June 6, 2012                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 44


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin today's proceedings, I would like – I feel compelled, really – to make some general observations and comments about petitions and the way we handle them in the House of Assembly. Bear with me as I share with you a reflection of my thinking and some suggestions and comments for the House. They are not really suggestions, actually; they are directions from the Chair as to how we would want to proceed with petitions as we move forward.

The right of citizens to petition a Parliament for redress of a grievance is a fundamental one, established by centuries-old traditions. As early as the thirteenth century, the Crown received petitions for remedies. Note that I said it was the Crown which was petitioned, as this was much before the English Parliament existed. As the Commons developed in the English Parliament, the Commons itself would petition the Crown frequently, including petitions for amendments to laws. That practice led to the current practice of bills being brought forward to a Parliament for debate and decision.

I want to emphasize two points here: first, the act of petitioning by citizens has a long history and must be protected; and, petitions were directed to the Crown – that is the Executive government.

O'Brien and Bosc note that by the seventeenth century, the modern form of petitions had been developed: they were addressed to Parliament, they used a very prescribed form, and they dealt with perceived public grievances. The format included in our Standing Orders, even though it was not added until 1999, descends from these earlier practices.

Our Standing Orders in this House respecting petitions – number ninety to ninety-seven – were developed in 1951 and have been essentially unchanged from the 1920 Standing Orders of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In my view, these existing Standing Orders have serious shortcomings. Nevertheless, they are our Standing Orders and until the Standing Orders Committee makes recommendations – and this House adopts such recommendations – we are guided by the current Standing Orders. We will be guided by those as well as our past practices and rulings by previous Speakers.

Members will be aware that when petitions are presented to the House of Assembly, we insist that the prayer of the petition be within the competence or capacity of the House of Assembly. For instance, the House of Assembly cannot pave a road or build a school. Those matters are within the powers of the Executive Branch of government and not the Legislative Branch. When these petitions are brought to the House, we insist that they take a form of a prayer and call upon the House to urge government to do something. When the House receives these petitions, we simply forward them to the appropriate government department. It is obvious that the vast majority of these petitions are requesting action from the Executive Branch – just as they were in the thirteenth century. The practice of presenting such petitions to the House may serve to bring public attention to an issue, but the House simply moves them forward, the petitions after it is presented.

Yesterday, I understand that a member discussed, on an Open Line show, a point of order that had been raised respecting his May 31 presentation of a petition. During that discussion, the member indicated that only three signatures were required on a petition to be presented to the House. Upon reviewing the transcript of that talk show and that discussion that had taken place, I have extracted a quote from that text. "I have collected thousands of signatures on petitions over the last three months and the only requirement of the legislature is that I present three signatures...."

I would not want members – or the public - to think it is possible to separate pages of signatures such that one petition can be presented to this House many times. A citizen signing a petition which, for example, may have 1,000 signatures, there is an expectation that that petition be presented in its entirety. If a member were to separate signature pages in this fashion so that one petition miraculously becomes twenty or thirty petitions, I want members to fully understand and to know that I would consider such a practice to be dishonourable and unworthy of members of this House.

In light of the point of order raised on Monday, and the member's comments on the Open Line show yesterday, I have decided to strictly apply our Standing Orders respecting petitions. Standing Orders 91 and 92 speak of signatures on petitions. I made the comment early about the origin of our current Standing Orders dating back to the 1920s. Of course, these Standing Orders were written long before photocopiers, fax machines, electronic signatures, PDF files, et cetera. Nevertheless, it is my view it clearly establishes the need for original inked signatures. Accordingly, I will require in the future, that all signatures be original, no electronic signatures, photocopies, faxes or PDF files. This will not present a hardship for members, as all it will mean is that the petition will now be delayed by a day or two, whatever time it takes for the mail to deliver the petition to the member who is presenting it. Upon reflection of the petitions that have been presented in this House, the issues that are commonly brought to the House by petition are not time-sensitive, so a delay of a day or two will not make a significant difference.

The other matter respecting petitions follows from Speaker Fitzgerald's ruling which required that all petitions be vetted by the Clerk and Clerk Assistant before they are presented to the House. I am going to extend that ruling further. We will now require that petitions be certified, not merely vetted, which is outlined, actually, in our current Standing Orders under Practice Recommendation 3(b) in the Appendix to our Standing Orders. That certification will require that the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant place their initials, in ink, at the start of the line containing the prayer of the petition and on each sheet of signatures, which have to be originals. This must occur by 12:00 noon of each sitting day.

The certification will confirm for the member and this House that the petition is in order and suitable for presentation to the House. As the Speaker, I will then know that each member have acceptable petitions according to our Standing Orders and my rulings and I will be able to recognize members accordingly as they stand in routine proceedings. This will avoid – which happens on occasion – instances where the Speaker calls upon a member who has not vetted their petition with the Clerk or the Clerk Assistance, contrary to the early ruling of Speaker Fitzgerald.

Neither of these measures will impair the ability of members to present legitimate petitions to the House. They simply ensure that certain reasonable standards are maintained and that the integrity – and this is a critical piece – the integrity of the whole practice of petitioning is maintained.

In conclusion, petitions are an important element of the democratic process and their use and integrity will be safeguarded in this House. These two new measures will be implemented, beginning tomorrow, to ensure this, once again: Only original signatures will be accepted on petitions, and petitions must be certified by the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant by 12:00 noon each sitting day.

I ask members in future, in presenting petitions, that they be guided by this ruling. One thing that is extremely important – I give a brief history here because it is important to understand the benefit of petitions and their place in a democratic society, but at the same time the onus is on us, as members, to protect the integrity of that process and to not manipulate it for what might be some political gain.

I ask members to be guided by my ruling, and we will start enforcing it tomorrow.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits – White Bay North; the Member for the District of St. John's East; the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of Humber Valley; and the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

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

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

I rise today to salute a group of dedicated volunteers who are making a huge difference in a corner of my district.

The Cavell Park Community Garden has just launched its first year of operation. Conceived by writer-actor-clown Sara Tilley, the garden is in a previously unused section of Cavell Park, off Quidi Vidi Road.

Sara enjoys growing her own vegetables and wanted to share that pride with her neighbourhood. She spoke to people at the City of St. John's, who offered their unqualified support. The Community Garden is launching with twenty-five full-sized raised garden beds, plus four table beds designed for people with mobility issues, and three small beds sized for children. I note that the beds are all raised because of the pollution of soil in the downtown of St. John's.

Sara and her group held bottle drives and other fundraisers throughout the district. With the money they raised, and support from local businesses, they got the garden ready to go.

A volunteer board of directors manages the garden. They are Steven Watt, Nissa Hildebrand, Jen Troiani, Sarah Burchell, Dan Ficken, Jonathan LeDrew, and Sara Tilley herself.

I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing the Cavell Park Community Garden all the best in this, their inaugural year. I invite anybody who lives in Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi to get in touch with them with regard to using the community garden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate two individuals from Canon Richards Memorial Academy in Flower's Cove. Student Tony Lavallee and teacher Tony Power were honoured at last Friday's School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador Awards Banquet.

Tony Lavallee was named the Province's Male Student-Athlete of the Year. Tony has represented Canon Richards in ball hockey, softball, volleyball, badminton, cross-country running, basketball, and table tennis. He went to nine provincial tournaments during high school. This year, his teams won the provincial volleyball championship and placed second in ball hockey. Tony is also provincial singles and doubles badminton champ.

Teacher and coach Tony Power was runner-up for the provincial Coach of the Year Award. He also received the Northern Peninsula region's regional recognition award, presented annually to an individual in each of the eleven Sports Newfoundland and Labrador regions who has made major contributions to sport at the regional level.

Mr. Speaker, that two such outstanding individuals can be recognized from one school says a great deal to me about the culture of commitment and excellence at Canon Richards Memorial Academy.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Tony Lavallee and Tony Power.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize and congratulate the students from Gonzaga High School who recently returned from the WorldStride Heritage Music Festival in New York.

The bands and choirs from Gonzaga excelled in the competition, and I would like to list some of the awards: the Girls Choir and Chamber Choir won Silver Award Plaques; the Concert and Jazz Bands won Gold Award Plaques; the Concert Band won Outstanding Band Group Trophies for their category; the Concert and Jazz Bands won the Instrumental Sweepstakes Trophy and one of five Adjudicators Award Trophies; and, for the third year in a row, Gonzaga High School was awarded the Festival Sweepstakes Awards Trophy; quite an accomplishment.

I should also mention the Avalon East District Band, which also won a Gold Award Plaque, Outstanding Band Group Trophy, and an Adjudicators Award Trophy as well.

The trip, of course, would not have been possible without the teacher and parent volunteers who accompanied their students to New York. Special thanks and congratulations are in order for teachers Doug Vaughan and Sheila Ryan. With such people involved in our schools, it is easy to see why our Province's music education program is envied by people across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Madonna Wilkinson of Flatrock, who recently received the Volunteer Recreation Recognition Award.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Madonna my whole life and she has always freely given her time, her talent, and her energy to various community and church-based organizations in our area.

I can attest that if there is something on the go in Flatrock – whether it is a community function, clean up or church service – Madonna Wilkinson is there offering her full support either to organize or to lend a helping hand. She is also the lead organizer in community events such as the Terry Fox Run, Remembrance Day Memorial Service, and the Canada Day Memorial Service.

Mr. Speaker, Madonna is a talented singer, dancer, and accordion player. She often provides the entertainment at many events and functions that she helps organize. She was even enlisted by a local group, Shanneyganock, to sign on their recent album. The song she sings is McNamara's Band, and it is a great song.

Mr. Speaker, Madonna Wilkinson is an outstanding volunteer and she is also an outstanding person. I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in congratulating Madonna on receiving her award for the Volunteer Recreation Recognition Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in his hon. House to acknowledge a shining example of youth engagement in the City of Mount Pearl.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team was formed in 2005 to be a voice for youth in the community. Since that time, this group has been engaged in numerous community activities such as the organization of Youth Week activities, participation in the Frosty Festival and Mount Pearl City Days celebrations, organization of community food drives, and facilitation of public speaking events, just to name a few.

The group's membership is comprised of youth from the city's two junior high and high schools. These young men and women are true role models and should remind us all of the valuable contribution youth have to offer to our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl Youth Action Team for their significant contribution to the community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to commend Mr. Frank Dyke on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday and also on the launch of his book: To be Frank - Memories of an Extraordinary Life.

Mr. Dyke is a World War II veteran who was born in Port Union, Trinity Bay on June 9, 1922 and he moved to Reidville where he retired in the 1990s. His book is a life story depicting his personal and family experiences during the war and afterward.

Mr. Speaker, every day, seniors in our Province are working, learning new skills, volunteering their time, and writing life stories. Their wisdom, skills, and abilities are evident throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Dyke is a great example of a senior who has contributed tremendously to our Province's history – both through his writings and his dedication of service during war time.

Unselfish and noble actions are the notable hallmarks of a great life. To this, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending Mr. Dyke both on his book launch and on the celebration of his ninetieth birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House during Environment Week, June 3-9, to recognize the accomplishments of a number of environmental leaders for their dedication and efforts. The Environmental Awards Program is an annual celebration of environmental achievements in our Province and raises awareness of the individuals, groups, and businesses that are taking action to protect and sustain our environment. It is a joint initiative sponsored by the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes.

I had the pleasure earlier today, Mr. Speaker, of joining the awards recipients at a ceremony to recognize their outstanding environmental and conservation achievements. Mr. Speaker, the winners of the Environmental Awards for 2012 in each category are as follows: Philip Gavell, Conception Bay South – Individual Category; Conservation Corps Newfoundland and Labrador – Community Group or Organization Category; Bishops College, St. John's – Youth, Youth Group for School Category; Curb It Recycling Program, the City of St. John's – Municipality or Regional Waste Management Committee Category; and, Scotia Centre, St. John's – Business or Industry Leader Category.

In addition to being celebrated at the awards ceremony, Mr. Speaker, each of the winners also received at $1,000 honorarium from the MMSB to go towards furthering their own environmental projects or to donate to an environmental cause of their choice.

These men and women are environmental ambassadors for our Province and they have demonstrated tremendous ingenuity and determination, along with an impressive passion for our environment. We are all responsible for the environment in our Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is so important to recognize their great accomplishments and encourage others to follow their example.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy and sustainable environment yields healthy people, a stronger economy, more vibrant communities, and a legacy for which we can be proud. We will continue to raise awareness about sustaining our Province for generations to come, not only during Environment Week but every week of the year.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement. I, too, would like to congratulate all of the award winners for the prestigious awards that they received.

