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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier stated that the Department of Justice has completed a review on the Upper Churchill deal and had received some legal opinions from Quebec lawyers. These legal opinions have since been forwarded to CF(L)Co, as we know, and they have asked Hydro-Quebec to have discussions around renegotiating the deal.

I ask the Premier today if he is prepared to table those legal opinions so that they are available to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the level of betrayal of the hon. member opposite to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador never ceases to astound me.

She is asking today that we release the legal opinions that could possibly be used, if an action is commenced by CF(L)Co, and give them to Hydro-Quebec so that they can prepare their case against Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Absolutely not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, who does not have access to these opinions right now? The government has them, Nalcor has them, CF(L)Co has them, of which Hydro-Quebec is one-third shareholders of CF(L)Co; so my guess is they have access to them. The only people, the only stakeholders in this that do not have any access to any legal opinions to substantiate the case the government claims they have, are the people of the Province.

I ask you, Premier: Why will you not disclose the information that will substantiate the propaganda that is being put out there by your government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor Energy does not have our legal opinions.

What we have indicated to them is what we have discovered, which we felt was the proper interpretation of Quebec’s civil code when it comes to good faith or bona fides with respect to the ongoing obligation under contracts. That general information was disclosed to CF(L)Co, and CF(L)Co have then gone and gotten their own legal opinions.

So these are opinions that are held by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are confidential opinions. There is a solicitor-client privilege between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Department of Justice, and those legal opinions that have come in from other sources.

We would basically be giving away the farm; we would be showing exactly what our position is. I mean I cannot be any simpler or any plainer to you, that you do not give the other side, in a legal case, your legal opinions. You do not sit down in a game of cards at a poker table or a game of 120s and show your cards on the table and then play out the game of 120s. That is not the way it works.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. the Premier to conclude his remarks.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There is something, obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is missing here because I cannot understand why she is trying to accommodate Quebec in this whole exercise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Hydro-Quebec is a shareholder of CF(L)Co, who are the very people that are issuing this challenge on behalf of the government, one would think they do have all the information.

Mr. Speaker, back in May of 2008, the Minister of Natural Resources who happens to be the Deputy Premier, stated that they had legal opinions at that time in the Province. Her big statement of the day is that they were getting ready to sue the federal government and Hydro-Quebec on redress on the Upper Churchill. Mr. Speaker, no sooner was she out of the press conference then she was backtracking on her statements saying that she had misspoken.

Well, Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier today is the same legal opinions that were being referenced by the Deputy Premier over a year ago. Is that the same premise under which you, your government, Nalcor and CF(L)Co are proceeding today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is looking for trails and traces and trying to thread pieces together that does not make any sense. Mr. Speaker, when she has the facts before her she does not know how to interpret them.

No, Mr. Speaker, there was nothing I said back at that time that had any reference whatsoever. I misspoke in a news conference. I owned that completely; I withdrew those remarks. They have nothing to do with any action that has been taken since that time, Mr. Speaker, none at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Premier went out there on that day with the big press conference, Mr. Speaker, made the big statements and, no doubt, had misspoken because she had nothing to substantiate of that of which she spoke, and that is why she withdrew the comments. Mr. Speaker, let’s see if there is anything to substantiate the claims that they are making today.

The Premier committed yesterday, in the media, to provide any precedents involving court cases where contracts were overturned as a result of the 1994 amendments to the Quebec civil code, which are really what is at the heart of this entire challenge that is being launched by CF(L)Co. According to Ed Martin - I listened to his comments on the radio.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - what precedents are there, and I ask if you would at least be prepared to table the information around those cases that you feel will substantiate your claim?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is frightened to death that we are going to be successful, that we are finally going to turn around and get redress and reverse the terrible inequity and, I guess, the wrongdoing that has been done to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of a Liberal government. This happened back in 1969. There has been a terrible injustice. We have been wronged. We have lost a fortune. We are going to lose another $60-plus billion over the next thirty years, and she is frightened to death that maybe, maybe we are going to do something good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I watched in astonishment last night when she did a scrum outside and basically said that she really did not have any confidence in what was going on with regard to our legal action. What kind of a message is that to the people of the Province? What kind of message is that to the people of Quebec, who are watching it and saying, a politician in Newfoundland and Labrador does not think Newfoundland and Labrador has a leg to stand on in its legal case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no problem with success in this Province; in fact, we want to see as much of it as we possibly can. What we do we have a problem with, Mr. Speaker, is a government who continues to make mistakes, and they have admitted to a lot of them in the last few months, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s not forget, this is also a government about fluff. They were going to put transmission lines through a national park but turned around after and told people, we are just kidding. So, Mr. Speaker, what do you expect when you lay something out there in the public but you do not want to substantiate it?

