Home |  In the House | Question Period

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Premier.  

Just before we came to the House of Assembly, Nalcor did hold a press conference and the Premier did give a statement in the House of Assembly stating that new legal opinions have led them to ask Hydro-Quebec to reopen the Upper Churchill contract.  

I ask the Premier today: Where did the legal opinions, I guess, come from that were solicited by the Province and how do they differ from other legal opinions that have been given to governments over the last thirty years?  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

There has been a fair bit of legal research done over the years in the Province, as far as I know it.  Recently, scholars and jurists have come out, and their lawyers have given opinions with regard to certain actions that we could take in specific areas, whether that was taxation, whether that was breach of fiduciary duty.  

What we decided to do was go back and look at all the legal opinions, all the possible options to see if we could find the best option in order to possibly open the door to a renegotiation of the Upper Churchill contract.  

As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said before, this is a matter that sticks in the craw of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.  As I said, it is one of the biggest giveaways - probably the biggest giveaway that has ever occurred in the entire country in the history of Canada .  So it is something that we feel should be wronged.  

I, personally, feel that the actions of Hydro-Québec have been wrong.  The term: despicable, was used, and I will continue to use that kind of a term -  

AN HON. MEMBER: Odious –  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - odious, greedy.  

So, on the basis of the legal opinions that we went through and that we obtained from senior legal firms and from eminent jurists in the Province of Quebec, we have decided that was information that was important to be passed over to CF(L)Co, and we did so.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

The people of the Province have had their expectations raised around possible changes that could occur to the Upper Churchill contract many times in our history.  Every time, I would say, Mr. Speaker, they have been left very disappointed.  

I ask the Premier: Have you been able to confirm that the opinions you have are strong enough to launch a third challenge in the Supreme Court if that is necessary?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is not about raising expectations.  This is about righting a very serious wrong.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The option for this government would be to do absolutely nothing.  That is not an option for this government, it has never been an option for this government and it never will be an option for this government.  

We are trying to do - as other governments have tried, and with the best of intentions, and for various reasons, have failed.  We are not prepared to give up on this under any circumstances whatsoever.  The loss of revenue to this Province is enormous.  It is a renewable energy source.  It is hundreds of millions of barrels flowing every year, equivalent to some of the major oil fields that have been discovered out off our coastline.  

As a result, we feel that we need to pursue this and the best way to pursue this is in good faith.  The best way to pursue good faith is to have this information passed over to CF(L)Co.  It is my understanding that CF(L)Co have announced today that president, Ed Martin, has now written the other shareholders of CF(L)Co to see whether, in fact, in good faith, this matter would be open for renegotiation, and that is a very good thing.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

I guess this is a little different from the hard-nosed tactics we have seen the Premier playing with the Lower Churchill issue for some time now.  

Mr. Speaker, let’s not be fooled here.  Every single person in this Province wants to see redress on this particular contract.  The fact that we ask questions about it does not undermine how we feel about it as well.  

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Although the letter has been sent, has there been any indication given at all by Hydro-Quebec that they would even be prepared to discuss any new legal clauses or claims that the Province says that they have been able to find within the contracts, and are they prepared to have any discussion at all around reopening the Upper Churchill agreement?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is my understanding that they would have probably just received this letter this morning or just early this afternoon, or within the hour, or maybe it is on the way right now.  I assume that when the announcement was made the letter had been sent.  

We, obviously, have had no correspondence from Hydro-Quebec or indication from Hydro-Quebec because this is a matter within CF(L)Co.  This is a matter that has to be discussed within them.  

If, at some point, the Premier of Quebec decided to pick up the phone and indicate to me, as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, that he wanted to enter into negotiations to reopen the Upper Churchill contract, well then sure, absolutely, we welcome that, but we do not expect that to happen, it has not happened before.  Efforts by previous governments, it has not happened.  

They have never indicated they wanted to renegotiate the Upper Churchill, so we felt that it was time that we provided information to CF(L)Co so that they could take the initiative to make it happen.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

I am somewhat disappointed to know that the Premier of Quebec would not have our Premier on speed-dial over an important issue like this.  