Also, as we all know, Environment Week – as the minister mentioned – it is not just these groups that are involved with the environment, it is all groups across Newfoundland and Labrador, and all individuals; it is becoming an individual issue throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The Multi-Stewardship Board is also a major component of environment conservation across the Province and they also must be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention also, I notice all of the winners are from St. John's again. I am not sure, but I must say there are a lot of environmental initiatives on the West Coast. I see the Minister of Finance agreeing, that we have a lot of great environmental initiatives on the go on the West Coast, and I am sure some of them deserve some recognition across the Province and Labrador. I just want to thank all of them for all their hard work also out on the West Coast. I know Memorial University has one, the MUN Campus has one, I know there is a community garden one out in –

AN HON. MEMBER: The Centre for Environmental Excellence.

MR. JOYCE: The Centre for Environmental Excellence out on the West Coast. I just ask the minister, that we include all the Province. Also, as we know, if there is any way we can get the glass containers recycled, I say to the minister. I know it is a hard issue, but that is something we are trying, even a bit more across the Province to help out our environment.

As we noticed, Mr. Speaker, in this 2012 Budget by the federal government, by Harper, we have to be more vigilant as a Province to ensure that our environment is safe, and the regulations are kept up to standards that we all can live and have a safe environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I would also like to thank the award winners this year for their continuing efforts to protect and enhance the environment. The award winners today represent a dichotomy of the population and signify a strong awareness and message as to the importance of environment in people's minds these days. Some years ago it would have been almost unheard of to hear the involvement of business, for example, in the environmental message, but that has thankfully been changing over the last few years.

I would also like to thank those who were nominated and recognize them for all their efforts, and remind them they have not gone unnoticed and their efforts unrewarded.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Costs are rising at the Muskrat Falls project, and the CEO of Emera stated yesterday that the $1.2 billion is still accurate for the Maritime Link. Currently, under the term sheet, Emera is guaranteed 20 per cent of Muskrat power for a 20 per cent investment into the project.

I ask the minister: Would not this now mean that Emera is paying less than 20 per cent of the project costs, and if so, will they still receive 20 per cent of the power?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We obviously have to wait until we get our Decision Gate 3 numbers to know what the cost will be in terms of the generating station and the Labrador-Island Link. I can assure the member opposite though that if there is a cost overrun in terms of what Emera should share, then they will share that. It will not simply be a matter of the Province taking on all of the overruns in relation to the link; I can assure the Opposition Leader of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Now, I would just like to go back to the minister. This is not about the overruns; this is about at sanction time.

At sanction time, if it is less than 20 per cent for the Maritime Link, will they still get 20 per cent of the project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did misunderstand the question somewhat.

Essentially, what will happen is the agreement that is in place will be the agreement that is followed, Mr. Speaker. What I was talking about is not the overruns that we would know about in the Decision Gate 3 numbers prior to sanction. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the cost of the Maritime Link or it comes to the cost of the Labrador-Island Link, we will look at all of those. I can assure the member opposite that the term sheet will be complied with. The plan is to provide Emera for 20 per cent of the power, but again for the cost that has already been agreed upon, and again proportionate to extra cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The promise of a federal loan guarantee is based upon a $6.2 billion project.

I ask the minister: Have any discussions taken place with the federal government to ensure this promise would still apply if the project goes to $8 billion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Discussions with the federal government and Nova Scotia are ongoing on almost a weekly basis as to the finalizing of the federal loan guarantee. Mr. Speaker, I think one thing that has to be looked at is the $6.2 billion we talk about does not include any of the impacts of the federal loan guarantee. The federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, could result in a percentage reduction of 2 per cent to 3 per cent and could save anywhere from $600 million to $900 million on the project cost. The costs are still fluid.

As we move along, Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee would be for the $6.2 billion we are talking about now, but that could reduce costs and ensure that ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador pay fair and reasonable electricity rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not hear that it would be adjusted to the $8 billion. If the minister wants to clarify that next he can.

Mr. Speaker, back in January, after missing two deadlines, we were told that the finalized commercial arrangements between Emera and Nalcor would be coming soon. In April, Nalcor stated that it was just inches away.

I ask the minister: The last missed deadline was over four months ago, and now it is two months since we were just inches away, so what is causing this ongoing delay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is the number of agreements that have to be put in place and the complexity of the agreements which require lawyers being involved, which require extensive meetings between Emera and Nalcor. I think the Premier indicated when we met with Premier Dexter, Mr. Huskilson, and Mr. Martin about a month or two ago that the Emera agreements were very close.

Even after the agreements are signed, there is a due-diligence period that has to be applied. That is where the matter stands, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the member opposite that the term sheet and the agreements are very close to being finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, we asked the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency if he had any discussions with a group known as CLAC; that stands for the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

I now ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Have you or any of your officials or Nalcor had any conversations with this group regarding work on the Muskrat Falls Project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who this group is. I can tell the member opposite that I did meet with the Resource Development Council at one point, who represents the sixteen unions that are generally present at these special projects. I had a general discussion with the individuals involved as to the labour situation in the Province, as to the need to get our apprentices into the workplace, Mr. Speaker. As far as this CLAC, I have no idea who they are, and I can assure the member opposite I certainly have not had any conversations with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor made a submission to the Oakley review on the Special Project Orders, arguing for an open-shop approach. However, Mr. Oakley concluded that the current model provides sufficient flexibility.

I ask the minister: Why does Nalcor want to change the Special Project Orders?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is going with this. Mr. Oakley did a review. Everybody was welcome to the review; not only were they welcome to the review at the initial stages, after Mr. Oakley drew up his report they were also told what the report was and advised that they could submit some more recommendations or comment on Mr. Oakley's report.

I do not know where the hon. member is coming from. There were many people who presented, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor, of course, presented to Mr. Oakley; so did Emera; so did the RDC, the council of unions in this Province; so did Vale; so did the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; so did the Employers' Council; so did Hebron; so did CLRA. Mr. Speaker, wherever his source is coming from, I suggest he take him to the wood shed and give him a good clack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, notice has been given for Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Are you prepared to arrange a briefing for us on this bill before it is called for debate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, briefing schedules, as I understand it, are arranged between the House Leaders. The notice has been given, but with respect to a future briefing, I have no information or explanation on this as yet, Mr. Speaker. Ordinarily, briefings have been given all along. With respect to this particular bill, I cannot make a comment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report on the College of the North Atlantic's daycare referenced obvious moisture problems, including bubbled paint, water stains, and damaged ceiling tiles. For years now the response has been to replace damaged ceiling tiles.

I ask the minister: How has the response to water damage all these years been ceiling tile replacement and not an air quality inspection, given the well known links of excess moisture to mould growth, as well as the continual admission of these children to hospital?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer this question in my capacity, because the daycare centre we are talking about is located within the College of the North Atlantic. On a more global perspective, and from government in general – and I know this from former portfolios as well, Mr. Speaker – we have done an incredible amount of work to ensure that the environments, in particular the environments we have for the children in this Province, whether through daycare or through our schools, are brought up to the safest standard as possible. This government has spent millions and millions of dollars to ensure that the environments which are considered learning environments for our children are safe environments. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the daycare at the College of the North Atlantic, we provide no other standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report is dated May 8, yet the daycare was not closed until May 28.

You have said government deals with issues it has to deal with. I ask the minister: How do we account for a three-week delay in response when children's health is at risk?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when information is collected on any buildings that indicate there is a safety concern, due diligence is done, analyses are done, and maybe subsequent testing is done. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, if at any time it comes to my attention as the minister that we do have an unsafe environment, we have absolutely no worries or no concerns that the appropriate action will be taken at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, children in Charlottetown have been taught in a gymnasium for months now, since the school was closed for mould. We are thirteen weeks away from the next school season and we know that the Department of Education and the minister have been looking at some options for the students in this school.

I would like to ask him today: What is the plan for September to ensure these children have a suitable classroom space?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I have to do is commend the parent community and the student community in Charlottetown, because they have worked closely with us.

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting held in the community last night, a very positive meeting, is my understanding. We are looking at putting in temporary classrooms for this September. The community has asked us to consider something in conjunction with Municipal Affairs, and I will tell the member I did, indeed, meet with the minister and two of his officials this morning to see if we can accommodate their request. We will do everything that we can to support the school and this entire community. Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead with having something in place for the coming school year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister when we can expect to see a decision on whether they are going to replace this school, look at remediation, or what the case is going to be – I guess the longer term solution – for the children in the community.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have to go through, I suppose, the rigmarole at arriving at a final decision. I will tell the member that Thursday before last I met with the CEO of the Western District, met with him again last week, met with him and spoke with him in a teleconference this morning, to find a way forward.

I cannot give her an exact date, Mr. Speaker, but I know the community, the member, are all looking for that final answer. I will give it to them as soon as I possibly can and we are working on it as quickly as we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few days ago I asked about the closure of the licensed practical nurse program at three campuses and cuts in seats at three others, as was outlined in the LPN workforce model report. Mr. Speaker, the minister did not give me any answer at that time, so I ask again if they can confirm now the number of programs and the number of seats for licensed practical nurses that will be eliminated at the College of the North Atlantic come September.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Department of Health and Community Services has done an extensive analysis on the need for LPN education in this Province, and has certainly looked at the sites and the number of seats that we would need at each site. The College of the North Atlantic has that information under active review and the college will, I guess, be in a position to indicate how many seats and at what locations they will be offering the program in September. At this time, that review has not been finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of the report here and the analysis that was done. We are only three months away from the enrolment season of the College of the North Atlantic and we know what the recommended cuts are here. This was done in consultation with the minister's department, the Department of Health, the college, the College of the LPNs, and some of the health authorities.

I ask the minister why it is taking so long to disclose the information and when can we expect to find out what the plan is for September.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this is not about the disclosure of information. It is about the final decision of the College of the North Atlantic of how many seats they feel are appropriate and at what sites, Mr. Speaker. So it is not that we are not disclosing the information. The analysis is done, the information is in the hands of the college, and they will do due diligence to determine how they will offer that program in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister stated that the reason he was going to destroy an access road near Parson's Pond was for conservation – to protect the moose and caribou population in the area. The environmental assessment submitted by Nalcor in 2010 raises no concern for moose and clearly shows that the caribou herd is at least five kilometres from the road.

I ask the minister: What is the real reason you insist on destroying this valuable public infrastructure?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is coming from on this. We take advice on the removal of roads that are built for industry or for cutting wood and so on from our Wildlife Division, Mr. Speaker, and our expert at SDSS. So, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor would certainly not influence the decision as a developer of the conservation measures of the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Mr. Speaker, this was something that was done because of advice I had taken from biologists with our Wildlife Division – a very educated, concerned group. As the hon. member was concerned a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, but I guess he has changed hats a little bit. Now he is not so concerned about the caribou or the moose populations in this area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: I ask if the minister will table this information he says he has from wildlife that he just referred to.

Mr. Speaker, the Parson's Pond Road is being destroyed because Nalcor claims to have failed to have found oil. If Nalcor had been successful, the road would have remained. So, conservation is not an issue.

How can the minister tell the people of this Province that he insists on throwing away more public money to cover up this road than he would if oil had been discovered and he left it there?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member to do his research and go and read the EA, Mr. Speaker. It is all laid out there, all the residents of the area, all the people of the Province, had the ability to comment on this all the way along, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing something for the right reasons. It would be very easy for me, Mr. Speaker, to stand here today and do a political thing and say, yes, we will leave the road alone. Mr. Speaker, on times, this is a government that stands for the right thing. Whether you are the Premier, whether you are the Cabinet, or whether you are the caucus, Mr. Speaker, we are standing for the right thing on this one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, when this government believed that the federal government was not living up to their responsibility to manage inland fisheries, this Province organized its own Inland Fish Enforcement division to supplement federal efforts. Now the federal government is cutting five or six DFO offices in the Province, gutting enforcement by fisheries officers and river guardians.

I ask the minister: Is government planning to staff up its own Inland Enforcement division in response to these office closures?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is responsible for the Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife but not for DFO. It is a federal matter, what the federal government is doing there. We are obviously going to look at our own initiatives and our own responsibilities here to see how they are impacted. At this stage, we have no comment to make on the cuts of the federal government with respect to how it affects the impacts on wildlife in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, without strong, obvious, and vigorous enforcement on the part of Inland Enforcement, it will take no time before the last salmon in the Province is taken by a poacher now that DFO is withdrawing their support. This would decimate the outfitter industry of the Province and wipe out our sports fishing activity.

What actions will this government take to control poaching on our rivers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A little over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, we merged the Wildlife and Inland Fish Division and created a very effective division to protect our natural resources. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the results we are getting and the impact that group is having.