So I say to the Premier today, I say to the Premier today, the research that we have done, very limited, very limited, I will admit to that, Mr. Speaker, but there has never –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to my left for their co-operation and I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to pose her question now.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because it is a very important question.

In fact, we want to know where the precedented cases are that the Premier speaks of because according to the knowledge that we have, Mr. Speaker, there has been no serious address or definition by the provincial courts or by the Supreme Court as it relates to the Quebec criminal code (inaudible), and I ask the Premier today if he will give us that (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of research, and I can’t - not take advantage of this opportunity to point out the dearth lack of any ability they have over there to research information. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the Opposition stood in this House and accused Nalcor of spending nearly $1 million on Summa in Ottawa, a lobbyist company, to lobby on behalf of them. The information he said he got from the federal government Web site. Mr. Speaker, he was completely, totally wrong.

First of all, there is no federal government agency that provides information on fees that are paid to lobbyist firms on companies’ behalf. Second of all, the information –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer now.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is important. The $960,000 that was referenced on that Web site was for three specific initiatives of this government that are being done on behalf of Nalcor. In fact, since 2006, only $298,500 has been spent by Nalcor (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Great diversion by the minister from the question that was asked to her. Obviously, they have no precedented cases. They have no information to tender. They have nothing to substantiate, other than fluff, Mr. Speaker.

So let me ask the minister this. The amendments of the Quebec Civil Code, which took place in 1994, and we know that the Churchill Falls Agreement was signed in 1969, so I ask: Is there any retroactive clauses in this agreement that would allow you to even have the contract addressed twenty-five or thirty years later?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has talked about her research and the detailed research that she does, and how strong it is, and how accurate it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The Opposition House Leader, who I presume deals from the same –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: – brilliant pool of research that the Opposition Leader deals from, came up yesterday with a figure that had absolutely nothing to do with what he pretended it was all about. In fact, the $960,000 was for the Northern Strategic Plan, for diesel subsidies, which I assume the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair is in favour of, and energy related studies for the Department of Natural Resources. That is what the $960,000 was for.

So this is the research. So, if your researchers are telling you you cannot do something on a legal case, or they are telling you about precedents, ignore them, because they do not know what they are talking about, like you do not know what you are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Still no answers. Still nothing to substantiate the claims that they are making. They cannot tell us if the Quebec Civil Code that was amended in 1994 is even going to be retroactive to deal with this issue. They cannot tell us if there are any precedented cases that exist in the courts since 1994, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe they can tell us this, if Quebec Hydro refuses to meet and negotiate before the January 15 deadline that you have put in place, what is the next course of action? Is there a case to take to the Supreme Court or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. That is an action in good faith. We are assuming that there may be good faith by Hydro-Quebec. It will be a first, believe me, if they happen to do it. Unlike my friends opposite who think they are probably the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Having said that, we will - if at the end of the day there is no renegotiation, then we will leave that matter in the hands of CF(L)Co. They have the benefit of legal opinions which they have performed, which I assume are similar to the legal opinions which we have which indicate that there are other remedies available. That is the simplest and most general way I can put it for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next questions are for the Minister of Health, and I know he is awfully excited to be getting on his feet in this session of the House.

Mr. Speaker, today marks World AIDS Day and the Province has been without an infectious disease specialist since March of this year. In fact, in questioning in the spring session of the House of Assembly and in the early fall session, the government had committed to launch a recruitment strategy to fill those particular positions. To date, they have still not been done.

I ask the minister today: What the plan of action is and what are they doing to recruit these specialists for the Province after such a long period of time of having the positions vacant?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is accurate that the infectious disease specialist position is vacant; however, we did have a locum here for the Province in November. This locum is now finished but has expressed interest in coming to work. We are also speaking to another infectious disease specialist who is interested in coming to the Province and doing locum work in January.

In terms of recruiting doctors or physicians, Mr. Speaker, we currently have, I think it is 1,042 doctors in the Province – more than we have ever had. We are currently in negotiations with the medical association. Most significantly, Mr. Speaker, we are ready at some point in the near future, to release the market adjustment policy which will allow us to address the situations of recruitment and retention in hard to fill positions. This has come out of the bargaining process, Mr. Speaker, and we are confident that in the not too distant future we will be able to fill this position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, today, I think it is slated for three infectious disease specialists for this Province, of which we have neither one. We have 130 patients today who are suffering from AIDS and HIV who need this particular service on a regular basis. We have just come through a major pandemic in the Province, not quite over yet, with regard to the H1N1.

