December 11, 2012                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLVII   No. 67


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify a statement that was made in the House of Assembly yesterday.

During Question Period, questions were asked regarding the environmental cleanup of Abitibi properties. In my answer, I referenced land in Buchans area that government did remediation work on that was not expropriated.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to leave the impression that we did not expropriate land in Buchans because we certainly did, but prior to government's expropriation of Abitibi properties the company sold land privately in the area of Buchans. Government did not expropriate that property, Mr. Speaker, but we did do the remediation work on that land, and that is the land that I was referring to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I said yesterday that I would provide a –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) admit strangers?

MR. SPEAKER: I am assuming there are no strangers to come in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I said yesterday that I would provide a ruling today on the point of privilege that was raised by the Member for St. John's North. I will share my comments with the House.

The Member for St. John's North has brought forward a point of privilege with respect to the response by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador to the member's question on Bill 47. The member claims that the minister misled the member and the House by implying that the member's question had been addressed earlier in debate.

The debate on Bill 47, both in second reading and Committee of the Whole occurred during the evening sitting of Tuesday, December 4. In raising his point of privilege, the member indicated that he had "asked the Minister who he consulted on Bill 47 and how he carried out any consultations."

The Member for St. John's North indicates that the minister responded by effectively saying, "If you had been paying attention during discussions of the Bill you would know that I discussed this."

Since yesterday both the video of last Tuesday night's proceeding and a draft transcription of the relevant debate from Hansard has been reviewed. Hansard indicates at the close of second reading –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members who are entering the gallery to do so quietly.

As I was saying, since yesterday both the video of last Tuesday night's proceeding and a draft transcription of the relevant debate from Hansard has been reviewed. Hansard indicates that at the close of second reading the minister stated:

"One of the things I think is very important we clarify here is that all of the appointments to all of these boards are done through consultation... We consult with many of the professional agencies these boards represent... Each board is consulted with before the appointments are made and we look to have professionals sitting on these boards so that the professional, intelligent decisions are made with each board."

Later, while in Committee of the Whole in responding to a question from the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, who asked specifically if the department had consulted with the boards on the bill amendments, the minister stated: "It is a very good question. My answer to that is that the department does consult with the boards on a regular basis, and there were certainly consultations with these amendments."

In the context of the member's point of privilege, I find that the minister addressed the issue of consultation on appointments to the boards and that he also indicated that there had been consultations with respect to the amendments to the bill. The exact detail wished by the member may not have been given but to say that the issue had not been addressed is incorrect.

I want to take some time, for the benefit of the House; in 2012, we have had more Points of Privilege raised than we have over the past five years. I think it is important for members to understand the whole issue of privilege, so I want to make some further comments to guide members of the House as they raise Points of Privilege in the future. I trust that these comments will enlighten members with respect to points of order.

The volume of House of Commons Procedures and Practice, 2nd Edition, edited by O'Brien and Bosc, is a compendium and a codification of parliamentary law and precedence as it exists in Canada, and it applies and is frequently referred to in this House. Chapter 3 of O'Brien and Bosc deals with Privileges and Immunities of the House. It cannot be referenced as a collection of random statements. Members should not select a word or a sentence or a paragraph in isolation to support or refute an argument that a valid Point of Privilege exists. It must be read and understood in its entirety in order to properly apply the concept of Privilege. In fact, if you study chapter 3, it is evident that true Points of Privilege are quite rare and are certainly serious matters.

In placing this issue before the House, the Member for St. John's North made a reference to O'Brien and Bosc with respect to misleading statements and the alleged breach of privilege. The member's argument raises two issues.

The first: whether, in fact, the minister failed to make the comments he alluded to making. I just dealt with that issue.

The second issue is whether or not the member's allegation, if found to be true, is in fact a matter of privilege. The member quotes from O'Brien and Bosc as follows: "It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of a Member's reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading information." Further, the member states: "Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege."

The member's argument has been carefully reviewed.

The first quote can be found on page 111 of O'Brien and Bosc. The second is at page 115. However, a key component of the context of these quotes has been omitted. When one is citing a document or a source in this matter, care must be taken that there is an understanding of the nature of what has been asked and to ensure that the full rationale for an order, decision or precedent is made.

The Member for St. John's North quoted a sentence from page 115 of O'Brien and Bosc. In the very next sentence, in the same paragraph, O'Brien and Bosc makes a direct reference to the statement emanating from Speaker Jerome during December 6, 1978. Speaker Jerome found that a prima facie case of contempt of the House existed where a government official, by – and this is the operative word: "…deliberately misleading the House, had impeded the Member in the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself." And further, at footnote 242 on that same page, with respect to another plan before the House, Speaker Milliken "…found no evidence to indicate that departmental officials had deliberately intended to deceive or obstruct Members."

The citations made by the Member for St. John's North from page 111 and 115 cannot be taken in isolation. The explanatory footnotes, completion of paragraphs, and discussion of privileges elsewhere in chapter 3 are important.

When one considers that a contempt may also occur when the House is misled, O'Brien and Bosc on page 83 refers to a 1999 UK Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which listed the kinds of contempt which may occur and included: "deliberately…" – again the operative word – "…attempting to mislead the House or a committee…" On pages 85 and 86, further comments: "By far, most of the cases of privilege raised in the House relate to matters of contempt challenging the perceived authority and dignity of Parliament…" It goes on to indicate further: "…the provision of deliberately misleading information by a minister…" will be contempt.

At footnote 128 on page 86 of O'Brien and Bosc, Speaker Milliken ruled that the Minister of National Defence had deliberately made misleading statements in the House and as a prima facie case of privilege and the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedures of the House Affairs. It was pointed out at this Committee that as laid out in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, the following elements must be established to find a member in contempt for deliberately misleading the House:

One, it must be proven that the statement was misleading;

Two, it must be established that the Member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and

Three, in making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House.

The Committee found, however, there was no evidence to support the allegation that the Minister of National Defence had deliberately misled the House.

This is a very high bar for members to surmount in alleging a member had misled the House. Our own House has also addressed this issue; Speaker Snow, on April 30, 1999, with respect to an acknowledgement by the minister that he was not sure that a statement had been made. Speaker Snow, stated, "If there was some misrepresentation about the closing of the galleries it would have to be an admitted, deliberate misrepresentation to be considered a matter of privilege."

Misleading statements are sometimes made unintentionally during debate. Members often find themselves inadvertently making such statements and stand to correct them. All precedents point to the fact that the word "misleading" is not the issue and that the point of privilege or contempt can only exist where statements are "deliberately misleading".

The Member for St. John's North has brought forward a claim of privilege, but in trying to support it has not made a complete disclosure of the context in which the rulings on the issue has been made with respect to the misleading statements in the House. All hon. members must ensure that they understand and clearly state the point being raised, and that it is supportable.

I ask members if they are raising points of privilege in the future in the House, they might find it helpful and beneficial to read clearly the content of Chapter 3 of O'Brien and Bosc, and particular note to the footnotes on each of those pages. I ask members to be guided by this in the future as they raise points of privilege in the House.

Before we start the members' statements, I want to acknowledge a special guest in the public galleries. We have Ms Kandice Power, who is Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador. Welcome to our gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; the Member for the District of Port au Port; the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the Member for the District of St. John's West; and the Member for the District of Kilbride.

The Member for the District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this House today to acknowledge a remarkable young lady from my district.

Kandice Power is an eighteen-year-old, undergraduate Business student from Paradise. In November, she was crowned Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador. She also won the VOCM Cares Charitable Activity Award and the Talent Award at the pageant, taking home $2,500 in scholarships.

Kandice is Holy Spirit High School's Valedictorian and Student of the Year, as well as the recipient of the Humanitarian Award and the Eastern Education Foundations Scholarship.

Kandice has been awarded more than $29,000 in scholarships for academics, volunteering, and community leadership. This remarkable lady has been a leader in community for years and serves as a role model for citizens of all ages.

She has been recognized as the youth of the year in her community for three years and has taken a leadership role in such groups as Special Olympics, World Vision, Students Against Drunk Driving, Gay Straight Alliance, McHappy Day, Model United Nations, Tutoring for Tuition, and her community's Green Team. Her accomplishments are a testament to her commitment to helping others.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the accomplishments of this young lady.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Terra Nova.

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

I rise today to recognize John Crisby. Mr. Crisby has an extensive resume of serving both country and community.

After graduation, he joined the Canadian Armed Forces and would later be posted in various locations across Canada, including CFS Alert, as well as being posted in Germany.

After five years military service, he decided to leave the Forces and return home where he would marry his wife, Carolyn.

In 1981, he again heard his calling and returned to the Forces. During that time he completed a UN Peacekeeping Tour in Cyprus and returned to Germany for the second time. In 1992, through the Force Reduction Plan he returned to Eastport where he trained and practised as a barber.

Mr. Speaker, lo and behold, a few years later an opportunity came along to join the Air Reserves, becoming a member of 91st Construction Engineering Flight Gander. Through that position he would be deployed throughout Canada, the US, Europe, Middle East, and the Caribbean.

When he reached retirement age, he settled down in Eastport where he became an active member of the Legion and Air Cadets, as well as other various community organizations.

I ask all hon. members in joining me to thank Mr. Crisby for his dedicated service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Port au Port.

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate three constituents from the District of Port au Port that I recently had the honour of presenting with the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal Award.

Stephenville Mayor Tom O'Brien received the Queen's medal for his many years of volunteer service to the community through his involvement on numerous committees and boards, such as the Western Health Care Corporation.

Major Henry Gaudon, CD3, retired, from Lourdes, received the Diamond Jubilee making him a three-time recipient receiving the Queen's Silver, Golden and now Diamond Jubilee medals for his forty-eight years of service in the Canadian Forces.

Another recipient was Gunner Ignatius Flynn of West Bay, a dedicated and distinguished World War II veteran. Mr. Flynn has also been an active member of the Royal Canadian Legion for more than sixty years. Mr. Flynn is to be commended for his service to our country and our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating these outstanding citizens in receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in our hon. House today to recognize one of the newest chapters of Special Olympics.

Steve Perry of New-Wes-Valley has volunteered with the Special Olympics for four years, and he decided to take his interest to his hometown. There are currently ten special athletes ranging in age from approximately ten to fifty years old called the Bonavista North Polar Bears.

The group meets at the Badger's Quay Lions Club on Thursday evenings to take part in bowling and other social events. They are accompanied by family members, caregivers, coaches and volunteers

Recently, five members of the Polar Bears travelled to Gander to compete in the Toyota Invitational Bowling Tournament hosted by the Gander Wings Special Olympics.

Coach Perry said they were a little nervous bowling before a larger audience, but after a few tries they quickly adjusted to the new surroundings, the heavier ball and the longer lanes. The athletes representing the Polar Bears were Madison Sheppard, David Knee, Dean Green, Wallace Winter and Travis Spurrell. They proudly left Gander with silver medals and a big photo in The Beacon.

I invite all members to join me in congratulating these special athletes and remembering Steve Perry saying, competition is secondary, we show up, that is winning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jamie Korab on receiving the Queen's Jubilee Medal. Mr. Korab was presented with the medal recently in a ceremony at Government House for his contribution to sport, his enthusiastic volunteerism and his continued dedication to his community.

Mr. Korab is an accomplished curler and has had tremendous success in his sport. He was a member of the 2001 World Junior Curling Championship team and, in 2006 he also won the Olympic Gold Medal in curling.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Korab's success and leadership in sport is paralleled with his vast volunteer work. He has worked with schools across Newfoundland and Labrador to encourage youth to pursue their goals and to follow their dreams. He has extensive community involvement with not-for-profit organizations and charities across the Province and throughout North America. He currently volunteers with the Baccalieu Trail Chapter of the Kidney Foundation and the Kids Eat Smart Foundation which brings him into schools to promote healthy eating.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Korab is truly an inspiring figure for our youth and I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating him on receiving the Queen's Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate a young constituent of Kilbride, Jeremy Cross, who recently was awarded the Young Leader Award for Independent Living. Jeremy received this award for his work and commitment in advancing inclusion and accessibility within our post-secondary system and paving the way for others to access those systems more smoothly.

Jeremy is twenty-seven years old, living with cerebral palsy, confined to a wheelchair, and unable to speak verbally. He uses an iPad eye gaze and facial gestures to communicate with others. Jeremy has not let his disability hold him back, and with the care and dedication of his parents, he was able to graduate Grade 12 in 2003. He moved to St. John's in 2006, and today he is enrolled in a therapeutic recreation course at Academy Canada, due to graduate in May, 2013.

Jeremy lives in Kilbride in his own apartment with assistance of personal home care workers. He loves baseball and is a great Blue Jay fan. He has season tickets to all IceCap games.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Jeremy on winning the Young Leader Award for Independent Living and commending him on his dedication and commitment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to highlight the recent release of three new resources that promote and support healthy eating and nutrition education in the Province.

Healthy eating practices established in a child's early years set the foundation for a healthy life. Children develop healthy eating habits under the guidance of their parents and caregivers, so to assist parents, the Department of Health and Community Services has developed the Healthy Eating for Your Toddler guide. This guide provides answers to common questions about feeding toddlers, and instructs parents and caregivers on how to use Canada's Food Guide to plan healthy meals and snacks.

Copies of these guides are available to all parents of toddlers during the regular twelve-month Child Health Clinic visit. Electronic copies are also available on the Department of Health and Community Services' Web site and on the Baby-Friendly Newfoundland and Labrador Web site.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to this guide, the provincial government has developed two toolkits. Partnering with family resource centres and the regional health authorities, the Healthy Baby Club Healthy Eating Toolkit and the Family Resource Centre Healthy Eating Toolkit promote healthy eating for children up to the age of six and their families. This user-friendly material assists family resource centre staff to support and encourage participants to make good nutritional choices.

These toolkits are available from regional nutritionists with each of the four regional health authorities. Electronic copies are available on the Department of Health and Community Services' Web site.

Mr. Speaker, this work was supported by the Provincial Wellness Grants Program. Since the launch of the Provincial Wellness Grants Program in 2005, 211 community groups have received approximately $3.9 million to fund programs to enhance wellness.

Healthy eating and child and youth development are identified as priority areas within the Provincial Wellness Plan in which we invest $4.2 million annually. Our government will continue to develop initiatives and strengthen the supports available to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that help create a supportive environment and allow us to take action to improve our own health and wellness.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Educating people on healthy eating is critical to addressing the exceptionally high rates of chronic disease that we have in our Province. For example, we have the highest rate of obesity as well as the highest diabetes rate in Canada. Both of these are directly related to nutrition.

Telling people how to eat healthy is only part of the solution. Our food bank usage is double the national average. Food donated to food banks is generally full of preservatives, which is detrimental to people's health. The cost of food is rising, with some food doubling in cost over the last four years.

In the more remote areas of the Province, access to healthy food is even more limited. For example, the same baby formula that retails for $24.99 in St. John's goes for $32.65 in Rigolet. Sadly, healthy eating is a luxury in our Province.

In closing, education is part of the solution. Resourcing healthy eating is the piece that we are missing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. These guides and toolkits are good examples of how the Wellness Grants Program is being utilized to provide good information to parents about healthy foods.

However, there is no way that low-income families, people in coastal areas, and single people on Income Support can afford all the food recommended in these resources. Community kitchens and meal programs in our schools do help children and adults get some healthy meals. If people do not have enough money to put the recommended healthy food on the table, all the toolkits in the world will not make a difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation and the Minister Responsible for the Office of Climate Change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give you an update on the great work being been done to implement our Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Action Plans released in 2011. These plans established a strategic approach to climate change and energy efficiency and set out government's vision and goals for the next five years for adapting to climate change, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We have made great strides, such as meeting our greenhouse gas target for 2010 by reducing provincial emission levels below 1990 levels, while at the same time, real economic growth increased by 63 per cent. We provided grants to approximately 4,000 low-income homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient, allowing them to save, on average, $775 per year on their home heating costs. We launched a pilot Hurricane Alert Program in 2012-2013, under which more than 4,700 storm forecasts were generated for forty communities, including fifty-five flood alerts. We have also shown leadership by reducing energy consumption and operating costs in government's own operations by installing occupancy sensors in place lighting controls, upgrading fluorescent fixtures, and procuring energy-efficient appliances, computers, and vehicles.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we launched the Province's first public campaign on climate change and energy efficiency, Turn Back the Tide, receiving more than 9,200 visits to our campaign Web site in the first two and a half months. We also commissioned an independent study on how we can increase jobs in the green economy by 30 per cent by 2020, and are in active dialogue with businesses on the next steps.

Mr. Speaker, this is just a brief overview of some of the important work being done in this Province on these important issues. I am also delighted that our efforts received national recognition in September when we won a Clean16 award for our outstanding work.

Without ongoing action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, our communities will be at risk from adverse impacts such as extreme weather events and coastal erosion. Mr. Speaker, there are also significant opportunities such as utilizing our vast clean energy resources like Muskrat Falls, enhancing energy efficiency, and improving our Province's resilience. This is why we must ensure we are well placed to seize the opportunities and minimize the risks associated with the transition to a low-carbon global economy.

I look forward to the continued implementation of our action plans as we do our part to help tackle climate change in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, we all accept that climate change is no longer a theory; it is an ever-increasing fact of life. Sadly, our federal government has backed out of the Kyoto Protocol, which is a shame for a G8 country not to be taking the lead in climate change combat.