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated in the past that redress on the Upper Churchill was a precondition to any development of the Lower Churchill with Quebec .  Now, a few weeks ago, I heard him kind of back off that statement in the media when he said that a commitment - you backed off the commitment saying that those demands, a deal would not get done.  

I ask the Premier today: Are you, again, making redress on the Upper Churchill part of the prerequisite to any negotiations that would occur on future Lower Churchill agreements done by yourself or your government?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not want the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else to misunderstand.  The action, as I understand it, that has been taken by CF(L)Co today is an internal action taken by that company with their customer, Hydro-Quebec, in order to renegotiate a very, very unfair and odious and oppressive contract.  

The Lower Churchill negotiations are completely separate negotiations.  We intend to pursue those.  Quebec are trying to block us every step of the way.  Their strategic move to attempt to obtain the assets in New Brunswick was obviously a strategic attempt to try and block us from going through the Maritime Provinces .  Their recent action, again, which is a terrible action, is the agreement on the water rights for the Churchill River .  We attempted to have a fair agreement put in place, one that was a win-win for both parties.  It was approved by lawyers, it was approved by officials in both companies, it went before the board of CF(L)Co and Quebec voted that down.  As a result, now that is going before the Public Utilities Board.  

So there is no indication from Quebec , in any manner whatsoever, that they want to play fair, they want to be equitable.  Instead, they want –  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

I ask the hon. Premier to complete his answer.  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

They want to do whatever they can to prevent us from developing our project.  The Upper Churchill redress is a separate issue from the Lower Churchill and we are proceeding on both.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

The Premier continues to lash out at Hydro-Quebec and the Government of New Brunswick for considering a deal that would see New Brunswick Power sold off to the Quebec utility.  Now, Mr. Speaker, in his comments he has indicated that this could, in fact, restrict access for Newfoundland and Labrador’s capacity to transport power from the Lower Churchill project through New Brunswick.  

I ask the Premier, that if he was so confident that a Lower Churchill agreement was imminent, why did you not make application under the proposal call that was issued by New Brunswick more than a year ago to access transmission capacity at that time?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Opposition is so cozy with Quebec .  I cannot understand why they are so concerned about Quebec interests.  I cannot understand why they want us to do business with Quebec , the way that Quebec shafted them.  Maybe it is just a little bit of guilt to the fact that it was a Liberal government –  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: – that gave this away some forty or fifty years ago.  Maybe it is just a little guilt and a little shame that back in 2003, when she was a member of the Cabinet, Premier Grimes and his government were going to have the second largest giveaway in the entire Province.  Maybe that is what motivates her.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The simple answer to her question is I am not prepared, on behalf of this government, to authorize spending $10 million a year on nothing for seven years.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

Every time I listen to the Premier when I ask questions about the Lower Churchill, you are starting to sound like an old gramophone with the needle stuck, because it is just the same thing over and over again.  Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell him right now that there is no one cozy with Quebec .  No one cozy on this side with Quebec .  Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, at least we can have a conversation with them, and that is more than what is happening on the other side.  

Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island did bid for capacity –  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

MS JONES: – even though their projects were not ready to be constructed.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.  

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

When the proposal call went out for capacity on the lines in New Brunswick , Prince Edward Island did bid.  Although their projects were not ready to come on stream as well, but, Mr. Speaker, they were confident in those projects and they were looking forward, something that this Province failed to do.  

So, I ask today, Mr. Speaker, under the new FERC rules, which the Minister of Natural Resources claims in this House time and time again that allows for fair access to the U.S. markets through Quebec and through New Brunswick, I ask: The fact that the operator in New Brunswick changes, why does that change your access, your fair access, that you claim to have under FERC regulations?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

I do not know where the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been for the last three years because we have said time and time again that we have made application to the Régie in Quebec and that application is an open access application which should go through in about nine months.  That was three years ago.  Under that application we would apply to have capacity through Quebec so that we could wheel down into Ontario , we could wheel down on it to New Brunswick , and we could carry power on to the United States if absolutely necessary.  Those applications have been blocked every step of the way.  They even went so far on the first application to even deny the jurisdiction of their own regulator, which is the Régie.  In other words, you have no right or no ability to hear this, we are just going to do what we want.  That was one of their objections.  