With respect to the cuts the member speaks about in DFO, Mr. Speaker, if there are impacts on the natural resources of this Province, and impacts on our Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife, we will have a look at it and see what is going on. In terms of making any plans or arrangements at this point in time to accommodate any impacts of the federal government cuts, Mr. Speaker, we are not at that stage yet.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

In the media yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources said that government had outlined their framework for assistance with Kruger should the company and the unions make a deal. The minister further said that government would not make this plan public at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has he informed union leaders of this plan or has he sent Kruger to the table with an unfair bargaining advantage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the member opposite, I have spoken to the union leaders.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I would like to point out to the Minister of Natural Resources that he has no idea of what I do and what I do not do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper workers, their families, and the thousands of other workers who rely on the mill directly or indirectly are very worried about their future. Yesterday, government seemed to take offence at our questions regarding how government is handling this crisis. Mr. Speaker, voicing the concerns of people is not grandstanding, it is our duty.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When is government going to meet with the union to outline the framework with them as they have with the company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated to the unions in my meetings with them that the framework would involve offering reasonable support. It would not involve subsidies and it would involve the power asset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a role for government to play in the current crisis at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. Workers are fearful and distrustful of Kruger's commitment to maintaining the pension plan already in place.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What will government do to ensure that current and former Corner Brook Pulp and Paper workers do not lose any future pension benefits?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Negotiations are ongoing. The president of the union indicated today they are happy with that. We have four MHAs, two in the Opposition and two on the government side, Mr. Speaker, whose friends, family and colleagues are concerned about this. We will continue to monitor the situation, Mr. Speaker, and if an agreement is reached, we will be there to help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources said unions do not want government to impose themselves in the union negotiations, nor does the owner. I say to the minister that holding Kruger to its legislative responsibilities regarding pensions for workers in this Province is not interfering in negotiations.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will he step up for the workers in Corner Brook and show them concrete proof of his support to them in their struggle over pensions with the Kruger company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matters that are facing the people of Corner Brook are very critical. I can assure you and I can assure the people of Corner Brook and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will continue to support their efforts to reach an agreement between the workers and the company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the House we are going to be debating a government motion on an east-west power grid which has been a policy of the New Democratic Party for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is this motion here today because government cannot get a deal with Emera to supply electrical power?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This motion arises as a result of recent discussions of a national energy plan. Our position is quite simple, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a national energy plan when you have one province blocking another. In order for there to be a national energy plan, there has to be a rectifying of the historical inequity which exists between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Kruger shuts its paper mill in Corner Brook, the effects of the closure will reverberate across the Province. Everyone in the Province will feel its effect. For example, sawmills will lose their market for biomass, which has helped many of them survive through a tough industry. Government has failed to develop local markets for industrial wood pellets and has failed to assist in opening foreign markets.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What is government's plan to address this troubled industry for long-term sustainability?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the members of the Official Opposition are saying, perhaps they should talk to the unions. We as a government are doing everything we can, Mr. Speaker. We are all, as I indicated yesterday, trying to transcend political boundaries here and deal with a situation that affects not only the people of Western Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, but the people of this Province. This is not about political grandstanding on our part; this is about an attempt to find a solution to save a very valuable part of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to the minister's statement yesterday in the House, ISO, FSC, and CSA certification is not a chicken-and-egg situation. First comes certification, then industry can grow globally. So, Mr. Speaker, this is what Abitibi and Kruger understood. They achieved this and these international certifications.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why can he not understand this and move forward with the development of our stagnant industry by certifying part of Crown lands?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have invested or helped, Mr. Speaker, provide money of up to $10 million for the plant in Roddickton; we have allowed for another $1 million for the Northern Peninsula – up to $1 million for the harvesting of wood. We are doing our best that we can to try to ensure that the forest industry in this Province continues, and we are going to try first and foremost to save the mill in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, certification is certainly needed to advance the industry. The Province administers the federal Growing Forward program, which is designed to meet unique challenges facing developing agricultural industry, yet government cut the legal land survey program, which closes the door for people in the agriculture industry who want to access this funding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why cancel a program useful to new entrants who want to access funding from other programs in your department to grow the agrifoods industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Growing Forward program, Mr. Speaker, has injected more than $27 million into the agriculture and agrifoods industry in this Province. What we have to do is ensure sustainability. We have to look at supply, Mr. Speaker. We are doing that, and we will be moving forward, hopefully with Growing Forward, too, at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings in the Yukon in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, in the public consultations for the Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, we heard about the need for better home support services so more people with disabilities can live and work in the community. The final strategy only talks about disability-related supports with no commitment to provide more home supports for independent living.

I ask the minister: How does she intend to ensure that the disability strategy will improve home supports so that people with disabilities can live independently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Disability Policy Office certainly did an extensive consultation across the Province. We would like to see this Province emerge as a Province that includes people, everyone in our Province, including people with disabilities. If there are any specific government programs that can be enhanced or will be enhanced on a go-forward basis, that will certainly be done by individual departments as opposed to the Disability Policy Office, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities should have the right to live in the community with the appropriate supports. Adults with disabilities should have the right to live independently outside their parent's homes.

I ask the minister: Will the disability strategy ensure that every person with disabilities has access to supported independent living?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our inclusion strategy certainly lays out a framework, and we do agree and feel that everyone should be included in their community, Mr. Speaker. Again, the Disability Policy Office will assist government to make decisions and help guide our policies; however, we will not be responsible for direct program delivery as suggested by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked a question about whether the POMAX study was going to be ready. This is June 6; I would like to ask the minister if the POMAX study is ready to be made public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Soon, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Cannot wait to get it.

Mr. Speaker, scientists are predicting that the Atlantic hurricane season will see between nine to fifteen storms this season. There is a very real possibility that one of these dangerous storms may affect Newfoundland and Labrador region again.

What preparations and protocols are being put in place in the event of a storm hitting the Province with impacts like Igor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We track a storm as it is being formed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the problems with Igor were problems with water runoff that caused so much damage to road networks in the Province, particularly in the Burin and Bonavista Peninsulas. One thing that some municipalities have suggested was upgrading an enlargement of the culvert system along certain roadways.

Does the minister have confidence that the repairs it carried out will be able to handle the effects from a storm such as the category of Igor again?

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: He is getting good. I will keep them coming.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities were asked to pass in emergency plans to the Province by the end of May month. Can the minister tell the House and the people of the Province what kind of response he received to the initiative and what communities have been left out?

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

MR. O'BRIEN: An excellent response, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I asked the Minister of Justice whether he would table the peer review of the psyche services at HMP before this session of the House closes, and he replied: I never said at Estimates we would table the report of the review.

However, he did say in Estimates: It is difficult to put a timeline on it but we would like to get it to you as soon as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice again, whether he will table the report of this peer review before this session of the House closes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I cannot make a commitment at this stage of the game if we will table the full report. It is a very sensitive report. Peer reviews are not ordinarily made public.

Mr. Speaker, if there are recommendation in that review, then obviously they would become public; but, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the timeline in receiving that report, my answer is the same: We should have it very soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill 33)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province. (Bill 36)

Also, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Affairs Act. (Bill 35)

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, No. 2. (Bill 38)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 16, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of Assembly requesting a detailed account of the activities of the Fish Processing Licensing Board for the last two years; Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to provide information here today.

As a category 3 entity under the Transparency and Accountability Act, the Fish Processing Licensing Board is required to produce yearly activity reports. These activity reports and activity plans for the board are also published on the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's Web site. Mr. Speaker, the 2011 Fish Processing Licensing Board Activity Report will be tabled in this House of Assembly by June 29, 2012. At that time, it will be available for public release and the hon. member will certainly be provided with a copy.

The mandate of the Fish Processing Licensing Board is to make recommendations on all fish processing licensing proposals or requests made to the provincial government. Only the routine renewal of fish processing licenses is exempt from this process. In keeping with its mandate, the board's main objectives are to assess and make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture regarding: first, licensing applications including applications for new licences, change of operator and the consolidation and transfer of fish processing licences; secondly, applications for the addition of new species to existing fish processing licences, and where appropriate recommendations regarding licences on a regional basis; third, corporate concentration, merger and acquisition issues in the context of fish processing licensing matters; and fourth, appeals to reinstate licences which have been cancelled as a result of not meeting productivity activity requirements.

The Fish Processing Licensing Board, Mr. Speaker, is responsible for reviewing and assessing all licence proposals or requests made to the provincial government in accordance with the Fish Processing Licensing Board Act. To ensure that interested members of the public have the opportunity to provide comments to the board with respect to applications they have received, applicants must advertise their intentions in both a generally circulated and a regional newspaper.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's Licensing and Quality Assurance Division serves as a secretariat to the board. The duties and responsibilities of the secretariat include but are not limited to: administrative functions, the review of all applications, and the provision of background and other relevant information to the board for use in its deliberations. Copies of all proposals and requests submitted to the board are also provided to the minister.

The department's Fish Processing Licensing Policy Manual also guides the board in making its recommendations. The record of recommendation is signed by the chairperson or vice-chairperson of the board and then submitted to the minister through the secretariat for review and for the rendering of a final decision on licensing applications. The board's recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on all fish processing licensing proposals or requests are made public, Mr. Speaker, as are the final decisions of the minister.

To ensure equity and impartiality, all board members are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Members of the board are selected with a consideration of gender balance and regional distribution. Members are expected to have a general knowledge of, but not a vested interested in, the fishing industry.

During 2011, the terms of appointment for three of the board members expired, Mr. Speaker. The outgoing board members were David Bonnell, Ida Powell, and Shirley Shea. Prior to the expiration, the board was comprised of Ted Lewis as chairperson, Mr. Bonnell as the vice-chairperson, Ms Ida Powell, Ms Shirley Shea, and Mr. David Woodman. Returning board members include Ted Lewis as chairperson and Mr. Bonnell as the vice-chairperson, and they have been joined by three new members, Mr. Speaker. They include Clarence Brown, Violet Parsons, and Clayton Welsh.

Mr. Speaker, the board supports our belief that decisions regarding fish processing licences should be based on solid evaluation, not on politics. Previous governments, unfortunately, have added to the overcapacity currently present in the industry by not following that philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this information today. I look forward to later in the month when the Activity Report of the Fish Processing Licensing Board is released publicly, highlighting their important work in 2011.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Given this is Wednesday and Private Members' Day, the motion is to be debated starting at 3:00 o'clock. We have twenty seconds left before then. I suggest we move on to the Orders of the Day and debate the private member's motion that rests in the name of the Member for Port de Grave.

I ask him to stand and introduce his motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following resolution on East-West electricity corridors:

WHEREAS the federal government has tremendous power and leverage to lower barriers between provinces and forge a path toward fairness and true community; and

WHEREAS Quebec has frustrated Newfoundland and Labrador's attempts to wheel electricity fairly through that Province; and

WHEREAS Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his colleagues have committed to provide a loan guarantee or equivalent financial support to the Muskrat Falls Project, which includes a sub-sea transmission link to the Maritimes, because it has national or regional importance, it has economic and financial merit, and it will significantly reduce greenhouse gases; and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister, in announcing funding for Ontario under the eco Trust on March 6, 2007, said that province could choose to use its funding to advance construction of "an East-West electrical transmission interconnect with Manitoba, allowing for the importation of clean hydroelectric power"; and

WHEREAS on September 16, 2009, the Prime Minister announced funding for the construction of the Northwest Transmission Line in northern British Columbia and the prospect of connecting the line to Alaska; and

WHEREAS the opening of Canadian East-West energy corridors will give provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within Canada, create economic opportunity, and strengthen the country;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity transmission corridors within Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has moved it, it is seconded by –

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for St. John's West, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to start today by saying it is a great honour to stand here today and present this resolution to discuss the opportunity for East-West transmission of electricity across the country.

Mr. Speaker, myself personally, my generation has grown up with this debate. Be it one way or another, every Premier since I know I was in elementary school – I can start out with the late Premier Smallwood; he tried it, he got a deal for Churchill. The next time, it was Mr. Moores; he fought it. After Mr. Moores was Mr. Peckford, he took it to the Supreme Court. After Mr. Peckford it was Mr. Wells, he had a go at it, then Premier Tobin, and, Mr. Speaker, right up until the last Premier, our former Premier, Premier Williams. Premier Williams, in June, 2010, made a speech; he made a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa, and if I may, I would like to just read a couple of things out of it.

In the speech he talked about our Province has had a long-standing issue with Quebec. It is about one of the province's actions purposely working to deny economic progression of the whole of Eastern Canada, and that most definitely includes Ontario. Mr. Speaker, once again, he was referring to the fact that for all these years, for my fifty years, I would nearly say, or forty years, former Premier Williams was referring to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter by what means, has still not been able to transmit their potential hydroelectric power through Quebec successfully.

So, Mr. Speaker, they had one more try at it. Nalcor and our Province went to the Rιgie. The Rιgie basically is a regulatory body, much like our Public Utility Board, if I understand it correctly. So they took it to the Rιgie. Normally if someone takes a case to the Rιgie and wants a decision, it is normally nine months – nine months, Mr. Speaker. In our case, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has endured a four-year – four-year – application process in Quebec, a process, Mr. Speaker, that normally would take nine months. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is fair. We have made our arguments for years that we have a great resource, but we can have all the great resource in the world, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get it to market. Because of the lack of a transmission line across this country, Mr. Speaker, and because of our lack of being able to get an agreement in specifically with the Province of Quebec, we have been stymied, literally stymied, in our attempts to do this.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I read with some interest an article in The Globe and Mail. It is an article from – excuse me if I do not do justice to this gentleman's name – John Ibbitson. He had an article called: National energy plan near impossible – but worth the effort. In this article the author talks about the relationships that exist across the country, good and bad – some good, some bad. He particularly, Mr. Speaker, talks about the recent meeting of the Western Premiers, and he talks about the fact that "Alberta Premier Alison Redford got the other Western premiers to agree last week to seek a common strategy for harnessing and delivering energy across the country."