Even in our own Province, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have focused enough on efficiency. For example, the whole viability of the Muskrat Falls depends on people not conserving energy. We are looking for new energy sources because we are unable to conserve. Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer is footing the bill, so it is a disincentive to conserve energy.

Mr. Speaker, while the Province has made great strides in recycling, we still lack a glass recycling program, which has a considerable impact on our environment. The rollout of the Waste Management Strategy has been piecemeal, and the question remains: How do we encourage residents throughout the Province to recycle? Recycling is a very important component to making this program successful, Mr. Speaker.

This organization does good work, but I think it would do well for this office to operate at arm's-length from the government – from government's direct involvement. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think we can see a significant forward movement as we combat climate change that affects each and every one of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: 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 today. I would like to inform government that there are more than 68,000 recipients of the Heating Rebate Program who would also be capable candidates for home retrofits – and this is a great place for the government to start – a savings per household that would equal close to 150 megawatts of electricity from the Province's overall carbon footprint. We need more money directed to retrofit for homes.

These initiatives, while small, add up, so government has much more work to do before it can sleep on the carbon footprint issue. Witness these numbers on carbon omissions: Terra Nova Project, 569,000 tons of carbon emissions; SeaRose, 394,000; Hibernia, 491,000; the Carol Lake Project in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, 1.1 million tons; –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: – then we go on to North Atlantic Refining at 1 million tons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: The total including something in the order of 4.1 million tons of carbon emissions in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, thanks for his statement, but he has a lot more work to do before we address this issue finally.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two weeks ago the Premier signed a term sheet with Stephen Harper on the federal loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls. The government has called the term sheet a binding agreement. However, section 4.4 of the agreement, Events of Default, states it is "…a non-exhaustive list…"

I ask the Premier: How could you agree to include a non-exhaustive list on what would trigger a default, allowing anything to be added to that list in the future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lawyers and people from the Department of Natural Resources in our Province, Nalcor, Emera, and Ottawa spent six months working on this agreement, Mr. Speaker. There is no such thing as a perfect agreement, but this is a good agreement. It states that it is binding and irrevocable. The Prime Minister of Canada has given his commitment. Emera and Nova Scotia have given their commitment. This agreement is a binding federal loan agreement. We do not expect anything that will result in default, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I ask the minister, if he has a commitment from the Prime Minister that nothing else would be added to the so-called non-exhaustive list, I have not seen it or it should not have been there.

The Premier has signed a term sheet that allows the federal government to take control of Muskrat Falls assets in the event of a default. She has also given Stephen Harper control of what is considered a default, allowing them to add to this list.

How could you decide to sanction the project when you do not even have a full list of the default events?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite is well aware, in commercial agreements you have all kinds of standard clauses and conditions. Precedents are not unusual, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they are rather standard.

There is only going to be one issue of default here, Mr. Speaker. It is if the people of this Province and the other energy is not used or not paid for. We know – and the federal government has gone through an exhaustive financial audit of this project, as have the bond rating agencies, Mr. Speaker – that this asset will produce revenue. The Province will make a lot of money off this project at some future point in order to not only to pay for the project but to pay for social programs and to allow us to transition from a non-renewable resource economy to a renewable resource economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the member opposite knows that without the list completed there are many things that can happen. This needs to be firmed up in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier signed this deal and is ploughing ahead with billions in spending of taxpayers' money. On top of that, the Minster of Finance will have some bad news for the Province this week with the midyear update, but spending on Muskrat Falls has already ramped up. In September it was $35 million and in October it was $28 million.

I ask the Premier: How much was spent in November?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the November number. I remember it being approximately $38 million in October. What we have done, Mr. Speaker, we have slowed down the process in terms of the sanction. I can tell the member opposite that no further monies have been released from my department until a decision on sanction is made.

Let us not forget one good thing, Mr. Speaker: yesterday I was at a conference where I can tell you the people in that room, from all across this country, would love to be doing business here in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I sat at a table where there were three other ministers who would love to have a Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I guess every province would love to have a Muskrat Falls Project as long the ratepayers in Newfoundland are going to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said she is considering new legislation to ensure that government does not get stuck with another bill for an environmental cleanup, for future environmental cleanups. Since this process actually started in 1999, why has it taken a decade to figure out the legislative changes that would be required to prevent this from happening again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a long, sad history in this Province of cleaning up messes after companies have come here and used our resources, taken the profits from those resources, Mr. Speaker, and vanished. I only need refer to Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, where we have had to clean up the mess –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Yes, Sprung is not a bad example.

Mr. Speaker, there are mines in Labrador and in Hopedale, where, in fact, governments have been responsible, and fish plants falling down, and it was because at the time that these industries were started in the Province, we did not have the foresight to put the kind of arrangements in place to ensure that when companies left they provided for remediation. We will take care of that on a go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, well, the process, as I said, started in 1999 to take care of the mining activity. My question was: why is it taking a decade to prevent what happened in Grand Falls-Windsor from reoccurring.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier about the cost to settle with Fortis, about the energy assets that were expropriated in the Abitibi expropriations.

I did not get the answer, so I will ask it again: What is the status of the Fortis negotiations and how much more money will the taxpayers of this Province be on the hook for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last update I had, discussions were ongoing and almost finalized. I will undertake to find out from my deputy minister this afternoon whether or not the numbers have been finalized, Mr. Speaker. I think they are either recently done or very close, so I will get back to the member as soon as I have the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, another question that I asked yesterday was related to the court costs about the expropriation of Abitibi. What I am looking for, we did not get the answer yesterday.

I would like to know what the updated court cost is for the three court cases that we have had so far related to the expropriation of Abitibi in Grand Falls-Windsor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are gathering information on those costs. As soon as that information is collated we will provide it, Mr. Speaker.

Let me get back to his point in his last question, Mr. Speaker, about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador being on the hook to Fortis. Mr. Speaker, when we did the expropriation both leaders of the two parties opposite were told that we intended to keep the private operators of the water generation assets on the Exploits River whole. They were going to get fair market value for their asset, Mr. Speaker. So they will, one has already, the other is in the process, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not on the hook, Mr. Speaker. We bought an asset at fair market value.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We already know the question to the Premier is: How much are you going to settle for, and what is it going to cost us? Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources had a press conference on Bill 53, the amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act today.

I ask the minister: Will these changes in Bill 53 impact the way rates are currently set for residential and commercial customers in Labrador's integrated hydro system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the member opposite is aware, the new industrial rates policy is necessary to allow for mining companies in making their decisions of whether or not to proceed. The industrial rates policy has two components for the industrial customers. The generation component is outside the PUB, transmission costs are set by the PUB, Mr. Speaker.

The commercial and residential customers will still go through the PUB. There will be no increased cost other than if there was new transmission built, then there would be cost to service as is – and that would go through the PUB also, Mr. Speaker. So, they would still go through the PUB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government will negotiate power purchase agreements in Labrador with industrial customers on the rate of power generation.

I ask the minister: Will these agreements favour companies that choose to do secondary processing in Labrador? For example, will a company that mines 20 million tons of iron ore and has secondary processing get a more favourable rate than the company that mines 20 million tons of iron ore and ships it out of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What we are doing is taking the TwinCo block of power, the 225 megawatts, Mr. Speaker, which expires in 2015; we are calling that the development block. There will be a lower rate. We combine that, Mr. Speaker, with the market block or new power, either recalled power or Muskrat Falls, and come up with one rate, Mr. Speaker. That one rate will have the generation and transmission costs. So, it will be the same for all companies – it is one of the reasons we are doing this – on the interconnected grid.

One of the reasons we are doing this, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that companies are treated fairly, but also we know that we have to remain competitive with Quebec. We have several other companies that are not on the grid and there may have to be discussions with them, but our intention is to post one rate that will be applicable to all; however, Wabush Mines and IOC will be phased in over a period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister would know the purpose of my question is because some processing is done by currently based companies, whereas new companies are not proposing to do the same, at the same rate at least.

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting in Bill 53 is that government is now giving the Public Utilities Board a role in industrial energy rates in Labrador; yet, they have said they have no confidence in the Public Utilities Board and they are removing them from having anything to do with rate setting of Muskrat Falls power.

I ask the minister: Why do you see the Public Utilities Board as being good enough to be involved in industrial rates in Labrador, which we feel is a good thing, but not good enough to set the Muskrat Falls power rates, which we see as not such a good thing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are doing with the industrial customers in Labrador is what is being done on the Island, Mr. Speaker. There is a role for the PUB to play. The PUB will still play the role in terms of the residential and commercial customers in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to the Muskrat Falls, and we will discuss this more when the bill comes in, there has to be a revenue stream, a guaranteed revenue stream. The federal loan guarantee is worth more than $1 billion to us and that is one of the conditions that we require, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, what we will do, we will still go – there will still be a role for the PUB; however, Mr. Speaker, it will not be the same role as they would otherwise have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On September 21, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills committed to do an investigation into the activities of the MHA for Conception Bay East – Bell Island as it related to his involvement with the Adult Basic Education Program that was receiving provincial government funding.

I ask the minister today, if the report has been completed and if it will be made public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, some concerns regarding the Adult Basic Education Program surfaced in the last few months. We have done some work, a review within the department, and within the next day or two I will be able to speak further about that particular review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while they claim to be open and transparent, the hallmark of this government is its secrecy. Yesterday, I questioned the Minister of Education on the secrecy sanctioned by this government where school board trustees are permitted to vote in secret on school closures.

I ask the minister: Given that these officials are elected by the people to represent them, will he not agree that this voting process is unethical and from the dark ages, and will he mandate that school trustees' votes are openly recorded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I often wonder where the member is coming from, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ontario.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, I am wondering if it is Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday he put out a piece of information that was not true. On two previous occasions, around busing, he put out something that lacked all the facts – I will put it that way. In terms of a school climate survey, he put out some things that simply were not true.

Mr. Speaker, these school board officials certainly do not take these decisions lightly. They have been engaged in a process now for about nine months. They have consulted. They have recognized the input from MHAs, such as for Trinity North and for Placentia – St. Mary's, and MHAs have made their views known. I have no intention of interfering with that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I acknowledge the Member for St. Barbe, I ask the Minister of Education if he would withdraw his unparliamentary comment, with respect to the untruths.

MR. JACKMAN: Withdrawn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Office of Public Engagement was set up by this government only a few short months ago to supposedly increase access to information.

I ask the minister: Will he show the rest of his colleagues how the openness and transparency concept works, and rescind the order where votes on school board closures can take place in secret?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member is headed down the road whereby we take authority from elected officials. We want this process to be non-political. Look at the schools that are in question, they are not in the Liberal or NDP districts, Mr. Speaker. We are acting and the boards are acting responsibly, and we will allow them to continue that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Special Child Welfare Allowance helps families offset some of the costs of caring for a child with a disability. The Department of Health and Community Services is responsible for reviewing that program every three years. That review is now two years late.

I ask the minister: When will you review and update the program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that question because that is something we are in the process of doing right now. We have been working on that for several months, and I would be happy to update the House and the member opposite when we have completed that review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: The minister could have just said soon or very, very soon, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with another family with a toddler with a severe disability requiring twenty-four hour care. The father works in Fort McMurray, the mother works full time, but the child hardly sleeps and the mother hardly sleeps.

They receive fifty hours of home care per week leaving virtually no time to shower, house clean or attend parent support groups. Parents of children with disabilities in this Province are suffering complete burnout trying to make ends meet.

I ask the minister: Will you commit to meeting with parents in these situations prior to updating the Special Child Welfare Allowance Program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is an issue that we take very, very seriously. Whenever I have had requests to meet, I certainly, if I can possibly do it at all, will meet. If not, I will have officials in my department meet. Mr. Speaker, that door is always open.

I have extended that invitation to other members and to other people who have brought forward their concerns and I am really happy to be able to offer that service. Any time you have a concern like that, bring it forward, we are happy to sit down and discuss it all. We want to know all the details as we reformulate policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the answer from the minister. A parent of a child with a severe disability made an appeal for home care when she was restricted to bed rest on her second pregnancy. Apart from risking miscarriage to care for her first child, she was given the option of surrendering the child to foster care.

I ask the minister: When will the government refocus its programs and policies to empower families and keep them together?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of concerns around special child welfare and each one of them is individual; therefore, we have to evaluate each one of them on an individual basis. The issues that are brought to us are often different from one situation to the next. That is something that we are looking at.

Again, in the overall review that we are doing around special child welfare, those are issues that we need to hear about in more detail. I invite the member opposite to bring me those concerns and we will certainly sit down and examine those as we re-evaluate that particular policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

According to Bill 53, to be discussed today in this House, the Public Utilities Board will apply to most transmission lines and related assets in Labrador while excluding those that are part of the Muskrat Falls Project. The PUB will not apply to lines or the setting of transmission rates for Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why is her government exempting electricity transmission related to Muskrat Falls from the Public Utilities Board?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I think the Opposition House Leader asked the same question recently, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I will give the same answer again.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB has a role to play in terms of the industrial rates in Labrador. They will set transmission rates. Mr. Speaker, the generation rate will be set by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro based on a policy. The PUB will continue to set rates, Mr. Speaker, for residential and commercial customers in Labrador as they do on the Island.

Mr. Speaker, we need a guaranteed revenue stream in order to assure the bond rating agencies and the federal government that there is going to be monies to satisfy the requirements of paying the project. It is as simple as that. So, therefore, there has to be a restricted role of the PUB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Let's try it another way, Mr. Speaker. It is incredibly ironic that the government sees fit to solidify the Public Utilities Board's role in setting industrial rates for mining corporations in Labrador but not for the protection of the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier again: Why is her government giving mining companies more protection than the people of the Province who are going to foot the bill for Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have answered this question time and time and time again in this House of Assembly. It is nothing short of incredible. Not that we should not be asked hard questions, Mr. Speaker, and put forward the answers, and if we have to do that a number of times before people understand, so be it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesting that the Province through the development of Muskrat Falls not only provides the most stable and lowest-cost rates to ratepayers here in the Province, enables industrial development in Labrador, but will earn over $20 billion for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador over the lifetime of the project, and not one question on that, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am just asking the Premier, why is this government so obsessed with keeping the Public Utilities Board out of the Muskrat Falls Project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Liberal Administration exempted hydro projects of this size from the PUB's jurisdiction. The government is a regulator, too, Mr. Speaker. They like to shout across the way that it was only for the Lower Churchill and that power was for export. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. It was also for a hydro power project here on the Island. Those are the facts of it.

Mr. Speaker, what we did, we did what the Liberals refused to do. We did try to bring this project under the scrutiny of the PUB. Over nine months and over $2 million later, they would not give us a recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the Premier to say as she did yesterday that we could only lose the Muskrat Falls generation facility if people do not pay their light bills is nonsense. Cost overruns, on the other hand, do pose a very real threat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why will she not own up to the fact that cost overruns could put the Muskrat Falls Project into the hands of Emera?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only nonsense we hear day after day comes from the Leader of the Third Party, Mr. Speaker. If she would take the time to try to understand the project, then perhaps she would not ask these silly questions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have is a situation where we have a project that is in the best interests of the people of this Province. It will provide stable electricity rates and water will run for 100 years, Mr. Speaker. People have to pay electricity bills. Therefore, is it better that the money goes to oil companies offshore or is it better that we develop an asset of our own, Mr. Speaker, which will allow for a prosperous and bright future for our children, and an asset that we will have forever?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

The Premier knows as I do that she opened the door to privatization when she signed the federal loan guarantee that included section 4.11.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What else did her government give up to Emera besides this out clause?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in their desperation to show that Muskrat Falls is not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are clutching at straws.

Mr. Speaker, what is their alternative? What is the alternative? Mr. Speaker, they talk about the cost of the project, so one can assume I guess from that they agree that there is a need for the power. Mr. Speaker, there is a $2.4 billion difference between Muskrat Falls and the next least-cost alternative, which is Holyrood.

Mr. Speaker, if there are going to be cost overruns on one, there is going to be cost overruns on the other. Because the other is more expensive, the cost overruns will be greater, Mr. Speaker. She is not making any sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Municipalities in the Province are currently doing their budgets, the latest being the City of St. John's, who yesterday had to lower mill rates, but at the same time still go after taxpayers to cover their additional costs. The minister is on record all last session saying that his department was working towards a new funding formula, but still has not delivered on that promise.

As predicted, taxpayers are now getting the bill to meet the municipal need.

Will the minister please tell the taxpayers, especially of the City of St. John's, why they should have to carry the load rather than the Province meeting the commitment financially with the new funding arrangement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: The first thing I would like to say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, is that there is only one taxpayer in this Province and that is the taxpayers of the Province. When you tax, whatever level of government it is, it comes from the same pocket, I say to the hon. member.

In the meantime, we have had some productive meetings with MNL to date, and both parties agree and certainly understand that a formula has to be equitable, it has to sustainable, and it has to be transparent. We are working towards that and we are working with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. If you would engage with municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador, you would fine that out, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: The minister knows darn well that we have been consulting with municipalities and he knows as well that we have suggested a portion of the provincial gas tax to that end.

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to helping municipalities with their budgetary requirements –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: – but have not delivered on those commitments yet.