Another objection was they would not even tell us the capacity of their system.  So, we are applying for 740 megawatts or kilowatts, I do not know what the right –  

MS DUNDERDALE: Megawatts.  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - megawatts of power through Quebec , and they will not even tell us if there is any space available.  These are very, very basic pieces of information that we are entitled to receive under open access principles, but I can tell you, that the people at FERC – and that is why I went to New York, and that is why I spoke to the people in New York – will ensure that Hydro-Quebec adheres to open access principles in their country and, hopefully, it spills over into ours.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!  

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!  

MS JONES: It really does not answer the question as to the reason why your government fell down on the job when there was access availability through New Brunswick and you did not take them up on that offer.   

Mr. Speaker, we know about the application that was in the system.  The minister talked about it hundreds of times in the House of Assembly.  We still never saw any results on it.  We have not seen anything come back whatsoever, so it really does not answer the question as to why you did not make the application.  

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier to confirm that, regardless who the operator is in New Brunswick under that utility, we should still have free access.  However, isn’t the real problem that exists is that there is no capacity left on the lines either in Quebec or in New Brunswick that will allow you to transport Lower Churchill power?  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

Before Joan Marie was writing her questions, now Shawn Graham is writing her questions for her.  

We just had the same discussion in Churchill Falls a week and a half ago, where Premier Graham indicated that there was no capacity.  Well, there are a couple of things.  First of all, we can build new capacity.  That is one piece of the equation.  We can build a corridor through and we will be writing Premier Graham in the very near future to request that access.  We will be doing that in conjunction with the Premier of Nova Scotia and in partnership between Nalcor and Emera Energy.  As well, if the interties at Orrington are upgraded, that will increase the capacity in New Brunswick .  So there will be greater ability for us to go through New Brunswick .  So, in fact, with the proper upgrades we can have additional capacity in New Brunswick .  So that is the political answer in New Brunswick by a Liberal government that is doing another giveaway right there.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

If we were to look at building additional transmission lines for Lower Churchill power, has the government done any evaluation of what the cost would be, and if so, can you tell us what that cost would be and could you also tell us if it will still allow the project to be economically feasible?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor and this government will understand every aspect of this project before we sanction, and before, unlike previous governments, we will negotiate a power purchase agreement with anybody in this country or in the United States .  Yes, Mr. Speaker, that has the potential to have to build new infrastructure on- for transmission either through Quebec or New Brunswick has always existed.  We have factored those costs into the cost of the project and the project is still feasible.  It is part of the necessary homework that you did not do when you tried to negotiate the last deal.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

You might want to remind the minister, I have never sat at a negotiating table on the Lower Churchill deal.  However, I am getting a little bit of insight into where they have been all the same.  

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister could tell us if it is economically feasible over what period of time, what routes they have looked at, and what the cost will be?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the questions that have been asked in this House, you would think they would have known that.  The route will be through Quebec .  The route will be through New Brunswick .  We have three applications in: two in Quebec , one in New Brunswick .  The one application in New Brunswick has two routes that are under consideration.  The two applications in Quebec have a number of routes under consideration.  

Mr. Speaker, all of those have been factored in.  There will come a time when we have to have a preferred route that we will have to let the system operator know, but in all of our planning we have factored in those costs.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: My question is for the Premier.  

Nalcor is 100 per cent owned by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government has funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars into Nalcor through the last few budgets.  It has come to our attention that Nalcor has paid almost $1 million to an Ottawa lobby company to arrange meetings with federal government agencies and departments.  

I ask the Premier: Why does Nalcor have to use taxpayer money to access federal government agencies and departments when we have our Premier, we have the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and we have Dr. John FitzGerald who should be doing this?  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, Nalcor is a corporation that is doing business all over the world.  When the hon. member opposite talks about the hundreds of millions of dollars that we have put into Nalcor, let me tell you that the dividends, and I don’t mean cash dividends to government, I mean the rewards that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to receive from Nalcor Energy, even after our lifetime, are going to be absolutely enormous.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is about building for the future.  It is about planning for the future.  It is about - not to beat it to death - it is about children, it is about grandchildren, it is about not giving away any more, it is about getting equitable ownership in our resources offshore.  I am sure the minister, this week, is going to have some calculations for you on what the recent announcement meant and what the hundreds of millions of dollars that we have spent have meant to the Province.  