Mr. Speaker, we need the same agreement, but then he references, and I quote once again, the relationship between "Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are one step short of open hostilities…". He goes on to talk about various relationships with various provinces. The eco Trust, as I just referenced in our resolution, Mr. Speaker, allows transmission and an agreement between Manitoba and Ontario. Manitoba and Ontario now, Manitoba is able to ship clean energy to Ontario to help Ontario who is suffering and need the energy, Mr. Speaker. We always hear tell of the concern the Ontario government has, particularly during the summertime and peak periods in the summertime when all the air conditioners are on, the humidity is on bust. What happens, Mr. Speaker? They do not know if they have the power – they do not know if they have the power.

He also, Mr. Speaker, talks about interests and that we have a history in this country of provinces and territories only serving their own interests. Mr. Speaker, I think that can be argued and that has been going on for years. Particularly in our relationship with the Province of Quebec, it has been in their interest, Mr. Speaker, that we not be able to have a corridor through for power. Mr. Speaker, he talks about that and that is an interesting point. In that point, there are only three provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut and Northwest Territories are the only jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, that are not part of the national electricity system – only three: Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, outside of that in this particular article, he also talks about challenges. Obviously challenges, Mr. Speaker, are partnerships, because it is going to cost a lot of money to make this happen. We have to have corporations, partners, provinces, territories, and our friends at the federal government coming together to ensure that this happens. If that does not happen, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we will never have an East-West corridor in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a time in Newfoundland and Labrador that we are blessed. We are truly blessed at this point in time in our history, Mr. Speaker, to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are blessed why? Mr. Speaker, right now we have a vast supply of non-renewable energy resources. Not only do we have a vast supply of non-renewable energy resources, Mr. Speaker, we also have an abundant supply of clean, renewable energy sources. The opportunities for this Province have never been better – never been better, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, responsible development of these renewable resources will give us the ability to have a clean, stable source of electricity well into the future to meet all our domestic needs. Not only support our domestic needs well into the future, Mr. Speaker, but also supply our industrial needs well into the future. That is all within Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, be it in Labrador or in Newfoundland. Not only will it give us that opportunity, but it also will give us the ability to sell any excess power to outside markets which will provide a source of revenue that could be used to benefit our Province through long-term strategic investments.

Mr. Speaker, one of the central commitments in our provincial Energy Plan is to reinvest the portion of our non-renewable energy money into our renewable energy developments. Mr. Speaker, doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that make sense to us, and doesn't that make sense to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that while we are reaping some of the best benefits we have, the resource we have now is non-renewable, so let's inject some of that non-renewable money into planning for the future and giving us clean, green, renewable energy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, along with having that, that will also provide us the opportunity to seek and explore other opportunities, like wind – and I have heard the Opposition parties talk about wind – and we need to explore those, too. Mr. Speaker, by investing our non-renewable resources into the renewable, we can do that again. That protects the environmental future for every person in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, fulfilling this commitment is not only beneficial to us. If we can fulfill this commitment, if we can do this, if we can open up a resource, and if we can open up access to that East-West corridor, Mr. Speaker, it is not only good for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; it is good for our neighbouring friends in the Atlantic Provinces. The transmission line will give them needed energy, something they have been crying out for, for years. Not only our Atlantic friends, but the rest of the country; we can help offset some of those energy demands that are now existing in Ontario. Not only that, in our excess we can sell the rest to our North American friends and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I think it makes perfect sense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take us back just a little bit to 2003. I want everybody to recall the blackout that happened across the Northeastern United States and central parts of our country. At the Canadian Chamber of Commerce annual general meeting in 2010, they talked about this. The St. John's Board of Trade brought a motion to the floor. Mr. Speaker, if we do not address this East-West shortage, or the lack of a corridor, they say we will have another blackout in twenty-five years. If we do not change something, Central Canada and the Northeast States will continue to have blackouts every twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, they also talk about, in their resolution, and talked at that time about having adequate power. We have the mighty Churchill, and we have the power, but we do not have the way to access the markets. We can supply and we can provide the adequate power. It is reliable power and it is clean power. It can be there day in and day out. The river will always flow, Mr. Speaker.

As well, there is growing demand. We hear tell of the energy needs all across our country; all across North America, there is a growing demand. Mr. Speaker, I argue, and I will argue until the cows come home, probably, that hydroelectricity is one of the cleanest, cheapest, and best ways to do that to meet that demand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, as well, it lessens our country's dependence on fossil fuels. Not that we do not need fossil fuels; fossil fuels have been good to our country, and now they have been good to our Province, but it lessens dependence on fossil fuels and lessens our carbon footprint. Mr. Speaker, as well, we are at a time in our history where we have aging infrastructure and we have to address that aging infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, as my time is winding down – and I will get another opportunity to continue – I just want to end on this note. I want to end by encouraging all parties today opposite to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the continued debate this afternoon in the House and I look forward to closing debate a little later on this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a well-intended but not a well-advised private member's resolution, for reasons that I will set forth. What I see is this resolution is almost in the nature of somebody who wants something so badly that they do not think of the consequences. It is almost as if the member who is bringing on the private member's resolution is like King Midas, who loved gold so much that he wanted everything he touched to be gold. The first thing, his young daughter came in, and he held her, and she turned to gold. She was lost to him forever, but he had what he said he wanted.

Mr. Speaker, by that I mean that this private member's resolution, in my view, would give more power to the federal government than they currently have. In no way would I agree that this federal government should have more power over us than they currently have.

If you look at how Canada is constructed constitutionally, and if you look at how Great Britain or the United Kingdom is constructed constitutionally, and if you look at how the United States is constructed constitutionally, we have a special place in constitutional law which separates the levels of government and the power. The United Kingdom is a unitary state, so that means parliament is supreme, one vote, one person, no matter where you live. This may have been in the best of intentions, and there is a House of Lords, obviously; however, with a unitary state, you have less opportunity for regional representation. That may work in the UK, although it isolates other areas such as Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. They do not have the opportunity for any regional autonomy or semi-autonomy, which is not the case in Canada.

The United States is exactly the opposite. The United States is a republic, and in the United States their constitution is supreme. Their constitution also separates state power from federal power, and you have certain anomalies in the United States. State governments have criminal law, for example. In one state you can commit an offence and be executed for it, and over the state line, that may not even be an offence. In their evolution, when they set up their republic and their constitution they gave certain areas of power to states, and states jealously guard those powers. Their states, I would argue, have far less power than our provinces, which for us is good. In Canada, criminal law is federal. One law applies to a Canadian wherever you are, but the administration of that is a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, my concern, constitutionally, with this private member's resolution is that as soon as we approach the federal government and we basically implore the federal government, we try to work with the federal government so that we can have this East-West corridor – now, there are some practical and business reasons that I do not think it is well-advised, and certainly it would seem to contradict Muskrat Falls, in any event. However, when we go to the federal government and we say to the federal government, we want you to participate and impose an East-West corridor on Quebec or on any other province, whatever we ask the federal government, and we give up sufficient power that the federal government is able to impose something on that other province, then, by default, that federal government can also impose that outcome on us.

For example, today, do we want to provide more power to the federal government than the federal government currently has? We can see the big argument, the big debate recently over search and rescue and it being a federal responsibility. We can see it even in this House today with DFO giving up certain responsibilities and leaving the Province to fend for ourselves.

We also see in the new EI legislation, federal income taxes imposed across the board, the GST was imposed across the board. The more power that we give to the federal government the more we diminish ourselves as a Province. By diminishing ourselves as a Province, we have less autonomy, we have less power, and we have less opportunity to determine our own destinies within Canada.

In Canada, the system is neither republic nor a unitary state, as the United States or Great Britain. In Canada we have a federation of provinces. All provinces stand equal. Our federation of provinces – we do have a Constitution. Although Parliament is supreme, we have also entrenched certain benefits, powers and advantages. For example, even though this Province has only 500,000 people, and Canada now has 35 million, percentage wise we have declined significantly, but we are still guaranteed seven federal seats and six seats in the Senate. By the numbers, this far outweighs our population. We have more power – your vote is worth more in this Province than it would be in many other provinces in a federal election. We have certain advantages in Canada and I see no reason why we would want to implore the feds, as this private member's resolution seems to do.

To give you an example of how misguided the federal government can be. In 1980, when Alberta was profiting substantially from oil – they had not yet had the oil fights and the oil wars – there were two very large provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and they are still very large provinces. At that time they controlled as much as two-thirds of Canada. The very misguided, in my view, federal Liberal government at that time, imposed the National Energy Program. The National Energy Program, in a short stroke, said that any energy sold from Canada had to be offered to Canadians at 75 per cent of the world price. Clearly, Alberta was the energy producer and exporter, as we are today, even though much of ours is offshore, there may yet come a time when we have more onshore energy. Alberta was going to be penalized to benefit Ontario and Quebec to the extent of losing 25 per cent of the value of their non-renewable resource. Do we want to give that kind of power to the federal government in seeking an energy corridor be imposed upon Quebec?

The net loss to the Alberta treasury, as calculated by Albertans, since then has been in the order of $56 billion to $60 billion over a very short period of time. I am told, and having lived in Alberta I can believe it, that within forty-eight hours there were 600 drilling rigs lined up at the Montana border to leave Alberta and leave Canada because of a too powerful and misguided federal government.

I do not see how we can ask the federal government to impose on Quebec, for our benefit, an East-West energy corridor. Constitutionally that is the reason, and politically the reason, why we ought not to have this type of a private member's resolution. There are also other very good policy reasons.

Nalcor, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the provincial governing party are attempting to convince us that we need to have a bypass around Quebec with Muskrat Falls. The bypass that is anticipated around Quebec is traditionally called the Anglo-Saxon route and is to come across Labrador, across the Strait of Belle Isle, down through our Province, across the Cabot Strait, on down through, and potentially hook up with the United States energy grid. Mr. Speaker, that potentially could be a very good thing; however, if we have the power corridor through Quebec and imposed upon Quebec, why do we need Muskrat Falls? Doesn't it simply defeat the argument the government is trying to make? The government is saying on the one hand we need Muskrat Falls so we can get around Quebec and we can access markets. Now we have a private member's resolution that says: Implore the federal government to force Quebec to give us an energy corridor. Obviously, if we have that, the reasoning and the rationale for the link, certainly across from this Island to Nova Scotia, would be unnecessary and would, in my view, make Muskrat Falls redundant.

Simply put, the argument being advanced for the reason for this imposed energy corridor is exactly the reason we say we want Muskrat Falls. We are seeking, we say, an East-West link. In fact, what we are asking for is really a North-South link where we would be able to ship energy through the Province of Quebec to some place else. If we build Muskrat Falls and access other markets, then the energy corridor becomes redundant. If we have the energy corridor, then why are we going to commit our public Treasury to billions and billions of dollars –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: – that may take fifty years to pay off?

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can be in the interest of this Province to give up any of our autonomy to the federal government. What the federal government can do for you it can also do to you, as we have been learning in the last year or so. I do not see any reason why we would want an energy corridor when the argument on the other side that the government is making right now is that we should build Muskrat Falls.

Without speculating on whether Muskrat Falls is the right move or not, clearly if we have the energy corridor we do not need Muskrat Falls any more. We can simply use our own energy self-sufficiency here. We can use cash from the energy corridor that we force through Quebec in order to create more energy on the Island and through coastal Labrador. So, the private member's resolution, while it seems to be well intended, is misguided – is misguided on constitutional grounds, is misguided on political grounds by we will give up more political power to somebody outside of us, that somebody being the federal, and it is misguided on economic grounds.