The City of St. John's delivered their budget yesterday and rolled back mill rates to absorb the shock of rising municipal taxes.

A question for the minister: If everyone in St. John's has to pay their taxes, why doesn't government pay their fair share of taxes on properties and services that it takes from the city?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have invested heavily with regard to municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, there is a member drifting on the other side again, but anyway, I will go on with my answer.

We have been investing in municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador heavily since 2008 – as a matter of fact, $280 million over the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker. A fair bit of that is in the municipality, the City of St. John's.

Yes, I understand quite well in regards to the challenges that the City may have, but there is, again, only one taxpayer in this Province, and whoever taxes them goes straight to their pockets, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, a new literacy study shows that the gap between the reading achievement of boys and girls in Newfoundland and Labrador is the largest in Canada. As a result, fewer boys than girls are completing high school academic programs and more boys are dropping out of school.

Why has the minister failed to help teachers and parents close the gap between boys' and girls' reading performance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the results that came out in terms of how our students are doing at the Grade 4 level. They have scored on par with Canadian averages, Mr. Speaker, better than internationally.

Recognized within that is the challenge that boys are struggling. It has been something that has been constant – if we could say that, Mr. Speaker – for a number of years. It has been recognized, and efforts are put in towards that. Do not underestimate our investment in this; we have the best teacher-student ratio in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: We have increased our per capita funding, Mr. Speaker, to teacher allocations; 822 additional teachers are remaining in the system because of our continued commitment to the needs-based formula –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, students in this Province are less likely than others in Canada to read when they are out of school. While public libraries are critical to improving family literacy, we have fewer libraries in Newfoundland and Labrador compared to the 1990s.

Why is government failing to invest in new public libraries when they are such a crucial resource for families with young children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I am quite glad; it seems that something has finally sunk in to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for the day for the gentleman to rise and applaud government for their $4.8 million investment into early childhood education, because, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am echoing, what he just said. We recognize that there are places that we have invest outside the school, and the zero-to-three age is exactly where we put $4.8 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The member has time for one quick question without preamble.

MR. KIRBY: When will the minister stop blaming parents and seriously look at the need for more public libraries across the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has time for one quick answer.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most disgusting questions I have ever received. Parents are our most important partners in education, Mr. Speaker. We recognize it and we invest in it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's Centre, on a point of order.

MS ROGERS: I understand that props are not allowed in this House and the hon. member across the floor has raised his huge calculator, yet again.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


I am not sure if there is a point of order. I would ask, for your ruling, that the member be more specific, instead of making a blanket statement of thirty-odd members in the House on a point of order. I am certain that every member here does not have a calculator to raise in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre, further to the point of order.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Conception Bay South once again raised his oversized calculator, not only today but last week as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: I understand that props are not allowed to be used in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the member referenced in a point of order was not recognized to speak in this House at any point in time during Question Period. It is my understanding, subject to your response, Mr. Speaker, that –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: If the Member for St. John's North wants to contribute, he can stand up after me, Mr. Speaker, but I am entitled to respond.

It is my understanding that the ruling on props is tied into a member who is participating in the debate in the House. As I said, it is my recollection that the member was not recognized to speak in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The issue with respect to props – when members are speaking, they are not intended to use props. Sometimes, reference to props in the House tends to be used when members are speaking and they use props to support an argument; however, it is not exclusively to those members who are speaking.

Members are not allowed to bring in placards or large displays, or promotional brochures and buttons and things like that that have not been sanctioned by the House. Any display of anything that is considered unparliamentary is still not to be used in the House, even though the member may not necessarily be speaking at the time.

If members of the House are doing such a thing, I would ask members to refrain from such an activity and I would ask members to be guided by that.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill 56)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 57)

With apologizes, Mr. Speaker, the previous notice was Bill 56, I do not think I said that in my notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Duly noted.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move that the House, according to Standing Order 11, will not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 13, 2012 and I also give notice that the House will not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Thursday, December 13, 2012.

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

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education by Internet is now an accepted way to deliver educational services to students living in small communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so their children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on the Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than does slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the community of Eddie's Cove West; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to partner with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet service to this community.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small community of maybe fifty people or so, approximately twenty kilometres north of the Town of Port au Choix. It is a vibrant, tiny community. It has a local service district. It manages its own affairs. A number of people work in different communities; some work in the fishery. They feel that they are being left behind in a modern era when high-speed Internet is seen, as one time we saw telephones. Not very long ago having a telephone was a luxury. Today, we will see having a telephone as being an absolute necessity, land lines, cellphones and so on.

Not very long ago nobody had television. Then we had television, now people have satellite television. This small community is pleading with this House of Assembly to urge government to include them in the Internet strategy that this government claims to have where it says it will hook up the entire Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS residents of the Southwest Coast must travel the Trans-Canada Highway between Channel-Port aux Basques and Corner Brook for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic ferries dock at Channel-Port aux Basques at various hours on a daily basis resulting in extremely high volume of commercial and residential travellers using this section of the Trans-Canada Highway; and

WHEREAS the world-renowned Wreckhouse area is situate along this section of the TCH; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a twenty-four hour snow clearing pilot project in 2008 that excluded that section of the TCH from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to include the section of the Trans-Canada Highway from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville in the twenty-four hour snow clearing project.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I have brought a couple of times now since I first started it. The response that I have received from my constituents and people outside my district even is overwhelming. It is something that I put out through social media, put on Facebook.

What I have had is constituents writing and telling me how much they need this and want this. In fact, I had a video posted on my Facebook at 5:01 this morning of somebody in my district who had to drive to Deer Lake this morning and drive through a snowstorm. I actually got to watch what they had to experience. It is not a surprise. I have experienced it a number of times myself. This is something that we need and that is necessary. We have had a number of accidents on that road.

We have a lot of commercial traffic coming off the ferries in Port aux Basques at all hours of the day and night. The fact is that no matter what time they come in, the trucks are off the road at 9:00 o'clock at night, no matter what the weather is, and they are off again until 5:00 o'clock in the morning. We still have people who have to use those highways day and night, seven days a week, 365 days a year. It is not acceptable.

I have a suitcase full of these petitions brought back with me. I have people from Port aux Basques, from Cape Ray – they are from Nova Scotia. I have truckers who are signing this petition because they all want the same treatment that they should get. It is one of the busiest routes in this Province. We need to apply common sense, just not volume to it. The fact is we have a lot of people who are not used to this area of the roadway coming off there. The traffic is congested and we have the Wreckhouse area there as well.

This needs to be recognized, and I am hoping that the government will heed the call and make this service available to this section of the roadway.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy (Amendment) Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has weakened citizens' access to information and has reduced government transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own commitment for greater transparency, accountability and freedom of information which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal the passage of Bill 29.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, again, we continue to get people signing this petition. The people of the Province are not happy, they are not happy at all. They feel actually betrayed by the passage of Bill 29. People across the Province are still reeling from the fact that this very regressive bill has been both introduced to the House and then passed by the House.

One of the particular concerns at this point is the weakened role of the Privacy Commissioner. Where once he had the authority and he had the mandate to review responses, there are whole areas of responses now that he cannot even review. What happens then is that people will have to go to court, which is a cumbersome and expensive, and time-consuming process.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the role of the Privacy Commissioner have been weakened by the very fact that his term of office is two years instead of five years, which is a golden standard across the country for Privacy Commissioners. This legislation is very unfortunate. The people of the Province do not like it and people are still opposing it.

One of the aspects that is particularly concerning is: What happens now if Nalcor goes over budget with Muskrat Falls? Will there be any access to the information as to what has happened and why has it happened? How will the people of the Province have access to information that is so crucial to Muskrat Falls, particularly at a time when we need so much more openness, transparency and accountability? The people of the Province were relying on this government to honour its commitment to that kind of democracy and this government has failed in that. This government has betrayed the people by not honouring its commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities is the entity responsible for the regulation of electrical utilities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project proposal is potentially the single-largest expenditure the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has considered; and

WHEREAS the PUB is an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body capable of providing an unbiased and apolitical decision on the Muskrat Falls proposal; and

WHEREAS government is breaking its own commitment to greater transparency and accountability by not allowing the PUB to review the Muskrat Falls proposal;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to mandate the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities to review the Muskrat Falls Project proposal along with any and all alternatives available for meeting our energy needs.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to get these petitions from people who will not give up telling this government what it thinks about the fact that the PUB will not be covering the Muskrat Falls Project. It is a major concern that they have and I am sure they are not going to be very happy about the fact that today we have a bill coming into this House – we actually have the first bill – saying that the PUB will not have any regulation over Muskrat Falls when it comes to the transmission lines and the rates in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think these words speak for themselves, that the people of the Province want greater transparency and accountability, and without the PUB regulating Muskrat Falls they do not know where that transparency and accountability is going to come from.

They are not going to give up letting me know that they want me to stand in this House and let the government know that they are not happy with what is going on. They recognize the PUB as the regulatory body that it is, as the body that does have the mandate to take care of rates, to take care of the people of the Province, to make sure that the rates that they have to pay are rates that are fair, that are just, and that are affordable for the people of the Province. What they see happening is all of that getting out of control, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I ask this House to listen carefully to the words of the people of the Province who continue to call for the PUB to be in charge of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we will go to Order 3, third reading of Bill 51.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that Bill 51, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 51 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 51)

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Skills have leave to introduce Bill 55 – it appears on the Order Paper on number 3 – An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 55 and that the said bill now be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act", carried. (Bill 55)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 54, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 54, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 54 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act", carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Now, with leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, if the minister has leave?

With leave.

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act". (Bill 54)

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure today to stand and speak to Bill 54, and introduce Bill 54, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Mr. Speaker. I would like to tell why we are here and why we are at this point today, if at all possible.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, this act and this adjustment to the act was requested by the City of St. John's. They asked us to amend this act basically to increase what we refer to as a tourism marketing levy from what today is currently 3 per cent to 4 per cent, Mr. Speaker. There is certainly a rationale for that. It has to do with the expansions of the St. John's Convention Centre and the piece they want to add on and we want to add on with them collectively.

Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Convention Centre was built in 2001. At that time, the three levels of government came together for the construction. It was partnered with the City of St. John's, the federal government, and of course the provincial government of the day. At that time, in 1998, it was determined that a 3 per cent marketing levy would be established to help with the cost of that beautiful facility.

Mr. Speaker, as life goes on, Destination St. John's was created to help market the city and to help manage the facility, along with the city. Of recent years, Destination St. John's took on a consulting contract to do an analysis of the centre to see what was needed, how it was doing, and how we were making out. Of course, the market demand was significant and it was quickly realized that there was a demand for expansion.

There were a couple of points they found out about the current centre. That it was too small was one of the pieces, and the other one was how it was configured. In today's world, different things are needed when you host conventions. It is significant to note the amount of people who like to come to St. John's for conventions, and we have been some great hosts, Mr. Speaker.

There were a number of things and a number of challenges in the way the current facility is. One of them, of course, the lack of a ballroom was one of the things. The lobby was too small for hosting receptions before major events. There were functional limitations, Mr. Speaker, such as loading and access to the main areas. There was poor connectivity to the local Delta hotel.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, it was just overall upgrades needed for the facilities. So, based on that contract with the consulting firm, they came up with its partners – Destination St. John's, the City of St. John's, and the industry in general – and figured that what we needed was to take the current footprint of a little over 18,000 square feet and bring it up quite significantly to a facility of 34,000 square feet of rentable space. The initial cost on that was about $48 million. That was a rough figure at the time. It was just some of the basic things that were needed to bring the facility up in extra square footage.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that at the time, they approached the Province and approached the federal government as well, and the Province stepped up with a significant investment of $14.4 million to be a partner with the City of St. John's and the federal government to fund that beautiful facility.

Mr. Speaker, in 2012 there was a new architectural contract let. It was determined at the time that there was more engineering work to be done. Certainly by today's standards there had to be something to catch people's eye, which meant something as simple as bringing the outdoors as close to the inside as possible. Of course, in the City of St. John's there is nothing more beautiful than looking over the harbour and the quaintness of our city.

It was decided at that time that we would have to incorporate more things like glass, Mr. Speaker, and different things that add to a green environment, but also gives people a better feel for our city. When I say our city, although I am not from St. John's, Mr. Speaker, it is our city. It is our capital city and it is one that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be very proud of.

Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that the competition for conventions throughout our country is unbelievable, and we are in a very fortunate situation, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I just recently read an article, and they looked at twenty destinations across the country and some of the big hitters when it comes to conventions. Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's and our Convention Centre ranked sixth. I thought that was remarkable, considering the places that you have to go in this beautiful country, for us to be sixth in a long list of conventions.

There are different levels of conventions – and I will not get into them – and it is based on the size of facilities. We are basically a level three, I think, they have us graded. We do not have facilities of over 140,000 or 150,000 square feet, like some of our competition would. It was significant.

When you are in the top half a dozen, when you are looking at places like Quebec City, Whistler, Alberta resorts, it is no harm to say we are competing with the big guys and when you play ball in the big leagues, you have to be able to deliver. That is something I am very proud to say that we have been able to do.

This expansion, Mr. Speaker, right now the Convention Centre gets about 104 days of activity, 104 nights of activity per year. This looks like it will give us about 197 days of activity, which has significant impact to the City of St. John's, not only to the City of St. John's but also to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned the competition, where there are other facilities in the process of being built. Some significant facilities being built in Fredericton, in Prince Edward Island; in Moncton, for example, they are building on a piece. I wish them well certainly, but obviously this is a very competitive business and we are not going to be left behind when it comes to competing in the Atlantic region or the national or international region when it comes to hosting and being good hosts and having the facilities to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the other side, if we do not move ahead with this levy and allow for extra revenue to come in, now the facility that was $48 million is gone to $64 million, we came to a conclusion that the best way to get the extra revenue – the City of St. John's came to us and said let us increase our levy from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. I think the levy currently collects about $2.2 million. This will give them $3.2 million annually and allow them the ability to pay off the facility and the extra money it is going to cost to build it.

Mr. Speaker, without this investment, they believe that it could be a 20 per cent reduction in the amount of activity here in the city. Certainly, that is not somewhere we want to go. A 20 per cent reduction would mean 3,000 less nights a year and about $2 million annually in expenditures lost to somewhere else.

It is certainly important that we do this. It is a huge source of potential or sustainable economic growth for the Province, Mr. Speaker, and you know many of these conventions, ironically enough, happen during non-peak tourist time. They happen on the shoulder seasons or outside the typical time frame that many of our tourists would come to our Province, so it is a significant benefit, Mr. Speaker.

We look at things like the Convention Centre and your initial thought: This is good for St. John's, but it is no good for anybody else. It is no good for the rest of us. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that 48 per cent of the people who come here for conventions stay. They do not come just for the period; they extend their stay. So, 48 per cent of those extend their stay here in our Province and 50 per cent of them go outside of the city.

Even though the convention is held in St. John's, a great deal of these people goes right across the Island. I can only think of last year, Mr. Speaker, I was heading to the West Coast. On my trip to the West Coast, I ran into a group of people. I think there were eight to ten of them. Mr. Speaker, they were all going to hike. There was a group going to the Northern Peninsula, to Conche, and St. Anthony and hike that area. There was another group going to the Corner Brook – Stephenville area to do some hiking, Mr. Speaker. Although they were here, the Convention Centre drew them to the City of St. John's; they were certainly taking part in the Province and seeing what we have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, this industry, in 2011, we had 44,425 room nights. I think we were third in the country for occupancy rates, which is a significant statistic because it deals with the number of people that you have coming to your Province and staying for multiple days. That, Mr. Speaker, now is about a $50 million industry here in this Province, our convention industry. The spinoff from this stuff is not to be underestimated, certainly.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, I am going to clue up now. I just wanted to point out some of the benefits of this. Like I said, just to summarize, we are taking it from a 3 per cent levy to a 4 per cent levy. The range in Canada goes from 2 per cent to 5 per cent, so we are still very competitive. Certainly, if we thought that this was going to be a competitive impact, we would have reconsidered the ask from the City of St. John's.