I ask the minister today: In the absence of the many months that have went by with no success of recruiting not even one of these three specialists for the Province, why are you not looking at some kind of a package that we could offer to retain one of those locums that are currently visiting every month, or couple of months, to come and stay and practice in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the Leader of the Opposition that we are in negotiations with the medical association on an ongoing basis. We are talking to a couple of doctors who are specialists in this area, with a view to recruiting them to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are offering attractive bonuses in terms of retention and recruitment. Also, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador offers a quality of life that doctors are looking for today. There is more than just money, Mr. Speaker, it is good place to work; it is a good place to raise a family. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 2008 the Western School Board -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: -decided that Bayview Regional Collegiate in St. Lunaire-Griquet would close its door upon the completion of a new facility in St. Anthony.

This closure of Bayview would mean that children would have to be bussed up to forty kilometres to St. Anthony which poses great safety concerns for parents, especially during the winter months. Also, the loss of this school could mean that the community of St. Lunaire-Griquet would lose an important part of its identity.

So I would ask the Minister of Education: What has your department done to ensure the best interest of the students, and the community of St. Lunaire-Griquet, will be served by keeping Bayview academy open?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member opposite for his question. A very interesting question. I wish I could ask it back because I remember the member opposite making some very public and clear statements on commitments that he would honour if elected as the member of the other side.

What I have done is I have honoured the commitment that I made at a public meeting at which three members opposite attended and a number of people on this side of the House attended. That was to ensure that due process was followed, to ensure that the concerns raised to me by members of the public meeting, each and every single one of them were brought to the attention of the school board and that I would direct the school board to respond appropriately to the people, to the town council, to the school council, to address the concerns they brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have followed through on that commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, back in 2005 there was an announcement by the Nova Central School Board that Leo Burke Academy in Bishop’s Falls would be closing and students were to be bussed to Grand Falls to attend school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: At that time government, Mr. Speaker, decided to reverse a decision made by the school board, and Premier Williams was quoted as saying: The Province will continue to overrule the decisions of government boards and consultants with which it disagrees. He also stated: You will see it again.

So I ask the minister: Will you commit to reversing the decision made by the Western School District to close Bayview Regional Collegiate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to make all kinds of commitments today, and I am prepared to review for the member opposite the kind of leadership we have provided for education in this Province. If we had the time, I could talk about the elimination of school fees, and the provision of textbooks. I could talk about the quality of facilities we are putting in place. I am prepared to talk about the $120-plus million we are putting into infrastructure and new schools and renovations and maintenance.

I am prepared to talk, Mr. Speaker, about a democratic process that this government supports that just saw new school boards elected in this Province, and I am prepared to talk about my commitment to let those boards do the job that they have been elected to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s commitment. However, my question was: Given the establishment of a precedent, would the minister be willing to commit to reversing the decision made by the Western School District to close Bayview Regional Collegiate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, to pick up where I left off, I am certainly prepared to talk about the new schools we are building in Placentia and in Torbay and in Paradise.

I am also prepared to, once again, reiterate this government’s commitment, Mr. Speaker, that all of us recognize the role of school boards in this Province. As a matter of fact, this government made the decision to invest more than $300,000 into democracy to promote the election of school boards because it is their role, Mr. Speaker, to provide governance and to organize schools and school systems in this Province. My commitment is to ensure that those boards do their jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the 2009-2010 academic year has already been marked by four school closures due to air quality issues. We have urged the Department of Education, repeatedly, to make air quality inspections mandatory in all schools throughout the Province and for inspections, of course, to be made public. The Department of Education continues to reject the idea and schools continue to be disrupted.

I ask the minister: How many more times will we have to raise this issue before you will take the initiative to reconsider the way that air quality is monitored in our schools?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the questions asked, and I can only imagine what the ministers are trying to do in listening and trying to provide an answer. I ask members to provide an opportunity here for questions to be asked and answers to be given.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know my colleagues get rather excited when we talk about education. We have done so many wonderful things in this Province. It is really hard to contain ourselves.

I thank the member opposite for the question. I am gratified by the amount of attention you are giving me today. I appreciate that.

Let me remind you of a couple of things that I am sure your colleague next to you from Port de Grave has reminded you of. We have invested this year $120-plus million, Mr. Speaker, in school maintenance, in renovations and in air quality projects. Mr. Speaker, that includes everything from replacing roofs, windows, and siding to tiding, to building new schools.

Mr. Speaker, I would also remind the member opposite, or share for his knowledge perhaps, that is more than a 700 per cent increase in investment in school facilities for the purposes of things like controlling and fixing air quality problems, more than 700 per cent increase from when the Liberal government was in power, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Let me also say to the member opposite’s question, Mr. Speaker, that they are clearly misinformed about the kinds of things that will fix air quality problems.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions when we raised the question of whether air quality testing should be conducted in the Province’s schools, the minister said the practice of conducting enhanced inspections is the best way forward. However, when mould issues are found and renovations are done the contractors frequently use air quality testing to determine whether it is safe for students to reoccupy the school. So there seems to be a contradiction going on.