So, Mr. Speaker, I find that I am unable to support this private member's resolution.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this private member's motion has arisen as a result of recent discussions on a national energy plan between the Premiers of Alberta and Ontario. Our position is quite simple: How can their be a national energy plan, when one province – Quebec – has treated another province – Newfoundland and Labrador – with contempt and disdain since 1969, and continues to hold us hostage to this very day, Mr. Speaker? What we are suggesting to governments throughout this country, including provincial governments and the federal government, is that you should support the East-West corridor. For many reasons, Mr. Speaker, both from an economic, environmental, but also as a nation-building process.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very good analysis as to the role of the federal government and the abdication of responsibility in an article – a 1999 article by Jason Churchill called Pragmatic Federalism: The Politics Behind the 1969 Churchill Falls Contract. Mr. Churchill points out on page 215 that one of the key issues was the "inability to secure a power corridor across Quebec territory", and we lost a tremendous negotiating advantage that had been geographically allocated to Quebec. They had used this leverage, Mr. Speaker, to basically secure the onerous terms of the 1969 contract. At page 216, Mr. Churchill stated that the refusal of successive federal governments to intervene was "tantamount to capitulation to Quebec's interest." So, Mr. Speaker, again, that is the political pragmatism – more votes in Quebec than there are in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we see a glimmer of hope that this can change, and I am very disappointed that the Member for St. Barbe has chosen not to support this motion, Mr. Speaker. I know he does not want to be seen as choosing Quebec over Newfoundland and Labrador, but the reality here is that when you stand up and say in this House of Assembly that this should not change, then what you are saying is that the Upper Churchill contract should not change either, and that is simply exactly unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, to understand this you have to examine history. You have to go back to the 1927 decision of the Judicial Privy Council whereby the highest court in Canada at the time, being situated in the United Kingdom, decided that Newfoundland owned Labrador, and not Canada or Quebec. In the 1940s there was one report done, and in 1963 there was a Dorion report which investigated the 1927 decision and basically held that, by their lack of objection, Mr. Speaker, or their silence, had acquiesced the decision. The Judicial Council decision was entrenched in the 1949 act that brought Newfoundland into Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, what we have and what continues to happen to this day is what is referred to as the revenge of geography, that we have been landlocked as a result of Quebec's intransigence, Quebec's unfairness, and Quebec's inequitable treatment of a supposed partner in Confederation, Mr. Speaker.

In 1962, Premier Diefenbaker proposed the establishment of an integrated national electrical system, and that is referred to by Mr. Churchill. In 1963, Mr. Speaker, Premier Jean Lesage at that time told the Quebec Assembly that Churchill Falls was linked to the boundary dispute. Another article which examines this issue is the Feehan and Baker article in 2005; although they deal with the renewal clause, they also point out that the issues surround the boundary dispute, Quebec is opposed to any attempt to transfer power over their territory without their approval, the federal government was not anxious to confront Quebec over this issue. Well, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, that approach has changed.

One of the best descriptions I can see, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot attribute where I got this source from, but I have a lot of writings on the Upper Churchill, and it is a great quote. I see one of our learned doctors present in the gallery who will appreciate this quote: For the historian trying to make sense of the events and forces which led to the 1969 contract, the boundary talks between Smallwood and Lesage cling to the Hamilton Falls negotiations like a shadow, though nearly invisible at the time, but inextricably attached.

Mr. Speaker, there were negotiations in 1963 to 1965 and there was a tentative boundary settlement that blew up, because what happened around 1962, Renι Lιvesque – at least in 1962 he was the Minister of Natural Resources in Quebec; what Mr. Lιvesque saw, Mr. Speaker, was the development or the vision for Quebec's future and what is sometimes referred to as the development of hydro-nationalism. He took Shawinigan Power, Montreal Power, took a number of different power companies, nationalized them, and Quebec Hydro was born, Mr. Speaker.

Quebec Hydro was born out of these various companies. It was born to look after the needs of Quebec. That is exactly what we have tried to do, Mr. Speaker, with the creation of Nalcor, because what Mr. Lιvesque saw back in the early 1960s was that hydro was the key to Quebec's future prosperity. How true that has been, Mr. Speaker, and how unfair it is.

There was an article recently, I think, in the National Post, which referred to the fact that Manitoba and Quebec, because of the way they get their hydro, it is not included in their equalization payments. Quebec has the lowest child care in this Province, it has the lowest tuition in this country, excuse me, Mr. Speaker, and essentially they get about $18 billion in equalization as a result of that. Mr. Speaker, Quebec on the one hand is a very rich province using our power to pay for their child care and education. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, they get massive amounts of equalization and always look for more.

Mr. Speaker, it was these kinds of disputes which led to Premier Smallwood's investigation of the Anglo-Saxon route on November 28, 1964, which would allow Newfoundland at the time, Mr. Speaker, to escape the clutches of Quebec. Here we are, almost fifty years later, still trying to escape the clutches of Quebec. Muskrat Falls will do that, Mr. Speaker, but more importantly, an East-West electricity grid will allow for the transmission of electricity and the development of Gull Island to get our power into Ontario, into the Maritime Provinces, and into the Northeastern United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have been to the Supreme Court of Canada on two occasions: on September 28, 1982 when the Water Rights Reversion Act reference was heard; on March 23, 1984, Mr. Speaker, while that case was ongoing, Quebec submitted a proposal to Newfoundland and Premier Peckford at the time said no.

Mr. Speaker, May 3, 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada said that our actions as a Province were unconstitutional and Renι Lιvesque was now the Premier of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, Premier Peckford refused to have any further discussions with Quebec and he said that the solution to the dispute now lies with the election of a Conservative government in Ottawa. Here we are thirty years later still looking for that solution, Mr. Speaker, to develop our natural resources for which the people of our Province will be the primary beneficiaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have is one province and a federal government that refuses to allow that to come true. June of 1988, we went back to the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and lost again. In recent years, Nalcor or Hydro has gone to the Rιgie in Quebec trying to apply FERC rules and open access rules, all to no avail. I think I was present at a speech where former Premier Williams just said that in his forty years as a lawyer, the worst decision he had ever seen was the Rιgie decision in terms of being factually inaccurate and simply outlandish.

So, Mr. Speaker, we start again. Now we go to the good faith action which CF(L)Co currently has. It is important to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the good faith action is not looking to say the contract is null and void. It is not saying return power to this Province. What the good faith action does, Mr. Speaker, is based on the civil law of Quebec, and one of the most basic mistakes made in this contract was that it was governed by the law of Quebec. We are now trying to use the civil law of Quebec to get a more equitable treatment. The basis of the action, Mr. Speaker, is that on good faith in civil law, the French law, there is a moral or maybe, we are arguing, a legal obligation to renegotiate a contract where circumstances changed that could not have been foreseen at the time the contract was entered into.

What has happened, Mr. Speaker? That cheap power that Quebec got in 1967 or 1969, which could be justified by some people, becomes cheaper in 2017. How, Mr. Speaker, can anyone tell me that that is fair? Yes, there was a contract entered into. Mr. Speaker, when you benefit to the extent that Quebec has benefited from this contract, surely there comes a point in time when equity and fairness in a national federation demand reconsideration.

Mr. Speaker, while the opening of an East-West corridor will not undo the wrongs of the past, it will allow optimism for the future. It will allow for the development of our natural resources for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It will allow for the transmission of power across Quebec without having to go on bended knee to Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to happen without intervention or negotiation, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? In utilities years, 2041 is not that far away. To most of us, we may not – what year is this? Some of us, I guess, will be around to benefit from it, but our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker. The Upper Churchill contract still has the agreement. CF(L)Co is divided up between 65 per cent Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Nalcor and 35 per cent Quebec Hydro. There are still issues in 2041.

Mr. Speaker, at some point Quebec will have to discuss, I would assume, the renegotiation of that contract and the development of Gull Island. We are not asking for anything outlandish. We are simply saying we want to develop our resources for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.

In a federation like Canada where you have a federal government, a central government, and you have a number of provinces, Mr. Speaker, surely the federal government at some point will say to the Province: Please get together and work this out. Mr. Speaker, that 1927 decision hangs like a shadow. We still see maps today, Mr. Speaker, with the old maps as put forward by Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, the present political pragmatism will be based on fairness and equality and not simply getting votes in one province. That is what this motion is about, Mr. Speaker, because we have seen signs from this federal government that perhaps they are willing to go there. We have seen a commitment from the Prime Minister on the federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that it is a regional economic benefit.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered through tough times, but we are people who can endure tough times. For 500 years we have lived on an Island that has been inhospitable and very tough, but we are still here, Mr. Speaker. In the last number of years times have gotten better but we have to manage our own resources, Mr. Speaker. We have to encourage businesses, big companies, oil companies, to come in here and do business. Mr. Speaker, it has to be based on fairness, and there has to be one guiding principle, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are to be the principal beneficiaries of our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, here we are with one of the greatest hydro developments in North America right now that we cannot get to market in terms of Gull Island because an intransigent province can simply say no. Mr. Speaker, what this East-West corridor will do, will allow for the development of Gull Island. I think when you see some of these Labrador mining developments, depending on the economy of China, but if they all go ahead, Mr. Speaker, then Gull Island can be a very real possibility.

Do you know something else that I read last night as I was preparing for this, Mr. Speaker? There are a lot of big aluminium plants in Quebec, and those big aluminium plants require a lot of power, 400, 500, 600 megawatts of power. Three of them, Mr. Speaker, I read last night, their contracts expire before 2041. Now, Mr. Speaker, in business there appears to be no great loyalty. The question is who will give us the best deal? Newfoundland and Labrador will be there to do deals but those deals will be fair.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this resolution is encouraging the governments who are discussing a national energy plan to put forward the need for it to be truly national, because otherwise it becomes regional. What we are also suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for everyone to come into the twenty-first century. It is time for Quebec to get over the 1927 decision. We have had to get over the 1969 contract. It is still, Mr. Speaker, like an open sore at times, but what inflames us even more is that Quebec makes all the money from our natural resources. This will go, Mr. Speaker, a small part of the way towards saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you truly are members of this great Confederation and we want to treat you fairly. Because that is all we have asked for, Mr. Speaker, is fairness and to be the beneficiaries of our natural resources.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am quite pleased actually to stand and speak to this private member's resolution today. I think it is an important resolution. I am certainly going to be happy to vote for this resolution.

It has always been important to the NDP, both as a provincial party and federally, to look at the whole issue of an East-West grid. One thing that is really important about this resolution, and the Minister of Natural Resources has just alluded to it, and that is the importance of all provinces and all territories to be concerned about the federation that we are part of and to strengthening that federation. If there is anything that can help us in working together and strengthening who we are as the federation of Canada, then it would be through trying to develop the East-West grid because the East-West grid would be the federal level along with the provincial and territorial levels working together. It would become a responsibility not just of two provinces looking at each other, but of the whole country and the role of those provinces in the whole country.

The first time that we actually came out as a party with regard to the East-West grid was in our platform during the 2003 provincial election campaign. It was a major part of our platform. Then on a federal level in 2004, just after Jack Layton became the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, he supported the Kyoto Protocol that dealt with climate change. The most important parts of the federal policy document that was part of that support for Kyoto was a pledge to establish an East-West power grid.

At that time, Mr. Layton was looking specifically at Quebec and Manitoba and the role that they could play with regard to coal dependent provinces. The scene has changed a bit in Canada now and with the role that we are playing as Newfoundland and Labrador, we obviously have a significant role to play in the development of an East-West grid as well. It is all of our responsibilities, not just the responsibility of one province or two provinces. It is all of our responsibility to try to help with climate change.

The things that were in Kyoto, which unfortunately we know have been rejected by the Harper Government, but recommendations of Kyoto and agreements that were agreed to within Kyoto would have seen us working not just as separate entities in this country, but working together to reduce, for example, the coal-dependent energy sources that are rampant in the country. We do have a responsibility to do that. I am very happy that we are here today trying to get all of us, and it looks like it will be all of us, agreeing that this is a good way to go.

During 2006 when there were energy plan consultations, again at that time we advocated the East-West grid. Back in 2008, Mr. Jack Layton, who was then the Leader of the New Democratic Party federally, said to Danny Williams, at the time of the 2008 election when Danny Williams was the Premier of the Province, that New Democrats will continue to push for the development of a national power grid for electricity, increasing Canada's energy security and facilitating development and distribution of renewable energy to provinces currently dependent on fossil fuel. It would also give hydro-producing provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador access to energy markets, to maximize benefits. I think it is much better that, as a Province, we are looking to maximizing the benefits for the rest of the people in Canada as well as for ourselves. The markets we should be gaining access to are the markets in our own country, which is extremely important.

In 2011, you had some provinces working together, because Manitoba signed an energy Memorandum of Understanding with Saskatchewan that says the two provinces will work together to enhance the East-West grid and increase energy transfers between provinces. So we do know that provinces out there support the notion of the East-West grid, and provinces as far west as Saskatchewan.

I would imagine, having heard some of the comments I have heard the new Premier of British Columbia say recently, that the desire to create the East-West grid would go all the way from Newfoundland and Labrador right over to British Columbia. I do not think we would find it difficult to get support from other provinces with regard to this, so that is why the main resolution is so important, that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity transmission corridors within Canada.

I guess my interest, Mr. Speaker, would be that besides coming to an agreement today, as the three parties here in our House of Assembly, besides coming to an agreement that it is good to do that, that then we have to count on the government side of the House, who is putting the resolution forward, that we have to depend on them to then start bringing this issue to the table at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels – and I guess that would happen probably through the Premier. It obviously would happen through the Minister of Natural Resources as well. It is also something I think that could happen through the Department of Justice, because you have legal ramifications here also.