What you are talking about is a room, based on $100 a night rental, you add on your taxes, I think you are talking about an extra $1.18 on a $100 room night. It is not a significant increase; however, it will certainly enhance some of the facilities that we have here in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Opposition, particularly the Member for the Bay of Islands, did bring up one important fact. I was glad he mentioned it to me, because it gives me a chance to address it, and I am sure when he speaks he will also address it. That was the whole piece around he wanted to be certain that Memorial University students or students in here staying in campuses would not be subject to that rate. I could not agree with him more. It was actually a point that I had also brought up when I at first brush had a look at the bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, basically what this bill does, like I said, is increasing from 3 per cent to 4 per cent – but what it does, it also says in that bill, and I think this is the important piece: it takes out the fact of any students that are in St. John's staying in residence. It is very clear in the bill, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote from it to make sure. The change that we are making, Mr. Speaker, is that: "The council may impose a tax to be known as the ‘accommodation tax' upon a person who, for a daily charge, fee or remuneration, is accommodated, lodges or stays in a room in a building in the…" City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, in that piece it also says: "(a) licensed under the Tourism Establishments Act; or (b) owned by Memorial University of Newfoundland." So, your initial take would be, well, hang on now; what is going on? What, are we going to start charging our students? Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. It says in section (3) there, Mr. Speaker, "Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply to" – now this is the key piece: shall not apply to – "(a) a person who pays for accommodation, lodging or a stay in a room for which the daily charge or remuneration is not more than $20"; Mr. Speaker, the other piece, which I think is very significant, is: "(b) a student who is accommodated, lodges or stays in a room in a building referred to in paragraph (1)(b) or (c) while he or she is registered at and attending a post-secondary educational institution". So I just want to say to the Member for Bay of Islands, I appreciate him bringing that to my attention, and certainly the bill does address that.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill is about; it is about bringing the levy from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. It is something that we have been approached to do by the City of St. John's. I think the numbers speak for themselves and the impact this has on our tourism industry, not only in the City of St. John's and the Northeastern Avalon, but indeed, Mr. Speaker, throughout the whole Province. I certainly look forward to comments from other members in the House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise to have a few words. I thank the minister for the conversation we had yesterday about the students at Memorial University. There was concern that – the minister said he asked his officials as soon as he read the bill, and so did I when I had the briefing with the officials. So, I just thank the minister for clarifying that to ensure that no students will be affected by this whatsoever in the St. John's area, Mr. Speaker. It is a concern of ours, and we just want to make sure that it was clarified to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. I thank the minister for that.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister mentioned, this is about an expansion of the civic centre here in St. John's. It is very contentious, sometimes, when you tax people, to ensure that you build the infrastructure. To look at this, we have to look at the whole parameters of the Convention Centre here in St. John's. As I said before, and I said it publicly, Newfoundland and Labrador has a great potential and we do great to attract people here.

As the minister mentioned, when people come to St. John's for conventions, a lot of people do stay in the Province, they do spend other time traveling the Province, they do spend extra money around the Province, and they also on many occasions want to make sure they spend as much time as they possibly can in Newfoundland and Labrador. When this is done here in St. John's, it does benefit all of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a spinoff effect.

One of the things a lot of times we noticed, especially when it comes to booking conventions, is that usually there is a cycle. There may be some years that people may say: Oh, well, there is not much extra tourism in St. John's or outside. The convention cycle usually goes in probably a three-year or four-year cycle. In the third or fourth year when different conventions are up for bidding, Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure as a Province we are ready to put in requests for these conventions and ensure we have the facilities to attract these conventions.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as we all know in Newfoundland and Labrador, conventions are getting larger. There are more people attending conventions. There is a lot of consolidation going on around the world and in Canada with different businesses. When you go to conventions, there are a greater number of people attending conventions and wanting to attend. We have to ensure we do have the facilities to make sure we can accommodate the people who are applying for the conventions and also make sure when the people come here that they have a very favourable experience so they can look forward to coming back to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I said to the minister last week about the ads for Newfoundland and Labrador. They are great ads. When people see the ads, and they know they are coming to Newfoundland and Labrador, when you see the ad about Gros Morne, when you see the ad about L'Anse aux Meadows, you want to go visit those sites; you want to go visit those areas.

We have to ensure that when people come here, with the Convention Centre, and all throughout Newfoundland, the facilities are in place. Mr. Speaker, we always hear on many occasions: your first touch of the experience is what you are going to remember. If we do not have a civic centre large enough and Convention Centre large enough to hold the facilities itself and to hold all the meetings you hold – and a lot of times, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of extra groups in daytimes who want breakout groups, and nighttimes when they want to have some kind of social gathering that they need to bring other people in also. We need to accommodate and need to expand.

One of the things that the minister did not mention, one of the improvements at the Convention Centre that they are going to have is for people with disabilities, making sure it is wheelchair accessible for people with disabilities. That is something I am sure that all people in this House are welcoming, to ensure that it is going to be done up to standards, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister mentioned earlier, the cost of this was going to be around $43 million, $44 million at the beginning, Mr. Speaker. There was an agreement with the three parties: federal, provincial and municipal, to share on the cost. As we all know, anytime we get into any type of construction, when you get down to the final stages there is going to be an increase in cost, and in this case, cost overruns, once we started.

This project is no different. As we see, the cost, Mr. Speaker, went from $43.2 million to $64 million, a 48 per cent increase for this project in St. John's. Of course, there is always a way that we could find for this cost to pay for the cost to ensure the least amount of pain on the taxpayers and the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the fortunate things about the cost for this civic centre is that there was already a mechanism in place, Mr. Speaker, to help alleviate some of this cost, that 3 per cent that the minister mentioned earlier. It is a levy tax on all rooms in the St. John's area.

I am not sure if the minister mentioned or not, but one thing I want to have on the record is that part of this 3 per cent, which now will be 4 per cent, part of this 4 per cent will be used for Destination St. John's activities, which will again allow – and I think the figure last year, the amount last year was up to about $200,000 for Destination St. John's they received out of this 3 per cent, $200,000. I believe that was the figure, Mr. Speaker, that was given, that Destination St. John's used to help promote St. John's. A lot of this fund is not just going into the coffers of the City Council of St. John's; it is helping to promote St. John's.

That is very worthwhile because, Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that St. John's is being promoted. If St. John's is being promoted, as I mentioned earlier, then – Mr. Speaker, I will just clarify in the notes here: $900,000 to $1.2 million. It was $900,000 at the beginning; it went up to $1.2 million that Destination St. John's was getting from this to promote the activities that are available here in St. John's, to promote conventions here in St. John's, and to promote St. John's and Newfoundland and Labrador. This fund, this levy, the 3 per cent will definitely help everybody in this Province, not just the residents here in St. John's and the taxpayers.

As the minister mentioned, they had to come up with some way to help St. John's City Council to ensure that they could find a means to pay for this. As the minister mentioned, there is a levy on most all major cities across Canada. I know in some places that I have travelled over the years, the levy is included right in the price; they say to you it is right in the price. In some places it is added on as an additional expense and it shows on your bill. In other cases, Mr. Speaker, they do not even mention it to you and you just get the price for the room, but it is included.

The minister mentioned that the range for most levies is 3 per cent to 5 per cent. I know I have travelled in a few places where it is much higher than that. It is much higher than 3 per cent and much higher than 5 per cent range for levies in a lot of places, Mr. Speaker.

The tax itself will help the City Council of St. John's and the people of this area to pay for their share of the expansion to the Convention Centre. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair in some cases to have the taxpayers in St. John's to foot the bill for this when a lot of times, a lot of the tourism is spread out through Newfoundland and Labrador when the people visit here in St. John's. We all know, through the airwaves and through the ability to accommodate such large conventions, St. John's is a destination for a lot of these conventions.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Official Opposition will support this bill. The Official Opposition will ensure and I thank the minister for that – this does not apply to any students attending Memorial University or the College of the North Atlantic here in St. John's.

From my understanding, after rereading the bill, after speaking to the minister, it says in the bill anybody who is being charged a daily rate. As we know, most students usually come up and pay their tuition fees which are a semester, which is not included because it says right in the bill. The minister and the regulations confirmed that.

That was our only concern, that the students would not be adversely affected. From my understanding from the minister, when the first 3 per cent levy was put in place, at Memorial University, when they rent their rooms out in the summertime for extra rooms for a convention here in town, it was already included in this 3 per cent.

What is happening, from my understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the bill, and the minister can clarify anything that I am bringing up to ensure that the briefing that we got – which was a good briefing, Minister. You can thank your staff. It was a great briefing. It was very thorough. They were open to any questions that we asked and they were very frank in their discussions, so you can thank your officials on my behalf of the great briefing that they gave us yesterday on this bill.

They also mentioned that Memorial rooms that they rent out for conventions in the summertime were already included in the 3 per cent levy. This was only on the daily rate when people come in for a convention and stay for three or four days, five days. These were not students attending Memorial University or students attending the College of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this bill. We will be assuring the minister that we will try to find ways – we, as an Opposition, have a role to do our due diligence in some projects. We also have a role that when something comes in which is positive and is going to help, we have a role to support it.

I personally have no problem in supporting positive things that government is bringing forth. I know, Mr. Speaker, there are some people opposite, even when you are speaking on a bill and you are supporting it, they are trying to, as they call it, heckle you, even though you are supporting the bill. Of course that is just the role the Opposition, to bring up the issues that are brought to your attention.

Mr. Speaker, in that I will close, I may have a few more questions later as I hear speaking. I just thank the minister and the staff again for the briefing.

I say to the members opposite, who are doing a bit of heckling, yes I do support positive things for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do ensure that if it is a good thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a good thing for me.

I assure the people, Mr. Speaker, of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador if the minister brings things in positive, I will be the first person to stand up and say, Minister, it is a great job, and it is good for the people of Newfoundland. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and let other people have the chance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill here today. I thank you for the words from the member opposite for the Bay of Islands. I concur I will be supporting this bill as well as he will. I concur that the briefing you were given today by the minister's staff was very complete and very informative.

Mr. Speaker, being a member for St. John's I am fully aware of the role this levy plays in what is happening here in this city. I was a member actually with my company, I participated with Destination St. John's, I was a member of the some of the subcommittees and I am very aware of the good work that they do. I am very privileged to stand here today and speak to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's approached the provincial government to amend the act to allow the city to increase the accommodation tax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent to help cover the cost associated with the expansion of the St. John's Convention Centre. Mr. Speaker, this accommodation tax, also known as a tourism marketing levy, was put in place in 1998 to help fund construction. As well, to help fund marketing the city and the region through Destination St. John's, which I just mentioned.

This marketing body has been working very diligently for its partners in the tourism sector within the greater St. John's area, and in 2009 commissioned this report that we referred to earlier, PKF Consulting and Tract Consulting, to review the existing St. John's Convention Centre to determine if the facility is able to meet future demands. Mr. Speaker, in 2009 this report was prepared. It was titled the Business Case Study and Analysis for the Recommended Expansion of the St. John's Convention Centre. In this detailed study, analysis of delegate spending and room nights generated by meetings and conventions was undertaken in regard to the City of St. John's and the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, while most convention centres are viewed by municipal ownership as loss leaders, it is recognized they also contribute essential economic activity that drives new tax revenues, economic benefit, and employment from other services and establishments, like hotels, restaurants and retail stores. Mr. Speaker, this study not only concluded that there was a demand for expansion of the St. John's Convention Centre, it determined using economic measurement methodology that business activity generated is significant to both the City of St. John's and the Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to meetings and conventions, in 2011 there were 104 such events in the city, representing 44,425 room nights. PKF Consulting and their other consulting group concluded on its study the expansion of the St. John's Convention Centre will result in an increase of up to 37 per cent over current meeting and convention room nights. That is pretty significant, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to delegate per spend assumptions, it was determined by the authors of the study that the average overnight delegate to the City of St. John's is estimated to spend over $310 a day. Mr. Speaker, the total economic benefits in 2011 alone translate into approximately $50 million in expenditures by the tourism sector.

Mr. Speaker, the new expansion will attract larger groups, and with the expanded hotel capacity – which, I would like to point out just for a minute. There are three right now presently under construction in the city area, and eight in total have applications in play, for almost 1,000 more room nights that we will see happen over the next few years. So this $50 million in spinoffs will grow significantly in the coming years. Mr. Speaker, that is significant, to say the least.

From a business case perspective and from a return on investment perspective, this expansion makes considerable sense, seeing that the City of St. John's, the provincial government and the federal government have recognized the need and have made financial commitments to this project. Destination St. John's represents hoteliers, and bed and breakfasts in the city have also recognized the need to do this right and recognize they need to participate in generating revenue for the project. So, hence, Mr. Speaker, the request to increase the accommodation tax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent is where this came from.

This is not unusual. It was referenced earlier, in fact by the hon. member opposite, that taxes are very common practice in other jurisdictions. In Canada they do range from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. So we are within that acceptable range, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker. We have all the governments aligned, we have industry aligned. This amendment is the last piece to making this project happen.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, while I am a member from St. John's, I have an obvious desire to see this project through, I would just like to point out that the spinoffs from an expanded Convention Centre will benefit the Province as a whole. Every member here in this hon. House will see some spinoffs from this construction.

Tourism is hugely important in diversifying our economy, and we cannot stress that enough in this day and age. The St. John's Convention Centre has provincial scope. While it is enabling the city, it is enabling the Province's tourism sector. This project is good for the city and it is good for the Province. It will be a world-class facility. Beautifully designed, is what I understand. It will be right to the nines in terms of what are best practices globally. It will add to the ambience of the downtown core and a welcome addition to our cityscape.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to support this amendment and to help facilitate making this project go forward.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's East.

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

I take pleasure again in rising to Bill 54, and express my views and concerns I guess when it comes to this piece of legislation. I do have a few points for the minister that I would certainly like to talk about when it comes to this piece of legislation.

It does not come easy, I do not think at any time, whenever you want to increase a tax of any kind. I think that is probably the first point I would like to bring out, but I guess in this particular case it had to be done out of necessity. We can appreciate the fact, we have been talking in this House over the last couple of months, particularly about Muskrat Falls and cost overruns, and this project is no different in being affected by the demands of the construction industry, I would put forward.

To go from $48.4 million to a $64 million cost overrun on the project meant that the money had to come from somewhere. I am rather thankful that in this particular case, the taxpayers of St. John's are not going to have to pick up the load on this one. The people who will be contributing to this are mostly the hoteliers and anybody who is going to benefiting, particularly from conventions.

I am also glad to see, though, that part of that revenue is still going to go towards Destination St. John's and helping their marketing of the new facility when it is built. It certainly means that there is going to be a larger market out there to capture and to bring into the City of St. John's. Overall, the benefits of that, hopefully, will help this project get paid off in due course, and hopefully rather quickly. I would just like to bring that particular point forward.

The other point that I wanted to bring forward here –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, indeed. The Minster of Municipal Affairs would be quite right in his statement that the taxi industry of St. John's will benefit from that and it is nice of him to make a note.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Of course, we also have tourism companies, tour buses, and that sort of thing, that will be probably be availing of those particular people who would in the City on a visit, too. All in all, a positive move.

The other point that I would like to bring forward – and I think that this is kind of important, really; we have to be cautious exactly about the use of some of the hotel rooms and how the tax levy – perhaps the minister can answer the question when it comes to that. I do not know, there might be a mechanism already to deal with it, but if the minister can answer the question, perhaps when it comes to the Committee of the Whole.

I am wondering about some people, for example, when hotels are already filled up and everything, when you are talking about the medical use, the medical necessity of having to get a hotel room, sometimes capacity in other rooms; for example, Ronald MacDonald House may be taken up, the Health Sciences Hostel, that sort of thing. I am just wondering if there is a mechanism there, perhaps to alleviate some of the tax burden that might be there from people who may have to be using hotel rooms out of medical necessity. That might be one question that I would like to hear answered.

The other point that I would like to make is something that came up when we were discussing Bill 30. We have to go a way back on that; we were talking about addressing the Municipal Taxation Act and Bill 30. We had to come in and we had to make changes for the City of St. John's when it came to – if the minister can recall; I think I am recalling this right. We were talking about the taxation that was on vacant properties, for example, that were not being used, and the City of St. John's wanted the power to tax some of these units as if they were occupied and to alleviate some of the burdens some other businesses were doing so that the City of St. John's could call the shot on how they were taxing some of these places, which brings into question the whole matter of the provincial government being involved in the City of St. John's taxation role, if you will.

In helping the City of St. John's, the changes to the City of St. John's Act, for example, have come to the House of Assembly. I am wondering about the possibility – and maybe the minister can bring this up later, again, in Committee of the Whole – about the City of St. John's having the financial independence, if you will; having, in this particular case, a new City of St. John's Act is probably necessary.

This is the second time now this year – and I think we are seventy-odd days now into sitting – that twice the City of St. John's has had to come to the Provincial Legislature to have changes made to the City of St. John's Act. I figure that it would probably be a good point to bring forward in arguing for my city and for everybody's city, because, of course, St. John's is everybody's capital; they would need that independence as well in order for them to make their own changes to their own finances in the way they tax things in the city right now.

I figure I would bring those two points forward. Just to let the minister know, though, with regard to these changes, we will be supporting this bill when it comes to these changes. We look at this as being positive, a very positive impact on the tourism industry. We know that government over the last, well, twenty-odd years has been putting an extreme focus on tourism. There is a lot of money to be garnered into the provincial economy for such.

We ask government at the same time to consider the fact that not only does the City of St. John's Act need modernization, but probably a whole new act is in order as well; the City of Corner Brook, I think, has their own act as well, and other cities within the Province, so that they can express their fiscal financial independence.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, before I say anything I would like to thank the staff at Tourism, Culture and Recreation for their briefing today. They did a very good job explaining what was going on. Even though it is a simple bit of legislation, there is a lot of background behind this. I have a bit of an idea of what the background is because when this stuff started, I happened to be on the St. John's City Council.

I will start off by saying that St. John's is a city that many tourists love to come to. Many who come to St. John's not only come once but they want to come back. They want to come back because they love the scenery, the buildings, the harbour, and they especially love the people in St. John's. I have talked to many people in the past who always say that they found no better people in the world than they find in St. John's and in Newfoundland itself.

Many who come to St. John's do not only stay in St. John's; if they extend their stay – and many times they do extend their stay by a few days – they end up going outside of St. John's. They end up in Petty Harbour, they go up to Ferryland. They go to other places here in the Province, especially on the Avalon if they have time.

