is hard to believe but it is true.

Mr. Chair, today, that same individual, the Member for Lake Melville, who stood firmly that there should be a heritage fund for Labrador, who stood firmly that the Metis people should be included, who said firmly that there should be a minimum of 500 megawatts of power in reserve for Labrador, which is not in this deal, but that was another condition that he had. In fact, Mr. Chair, I have dozens of documents with letters that he wrote as the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the whole bit, saying that you have to have these conditions if there is going to be a deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have the letter from Newfoundland Power?

MS JONES: No, no, I have the letter, Mr. Chair, because at the time I was cc'ed on it. I was a member; that is why I received all the information. It was all sent to me, Mr. Chair. I kept it because it is important documents; I would not destroy important documents.

Mr. Chair, at that time he said there had to be a heritage fund, there had to be negotiations with the Metis, there had to be a 500 megawatt minimum reserve of power for industrial development in Labrador, and guess what? Today he sits at a Cabinet table presiding over a deal, pounding his chest on a deal that includes none of it, absolutely none of it; that includes absolutely none of it. Not only does it not include any of those conditions, Mr. Chair, let me take it a step further, it does not include any commitment for alternative power for the North and South Coast of Labrador, it does not include any long-term commitment on commercial power for the North and South Coast of Labrador. So, not only does it not meet the standard to which the member himself set out in 2002 as part of his election platform, but, Mr. Chair, it does not meet any of the expectations that were laid out by the people of Labrador.

Mr. Chair, I will be the first to stand here and admit that there are business communities in Labrador that would love to see this deal go ahead. Do you know why? Because for four or five years they are going to get business, and they need that business. They need that business because you, as a government, failed to secure things like the base in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which could have been a long-term generator of employment and business for the community. Because you, as a government, failed to secure the contracts on 5 Wing Goose Bay we are looking at a community today that has to look at the most desperate measures that they can for economic survival. That is the reality of what we are dealing with.

You are going to have business people, yes, who are going to come out and say: I am going to support this because I need the business. I had a business person look at me, Mr. Chair, from Lake Melville and say: Listen, this deal will not generate any money, it is going to lose money for the next twenty years, it is the most uneconomical deal I have ever seen in the Province but I am going to support it because I need the business. I had a person say that to me: I will support it because I need the business. Isn't there something wrong with that?

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct when she said that John Hickey stood on a platform. As a matter of fact, her other cohort that she has over in her office now I think, Graham Letto, was also at the same meeting. Yes, I believe he was the Mayor of Labrador City if I remember correctly. Anyway, that is another story. We talk about a heritage fund. Let me tell you, Mr. Chair, we have a heritage fund and it came in place when the then Premier Williams and this government approved what we call today as the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: That is our heritage fund, Mr. Chair. It is a long ways from the $95 million that the Liberals of the day wanted to take out of the transportation initiative fund and put it into the general revenues of the government of the day. That was the commitment on the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Chair. We know that one very well, Mr. Chair.

As far as power to the North and South Coast communities, Mr. Chair, right now I can tell you that this government and the ministers here and around the table, we are working with industry. The first opportunity that we can find to run lines into Voisey's Bay, into Natuashish, into Hopedale and into Nain, I can tell you, Mr. Chair, it will be done. It will not be done on the ratepayers, it will not be done on the taxpayers and before the Public Utilities Board; it will be done on the backs of Vale Inco I say, Mr. Chair. Industry will drive that. The same with the South Coast, Mr. Chair, we will continue to explore ways to provide cheaper means of energy for the people along the Coast of Labrador.

I have to have a few words here on 5 Wing Goose Bay. I have to tell you a story. The then Premier of the day, Roger Grimes, went over to Germany. At the time the Deputy Minister of Labrador Affairs was a fine gentleman. I was the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay at the time; Ron Sparkes was the deputy minister. I said: Put a word in with the then Premier Grimes to drop in and thank the German Air Force for the work and the training that they are doing in Goose Bay. Guess what folks? He did not drop in; he did not even as much as write them a letter of thank you. It was the last thing – it was a federal issue, it was a federal problem. Now we have Todd Russell there today. I can tell you if that base fails, it will be on Todd Russell's shoulders because he, again, has done absolutely nothing to champion –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Fabian Manning made a comment there a couple of weeks ago when I talked about the base. He said that Prime Minister Harper promised 650 troops. What did the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay send him? Todd Russell. Let me rest my case, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I am going to take a couple of minutes – I only have about a minute. Let me tell you, there is $2.4 Billion, with a capital B, after being put into Labrador since 2003 I say to the Leader of the Opposition; $250 million in the Northern Strategic Plan in 145 commitments. Each year new commitments and investments have been made to support Labrador social and economic development, and it is now expected that the plan - which you call the heritage fund, you wanted to stash it all away. We wanted to put it on roads and infrastructure and hospitals and colleges. That is where we wanted to put it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Chair, I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Chair of the Committee reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It being 5:29 p.m., I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.

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