So, there are many opportunities that will be coming forward, which could be opportunities which can be used by the government to bring forward this notion of the East-West power grid in Canada. As I said, there are so many aspects to it which are positive. One is the environmental aspect, because we do have places in Canada which have cleaner sources of energy than others. We also have places in Canada which are doing real gains in some of the alternative sources of energy, for example, wind power. In Nova Scotia, they are upping their use of wind power. They are actually even building turbines in Nova Scotia. They are upping their use of wind power in New Brunswick as well. So, there is a lot to learn from each other across the country, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what is going on around energy, and how we can really improve who we are as a country.

I think the East-West grid is good for us, because the US energy market, which is one of the markets that the government has been looking at, is actually becoming very volatile now, especially due to the shale gas emergence. So, I am really pleased for us to be talking about developing our own country, rather than looking south. I think it is important that we co-operate with countries south of us – and there are more countries south of us than the US, but of course they are the ones that we are right on the border with. We have to do that with strength, and I think the strength we do it with is not just as one province, but together as a country, because they are really doing a lot in the US to develop who they are and to start planning regionally and working together regionally.

The volatile energy market in the States is very concerning. Because if we put our eggs in that basket, the basket of the US market which is partially part of the discussion around Muskrat Falls, then I think even if we are talking the spot market, it could become very problematic for us. If we are depending on that market which is changing so radically, we have no idea what it is going to be like in ten years. The thing of depending on ourselves and developing who we are is extremely important.

This position has been taken by the way, by a very important group of people, the Canadian Academy of Engineering. They have made some points on why an East-West grid would be very good for Canada. When you get a body like that, the Canadian Academy of Engineering, I think it is somebody to listen to. According to the Canadian Academy of Engineering, a substantial amount of Canada's power potential is stranded. That has been part of the frustration of many governments in this Province. It is stranded because we do not have an East-West grid. We know there is a lot that we can do here with wind power, for example, if our wind power could be moved off the Island. One of the things said to us is in order to have wind power, we need to be able to transport it because we have not enough use for it here on the Island. The thing is that if we are looking at transporting with the possibility of Muskrat Falls, well wind power could be transported also. This is something that we need to do.

We cannot do it without the East-West grid. It will not make any sense depending on the US market doing it to get wind power out of here. If we depended on an East-West grid, then it makes a tremendous amount of sense. According to the academy, without a strong East-West grid, we are squandering a key competitive advantage. If we as a country were consolidated and we were together in the production of energy, then that would put us in a real strong position with the United States. We would actually become competitive with them in the whole area of energy production.

The thing around having the East-West grid in our own country would mimic what is happening in other countries. Here, for example, on this side of the planet, in South America, they are actively investigating inter-country grids; one country combining with another country, their grids working together. Other places are developing integrated grids, where different sources of energy are all being integrated into a grid. The US, as I mentioned a minute ago, is investigating several inter-regional grids. So they would have different grids around the country on a regional level and these grids would work with each other. There is a lot of work going on in other countries and in other areas with regard to building larger grids and having co-operation between grids and among grids.

Unfortunately, the economic downturn on a global level has led to a downturn with regard to global plans to build infrastructure. There has been a slowdown, not in the idea but being able to carry it through with regard to infrastructure because of the economic downturn. A point to make here is that getting into creating an East-West grid and really putting energy in that and to the infrastructure that we need to be developed would actually be good for our economy in Canada. It would be a very positive economic turn. Because of the development of the infrastructure, that in it self would strengthen our economy in this country. We need to look at the fact that it is the provinces that have to drive this. If something is going to happen we have to be the ones as provinces coming together and agreeing together and then going to Ottawa and saying this is what we have to do, because of course electricity generation and transmission is a provincial responsibility.

The other thing that we have to do, and we have to do this in our Province as well as the other provinces, we have to engage the involvement of the Aboriginal communities and First Nations. We have Aboriginal communities and First Nation communities that are self governing, and they have a key role to play. We would need to get the full support of Aboriginal communities and First Nation communities in getting this to happen. We would have to have that happen too, on both sides of the border. That is more complicated. We can only be concerned about what we have control over. The Canadian Academy of Engineering, of course, has a Pan-American vision, I think, and they see the importance of the involvement of the Aboriginal groups.

One of the things that we will have to deal with is that there are conflicting goals. Right now we have a conflicting goal with us and one province. Certainly, regionally there will be conflicting goals too, but they can be worked out.

Mr. Speaker, all of that to say, this is something really good to work on. It is obviously something that is long term but it is something that we would have to start working on right away. As I said in the beginning, I think it is something that the government will have to drive. They are the ones who take part in the meetings on the federal, territorial and provincial levels. They are the ones who are going to have to bring forth this idea. What I call upon the government is to be accountable to the House of Assembly when we pass this resolution today, because obviously, we are going to pass it, to be accountable to us for the way in which they are going to bring this forward in the discussions that they have in an ongoing manner on the various levels of our governments here in our country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad to speak today on this resolution put forward by the Member for Port de Grave. It is a resolution that looks at something that is certainly well needed in terms of development of our Province. As the Minister of Natural Resources said, it goes to nation building. An East-West electricity transmission line, in terms of our future development and where we need to go as a Province, is certainly where we need to go as a country, and east to west in terms of developing that link. Certainly from a need perspective and from a business and economic perspective, Mr. Speaker, and how we need to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in the actual resolution that I would like to specifically speak to, in referencing the opening of Canadian east-west energy corridors and giving provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within Canada, create economic opportunity and strengthen the country. That is what we are talking about here. I think it was mentioned earlier too, we cannot look to undo the wrongs of the past but we can certainly control our destiny in where we move forward as a Province and as a country with an East-West transmission grid. That is so important. That is the resolution, a very important component to it.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I just wanted to comment on, certainly from my department and our government's perspective in terms of the opportunity for business and economic development as we move forward and advocate to all the provinces and the territories in terms of coming onboard and supporting an East-West electrical transmission grid, Mr. Speaker. We are known as the Province, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador vast energy resources has allowed our government to strengthen our financial position, reduce our debt, reduce taxes, and contribute to the programs that support economic growth in all regions of our Province. Harnessing these riches provides exciting and rewarding spinoff opportunities for the business community, and it is helping small and medium companies tap into supplier development opportunities that are leading to greater success and company expansion.

Mr. Speaker, business success increases the tax base for the provincial government and it increases the volume of spending in a community, in a region, and in our Province. The sum of that activity helps fuel social programs and infrastructure improvements.

Economic development, Mr. Speaker, as we know, and entrepreneurship – small and medium-sized businesses, the corporations out there, those are the ones that drive our economy. They hire people, they pay taxes, they build our communities. Through that, we collect taxes and revenue, the provincial government does, to provide those social programs that are so important to all our people and to all regions of the Province. We need economic activity to drive that, Mr. Speaker, as we know.

Export activity leading to one in every four jobs in the Province has surpassed $12 billion last year. It is no surprise that the government, we have taken such a focused effort on building Newfoundland and Labrador's trade capacity. Energy would just be another component to that, Mr. Speaker.

We are committed and we have been a partner in supporting conditions where businesses can excel, wherever that may be and whatever industry that may be, Mr. Speaker. Our efforts in that area are looking at, as I said, solidifying supplier development opportunities and maximizing their potential for the benefit of all local businesses, which is so important. Supporting business to maximize benefits from our local resources like green energy, hydro development, we have seen it and we continue to improve on that, Mr. Speaker; we can through an opportunity like this, where it allows for future development in Labrador as we move forward with this transmission line.

We need to look at the opportunities identified for products like energy. We anticipate greater market access. That will improve companies undertaking expansion and more companies to expand their workforce. By all of that, through hydro development, through the East-West transmission line, we are looking at economic development, various projects. We have Muskrat Falls now that we will make a decision on later in the year. Phase 2 of that development would be Gull Island and the opportunities that will hold to that and make that much more attainable with that agreed-upon transmission across the country from east to west.

That is what we look forward to in the future as we move this agenda forward and that is what the resolution asks this hon. House to do: to support that, to call on the members of the federation of Canada to support this as we move forward, from a nation-building point of view and from Newfoundland and Labrador's point of view as well, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke of the Supplier Development Program which flows from significant projects, small and medium enterprises. It is a great opportunity for local business communities in all regions to learn about the process of the public sector, companies, and how to interact with purchasing representatives. So, when you consider, Mr. Speaker, the requirements of large procurers of goods and services on industrial projects, various levels of government spend billions of dollars annually, and supplier development certainly represents an exciting, rewarding opportunity for businesses.

So, Mr. Speaker, looking at the economic benefits from an East-West grid and what this actual resolution is calling for, you might ask: well, what would it accomplish? Where would we be? Well, first and foremost, you certainly look at linking each and province and territory to a national electricity grid. Newfoundland, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon are now not part of that national electricity system, and all other provinces would like to see greater inter-provincial connections east and west. So that is the key: we get connected up, and we have those opportunities that exist, especially for us in Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly have that access to energy for future development that we can access that transmission, Mr. Speaker.

What would an East-West grid provide? It would increase the amount of electricity that is accessible in Canada. You could certainly look at it from a trade perspective. Most of our electricity right now is from north to south; it has been traditionally that way, dominated by electricity sale to the United States. No doubt US markets receive a greater benefit from Canada of low-cost hydroelectric exports from places like BC, Manitoba, Quebec, and certainly the rest of Canada.

A national electricity grid will improve system reliability, which means greater economic output and benefits for all Canadians, and that is the key, as I said. It is nation-building, and it is looking at a national transmission grid from east to west for all Canadians, and certainly a great benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Let us talk about trade, in terms of the trade and the benefits it would provide in that regard: increased access to large- and small-scale renewable electricity sources across the country and reducing emissions and reliance on fuel generation of fossil fuels; we know the country as a whole, and certainly the world, want to get the green energy, and we can certainly be leaders in that area and continue to be leaders, Mr. Speaker. We would enhance the country's electricity infrastructure and generate significant capital investment. When you talk about economic development, or you talk about helping communities and regions, economic development is all about capital investment; one follows the other.

It is a great opportunity, in terms of support for this resolution, an East-West grid and what that would mean in terms of capital investment and future enhancement and development of hydroelectric resources, certainly in Labrador. The benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador, it unlocks Newfoundland's clean energy and renewable power resources and maximizes the reach of Canada's energy supply by linking Newfoundland to areas with demand for electricity.

So, this allows us to reach out, invest that capital, certainly in the private sector, develop the resources we have, and then access that need that is out there, that demand that is out there. We can meet that demand by flowing that electricity into Quebec, into Ontario, and all parts west that is needed, Mr. Speaker, to that market.

This provides the opportunity as I said, too, to look at a Phase II, beyond Muskrat Falls, and looks at the development of the Gull Island Project and allows us to get access to markets. It is a huge benefit in terms of our development as a Province in building on our Energy Plan that we announced in 2007, to be an energy warehouse. This would be a continuation and well on the road to implementing that plan to reach this phase.

Phase II of the Lower Churchill Project development will consist of the development of a Gull Island generation facility and associated transmission to markets, Mr. Speaker. The development would begin maybe three or four years after Muskrat Falls and approximately would take six to eight years. Such benefits through a project like this certainly creates significant employment, income and taxation benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, but not only Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, this would be a national project. It would be for all of Canada as I said before. It is certainly nation building in terms of what this resolution speaks to.

Economic impacts including employment, income and taxation benefits; I spoke before about economic developments, capital investment. It allows government to collect revenues that we can provide those programs, those social programs, to our citizens. We need to get that economic driver to do this. This provides a need in the country in terms of clean energy. It also provides significant economic development and inputs into our economy both at a provincial and certainly at a federal level as well.

There is also direct, certainly indirect, and induced benefits from a project like this, Mr. Speaker. Direct benefits look at including engineering and construction activities. One of the members mentioned regarding the erection of transmission lines or operating heavy equipment on site, those types of things, on-the-ground projects, capital investment, and those things that drive our economy. Indirect impacts are associated with material, services, and equipment purchased by the project and the workers involved with fabrication of equipment. Again, I talked about local suppliers and supplier locations around the project. It is huge for small and medium enterprises and small businesses, Mr. Speaker. Induced impacts are those that occur in the services sector. Throughout the economy direct and certainly indirect income is spent. I get back again to supplier development. The services and goods that are required for such a project are fast and would drive local economies, again which is so important.

The benefit strategy between Nalcor and the provincial government ensures the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the primary beneficiaries of the Lower Churchill Project. Estimates direct, indirect, and induced employment in the Province would be estimated to be in excess of 18,000 person years. Direct employment in Newfoundland and Labrador would peak at approximately 2,200 people.

Something like this, Mr. Speaker, with the East-West grid allows opportunity for development of Gull Island and continues in terms of our 2007, in terms of our Energy Plan to be an energy warehouse and be able to meet the electrical demands that exist in Canada. We can meet that through having access to that grid and then following through that in terms of development of a project like Gull Island, Mr. Speaker.