When I was on council, a couple of decades ago, city staff and city council saw potential for tourism growth in the city itself and even on the whole Avalon. It was not long before the idea of building Mile One and the Convention Centre was proposed. Soon the design was done, and the city went to the federal government. I think there were infrastructure programs on the go at the time. What happened is the city made an arrangement with the federal government, with the Province, and with the hotel people – the people who had all the hotels, the accommodation people –they got all of them onboard to help finance the construction of these two buildings.

In 1998, the City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act had to be amended to allow the city to proceed to collect a levy or an accommodation tax on hotel rooms. The city was proposing, along with the hoteliers, to put a tourism marketing levy on hotel rooms of 3 per cent. This money would help the city finance the construction of Mile One and the Convention Centre. It was also meant to give Destination St. John's, an organization that was set up to market and promote St John's and the surrounding areas, it would give them money for their efforts, for their operations.

After Mile One and the Convention Centre were built, you saw an increase in the convention business in St. John's. It increased gradually over time. In the beginning it was a bit slow getting off the mark but once people came here and the word spread of what a good place it was to come for a convention, more and more wanted to come.

In 2011, there were 104 conventions in St. John's alone, with 44,425 rooms rented. A $50 million business is what it developed into, but a problem soon arose. Mr. Speaker, people who came and groups who came here for conventions, some said they were not coming back again because they did not like the Convention Centre. Its size was too small. It was too small and the configuration of the Convention Centre made it impractical to host the kind of events that they wanted.

This became a threat to the convention business. St. John's saw it as a threat. Destination St. John's saw it as a threat. When you add to this the fact that you had several Atlantic Provinces' cities building larger convention centres and newer ones, the fear there was that we would not only become stagnant and lose convention business, but you could actually see the whole thing fall apart over a few years.

To address the problem, St. John's council and its tourism arm, Destination St. John's, came forward with plans to expand the Convention Centre. They wanted to expand it from 18,200 square feet to 34,650 feet of rentable space. Originally, when they got into the preliminary design, the price was $48.4 million or something like that.

Arrangements were made with the Province and with the federal government to finance this $48 million. The Province said they would put in $14.4 million. The federal government under the Building Canada Fund would put in $14.4 million, and the city would come up with the rest. Now this was the commitment made by the federal government and the provincial government, $14.4 million. What happened?

When the detailed design was done by the architects and when they took in the fact that there had to be specific designs for what was needed in the building, the price went from $48 million to $64 million. The city now had another problem. The Province or the feds would not commit to any more money. So the city was left with a shortfall.

What happened was the tourism partners for the city, the accommodations people and the city came up with a plan that they would increase the tourism marketing levy from 3 per cent to 4 per cent. This would give them the necessary money to finance and pay the yearly payments that they would need to pay for the new construction. What this would translate to, and I think the minister already stated, is on a $100 room you would pay another $1.18 per night.

By expanding the Convention Centre, the Convention Centre would now be able to host multiple events at the same time. It would also be able to attract larger events. This is what was planned, this is what they wanted, and this is what they were going for.

We are here today looking at Bill 54. Bill 54 is simply An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act to give the city the legislative authority to change the levy on hotel rooms now from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, and it is nothing else. I ask all Members of the House of Assembly who are here today to support this bill. It is good for the city, it is good for the Province, and it is good for everybody involved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to be supporting this bill. Many jurisdictions across North America, for anybody who travels, there is an accommodation tax in many of the jurisdictions – not only across Canada but throughout North America. The taxation on accommodations will increase from a maximum of 3 per cent to 4 per cent, effective January 1, 2013.

What I would say to this particular piece of legislation is, while I support it, and I see the need for it – and we have seen the Convention Centre in St. John's, which is a fabulous facility, and we see more and more conventions and convention-related tourism come to the City of St. John's. In fact, downtown St. John's now – well not only downtown, I know up in the Stavanger Drive area there is a hotel being built. In the City of St. John's now there are numerous hotels under construction. There are at least three that I know of, maybe four. There is a need for additional hotel accommodation space in the City of St. John's, and that is due in part because of the fact that there is more tourism coming to the city, there is more convention tourism coming to the city.

So, this is a good piece of legislation. As we see an increase in accommodation rooms or hotel nights booked in the City of St. John's, we will see additional revenue for the City of St. John's to be used for things like the Convention Centre. What I would suggest on this piece of legislation – and I will be contacting the mayor of the city as well – is to look at an exemption on this tax for residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, as you see in places like Florida.

When you go to Florida, and there is a road tax on a vehicle that you rent, that is a non-resident road tax that they charge on rented vehicles. The residents in Florida do not have to pay that particular tax. You see that on hotel rooms in other jurisdictions as well, where when you rent a hotel room in the state or in the Province that you live in, you are exempt from having to pay that tax. I do not feel that the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador should have to pay this particular tax, but I do agree with the accommodation tax for visitors to the city, in order to be able to do things like the Convention Centre and so on.

So, I will make that recommendation to the minister that we look at exempting residents of Newfoundland and Labrador from this particular tax, and I will be making the same recommendation to the Mayor of the City of St. John's as well. Outside of that, I will be supporting the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation speaks now, he will close debate.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to stand here as we end second reading. I want to thank the colleagues who have spoken on it. They made some good points – the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for St. John's East, and of course my own colleagues on this side, the Member for St. John's West, the Member for Kilbride, as well as the Member for Cape St. Francis who did not speak right now, Mr. Speaker, but certainly was very involved in the coming together of the bill and the discussions on the bill. I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for stepping up to the plate, as always.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention if I could just a couple of points that were brought up, our new ads – the Member for Bay of Islands. I am delighted with our new ads. We have a couple of more in the hopper. I have had some pre-screening and I can say to the people of the Province and indeed the people of the country and people internationally that these are just as good as some of the ones that we have done in the past. I am excited to see them and looking really forward to them, Mr. Speaker.

I will quickly run over the cost overruns because some people mentioned the cost overruns. Mr. Speaker, this happened simply because the initial estimates were $48.4 million I believe it was at the time. For us to be competitive in the marketplace that we are in, obviously we went beyond the current initial estimates which were just about square footage basically, Mr. Speaker.

We had to get into more detailed design obviously and programming, Mr. Speaker, which was important to us. These costs, like I said, were very much preliminary costs. Now the design and the engineering work is a lot more extensive than it originally was; there is as lot more work done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the new green field convention centres obviously there is more glass and more ability as I mentioned earlier to bring the outdoors indoors. You get a better feel of who we are as a people and what our geography – and our natural environment is one of the key staples when we promote tourism in this Province. The more ability we can give people to see out through when they are here even though they may have to be inside, the more that we can give people the opportunity to look outside, it enhances their need to stay a few extra days and indeed see the rest of the Province. That was important to us.

Mr. Speaker, he broached the medical piece with me. I could not help but think of some of the contributions that our hotels in particular and our B&Bs make in this region of the Province when it comes to the medical piece. Many of them have been very community minded I would say, and very good corporate citizens in the amount that they have donated and given to people who are here in this city on medical issues. The amount of money that has been generated has also gone into places like Ronald McDonald House and many more, Mr. Speaker. I certainly wanted to mention that. I take my hat off to some of the bigger hotels, smaller hotels, the small B&Bs, the people who contribute to the places like Ronald MacDonald House, so that when people do have to travel to the larger centres, in this case the City of St. John's, for medical issues, Mr. Speaker, the resources are here.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite clear: on a $100-a-night room, this will be, as the Member for Kilbride mentioned, an extra $1.18. This is not meant to keep people from staying in hotels. It is not meant to be any kind of an issue when it comes to people coming for medical reasons staying in hotels, but it is $1.18. That is what we are talking on a $100 room, Mr. Speaker. We were very conscious of the impact it has on people living in this Province as well.

Again, it is something that we all hopefully benefit from. We all stay in hotels on occasion. We will end up paying the levy, Mr. Speaker, but it is all for the benefit of the Province. Like I said, it is a very small piece. The majority of this will be collected from non-residents, obviously. It is a very small piece we have to pay to an industry now, a tourism industry that is knocking on the door of a $900 million industry, Mr. Speaker, much of it being spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and employing somewhere between 14,000 and 16,000 people, again in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a significant piece, a significant cog in our economy, and certainly one that as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I know that we all support.

Again, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 54 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54 has now been read a second time.

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

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 54)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 8, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 53)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to move the bill and the minister will speak to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

Thank you for clarifying.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994." (Bill 53)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to discuss a series of legislative amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act and the Churchill Falls Corporation Act, 1961, or the CF(L)Co Lease Act, Mr. Speaker.

The amendments are related to the creation of an industrial rates policy in Labrador so that there will be certainty for customers who are looking at mining developments or other industrial developments in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will ensure that there are transparent, open, and fair rates for all industrial customers in the region and will help to keep rates competitive with other provincial jurisdictions.

By way of historical background, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador interconnected system is supplied 525 megawatts of power from the Churchill Falls hydroelectric facility. This includes, Mr. Speaker, the 225-megawatt TwinCo block, which I will discuss further below, and the 300-megawatt recall block.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, purchases this power from CF(L)Co and sells it to the end users. After the Labrador customers are supplied, there are approximately eighty megawatts of surplus power available in the winter peak. Out of the 225-megawatt block, Mr. Speaker, that is used by IOC and Wabush Mines, then out of the 300-megawatt recall block, there has to be 220 megawatts available in winter to meet peak demand.

Mr. Speaker, the surplus recall power is sold by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro into external markets, primarily New York, New England, Ontario, and New Brunswick. The way that is done, Mr. Speaker, is we have access to the Quebec lines for a certain amount of power which we can send over their lines.

Mr. Speaker, the Twin Falls Corporation I think was formed in the early 1960s and it provided power at the time to IOC and Wabush Mines. Mr. Speaker, it was at that time that – there was a hydro plant in Twin Falls; actually, we flew over it not too long ago, in looking at the Upper Churchill and the Smallwood Reservoir and you could see that Twin Falls, it existed where water came. They created electricity from the falls.

Mr. Speaker, IOC and Wabush Mines – then when the Upper Churchill came on stream, there was a recognition that there could be three times more power created by using that water as there was, my understanding, a greater elevation.

What happened, Mr. Speaker, is that an agreement was reached with IOC and Wabush Mines where they would be supplied with cheap power. There was a 225-megawatt total of which 165 is delivered to IOC and fifty-four megawatts to Wabush Mines. That includes also eleven megawatts of system losses. They pay, Mr. Speaker – and this is very important – approximately $4 a megawatt hour for this power. This contract expires on January 1, 2015. The TwinCo block of power, the lease surrounding that will expire on January 1, 2015.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go through market rates in the rest of the country shortly for industrial power. To put it in perspective, they are paying $4 a megawatt hour for that power that would cost $48 a megawatt hour on the Island of Newfoundland. At this present time, Mr. Speaker, we only have a number of mines; IOC and Wabush Mines are the main ones, and Labrador Iron Mines has started to produce up around the Menihek region. They access a small amount of power from that, approximately eight megawatts I think, Mr. Speaker, on a seasonal basis.

Four dollars a megawatt hour, then IOC accessed some of the other recall block, and they pay $11, so it averages out to be about $6 a megawatt hour. To put that in perspective, Mr. Speaker, Quebec pays us – well, they did pay us $2.50 a megawatt hour for power from the Upper Churchill which, as a result of the renewal contract, will go down to $2 a megawatt hour.

Mr. Speaker, IOC and Wabush Mines, in recognition of their historical involvement, have been given a good deal over the years. They have certainly responded, and as the minister of government services, who is the MHA for the area, will indicate, they certainly created a lot of jobs in that area for a long time and look to continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we have to, though – and the energy policy recognizes – look at all companies and encouraging new developments. On January 1, 2015, the TwinCo block will expire and the fifty-year-old transmission lines will become the property of CF(L)Co.

As I said a number of times in this House, Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls development includes the building of a transmission line from Muskrat Falls to Churchill Falls. However, there would have to be another line built if these mining companies come on stream from Churchill Falls to Labrador West. Same, Mr. Speaker, if there are requirements in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, there would have to be a line from Muskrat Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I will talk in a second about who would pay for that. Mr. Speaker, the lines that are in place currently from Churchill Falls to Labrador West are currently used free of charge by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to serve residential and commercial customers.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the TwinCo block, or the 225-megawatt block, IOC purchases power from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro of approximately sixty-two megawatts of firm power from the recall block. This contract has also expired, Mr. Speaker, and continues month to month at a cost of $14 per megawatt hour.

I have the figure here somewhere and I will refer to it shortly. We recognize and we have always recognized the importance of IOC and Wabush Mines to the Labrador West area. We recognize the number of jobs they have created. Mr. Speaker, they are good corporate citizens. Myself and the Premier had the opportunity in London earlier this year to sit down with the chair of the board of Rio Tinto and we have reinforced that message to the chairman: We know you have projects all over the world and we would like to see you continue with the development of your expansions in IOC. We also have to, Mr. Speaker, ensure we are getting a fair value for the power now that the TwinCo contract has expired.

Mr. Speaker, Cabinet had a meeting in both Lab West and Churchill Falls earlier this year, and we visited the IOC site. I can tell you, for anyone who has not been there, it was the first time I actually visited the site and it is quite an amazing site. You see these huge pits with trucks I think an average person is halfway up to the wheel. It is just an absolutely amazing operation. Apparently they go all year round.

Then we drove the new Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker. It is quite a nice piece of road. We had the Minister of Municipal Affairs providing entertainment along the way. We were all on a bus and it was quite a great tour. We then went to Churchill Falls and visited the plant.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if it was not for the Upper Churchill contract that continues to haunt us – put that aside. That generation plant is one of the wonders of the engineering world. To think that it was built in the middle of Labrador in the 1960s, Mr. Speaker, and to think it was built on time and on budget, it is an absolutely amazing feat. When you go down in the elevator and you go down in the ground, and you just see the size the facility, it is absolutely amazing. It is open to the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: How many, Sir?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) stories.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, it is quite an experience, Mr. Speaker, and apparently the public can visit, so I would encourage anyone.

Mr. Speaker, we have to, now that TwinCo block is finalized – but that is not the main reason we are doing this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Let me make it clear, this industrial rates policy is required with or without Muskrat Falls. Our Energy Plan in 2007 committed to it.

It is just that, Mr. Speaker, in the last number of years we have seen an explosion in mining potential in Labrador, where – I think as we have stated in the past – there is currently $10 billion to $15 billion of potential mine developments, based, in part, on the availability and the cost of power. There are major economic benefits, Mr. Speaker, as outlined in Dr. Wade Locke's analysis.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, and I say to the members of this House, that I take offence to the comments made by the Leader of the NDP earlier today: Why are we subsidizing mining companies at a cost to the ratepayer of this Province? These mining companies, IOC has built an amazing facility. The towns of Lab City and Wabush have built around the mining industry in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is a reality of the business world that you have to be competitive in terms of power, especially when our neighbour, Quebec, has an aggressive Plan Nord.

Mr. Speaker, we are not subsidizing these companies. What we are doing is we are encouraging them to stay in Labrador, to build and to expand, and to create jobs. I think Dr. Wade Locke's analysis, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the economic analysis, would indicate that it would be close to $450 a megawatt hour in terms of the returned economic opportunities.

So, for that short-sighted vision, Mr. Speaker, of the NDP trying to pander to the cynics out there, I would suggest – to put forward all of these, to propagate these conspiracy theories without any basis just does not make sense, Mr. Speaker. It is irresponsible, it is nonsensical, and it shows a deep lack of understanding of what is going on in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we currently have companies looking at developing. We have the Julienne Lake Property which is up for bids, which is apparently a very attractive iron ore property. We have Alderon that are certainly looking at proceeding, Mr. Speaker. We have Tata Steel up in the Menihek Region. We have Labrador Iron Mines, whether or not we will have to build a transmission line to Voisey's Bay if they decide to underground is another issue. We have the Paladin and Aurora –

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Didn't you learn earlier today you do not know about points of order?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

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

I wanted to make sure that I was being accurate before I stood. At no point today did I talk about subsidization of mining companies. What I asked today was, why was the government giving companies more protection, and the people of the Province are going to foot the bill for Muskrat Falls? Nowhere have I said subsidization today. It is a big difference, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where these companies are looking to build, to expand and to create economic benefits. Again, I find it quite sad that we have the NDP saying to these companies that you should not create jobs in Labrador; all of which are unionized; if I understand, to the minister. Basically, coming out and speaking against the ability of their unions to grow in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, at present, the gross value of our mining shipments in the Province is approximately $4.1 billion and we expect it to grow over $5 billion in 2012. This results in $343 million in direct mining taxation to the Province. The indirect benefits of the number of jobs created, Mr. Speaker, the money that is re-circulated into the economy is huge.

Mr. Speaker, that is where we get a lot of the benefits from mining. Unlike our oil projects, Mr. Speaker, where we get huge amounts in royalties as a result of benefits agreements. It is not the same way in the mining industry.

I ask the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, how many people are employed in Labrador West? How many people are employed in Labrador West in the mining industry?

MR. MCGRATH: In Labrador West, in the mining industry about 9,000.