I ask the minister: Why is it that air quality testing is not being used to detect problems in the first instance, but is being used to give the green light for the reoccupation of schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, thank you again for the question and the opportunity to elaborate a little further on some of the things that I have been talking about.

For the member opposite, let me say, first of all, that clearly people who are experts in the field of air quality will tell you, number one, that air quality testing will not solve the problems, and in many cases, many of the problems we are having with air quality in our schools cannot be detected by the kind of air quality testing that the member opposite talks about.

Well, let me just say this, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this, to be very clear for the people who are watching and listening to this. The problems we have discovered recently with air quality testing have not been discovered through air quality testing. They have been discovered because this government has gone in and invested money to upgrade facilities. Problems, Mr. Speaker, that would not have been detected, would not have been detected, if we had not been investing time and money to ensure the facilities were as good as they possibly could be for students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe my ears yesterday when I heard the Minister of Health and Community Services say in this House that the long-term care and community services strategy is not complete. Mr. Speaker, at the very least he should have known – he indicated he had been listening to the news and he had seen the town hall that I held last week on CBC on the Internet. He should have known I was coming with questions on home care yesterday. Mr. Speaker, this government announced they were working on a strategy in February of 2008. It was the first time it was said in this House by the then Minister of Health, and since that time we have heard nothing but empty promises.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is the long-term care and community support strategy not ready?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, as I have indicated yesterday, the strategy is not complete. I am not satisfied where it stands in our department and I have decided that there is further work that needs to be done in relation to this strategy. That does not take away, Mr. Speaker, from the amount of money that we have spent on long-term care. As I outlined yesterday, I cannot even add it all up there is so much there, in terms of so many different long-term care facilities.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that we have put into home care, and the amount of money that we have put into health care in general. Mr. Speaker, $2.6 billion of our budget, 40 per cent of the budget is into health care. There is a $1 billion increase over five years ago, and it is double the budget over a decade ago. We are the second highest spending per capita in the country, just after Alberta. Now what does that tell you, I say to the member opposite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I did not ask about our health care expenditures, I am well aware of the budget. What I am talking about is why this government is not setting home care as a priority. The minister should have been able to announce yesterday that the strategy was finished. Mr. Speaker, with so many people hurting because they cannot afford home care or get adequate home care, government’s lack of action on this serious situation is unjust. No less than unjust.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When is government going to make universal home care a priority, and is that the strategy he is working on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is hard to answer in forty-five seconds the question being asked by the member opposite. In terms of universal health care, it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that across this country the jurisdictional scan I have had completed indicates that there is no universal home care.

I did indicate, Mr. Speaker, yesterday that I would outline how our financial assessment tool would benefit people. There have been, Mr. Speaker, 1,435 clients reassessed. The number of decreased contributions is $937, resulting, Mr. Speaker, in a $3.3 million cost to the government. To give you an example, a monthly income of $2,100, Mr. Speaker, that would have currently had to give or contribute $1,000, will now contribute $124 for a decrease in the client contribution of $953.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: That is money in the pockets of people of this Province that they can spend.

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

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

I am amazed by the minister’s statement about doing a scan and not finding universal home care across the country. He had better check on his own researchers because there are at least three that have complete, total, universal home care: Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba for three.

Mr. Speaker, if home care is a priority for this government, why is it that a year ago last month the then minister said that the strategic plan would be released in the very near future? That was a year ago, November 25.

Can the minister define for this House: With the many people across his Province who need home care services, what the very near future means to you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I became Minister of Health approximately two months ago. I indicated at that time that I would speak to the people of this Province whenever needs arose and address concerns, as we did in Flower’s Cove and Lewisporte and as we did with H1N1.

The strategy, Mr. Speaker, will be developed and it will be provided when it is completed. I am not going to rush a strategy simply because the Leader of the NDP wishes to see the same. I cannot give her a time frame as to when it will be done; but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when it is done, it will be done right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A quick question from the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier both alluded to the fact that I supposedly gave some incorrect or misleading information to this House yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I have with me in my hand here the information that I referenced yesterday, which I will table with this House. It was obtained directly from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada. The information shows that Nalcor, which is owned 100 per cent by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, paid $960,000. It had nothing to do with what the Premier said about subsidization of oil rigs. It had to do with assistance for infrastructure and development of the Lower Churchill. It had to do with capacity of hydro-electricity in the Province of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table what I have, I challenge the minister and ask the minister, will you table what you are referencing which says that I am not right?

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I have to do if he tables the document that he has, which is from the Web site, that is the only evidence I need. The category right along that describes what the money is for is money from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to Nalcor. It nowhere says that that money was used to pay Summa. The money is money that Nalcor received outside their core budget for three different projects. It has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS DUNDERDALE: You have it. You are tabling it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: You do not know how to read the Web site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!