This is for Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Canada – in all of Canada. In Labrador again, the benefits agreements would make sure that qualified residents of Labrador would get first priority over other parts of the country, looking at almost 10,000 person years of direct, indirect, and induced employment to take place in Labrador. Again, an estimated 115 direct full-time jobs from Phase I which would be Muskrat Falls and Phase II of approximately seventy in Labrador.

The benefits would be immense. More than 75 per cent of direct labour for Gull Island generation station facility would be undertaken in Labrador. Approximately $440 million in income to business and labour would be earned by Labradorians and Labradorian-based businesses. It is significant, Mr. Speaker, in terms of having access to that East-West grid and having our counterparts, the provinces and territories, support this and lobby the federal government so that we can get there and continue our progress in the Province and across the country. As I said, the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Atlantic Canada as well as employment, overall income, taxation for the Atlantic Provinces as well, and for Canada as a whole. It is extremely important in terms of what this would mean for our Province.

Mr. Speaker, my time is clueing up, but this resolution, I want to recognize the Member for Port de Grave. It is timely in terms of where we are to in our history as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is timely in the sense of what the need is and the demand is in Canada in terms of access to clean energy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS: People are getting away and jurisdictions are getting away from fossil fuels. We have the assets now in terms of natural resources to be part of that wave of new energy that we have, that we can access to the rest of the country.

I implore the members of the House here to support this resolution and we go forward and advocate to the rest of the country that we get this East-West electrical transmission grid in place for the good of the country, the good of Newfoundland and Labrador, and most importantly for the good of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to make a few comments with regard to the resolution that was put forward by the Member for Port de Grave today. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting resolution, no doubt. It talks about urging all governments in the country to co-operate and look at the opportunities of having an East-West electricity transmission corridor within Canada.

If you look at the report that was recently done by the Howe Institute –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – or, in fact, not recently. It was done, I think, back in 2010. Basically, what they focused on was the East-West grid and having Canada with its own electricity corridor. One of the things they noted there is that it would benefit from increased inter-provincial trade in electricity, which as we all know will result in increased integration among existing provincial electricity systems.

It is not just about the country having control. I do not see it that way. What I do see is that the provinces would make this happen through this grid system and it would be a national grid. Mr. Speaker, the provinces can establish different mechanisms to allocate inter-provincial transmission capacity such that no other party can monopolize it. That is the experience we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador in trying to develop major projects like the Lower Churchill and being able to have access through other provinces. That has been a huge factor for us in being able to move forward with development of electricity in this Province.

Because the Province of Quebec has continued to, Mr. Speaker, be unwilling to negotiate fair agreements for the transmission of power for Newfoundland and Labrador, we have had no other choice but to stalemate a number of deals and negotiations over the years around electricity and the development of electricity in Labrador. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have landed ourselves in the courts. The recent decision of the Rιgie board, going back two years ago in Quebec, when they passed down that ruling in the courts, was not in our favour at all. Since then we have to appeal it through the courts. Our hearings are not even going to be heard until 2013 as to what our stand is going to be in accessing power through Quebec or not.

Mr. Speaker, there also needs to be an equitable distribution of the economic benefits of all interprovincial trade between provinces. In order for that to happen, again, there needs to be some kind of a corridor, grid system, or regulatory process that allows for that. Right now, we do not have that in this country. They have it in the United States and that is why in the US they have been able to do this transmission of power, develop major projects, and feed it into grids. It is all done through a regulatory process which allows you to do that. That is why in Newfoundland and Labrador, we actually have agreements where we can bring power into the US Eastern Seaboard and we can access those grids and that transmission.

Mr. Speaker, in Canada right now, provinces and territories have all the jurisdiction over the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity within their boundaries, including restructuring initiatives and electricity prices. The federal government has jurisdiction over electricity exports internationally and designated interprovincial power lines and nuclear safety.

Mr. Speaker, what this motion is asking for, as I understand it, is for the Canadian government to co-operate; they are asking for them to recognize that this is a barrier to development of electricity in our country and that it is holding provinces like ours back. They are asking them to negotiate with provinces that already have full jurisdiction over electricity, to allow for the transmission of power through those particular provinces.

Mr. Speaker, some people might say it is not fair to impose this and I will use Quebec as an example. I listened to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – remarks in the House today and I have read a number of things on it. There are people who really feel that imposing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask all members for their co-operation, please.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, many people feel that we would be really imposing ourselves on Quebec, and that if we want to develop this project then Quebec would not be able to stop us from running that transmission through their province. The argument that some people made to me was: is that right? Is that fair? How would you feel in Newfoundland and Labrador if that was the case?

Mr. Speaker, I do not look at it as bluntly as that. What I am seeing is an opportunity to put infrastructure in place to allow for the availability of that infrastructure to do major developments that are somewhat competitive in nature, we know that, but at the same time it is going to bring returns for not just our Province, but it is going to bring returns nationally as well, to the federal government.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if there was a group, say like the National Energy Board or something, that was looking at some of these jurisdictional issues and looking at how they could possibly do this, I think they would be surprised to find that they would be able to come up with some very simple solutions for accessibility that would not impede upon the other provinces. Mr. Speaker, I think in saying that we would sign onto this, we are also saying that we are signing on to allow at some point, maybe there is a pipeline that is going to come through Newfoundland and Labrador, maybe there is going to be some other kind of electricity grid that is going to have to go through here that we will not have any control over. Maybe then we will feel a little differently.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, our issue in this Province comes from a sense of frustration that goes back to the 1960s when the Upper Churchill was developed in Labrador and the agreement was done with Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I will say this, because I have heard people say Joey Smallwood did a bad deal. I am not saying he did a good deal or a bad deal. What I am saying is at the time he negotiated that deal, there were probably very few people in his position who would have done anything differently. I say that because, Mr. Speaker, there were things like escalating clauses that were not even invented then. It was not even a part of an accounting mechanism to allow for those kinds of things.

It probably would not have mattered who was standing in that place at that time, they probably would have done the same thing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, history will record it that at the time the Upper Churchill deal was done, while it may have been spearheaded by the government of the day, and at that time Premier Smallwood, it was supported by all the political parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, and it was supported by all the elected officials at that time. There certainly was no opposition to the project being raised by any industrial or business sector out there in the Province. So, I guess what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, at the time that it was done, history recorded it as being a good deal and supported by the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I guess it is hard lessons that are learned, and we are learning it every single day. When I look at things and I see a net profit of $2.6 billion accruing to Quebec Hydro in a year, while we do not even take a half a million dollars out of the project at this stage, it is very frustrating. I can tell you it has always been a sore point in Labrador and a sore point throughout the Province. Unfortunately, I guess it will continue to be as we continue to lose money and Quebec Hydro continues to build their fund. How do we ever balance that, and I am not sure if we can. Repeated Premiers have tried, from Frank Moores to Brian Tobin, to Brian Peckford, to Clyde Wells, to Danny Williams. They have all tried to change that agreement. They have all tried to look for a better deal for the people of the Province, as they should do in their capacity as Premiers.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, none of them achieved the level of success they had hoped for. As a result of it, I guess we are stuck where we are unless something can be changed. I think at this stage, Mr. Speaker, the only way we will change it is going to be through political negotiations. I do not think it will change legally. I do not think the courts will rule in our favour because they have not done so in the past when it comes to a fairer benefit on the Upper Churchill. The only way to achieve it is probably going to be through political negotiations, and of course that is going to include negotiations that will look at power sales beyond 2041. The day may come, I may not be here and a lot of us may not be here, but I think the day will come when we will see the tide change on that particular deal and we will start seeing benefits, real benefits accruing to the Province as a result of it.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about Muskrat Falls for a minute because I firmly believe that we would never be even discussing the Muskrat Falls development in the context that we see it drafted today if we had an East-West power corridor in Canada. I do not think we would have ever seen it. I think we would have automatically seen the development of Muskrat Falls and Gull Island, and I think we would have seen that power exported and transported right into the markets. I do not think we would be building a transmission line to the Island, despite the defences of the government in arguing that it is the best cost option. Mr. Speaker, I just do not think we ever would have seen it. I think we are seeing it today simply because they are limited in how they can actually transmit power out of Labrador today and get it into the marketplace.

If the corridor was there, again, I do not think we would be seeing the deal that we see today on Muskrat Falls. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would even go so far as to say we would not even be seeing the Maritime Link. I do not think there would be $1.2 billion going into that link and I certainly do not think we would be doing a deal to give away of 20 per cent of the power on that development for the next thirty-five years to a private company in Nova Scotia.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor, as hard as they tried, lost the case in the courts. They saw the decision by the Rιgie board out of Quebec and they knew they were at a stalemate. They knew they were not going to be able to move ahead with this development in the next few years. As I said, the appeal in the courts is not even going to be heard for another year, so they looked at what their other options were.

The best sell on Muskrat Falls, in the government's mind at the time, was to bring power to the people on the Island, to their own people. That was the best sell on that particular project. Whether it is the most viable at the end of the day will remain to be seen as we get to see the numbers crunched and the DG3 numbers crunched to look at the viability of the project.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe there is a tremendous potential for energy development in this Province and in Labrador still. I understand where the markets are. Unlike everybody else, I follow those things. I know that right now the market is down, but I do not believe it is always going to be down. I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have missed some great opportunities in developing the Lower Churchill and exporting that power. I believe our best opportunity to secure good markets at high prices for export would have probably been ten years ago, but that time is gone.

I know the markets are down now and I know power is trading at probably 4.5 cents, which is relatively low, but I do believe it will climb again. I do believe they will bounce back and I do believe there will be opportunities for us to do the bigger project of Gull Island in the future in Labrador. I agree, I think there is going to be huge demand for industrial power in Labrador – huge demands – far beyond what any of us are even seeing today.

My prediction, Mr. Speaker, is not unlike what the minister commented on today when he talked about aluminum smelters and everything else that have been set up in Quebec. There are four there now and I believe two of them were built just in the last couple of years. There is tremendous opportunity to do a lot of different industrial projects if the power is there and if the power is affordable.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that to do projects like this, they have to be able to pay for themselves. That is why we cannot just give this power away, nor can we pay huge tariffs to have it transmitted. We need to ensure that we get the best benefits that we can from it. I think that the federal government has a responsibility to work with provinces to ensure that there are proper regulatory processes and proper infrastructure in place so that those provinces can do developments that are going to contribute to the long-term economic viability of their province and that they should have that ability. That is the job of the federal government: to make it happen in consultation with all of us.

I think my time has run out, has it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Okay, just a minute to clue up, if I may?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: With leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when I look at what is happening in Labrador today, I see so much irony in the situation. Obviously I was not around in 1927 when the Privy Council was deciding, you know, because I am only twenty-nine. Mr. Speaker, when the Privy Council was making the decision –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, Mr. Speaker. If I am out of line, I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, in 1927 – and I have heard the story so many times growing up in Labrador through different generations of elders. They would talk about when the decision was made as to whether Labrador would be given to Quebec or given to Newfoundland. The story was that nobody really wanted Labrador; we were the land that God gave to Cain. We were nomadic people, we were First Nations and Inuit, we were remote, we were in the North. Mr. Speaker, we, I suppose, were looked at as a liability probably more so than anything else. Therefore, nobody wanted to accept us.

At the time the decision was made that we would be given over to Newfoundland and we were, Mr. Speaker. I guess it was after those days, and as the time progressed we saw major projects in Labrador. We saw the iron ore mines coming on, Mr. Speaker, in the late 1950s, early 1960s. We saw the Upper Churchill in the 1960s as well; we saw huge developments, forestry developments in Labrador. It started being looked at as an industrial sector. Obviously, Quebec's interest was piqued once again and all of a sudden I think they probably regretted not looking for our hand in matrimony in 1927, and certainly regretted it since then.

Mr. Speaker, I deal a lot with Quebec communities because my district is on the border of the Quebec North Shore. I fly in and out of there all the time. I spend quite a bit of time there; I know people there, the same as I do in my own district. They are very much the same lifestyle; they make their living in the same way and have the same kind of culture, or very similar. When you deal with such close relations as that with your neighbours, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that we have these larger fundamental problems in terms of jurisdictional issues on government to government things.

Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we can resolve some of that so that we can move forward because I think the opportunities are there for us and for Quebec.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am absolutely delighted to stand in my place here today and give support to a private member's motion brought forth by my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in this Chamber would hesitate for a moment to get on their feet and support this motion today. As a matter of fact, to see someone get up and not support it really gave me some great concern, because this is not about today. This is about yesterday; this is about tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is not only building what we believe to be a resource for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are in a position to be able to talk about nation building and allowing our clean, renewable energy to cross borders.