MR. KENNEDY: Nine thousand people, Mr. Speaker, 9,000 people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We hear the Leader of the NDP saying do not be fair to these companies because they are getting subsidized by the ratepayer of this Province, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest it –

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Natural Resources is going to quote me, then I wish he would quote me accurately. The misinterpretation that is coming out from him right now, Mr. Speaker, goes against what I said in this House today. Once again I will say, I not once today said subsidization. Not once today did I say anything that he is implying, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have also, Mr. Speaker, is a potential for major development in Labrador in whole. I will talk about Grand River Ironsands in Lake Melville shortly, Mr. Speaker. I referred earlier to the Paladin development, in the Michelin Project, and we have talked about Voisey's Bay underground.

Mr. Speaker, we have enormous potential. So much of it, though, depends on what is going on in China today and the price of iron ore. Mr. Speaker, in 2004 a ton of iron ore sold for $50. In February 2011, it was $180 a ton; in September 2012, it was $100 per ton. The forecast for the long term is $90 to $100 per ton and if all of the developments proceed, we will go from twenty-three metric tons in 2011 to eighty metric tons by 2020. These companies want some element of certainty in terms of what are we going to pay for power.

In terms of paying for power we then looked at what are people paying in the rest of the country. We know that the industrial rate in the Province, Mr. Speaker, on the Island is $48 a megawatt hour. We then looked at what is going on in the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, IOC, as I have indicated, currently pays $6 a megawatt hour; Wabush Mines, $4 a megawatt hour. In Quebec, at present, Mr. Speaker, it is $49 a megawatt hour; Manitoba is $37 a megawatt hour; British Columbia is $49 a megawatt hour; and the Canadian average is $67 a megawatt hour.

We have to look at 2015 when the TwinCo block expires, because that is when we will be looking at the majority of the power becoming available. It is estimated in 2015 – because we have to phase IOC and Wabush Mines in, to be fair to them; I think the cost is an extra $6 per ton. So, we have to phase them in to allow them to absorb the extra costs.

Mr. Speaker, IOC, in 2017, it is expected that they will pay $27; Wabush Mines will pay $27; Quebec will be $54; Manitoba, $40; British Columbia, $54; and the Canadian average being $73.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at is always being around the price of what Quebec is charging; because that is the way the industry works. Every time I sit with one of these, whether it be a big oil company, whether it be Rio Tinto – these companies never hesitate to talk about their portfolios around the world, Mr. Speaker, and how the decisions made by their investors are based on where is the smartest place to spend their money at present.

IOC are in it for the long run, Mr. Speaker. I think, again, the Minister of Government Services will indicate that. They are in it for the long run. Mr. Speaker, I expect that fifty years from now IOC will still be in the Labrador Trough mining iron ore.

Mr. Speaker, they need to know, in terms of their expansions, where are they going to go. Wabush Mines, again, has also been around for a long time.

The newer developments, as they look for investors, they need to know what we are going to pay. Mr. Speaker, I have met with all of these companies myself, my officials have met with all of these companies, and one of the recurring themes is we have to be competitive with Quebec. I will get into in a second how the development block and the market block combine to give us a generation rate then when we put in a transmission rate, Mr. Speaker, which will be based on cost of service, we will look at a rate that is competitive with Quebec around $56, $57 in 2017.

This is just recognition of the way the world works. The members for Labrador will certainly tell you that development of these projects results in huge paying jobs. It results in a standard of living, Mr. Speaker, that is equal to or better than any in the Province or in the country, and they are good jobs.

What we are trying to do is encourage development. We have a very mineral rich land in Labrador, Mr. Speaker – and again, I do not have time today to go into the fascinating history of Labrador but when the member opposite talked about it the other day, Newfoundland offering to sell Labrador, I think it was $1 million around 1930. I think it was actually $1 million at the time, or it might have been earlier. There were two or three times they were looking at selling it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: That was later on. I think that was in 1960, wasn't it?

Mr. Speaker, the fact of selling Labrador – I had always thought that when Newfoundland joined Confederation, because I do love conspiracy theories myself, wanting to get Labrador was one of the key issues that Canada wanted Newfoundland in Confederation but it was much simpler than that.

Apparently, according to some commentators, Dr. John FitzGerald being one of them, it was more about the airfields in Gander and Stephenville at the time. It was more about our connection being the closest point to Europe that made us so attractive to Canada than Labrador mining and the hydro.

When you visit the generation station in Churchill Falls, they have these notes there from people who travelled to Churchill Falls. In the Brinco book, by Philip Smith, you will see a good history of people who actually visited. There were a couple of guys from a college – I am trying to remember the name of the college. They travelled to Churchill Falls. Their canoe sank, Mr. Speaker. They walked through the wilderness of Labrador and they left a note. People used to leave a note, apparently, at Churchill Falls.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, we have a land that is rich in natural resources. We have a land where we, however, also respect the cultural beliefs and our Aboriginal peoples who live there. What we try to do, as we are developing this, we are trying to balance the development of our natural resources, ensuring that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the prime beneficiaries. We are trying to balance that with the protection of the environment, Mr. Speaker, and we are trying to balance that with working with our Aboriginal partners to ensure that they are full partners in the projects.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the economy of China exploding, we have all of these companies that want to come in and do business. They are saying to us: Well, how do I know what I am negotiating is as good as what the next guy gets? This is all, by the way, outlined in a paper that was released by the Department of Natural Resources. There were two papers released simultaneously: Labrador mining and power: how much and where from?; and the Economic Impact Analysis of the Iron Ore Mining Industry in Labrador 2011-31 by Dr. Wade Locke.

What we looked at, Mr. Speaker, is: Where are we going to get the power and how do you determine whether to build Muskrat Falls, Gull Island – or what do you do? This is the Catch-22 situation we find ourselves in. We have to estimate the power needs, and that is challenging because the companies are saying: well, until we know if we can get the power, we cannot go to our investors or the bank. We are saying: well, we need to know if you need the power.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that if all of the iron ore companies and other mining companies in Labrador today were to say we will sign on the dotted line for all of the power we are projecting we need, Mr. Speaker, we would need to develop Gull Island. We cannot develop Gull Island on a chance, or on what might happen, and then be left with 2,000 megawatts of power, as we cannot get across Quebec – sitting there with 2,000 megawatts of power.

Mr. Speaker, that is where Muskrat Falls becomes such a good compromise in terms of providing power –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: – to the people of the Province and our increasing needs, what we are seeing with our economy here, the increase in housing starts, which are averaging around 3,000 housing starts a year. We have 18,000 more ratepayers than we had in 2005, despite the population decreasing. We have bigger homes. It is estimated we are going to need an extra 200 megawatts of power at peak around 2020.

All you have to do is look around the City of St. John's. Look at the shopping developments that are going on. Look at the buildings that are going up. You recognize there is a hot economy.

Mr. Speaker, as we get to rural Newfoundland – and this is one thing that has not been touched upon enough, I do not think – and as we build that transmission line from Labrador to Soldiers Pond, it creates jobs. Mr. Speaker, there is no camp, so what will happen is there will be people staying in motels along the way. There will be people spending money along the way. There will be jobs created in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, which I would suggest is a very significant aspect of this project.

So, how do we get the power? First thing they are saying is: give us a price, then we will tell you if we want your power. Also, the iron ore industry, Mr. Speaker, has to maintain a certain price, and what we have outlined in the Labrador mining paper is that we expect that China, being the most significant consumer of iron ore today, will not let the price go below $100 a tonne, because that is what it is costing them.

Very similar, Mr. Speaker, to what we do with the projections on the price of oil; you look at the geopolitical circumstances that exist in the world, you look at the fundamental principles of supply and demand, and you say: well, how much does the world need? So, Mr. Speaker, there is no indication at this point that China will stop the importation of iron ore, although their economy has slowed to approximately 7.5 per cent GDP growth as opposed to the 12 and 13 per cent.

So, Mr. Speaker, the companies here are looking at a time frame in which they can develop these mines. They are saying to us: well, we need a rate; we need to know. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying to them today is: we are now going to give you this rate which will apply to all of you. We are going to break it down, and it is going to be published as to why and how this rate will work.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not have time – I am sure my colleague, the minister of government services and Member for LabWest will review the different mines that we are looking at as outlined in the Labrador mining paper.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at here are the existing mines that we have; you have to look at your existing mines, you have to look at those that are in construction, and then you have to look at those that have feasibility complete. So, the existing mines, Mr. Speaker, include Voisey's Bay, Wabush Mines, IOC, and Labrador Iron Mines. Those that are –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Of course.

Those that are in construction, Mr. Speaker, include the IOC CEP, or Concentrate Expansion Program, which will require 78 megawatts of energy; and Tata Steel, which again, we do not know exactly how big – they are a big company, Mr. Speaker, and it is a question of having further discussions with them.

Labrador Iron Mines is looking at further discussion, Mr. Speaker; they have done quite well up there. They are in the Menihek region. There are issues with power, going from diesel to hydro and not being on the interconnected grid.

Then, Mr. Speaker, this is where we really start to get into the unknown, because we have Alderon, which could require up to 100 megawatts of power; Tata Steel and their LabMag Project, Mr. Speaker, could require 300 megawatts of power; Voisey's underground, if they go underground, could be 50 megawatts of power; and we have Labec Century Iron Ore.

In pre-feasibility, Mr. Speaker, we have the IOC Phase III expansion. We have Grand River Ironsands, that I have met with on a number of occasions in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, that are talking about up to 120 to 130 megawatts, and we have the Aurora Paladin project.

Mr. Speaker, the benefit of these projects, if Voisey's Bay goes underground and Paladin were to develop their project, is that means we would be able to supply power then to communities on the coast of Labrador. We know, for example, with Voisey's Bay underground we could supply Nain and Natuashish and – help me out here, Keith. Then if we got to Paladin, we would have Rigolet and Postville?

MR. HUTCHINGS: Postville and Hopedale.

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know about Hopedale, but Postville and Rigolet, Mr. Speaker, for sure.

Mr. Speaker, we have Julienne Lake, which is up for bids right now. That could require eighty to 100 megawatts of power.

Mr. Speaker, in summary, in our paper we outline that there are 296.5 megawatts in operation at present. In construction there is forty-six megawatts of power required. Release from EA, Mr. Speaker, Labrador Iron Mines Phase II is ten megawatts, and in the environmental assessment it is 160. Pre-feasibility has 370, and in feasibility a maximum of 140. Mr. Speaker, if all of this takes place then Labrador West will be – if it is not already. I think there is an argument it is already bursting at the seams, it will be bursting even more.

Mr. Speaker, prosperity brings with it challenges, there is no question about that. Prosperity brings with it issues of housing, it brings with it issues of provision of health services, issues of crime and addiction, but, Mr. Speaker, we are better off in a situation where we are looking at an economy that is firing on all cylinders as opposed to an economy where people do not have jobs. That is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a government, it is our role, Mr. Speaker, to develop economic activity, to do what we can to entice these companies to build in our Province. To provide good paying jobs, to provide revenues to the Province which allow us to pay for the social programs that we do, the housing programs that we have, and the health and education.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Mount Pearl South often says, money does not grow on trees. You have to have sources of money, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the reason we need that oversized calculator that was referred to earlier today was to add up all of the costs that sometimes come from the other side. When you are in government, Mr. Speaker, you have to have monies to justify expenditures. It is not simply a wish list where you can spend, spend, spend.

The more that we create economic activity, Mr. Speaker, the more good paying jobs we create, the better it is in terms of revenues coming to the Province that allow us to maintain our Poverty Reduction Program, to maintain our Violence Prevention Program –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: - and to provide the first-class health care that we provide in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer leave these rates at $5 to $6 an hour, but we cannot go to a point where they are unrealistic. Mr. Speaker, what we have attempted to do is to come up with a policy that speaks to the reality of the business world.

Again, just to put it in perspective, I just want to remember this now. In Labrador the cost is $6 to $11 a megawatt hour, and it is $49 a megawatt hour in Quebec. I cannot remember, Mr. Speaker, if I said this earlier but in the last ten years IOC and Wabush Mines have paid $100 million for power that would have cost them $900 million in Quebec. It is time to update, in line with the Energy Plan, our policy.

Mr. Speaker, iron ore prices today are, hopefully not at an all-time high but they are at a good, solid price. That is going to lead to mine developments. I have read a number of times, I think again in the Labrador mining paper, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Trough is referred to as being a very attractive business investment area.

I was in a meeting in Toronto yesterday, when someone came up and questioned about the status of the Julienne Lake project, Mr. Speaker. There are exciting times. There are challenges, we know that the challenges are there, but, Mr. Speaker, we cannot price ourselves out of the market. Whether you are dealing with oil companies, whether you are dealing with mining companies, Mr. Speaker, you have to be realistic here. You have to recognize that these companies have opportunities throughout the world and we want them here.

Mr. Speaker, our cardinal rule is that we, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, must be the beneficiaries of our natural resources. That has been our guiding principle, and it will continue to be our guiding principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we want money to flow. Under the new rate policy, Mr. Speaker, electricity generation will not be regulated by the PUB. It is simple, Mr. Speaker, we want to get as close to market prices as we can.

The way we come to our rate, Mr. Speaker, or the number that we have of approximately $57 in 2017, you take the development block, the $225 TwinCo block. You look at coming up with a figure. Well, what figure can we come up with that is commercially reasonable as required by the CF(L)Co Shareholders' Agreement of 1999? In other words, we do not want to end up in court with minority shareholders accusing us of selling power cheaper than it should be.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Mr. Speaker, in relation to maintaining the assets of Churchill Falls, building lines, ensuring that in 2041 when we get that asset back there will be benefit accrued to the Province – we are not sure exactly the benefit – that we have a top-notch asset, and that everything is kept in good shape and ready for that transition. A lot of the money will be spent on maintaining that asset.

I will just take a figure, Mr. Speaker, of $20. We will take $20 as being the figure that would be a commercially reasonable figure for that $225 TwinCo block. The market development block then would be other power that is available that we would pay close to market rates. Let us take a figure of $50 in terms of what you may attract on spot markets in the United States at present. You combine those two and we come up with a generation figure that is around $30 or $32. That is your generation component. That is the money we need from that component, Mr. Speaker, in order maintain the assets and in order to ensure that lines are kept up and the generating station is kept up.

Now, if there are new companies come on line, we have to have new transmission lines. There will be a transmission component, Mr. Speaker, of the new industrial rates policy. That transmission, the same as it is done here on the Island, will be regulated by the PUB. We have to look at a figure for transmission and it has to be based on cost of service. What would be unfair is that one company could sit there, say this company wants this more, and they are further ahead than us, so let us have them pay the $300 million for the transmission line.

The way it will work, Mr. Speaker, is that as you use the line, you will pay the money. Over a period of time, that is the way utilities work, the lines will be paid for. That is the generation component there. That will be left to the PUB.

Combine the two of them, Mr. Speaker, and that is where we will come up then with the approximately $56 or $57 rate that will be charged. Again, it is very competitive and comparative to Quebec; however, if there is a process where Quebec either drops their rate to try to get business or increases their rate, Mr. Speaker, there will be a review mechanism in place whereby that can also be done by the minister.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, we live in a competitive world. We have to be competitive. If you get greedy, you lose business. If you lose business, you lose revenues. If you lose revenues, you lose social programs, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to be realistic, and that is what I would suggest this rate is based on.

Transmission will be regulated by the PUB based on cost of service. Again, nothing unusual, it is the way it is done on the Island, Mr. Speaker. We are neither giving the PUB a bigger role or taking away a role. It is a role that exists and we see no reason to change it.

The generation rate will be posted by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and recalculated annually, based on a transparent formula that allows Hydro to earn market value for electricity sales as well as keeping rates competitive with neighbouring provinces – obviously Quebec. Mr. Speaker, then the development and the market block, as I have indicated, give us the weighted average.

The development block will be provided below external market prices and will be available to all existing and future industrial customers. It will be fixed at the 239 megawatts, Mr. Speaker, and that one price will apply. The market block will be all remaining industrial power required and its price will be linked to external market prices, Mr. Speaker. It will be supplied from the Churchill Falls recall block, other generation sources in Labrador, including Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, just let me digress for one second here because I do not think there has been enough discussion of this in terms of Muskrat Falls. We have agreed to supply Nova Scotia with one terawatt of power. The facility produces 4.9 terawatts, or 20 per cent of power, approximately 170 megawatts. Mr. Speaker, if the need for power in Labrador is there, we can develop small hydro and wind on the Island and ship that 170 megawatts across the Maritime Link, thereby leaving more power for Labrador to develop.

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible) not viable.

MR. KENNEDY: Why isn't it?

MR. BENNETT: You would not build Muskrat (inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: No, if we had all the power we needed we would be doing Gull – excuse me, if we had all the mining developments proceeding and if we could get across Labrador. I say to the Member for St. Barbe, please talk to your wife and have her put forward, as part of her platform, the fact that Ontario needs power from Gull Island and that she should work with Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: The next time you are having a chat with the leadership candidate in Ontario, would you please suggest that to her? The Minister of Finance in Ontario –

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, send her a pin.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are looking at providing the power at a sensible rate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure, though, that IOC, as I have indicated, and Wabush Mines, are given that time to acclimatize, because it is going to be a big shock going from $6 to, in 2017, $50. Mr. Speaker, let's not operate under any illusions here. The bigger the company, Mr. Speaker – they are in it to make money. As the minister for government services will tell you, IOC is a good corporate client, a good corporate member of the community. I had the opportunity to work with them as Minister of Health when we provided that CT scan to Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there are boards of directors and there are shareholders, and these companies have to make money. We have to try to make sure they get to a point where the phase in allows them some degree of comfort. Will they be happy? No. Will IOC or Wabush Mines be happy? I do not expect so, Mr. Speaker, but it is part of the economic reality. These companies are good companies. They have been around. They know the way the business world works.

We are responding to what we heard from the various companies that we talked to during consultation, Mr. Speaker. These rates will be competitive with rates in Quebec and British Columbia. The lowest industrial rates today are in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and then the next lowest are in Quebec and BC. It is approximately $40 a megawatt hour in Manitoba at present, $50 a megawatt hour in BC and Quebec, and the Canadian average around $70. They pay around $90 a megawatt hour in industrial rates in Ontario.

We want to make sure that we are competitive. They would take place, Mr. Speaker, over a three-year period beginning in 2013. I think I referred to this earlier – and if I can find my chart, Mr. Speaker; yes, essentially IOC will go from $6 to $11 in 2013 to $27 in 2015, then up to $58. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is give them an opportunity, the same thing with Wabush Mines, although they will take a steeper jump from $4 to $27.

Mr. Speaker, when we hit 2017, at that point we will then be very similar to Quebec and British Columbia and still higher than Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the new rates will have an impact and we are aware of that; I keep repeating that. That is the reason for the phase in.

It was forecasted it will increase the cost of iron ore by $6 per tonne, Mr. Speaker. Again, I reiterate, not by way of complaint: IOC and Wabush Mines, in building Twin Falls, have done a great service to the people of Labrador. They have done a great service, Mr. Speaker, in terms of all the jobs they created, but it is time to recalibrate the payment scheme.

Mr. Speaker, as we move through this, we look at the economic analysis. I would encourage anyone to read Dr. Wade Locke's analysis and you will see that there are huge economic benefits to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

When we look at, then, the principles that are behind our proposed policy, Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the act in Bill 53 include the amendment in paragraph 2 which will add to paragraph 3(a) of the Electrical Power Control Act: "(v) should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador…". I am assuming the member opposite, the Opposition House Leader, is certainly in favour of that, promoting the development of industrial activity in Labrador. Obviously that creates more jobs, and hopefully jobs for the people in the Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, 5.1 is repealed and all we are adding there is that – just look at what we do with respect to the Public Utilities Board now. We can direct them on "…the setting and subsidization of rural rates…", $40 million a year. We can direct them on "…the setting of industrial rates in Labrador…" – that is the newly added one, Mr. Speaker – "…the fixing of a debt-equity ratio for Hydro, and the phase in, over a period of years… of a rate of return determination for Hydro…". Mr. Speaker, there are exceptions or exemptions from the Public Utilities Board, and that is going to be one of them.

We then go to the next proposed section of the act. Now, in terms of the transmission lines the PUB "…shall not apply to the setting of electricity rates for industrial customers…" in Labrador "…other than the transmission…" lines. In answer to a question by the Opposition House Leader today, Mr. Speaker, this does not affect residential and commercial rates in Labrador. They will still be governed by the PUB in terms of the setting of rates.

What could happen if new transmission lines are built either from Churchill Falls to Labrador West or Muskrat Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, then cost of service principles could apply, but that would be determined by the PUB in terms of residential –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Tell me what her answer is, Jim.

Essentially there will be the PUB, and the residential rates are still going to be dealt with by the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, if we get to a situation where CF(L)Co and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro cannot reach an agreement, in the amendment to 5.9, "…either party may apply to the public utilities board…". They can actually before 2015, but any order will not come into force until 2015.

Mr. Speaker, we have had all kinds of accusations tossed at us about excluding the PUB, but if we were going to exclude the PUB, why would we not just exclude them from everything? What we are trying to determine, Mr. Speaker, is how we allow the PUB to do the roles that they have done in the past. What we are doing in this act sees a continuation of what they have done in the past. We have never had a project like Muskrat Falls where they have set rates. What they are doing here is what they have done on the island, Mr. Speaker.

So, in any event, we get to the situation where there is no agreement, well, they can then – I do not know if arbitrate or mediate is the word, Mr. Speaker; they can make an order, but I think the order can also be changed if the parties agree. I thought I had read that somewhere; someone else will have to look at that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that was in there.

So, essentially, Mr. Speaker, the principles are those that I have outlined. What we are trying to do is ensure that when companies are coming to our Province, coming to Labrador to do business, they know the cost. I will say that I have heard these mining companies, one after the other, stand up and say – and I have heard Mining Newfoundland and Labrador say: we need Muskrat Falls. If the Province wants all of these developments to take place, we need power from Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all kinds of theories: why do we not recall power from Quebec, why do we not buy power from Quebec? Again, these issues have all been dealt with. As one mining executive said to me recently: why would we buy power from Quebec? What reason do we have to think that Quebec is going to give us a good deal? They are going to charge us the market price or the next price, whatever that may be; if it is diesel, it will be diesel, Mr. Speaker. So, what the mining companies want is stability in terms of pricing. This policy will outline the principles, it will set the pricing, as I have outlined earlier, and, as I have also stated, the residential and commercial customers will not be affected other than determined by the PUB and if new transmission lines are built.

Mr. Speaker, the industrial load in Labrador certainly has grown, and what we are trying to do is ensure that we have enough power for companies that want to come forward, because the price of iron ore is up there now; we do not know where or how long that will last. So, these companies – the ones I have met with – are anxious to get going, Mr. Speaker, and they will provide significant, significant economic benefits. In fact, Dr. Locke's paper outlines in great detail, I think he takes three or four scenarios and outlines if this, this, or this happen, these will be the economic benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this is what Dr. Locke had to conclude in terms of: okay, they will pay whatever it is they are going to pay for power, but he then tried to come up with a common value to give us something that would allow us to explain to the average person why the rates could be seen to be lower than ratepayers', and we are selling to Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, what Dr. Locke's analysis has shown – and it has been out there publicly for other economists to have a look at, for other business people – is that the value of mining in Labrador to the provincial economy ranges from an equivalent of $470 a megawatt hour to $630 a megawatt hour over the scenarios examined. That compares right now to $4 a megawatt hour, so $470 a megawatt hour to $4 a megawatt hour, Mr. Speaker.

This government will not apologize to anyone for trying to maximize the development, the revenues coming from our natural resources. We recognize the issues that are inherent with expansion and we are going to try to address all of those.

Mr. Speaker, what this policy will do, when a company comes into Nalcor or Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and says: I am looking at developing; what is it going to cost us? Up until this point, Mr. Speaker, there has been no real answer, because the only power we have had available is the eighty megawatts and there is no one signed on the dotted line yet. Alderon is certainly the closest; Labrador Iron Mines reached a deal in terms of their needs in terms of the five-and-a-half megawatts of power, but they need more.

Mr. Speaker, what we want to do is: success begets success, and we want these companies to proceed. I am sure that if I said anything less my colleague would be looking at me with a combination of both surprise and shock. We have to be very sensible in our approach. We have been asked to do this; I think that the member opposite, the Opposition House Leader, has certainly been asking us on a number of occasions in the past: when are you going to bring in an industrial rates policy?

These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are necessary to ensure that there is clarity here, that the TwinCo block, when it expires on January 1, 2015 comes back to us to use, Mr. Speaker.

The policy itself, in conclusion – not concluding, because I have ten minutes left – or in summary, will establish a single published electricity rate, including both generation and transmission components for all customers on the Labrador grid.

The generation rate will not be regulated by the PUB, because there has to be a profit margin based on market prices which allows CF(L)Co to continue their refurbishment of their assets. The transmission rate will be regulated by the PUB based on cost of services principles. That will essentially be, Mr. Speaker, the cost of building and maintaining transmission assets, plus a regulated return.

The rate policy review will be triggered, Mr. Speaker, when Quebec's rate becomes lower than ours, or theoretically, if it becomes higher. The Electrical Power Control Act has to be amended to strengthen government's authority to direct the PUB on the rates policy. The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act has to be amended to allow PUB regulatory oversight of transmission from the Churchill Falls Generating Station. Right now the PUB does not have oversight over transmission from Churchill Falls to Lab West because it is a private line. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no cost to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's customers right now.

Then, once we have the necessary legislative authority in place, the policy can be implemented through a combination of directions to the PUB. So, Mr. Speaker, the benefits of this are: the policy and the published rates will provide clarity to industrial developers; it meets the Energy Plan goal to receive market value for energy while maintaining a competitive environment; it ensures competitiveness with Quebec; and increased revenue will allow CF(L)Co to finance a long-term asset refurbishment strategy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, existing customers will see an increase in power costs. We are trying to deal with that through the phase-in. Mr. Speaker, as industrial demand increases, we will need more power, and that power will be provided both through the recall block, the 80 megawatts available, and power that is available from Muskrat Falls – power which we will indicate we will sell on the spot markets until such time as it is needed in Labrador, and then it will be brought back.

Mr. Speaker, when you sell it on the spot markets it allows for that, as opposed to try to enter into a firm power purchase agreement, because that is not what we want at present. Muskrat Falls is primarily a domestic project, and we will take advantage of the ability to make money, Mr. Speaker, until such time as the power is needed in Labrador.

The transmission costs before 2015 will become somewhat tricky if improvements have to be made, but we do not know at this point, until we know where these companies are going, what exactly will happen.

So, what we are trying to do is to reach – I do not like to use the word, compromise, Mr. Speaker – but reach a fair compromise I suppose for lack of a better term, that examines these competing principles and dictates, outlines a coherent process, one that respects the fact that we have to make money but also recognizes that so do businesses. There is a reality in the business world, Mr. Speaker, if these businesses make money, so do we.

Mining has been a significant benefit to this Province. The reason I am not talking – I see the Member for Baie Verte and other members here – about Island rates today or I am not ignoring the mining that is going on in the Island portion of the Province, this policy deals with Labrador industrial policy rates, Mr. Speaker. It is an exciting time in Labrador.

I had talked earlier and since I have a couple of minutes left, I do want to come back to the Labrador mining paper. I want to talk a little bit more about the potential for development. Mr. Speaker, at the present time we currently have thirteen operating mines in this Province; the biggest ones being IOC, Wabush Mines, Voisey's Bay ,and Teck. We have two new iron mines that opened in 2011, being Labrador Iron Mines and the Rambler Mines in Baie Verte. We have mines under construction with Tata Steel and St. Lawrence mine. The gross value of the mineral shipments as I indicated, Mr. Speaker, is $4.6 billion.

We recently had officials from my department attend the China mining conference, which is a huge conference. I unfortunately could not go because I was in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the next big mining conference will be the PDAC conference in Toronto; I think it is in February or March. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of how big this conference is. There are 28,000 people attend this mining conference in Toronto. People are very interested in what is going on in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the gross value of our mineral shipments as I indicated was $4.6 billion in 2011. It is estimated to be $4.1 billion in 2012. Iron ore accounts for 67 per cent of our exports, and nickel is 19 per cent. That is where a lot of the value is coming from.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, in 2011-2012 we received as a Province $343 million from direct taxation. Exploration was $172 million spent on exploration in 2011, with similar levels for 2012. When we look at future trends, Mr. Speaker, it comes down to significance of iron ore and what specifically is happening in China and India.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, whether naively or not there seems to be – or at least I will speak for myself. It seems to me, I always think that a prospector or someone goes out and he takes a pick, or he does something, a shovel or whatever, and then voila, I found the mineral. Well, when you talk to prospectors it is not that simple.

The process of getting to a mine is very complex, and that is one of the reasons we outlined in the Labrador mining paper. You have your scoping studies, your preliminary economic assessments, pre-feasibility, feasibility studies, and environmental assessments. Then you need power, because mining is a power intensive industry. Estimating power needs can be challenging because we do not know at what stage the projects will get to the stage where they are actually going to go. In the Labrador mining paper, Mr. Speaker, we use ten to thirteen megawatts of power required for each million tons of concentrate.

Mr. Speaker, if we get to all of these mines proceeding it would absolutely be amazing, but no one really expects for all of that happen. We expect some delays. We expect there could be financing issues. There could be environmental issues that have to be dealt with.

We want to make sure that as a Province, we say to people: These are the rules. When you come to our Province, these are the rules. This is the way it will work. This is your rate. This is how it will cost you. When you go to your board of directors seeking sanction of a project, you know what it is going to cost you; and two, you know that we have the power to give you. Mr. Speaker, up until this point, for all of the mining companies that has been a concern and that is why Muskrat Falls is so important.

We oftentimes hear people say: Well, first, Muskrat Falls' power is for export. Then it was for something else. Mr. Speaker, I became the minister – it seems like a long time ago – on November 1, 2011. Right from day one, I publicly stated that we had to have power for Labrador mining. It was obvious to me that if we wanted these developments to proceed, they had to have power.

To put it in perspective, with Wade Locke's four scenarios, a base case would result in $40 billion of economic activity. The moderate expansion of forty-one metric tons would be $60 billion of activity, major expansion would be $84 billion of activity, and the maximum case would be $123 billion of activity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the contribution to the provincial GDP in mining is approximately $2.2 billion to $3 billion per year, and the offshore $7 billion.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have to do what we can to ensure that we maximize the benefits to our people but to encourage business. Mr. Speaker, what this industrial rates policy does, it says to the companies: we hear you, we have to be competitive with Quebec, and we are going to publish these rates.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising today to speak to Bill 53 and I certainly listened to the minister in his comments in this debate.

What can I say, Mr. Speaker? What a difference a few days can make, because only a week ago when we had a discussion on a private member's motion in the House of Assembly with regard to Muskrat Falls and the power projects in Labrador we still had no industrial rate for customers. We had no mechanism in which rates would be set, and here we are a few days later and we are seeing what that is going to look like.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, first of all, that I am very pleased the government is actually realizing that Labrador's iron ore projects and mining in general will be the stimulus for economic growth right throughout this Province in future years. We have been dragging Newfoundlanders and members of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, to that way of thinking for quite some time because we live on the crux of what is happening. We see it every single day. The reality is that others are seeing it too, and that makes me feel good, Mr. Speaker, and it certainly makes me feel optimistic for what will happen and can happen in Labrador in future years.

Mr. Speaker, today we have mining operations and companies that are already on the ground investing in Labrador, whether they are in development, expansion, feasibility or pre-feasibility stages or still doing exploration, companies that many people in this Province have yet to even hear about. They are not household names. IOC is household name. Wabush Mines is a household name. The reality is that right on the doorstep of those projects exist today even larger mining developments with even a larger potential for future growth in this Province and future opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, companies that are doing work like the Grand River Ironsands which many people in this Province would not know about. Mr. Speaker, this is a project that will provide the potential, if done properly, for a lot of development and opportunity in Labrador. Let me explain to you why I am saying that. It is a different kind of iron ore operation, obviously; it will go through a different type of processing. Mr. Speaker, the opportunity for jobs in this type of mining that Grand River Ironsands is proposing in the Lake Melville area will create twice the jobs that you would see in the normal process of iron ore development mining and processing.

The unfortunate thing today, Mr. Speaker, is that if they were ready to go into operation today, the power is not there. The power is not existing in Labrador to be able to support that operation. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, government is now coming to the point where they are seeing that there is going to be a necessity for an additional transmission line to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, where there is going to be the need for additional power to run operations like this.

We do not have to listen on the news while the president of these companies talks about taking their production during their initial stages to the United States because they do not have power consumption in Labrador. That is not where we want to be as a Province. As a Province, we want to be able to capitalize on every single opportunity that is there and exists for us.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that soon we are going to see a plan or a vision from government that will address needs like that. We know they are real and we know, Mr. Speaker, that they will provide benefits and opportunities.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if there is a need to take those pilot projects to the US right now. I think that if there was some real effort put in between the company and Nalcor to look for an energy source, to be able to source the energy for this company, these pilot projects could actually be done in Labrador. If they were to be done in Labrador, we also know that there would be a tremendous amount of jobs created in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister for Labrador and the Minister of Natural Resources, who I know are both very familiar with this company and their operations, will certainly encourage that and work towards it.

Mr. Speaker, other companies in Labrador that I want to mention, that many in this Province will not have heard of: first of all, Labrador Iron Mines. Labrador Iron Mines is a small iron ore company. They are the first company to actually produce iron ore in Labrador since 1965, since the days of IOC in 1962 and –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: They are. They are across the border.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador Iron Mines is across the border. They are the first ones to be producing iron ore in that area since 1965. We know there have been benefits from this company that have accrued to the people of Labrador. We know that because we all know people who work in these operations. I know people who fly in and out and work in these operations on a regular basis. Although they only operate on a seasonal basis – they shut down in the winter – they are operating, they are creating jobs, and they are doing so on a very small scale.

Now, it is their hope, Mr. Speaker, that over the next five to six years they will ramp up their production and they will be extracting somewhere around 2 million tons of iron ore on an annual basis to 4 million tons of iron ore. Those are small numbers in the context of some of the operations we see, but it is nice to see that smaller companies are also investing. They are seeing the opportunity.

This company is a little bit different because they are negotiating their power needs through the Menihek Project. As we know, Menihek is a hydro resource that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that power is being sold to Quebec and it actually powers and lights up three communities on the other side of the Quebec border. In addition, the excess power is what is being negotiated now for industrial sale. That is one of the companies.