When we talk about borders, Mr. Speaker, we tend to talk about borders with regard to countries. In this great country of Canada, I cannot believe that there are any impediments to us sharing our good fortune of having the cleanest energy in the world and being able to get it, not only north to south but also from east to west, in all directions, from coast to coast to coast, Mr. Speaker, because it is an important consideration of all of us.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I heard the member previous to me talking about her age, but I also must talk about my age, because I am certainly old enough to remember when the Upper Churchill Project was brought on stream. Of course, when it was brought on stream there was a lot of talk about what it meant for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also what it meant to not only the country of Canada, but the country of the United States, that here in North America we would have such a wonderful resource that could be shared. We, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, saw this as a resource that could continue to bring this country – this Province, I should say, as well as the country, revenue that would allow us to continue on building on our resources that could help the people of this particular Province.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the benefits of that project, we saw slip through our fingers, and it slipped through our fingers because the maximum that accrued from that particular project ended up in the hands of our neighbouring Province of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, when we look at some of the social programs that that province is offering, with regard to low tuition, with regard to housing, with regard to other social areas, and providing the needed in daycare, in education, all of the things that the people of Quebec are benefiting to. Looking at those benefits, Mr. Speaker, a lot of those could be ours. Not that we would begrudge Quebecers their social programs, but again, that Upper Churchill would have ensured that we would not be a have-not province, but we could have grown so much since the mid-sixties to where we are now.

That is water over the falls, I guess, Mr. Speaker, because we continue to say what if and what if. Now we are in a position, Mr. Speaker, where we are looking at the Lower Churchill, Muskrat Falls, and Gull Island. Again, a tremendous resource, a resource that not only are we willing to use for our own benefit, but also to share with other provinces, and indeed, with another country. Mr. Speaker, we are, as a government, trying to make sure to the best of our ability that we are going to get the maximum benefit from Muskrat Falls – and we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Following in the wake of that, we look to Gull Island as a project again, but again, contingent on our development of the Lower Churchill will be our ability to wheel power not only south but also towards the West as well, Mr. Speaker, and henceforth this motion that is put forth here today. Again, we had some speakers get up and very eloquently outline some of the things that I am talking about right now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate how important it is that we get that capacity to be able to wheel the power; how are we going to do it? We know what we have to do, because we want to make sure that the benefit of this green energy is for the benefit of Canada; Ontario, for one, is very much interested in making sure that this happens because they realize how important it is to have access to this power.

As we have already pointed out, in other parts of this great Nation of ours, we have oil that has been piped from one province to another and for the benefit of a particular province. We have goods and services that transcend borders without any difficulty at all, and yet we have to stand by and watch even now as some of the excess power that belongs to us cannot be yielded from the Upper Churchill. We are trying to make sure that that does not happen with the Lower Churchill.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this motion draws attention to the fact that this is a country of which we are a equal Province and we are asking this Chamber, this parliament, to join with the Member for Port de Grave in putting forth our desire to lobby the federal government to move in a manner on the side of not only this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also all the provinces throughout Canada, and the Territories, to make sure that impediment, that inability for us as a Province to share this power with other provinces other than Quebec, will take place.

Mr. Speaker, it is a federal issue. It is an issue that we need to bring to the foreground and the forefront. It is an issue that we must resolve as we continue to try and develop the resource that we have. I have heard mention of the Big Land of Labrador and certainly how –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, indeed, we should applaud Labrador, because they have come a tremendous distance since that 1927 Privy Council decision to cede that territory to Newfoundland at that particular time. We have grown to be the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The resources in Labrador are tremendous and it bodes well that we as a parliament are talking about making sure that the benefits of those resources come into the right hands, not of neighbouring provinces, Mr. Speaker, but of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is with those revenues that we can build our better roads; it is with those revenues that we can increase our ability to meet the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a tremendous investment, an investment that will continue not only for us, Mr. Speaker, because it is already pointed out, when we finally come to 2041, in 2041 the Upper Churchill then is returned to its rightful owner. Even though we share it – I know there is a partnership – we will get the maximum benefit from that particular project, Mr. Speaker.

2041 is a very, very important date, a date that we have established as a government as a year when all of the resources of hydro power should be in our hands. As a matter of fact, it is around that date that the current Premier has – as a former Minister of Natural Resources, it was she who was the architect of the Energy Plan which we now are looking at as the direction that we need to go into as we try to build upon the tremendous potential, not only of hydro energy, but of oil, of wind, of the different alternatives that we have.

We as a Province, as the Premier has often referred to, need to be that energy warehouse for North America. That is the concept that is at the base of where we are today. This government has certainly done everything within their power to bring forth a way in which we as a Province can become that super warehouse; not only a super warehouse, Mr. Speaker, but a warehouse of energy: clean, renewable energy.

As I pointed out, I was just a boy, I suppose, in the mid-1960s when this Churchill Falls development happened. My brothers, my brothers-in-law, cut their teeth on their profession as pipefitters and as welders in Churchill Falls. Of course, the many benefits that came from that project brought a lot of revenue and a lot of money for a short period of time, that megaproject.

As well, Mr. Speaker, if any of the people in this Chamber or indeed, those who are looking in on their TVs, if anyone ever gets the chance to visit the Churchill Falls project, I tell you, it is like something out of science fiction. It is almost a wonder. I would think it would be a wonder of the world because the engineering that was done in the mid-1960s is a credit to those who put it together. It is, absolutely. Not only that, but this project, unlike many projects – and we have seen it now over the last forty-some odd years on stream. I guess none of you have heard of a time when it was not generating electricity. Not only is it clean energy, Mr. Speaker, but the maintenance on that, even though it is a lot of maintenance, it is a project that will go on forever and a day. Muskrat Falls is the same, or Gull Island is the same.

Again, it comes right around, Mr. Speaker, to: Where are we going to be able to go if we cannot get that ability to wheel this tremendous, I call it, gift to the other provinces of this country? Where will we go if we cannot wheel it west? We only have one other direction in which we can go. We want to be part of nation building, Mr. Speaker. This is what this motion is all about, to again alert our Prime Minister, his government, and not only that but the governments and the people of Canada. We need support. We need to have a movement that will bring attention to where we are. This is where we would ask all of those perhaps tree-huggers and environmentalists to get together.

My time, I know, is running out, Mr. Speaker. In my district is where we have the Holyrood generating plant. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are things that have come out of those stacks over the years that I shudder to think may have ended up in people's bodies. We have a responsibility to our environment. We have a responsibility to be stewards of our environment, Mr. Speaker. As stewards, we have a responsibility to take what we have and to build upon it and also to share it, and sharing it with our counterparts throughout Canada but also to our American neighbours. We want a cleaner world. We want a cleaner world, and it is not only for who we are today, but I look to perhaps my grandchildren or great-grandchildren who may look back on these days and talk about how a government was able to get the ball rolling, keep it rolling, and provide a secure future, a secure, environmentally friendly future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those who got up today in support of this motion. Again, I ask as we prepare perhaps to vote for this motion, that it would be obvious to all that the only way the vote could turn out is that it would have to be unanimous.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: With those words, Mr. Speaker, I certainly take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I never thanked all those who have contributed to this debate this afternoon. I think it has been a great debate. The Minister of Natural Resources took us on a history lesson and did a wonderful job of describing some of the trials and tribulations that this Province has faced since 1927 to have access and be allowed like real partners, to move our resources across this country in a fair and equitable manner.

The Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development spoke, Mr. Speaker, about all the economic opportunities, the benefits, and the trade that can occur if we could only have an East-West corridor and everybody come on line and do their thing. The Minister of Transportation and Works got up and talked a little bit about his generation, and his generation of brothers cutting their eye teeth on Churchill Falls. I too can relate to that, Mr. Speaker, as my uncle went to Churchill Falls for many years and worked in Churchill Falls. I will never forget the time, Mr. Speaker, that I, myself, had the opportunity to visit the site and got in an elevator and went 1,100 feet underground and stood on those turbines. You could just feel, or sense the shivers going up and down your spine by just standing there with all that water and all that energy beneath your feet.

Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit disappointed in the comments from the Member for St. Barbe. I am not sure that he actually read the BE IT RESOLVED section of the resolution. It clearly says here in the resolution: BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity transmission corridors within Canada. That is not going out there on a limb. That is out there – that is not imposing your will. That is talking about working together with the Council of the Federation and our partners in the federal government in doing something that is good for this country, Mr. Speaker.

He talked about imposing. We are not imposing; we are asking people to work together and co-operate. We have the energy, Mr. Speaker, we all know. We have spoke in this House – many people here before us, they have come and gone. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that we have the energy. We have the energy that it takes, but we have to have access. If we cannot find agreement, Mr. Speaker, and God knows we have all been here today and we have all talked about all the different ways that various Premiers – and we have been close at times. We thought we finally had a deal, but it fell apart at whatever juncture. Mr. Speaker, we have been close at times.

We clearly said, Mr. Speaker, the need for Muskrat Falls. Muskrat Falls is the first phase. Muskrat Falls is the first phase and that phase is 824 megawatts, creating 2,200 jobs of employment. We need that for our Island need. I know there was some concern expressed by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, but again we need that. Our domestic need is growing, we need power, and we have to have power from somewhere. Muskrat Falls is the best option right now, Mr. Speaker. In the interim, while we are getting ready to develop Gull Island and maybe one day have that East-West corridor, Mr. Speaker, we are going to develop Muskrat Falls to allow industrial development to continue in Labrador. We will be able to assist that industrial development with clean energy out of Muskrat Falls.

We need the corridor, Mr. Speaker. With all the positive remarks that came from all members on the opposite side, I am not sure where the Member for St. Barbe was coming. We are not giving anybody power; we are not giving anything away. We want a fair, equitable deal. The deal we have is not equitable; it is not fair. When someone makes I believe $2.6 billion and another person makes $180 billion or $18 million, or whatever it is, that is not a fair deal, Mr. Speaker. That is not equitable.

If this would happen, Mr. Speaker, if we could get this East-West corridor, it is not only about going west and south; it is about going west, south, north – we can go wherever we want, Mr. Speaker. The markets are there. We can feed into the markets, Mr. Speaker. If we have excess power, we feed it into the system, into the grid, and we sell it. Some days we are going to make less money; some days we are going to make more money. That is the way the spot market works. Mr. Speaker, we are going to get revenue from it.

I was pleased to hear the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi talk about how environmentally friendly this is, that it is good for Canada, and that we will meet some of our targets. We do have markets, as well, within our own country. We hear tell of it every day. Ontario, Mr. Speaker, needs power. We have power and we cannot get it to them. They need it and we cannot get it. Yes, there are great examples across the country where deals have been made: Saskatchewan and Manitoba, British Columbia and Alberta. We can go on and on. There have been deals made, but we cannot seem to get that full East-West link. We need that East-West link. We should not be cornered. We should not be bottled up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems when we are doing this and one of the problems probably with the Churchill Falls signing is that we do not know what the future holds. I think we are getting a better grasp on what the future holds, Mr. Speaker, but forty years from now we do not know what the future holds. It is very difficult to predict. I have heard the Minister of Finance stand in this House many times and talk to the fact that it is very difficult to predict the price of oil on a daily basis. Can you imagine what it is like to predict the price of hydroelectricity forty years from now?

I believe, Mr. Speaker, there will be a good price for hydroelectricity because I believe at the end of the day hydroelectricity will always be available to us. It is not something you have to guess. The water will run and we will be able to produce energy from the flow of the water. Mr. Speaker, I think that will be one of the key things as we go forward in forty years' time.

We have to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that in making any kind of deal we make a deal that is going to be fair and equitable to all parties, and that we put a deal in place that will make the lives good for our children and grandchildren. When I stand here today and speak to you, Mr. Speaker, I have two small children. I want to ensure that any deal we go into will benefit them and the grandchildren that may come after that.

Mr. Speaker, with that said, and it is getting late in the day, I will probably end up closing here. Again, we have some barriers. We have a leadership barrier; we need someone to step up here, Mr. Speaker, and lead the way. We need the provinces to come together; when the Council of the Federation comes together, there seems to be a new willingness to talk about an East-West corridor. I am sure when our Premier gets there and gets involved in that debate, Mr. Speaker, she will go ahead and she will discuss and want an East-West corridor.

We also need some leadership on behalf of the federal government, Mr. Speaker, to step to the table and make sure that they can influence and use some of their influence. As well, this completes our energy system. If we can make this East-West corridor, we will have a grid, we will have energy, and we can supply the needs of all Canadians and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Everybody will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great privilege today to present this resolution to the House and it is a great privilege today to speak to this resolution. I hope all hon. members will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The debate is now concluded.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Summon the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the private member's motion?

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Kennedy, Ms Burke, Ms Sullivan, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Jackman, Mr. French, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Verge, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Granter, Ms Johnson, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Davis, Mr. McGrath, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Little, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Osborne, Ms Perry, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Cross, Mr. Peach, Mr. Lane, Mr. Russell, Ms Jones, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Ms Michael, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Rogers.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes forty, the nays one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, according to Standing Order 9, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.