Mr. Speaker, some of the other companies – let us talk about Alderon's project. Companies like Century, like Alderon, and like Altius, all of these companies, Mr. Speaker, a lot of these people in this Province have not been familiar with them. They do not see what the potential is in these companies. Mr. Speaker, in twenty years these companies' names will be rolling off the tongues of people in this Province, just like IOC, Wabush Mines, Voisey's Bay, and all of these companies are today.

These are large deposits. They are significant. They will contribute to the next 100 to 150 years of iron ore production in this Province as long as the market demand is there. That is the kind of potential we are looking at.

These companies, Mr. Speaker – it does not matter whether you are talking about Altius, Century, Alderon, or whether you are talking about Tata's mines over on the border, the New Millennium mine, the LabMag or the KéMag, which is across the border. I have to make sure I get it clear, Mr. Speaker, for the member opposite, because he has the map out.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is important to note is that all of these companies are providing tremendous potential, and they will be the companies that will contribute to the growth of our Province. For example, today, we are extracting and processing less than 30 million tons of iron ore annually, closer to 25 million tons. We will see that, over the next twenty years, increased to over 80 million tons. That is the kind of growth that we are going to see in the iron ore industry alone in Labrador. Should we be supporting this industry? Absolutely, we should be supporting it.

Should we be giving away power to industrial companies? No, we do not need to. We absolutely do not need to. When you look at the power supply that is there today, when you look at the block of power that we are debating here today, the 225 megawatts of power, that power is currently being sold and produced at 0.06 cents today. That is what we are producing it at, which is unbelievable by any standards that you would think that.

Mr. Speaker, even though we have to build alternate transmission capacity, which we will have to build, into Labrador West and into Happy Valley-Goose Bay if we are to support the mining industry, we can do that, we can still set an industrial rate, and we can recover the cost and we can do it competitively. That is what I like about the bill that has been put forward today.


This bill does not put any pressure whatsoever on the taxpayers of this Province from where I sit. Now there might be something I do not know – and I want to put the qualifier in there because I was told stuff before, especially on Bill 75 that was not absolutely correct, so I will put a qualifier in there on Bill 53. The qualifier, based on what I was told in the briefing and the information that I had access to, to be able to read and understand, it is my interpretation that this is a win situation for the people of the Province.

In the last year, Mr. Speaker, I have continuously raised the issue of industrial power and the need for industrial rates to be set for industry in Labrador. I have to say that when government undertook to do this, they absolutely looked at not only where they could get a return on an investment, but they looked at how they could create a competitive climate to attract industry. I think that is very, very important, because we do have tremendous competition with the Province of Quebec when it comes to industrial development.

There might be people out there who do not believe that and think that you cannot transmit that power back and forth. Well, you are wrong, because you can. It is all about achieving the right agreement to be able to do so. The door is open to do those agreements. I know that because I have had the discussions with mining companies, the mining companies that are operating on the border. They have been approached and they have had some discussions, whether directly or indirectly, with Hydro-Quebec about the purchase of power and power agreements. I am not saying that at the end of the day we will not see some of these companies buying power from Hydro-Quebec, but what I like is the commitment that we will keep the rates competitive.

If there is an opportunity where our rates, on an industrial basis, are going to be higher than Quebec, well that has to be reviewed by the Public Utilities Board, and that is written in the legislation. That is being looked at as one of the things here, Mr. Speaker, that has to be done.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that today, in this country, we provide 37 per cent of the world's iron ore. That is what we provide: 37 per cent of the world's iron ore. That 37 per cent of iron ore comes directly from Newfoundland and Labrador. It comes from this Province. We are the giant of iron ore in the country.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the iron ore deposits in the Province right now are generating nearly $4 billion a year in mineral production. Somewhere around $4 billion, it might be a little less, Mr. Speaker – no, around $3 billion. The total mining industry itself is contributing to $4.5 billion in mining production.

Mr. Speaker, I want to add to that because what we do know is that with the right development over the next twenty years, what we are going to see is the provincial Treasury would have a gain of $17.5 billion in tax revenue. Just think about that. If the mining industry goes in Labrador the way we hope it is going to go, with the right environment and the right infrastructure to develop, and that includes competitive rates on industrial power and access to that power, we will see, Mr. Speaker, over the period of the next twenty years, growth that would result in an additional $80 billion in new capital and operating expenditures to the Province, and an additional $17.5 billion in tax revenue to the Provincial Treasury. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is massive. Those numbers are so big I can hardly put my head around them, to be honest with you – but that is the kind of contributions that we could potentially see.

So, Mr. Speaker, back over the last few months, while I talked about industrial power in Labrador, the need to have industrial power, and the need to have an industrial rate, I took criticism from a lot of people. I had a lot of tweets directed at me, and e-mails saying: you want to give power to big companies, you want to give industrial power to the big companies, and all this kind of stuff.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not pay any heed to those people, nor will I pay heed to them in the days to come, because it is quite obvious to me that they do not understand the magnitude of what this development can contribute to the people of the Province, including them, as residents. They are not seeing it, and that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, the availability of power will encourage investment in the mining developments in the Province rather than in other jurisdictions. I think that is very important. I want to allude on that a little bit. I actually had an opportunity to have a chat with the minister about it after I raised it in Question Period today, and I actually raised it in the briefing that I had this morning – because, Mr. Speaker, right now we are dealing with a block of power that is there. That is what we are talking about. This legislation does not deal today with additional power. It does not deal with Gull Island that could come on, it does not deal with Muskrat; it deals with a block of power that is there today to be used for industrial development in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the bill says that basically, the Public Utilities Board would set rates with regard to transmission in the Province, and the government, through power purchase agreements, would reach agreements on generation of power. That would be directed to the Public Utilities Board and referred for approval. So, one of the things that we are seeing here is that the Public Utilities Board has been given a role in the setting of industrial power rates, and we do support that. We think that is important. In fact, we think the Public Utilities Board should be involved in the setting of all rates in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that this bill does is it gives the Public Utilities Board the role of an arbitrator. For example, when it comes to this 225 megawatts of power, that power will be distributed, Mr. Speaker, by CF(L)Co to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. If there is any dispute with regard to an agreement on price or terms, then that would go to the Public Utilities Board, and the PUB would then arbitrarily set a price that the parties would have to look at.

There are certain conditions that would come into play in setting that price. They would have to hear representation from both sides, Mr. Speaker. They would have to – just get my bill out here because I think it is important to note it for the record.

When an application is made, "…the public utilities board shall establish the rate to be charged and paid under an agreement…" but they must take "…into account the submissions of the parties and the following: (a) Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited's requirements for price stability and sufficient revenues to cover anticipated costs". Even though it goes to the PUB, the PUB still has to hear from CF(L)Co. They have to consider what CF(L)Co's needs are, what their price stability is, and what cost they may have that needs to be taken into consideration.

They also have to look at "the proportionality of the volume of energy under an agreement to Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited's total volume of energy produced". They would look at the total amount of energy that is going to be generated. They will look at what volume or what proportion of that energy that will be provided for under this particular agreement, and that would enter into the equation.

They would look at "the terms of the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited's shareholders agreement"; that is pretty straightforward. They would look at "other prices received by Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited for sale of electrical energy and capacity", that is pretty straightforward; and the policy objectives that were set out in other parts of the bill to ensure that these policy objectives are achieved. The rate established by the board under this section, Mr. Speaker, is the rate that then would stand.

Mr. Speaker, those are two of the roles that the Public Utilities Board will now play in the setting of industrial rates. I think that brings into this process a level of fairness, a level of fairness that, although governments are negotiating power purchase agreements, which I honestly believe that government should have the autonomy to do with industrial customers; I said that months ago, actually, in the public airways. I said it when I did Issues and Answers, I think it was a few weeks ago. It might have been another program, but that there should be power purchase agreements and those agreements should be negotiated with government. I still stand by that. I believe it is the way to go, because, Mr. Speaker, it is the leverage that you need in order to move forward with these kinds of developments.

The fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Utilities Board will be brought into it and will play a role gives me a level of comfort in terms of having a fair level playing field and ensuring that all the interests of all the parties, the companies, the taxpayers, the people of the Province, CF(L)Co, everybody has been included and taken into consideration. We see that as being important.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the point I was going to make. The point I was going to make is this. One of the things the minister talked about was the rates, and these are the rates that would be set. These are the rates that IOC will pay, these are the rates that Wabush will pay, and these are the rates that new companies will pay and so on. Obviously, we know these are based on preliminary numbers that look at the estimated cost of additional transmission capacity and we know these numbers could change to some degree.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my point is this. We would have liked to have seen a way to incorporate incentives into the power purchase agreements. Maybe it does not need to be in legislation. The minister assures me there is a way to do this without legislating it, and I want to put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important.

I raise the issue for several reasons, but one primary reason. Today, we have IOC that has a secondary processing operation in Labrador. They have a pelletizing operation. Now, it could be questionable of how much ore is actually pelletized and shipped and how much is shipped in concentrate but that is all determined by market conditions. Mr. Speaker, the reality is there was an investment. There was a concentrated effort on secondary production and there was an effort to create alternative employment in the area, in Labrador, as opposed to shipping out all of the raw material.

The only thing we would be asking, Mr. Speaker, is that when companies are prepared to do secondary production that there should be an incentive shown in the power purchase agreements. In other words, if you are prepared to create more jobs in the Province, if you are prepared to create secondary production in the Province, if you are prepared to invest over and above the ordinary extraction of ore, then I think there should be some incentive for companies to do this. I think if a company is going to get the same power rate that comes in, extracts all the ore, puts it on a railcar to Sept-Îles or Pointe-Noire and then puts it on a ship, but the company that sticks around and puts a billion dollars in investment in secondary production are going to pay the same rates, I do not see that as being favourable or fair.

That was the point I was trying to make, and the point of my question today in Question Period. I am not saying that to protect IOC. I am saying it to protect companies that want to make investments. So, whether that company is Alderon, whether that company is Century, whether that company is Tata, it does not matter to me. Whether that company is Aurora Energy, whether it is Grand River Ironsands, I think that should be an incentive to attract more business and more industry to the Province because we do not want to see cases where these companies are going to move their operations outside of the Province. We do not want them to do that.

We saw that already. We saw major investments made in the Province of Quebec, going back many years, and we do not want to see that happen in the future. We want to encourage people, these companies to invest as much as they can in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, the people are going to say to me – before I even sit down, I bet I am going to have it on my Twitter – okay, you want to give cheap power to someone because they are going to create more jobs. Listen very carefully, Mr. Speaker. The upside to this is that even though they get a cheaper rate on their power, it does not mean we do not recover our cost. We can still recover our cost, and recover it at a different power scale. So that is still possible and that can happen.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the benefits that we will create as a result of secondary industry will offset anything that we could potentially lose in any gap on power rates. I think the Minister of Labrador Affairs would agree with me, right, because he knows this very well. He eats, sleeps and breathes it, and he knows it very well, as I do, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the Province would be much better off. I would encourage the minister and the government to take that approach, to actually take that approach. There is nothing that needs to change in the legislation, from what I see, to allow for that, but I will over the next day or so have a very careful look at it and I will ask for other opinions. I would ask the ministers to do the same, because I would not want us to pass this and then find out that there is an opportunity for some company to come in that is going to create 800 jobs in this Province and they are going to have to pay the same rate as what someone who is going to come in on a short-term basis, ship everything out, and only create 100 jobs. That is the point that I am trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, we will look at the legislation over the next few days to make sure that there is nothing here that prohibits government from looking at negotiations on that level and using it as an incentive to encourage other activity in the Province and additional investments. Obviously, that is where we would like to be.

Mr. Speaker, providing power to the mining companies is one piece of what is necessary in Labrador to drive this industry. To drive this industry to the brink of where they deliver for the people of the Province the $80 billion in new capital and operating expenditures and where they deliver for the people of the Province the $17.5 billion in tax revenue that we would have in our provincial Treasury in the next twenty years. In order to do that, power is one piece of it, but we see ways that we can capitalize even more, and that is the railway.

The minister said it before I got the words out of my mouth, because he has ESP when I am up. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, he knows and I know he has a document in his office and maybe one of these days I am going to ask for it in the House of Assembly and maybe he will share it with me. It is the study on the rail for Labrador. I know that the report was done, Mr. Speaker. I know that the government looked at several options, and I know that Goose Bay is a possibility. I know that, Mr. Speaker.

How do I know that? I have ESP, I say to the minister. I know that because there has been some talk around this and I know that the department and the minister, when I raised these questions in the House last year, took the issue very seriously. I know that they seen the potential as well and they went out and they hired a consulting company to give them an analysis of what those options are in Labrador. I know some of those options that were considered were in my district. Mr. Speaker, I hope that there is one of those possibilities in my district because if it is, I will not sit down for the next three years.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the thing is that the potential is there for rail in Labrador. In order for us to further develop the mining industry, we have to have a way to ship the power out. When the first mines were developed – and I have said this before and I will repeat it again because it bears repeating. When the first iron ore mines opened in Labrador between 1962 and 1965, the iron ore at that time, Mr. Speaker, they built a railway going to Sept-Ȋles. They built that railway because the investors of the day as I said before were American shareholders, and the markets for steel were in the United States. What they wanted, Mr. Speaker, was how to maximize their return on getting that ore out and getting it to the market.

They looked at building the railway into Sept-Ȋles. I was told that at the time the government of the day who was a Conservative government at the time also looked at putting a rail across Labrador. I have not been able to get the documents, but maybe the members opposite can find the documents. Maybe they are somewhere in the archives of the government, but the archives that I have access to I could not find them. We tried to find them in the university library and we could not find it there. I have been told that it might be sealed in some capsule that cannot be opened yet. We will have to wait and see.

As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, they decided to opt for a railway going into Sept-Ȋles. At that time Sept-Ȋles was only a town, a fishing community like a lot of communities in my district, like a lot of communities in the Member for St. Barbe's district, and the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, just small fishing communities.

When they built the railway into Sept-Ȋles, it was the opportunity for growth. They were building a full economy around the mining industry. They grew their population to what is over 25,000 people today initially in Sept-Ȋles, not counting the population base outside of that area. Mr. Speaker, it was built on the iron ore trough and that is how that community was built up.

Today, what we need to do is find a route out again. We need to find another route out for iron ore in Labrador. I think, Mr. Speaker, the new route should be in Labrador, not in Quebec. It should be in Labrador and I know the minister has a study. I hope that he is going to bring that study to the House of Assembly. He is not going to wait for me to get up and ask him for it. He is going to bring it in. He is going to say here are the possibilities and there is a possibility to put a railway in Labrador and in Lake Melville.

Mr. Speaker, that being the case, we need to move and we need to move quickly with these iron ore companies. Right now, Mr. Speaker, they are all being gathered inside the white picket fence of Quebec. They are being gathered in and they are being asked to pay for percentages of cost on developing ports, feasibilities, and railways.

We already know, Mr. Speaker, that Caisse des Dépôts, which is the provincial pension fund in Quebec, is an investor. We know CN Railway is an investor. We know that the Government of Quebec is an investor. We know the Government of Canada has put $55 million into the port. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there is an orchestrated effort right now across the border to build that second railway and to expand Pointe-Nord and the Port of Sept-Îles to accommodate – who? – the Labrador iron ore developments. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

We have to make sure that does not happen. That rests on our shoulders today. That rests on your shoulders in government to make sure that does not happen today. How can we look at ourselves in the next twenty-five years and watch ore going out of the Province, the next fifty years? Our children for fifty years after that continuing to watch this iron ore going out of the Province – we cannot do that. We need to look at the feasibility of our own railway.

Mr. Speaker, we know the cost of building a railway in Labrador is not going to be cheap. We know we are looking at in excess of $1 billion and close to $2 billion. We know that, Mr. Speaker, because we know the conditions under which we live today and the cost of doing large-scale development projects. We know there is going to be a huge price tag attached to it, but is it a price tag we can afford? I would say yes. I would say yes, Mr. Speaker, because it is not something we are going to use for twenty years. We are going to use it for 120 years.

Is it something that is going to bring tremendous wealth to the people of the Province? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, bar none, it will contribute ‘humungously' to –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I have four minutes.

It will continue, Mr. Speaker, for quite a long time. We need to do it, Mr. Speaker – we need to do it. We need to build that railway and we have a competitive advantage. I would challenge anyone today to tell us that we do not have a competitive advantage in Labrador to have that railway and have that port.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing more and more vessels going through the Northwest Passage. That is the shipping route of the future, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is where the ships are going to go to market. Our markets today are not in the United States. Our markets are in Europe, our markets are in China. Our markets are in India and that is where we are going to be shipping iron ore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we can do that through Labrador. We can do it through a railway in Labrador. We just need a government with the courage to step up and say: we are going to make this investment for the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: When they stand up and say they are going to make that investment, I will be the first one standing up, Mr. Speaker. I will be the first one standing up to support it because I believe firmly it is the future for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I know I have twenty-three, almost twenty-four minutes left, but seeing the hour of the day, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my debate now and I will use my time on the next parliamentary day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to be clear, before I make a motion, if I adjourn the debate, the members' time will sit?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: Okay.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, that we adjourn debate.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that debate now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the hour of the day I once again move, seconded by the hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

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

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