Nalcor is a company that is operating in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador , and we stand behind them 100 per cent.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the lobby company who received this $960,000 from Nalcor was Summa Strategies Canada.  They were asked to access federal government agencies and departments such as ACOA, fisheries, environment and the prime minister’s office about funding possibilities for the Lower Churchill.  

I ask the Premier: Have relations between this government and Ottawa hit such a low that we need to pay almost a million dollars to lobbyists in order to conduct talks with the prime minister’s office and federal departments?  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. members opposite have no idea of the magnitude and the scope of a project like this.  Unfortunately, that is what happened to us back in 1969.  I do not think there was a real understanding of the magnitude of that project.  

I was up there just a couple of weeks ago and saw it, and looked at it, and just saw what an engineering marvel Upper Churchill is.  We own it, it is on our river, we built it, we maintain it, we pay the cost of maintaining it, and all that profit, and all that money, billions of dollars goes across those wires and goes into Quebec .  Now, I get that, and 99.9 per cent of Newfoundlanders get it, but they do not get it.  

Now, this is a big deal; this is big stuff.  We have to have the best lawyers money can buy, and the best engineers and the best consultants that money can buy.  I can tell you if, for a million dollars, we could get financing or guarantees for $2 billion, or $3 billion, or $4billion dollars for the Lower Churchill, well that would be money pretty well spent (inaudible).  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

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

Nalcor has been set up as a secret corporation by this government.  They are not subject to the freedom of information laws, they are not subject to the Auditor General, they are not subject to the Public Tender Act.  This information about this lobbyist expenditure only became available through the federal Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying.  

How much more taxpayer money has been spent by Nalcor just to get meetings and information, which should be readily available to them through regular channels?  Will government force Nalcor to release exactly how much information they have paid, in addition to this sum that has been revealed today?  

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It sounds to be now like the Liberal government in Quebec must be giving them information, and the Liberal government in New Brunswick must be giving them information, and the Liberal government in Prince Edward Island must be giving them information, because they seem to be doing everything they can to advocate the Quebec and the Hydro-Quebec position.  

Now, I have to tell you, politically, that is not somewhere I would want to be.  As a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian, that is not somewhere I would want to be.  Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get the fact that the work that Nalcor Energy and the Department of Natural Resources and this government has done for the people of this Province has been through the moon.  It has been outstanding, it has been exceptional work, and the return has been incredible.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So, to be getting on and want to know what is in the legal opinions and want to know what consultants are being hired, well that information goes right straight to Hydro-Quebec and then they use that information to work against us.  Well, that is not going to happen.  When we get a deal done, we will show you the whole lot of it.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

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

Before the Premier gets in a tizzy here about conspiracy theories and brown envelopes and whatever, I would just point out to the Premier that the information actually came off the federal government Web site from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada.  There are no big secrets here about where the information came from.  

The issue here is why does a 100 per cent provincially-funded corporation, such as Nalcor, have to pay a million bucks to talk to our prime minister’s office or any federal department?  That is pretty simple.  

My final question to the Premier is: The Opposition, and indeed the general public, have always wondered if the Province is getting its value for Dr. FitzGerald?  In fact, we have dubbed him Dr. Feelgood because it seems his primary goal was to make provincial cabinet ministers who visit Ottawa comfortable.  Why has Nalcor not used Dr. FitzGerald to arrange these meetings and save the taxpayers of this Province a million dollars?  That is pretty simple.  Why not?  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The hon. the Premier.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What a transformation is after happening of the hon. member opposite.  When he was over here, and he sat in the chair as a minister, and I asked him, as Leader of the Opposition, when they were going to do the Lower Churchill giveaway: Did you read the document?  He said: No, I have not read the document.  I will read it after I sign.  That is what he said to me.  That is exactly what he said to me.  Now he is reading government Web sites.  He has lots of time on his hands.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

I ask the hon. the Premier to complete his response.  

PREMIER WILLIAMS:  I will give you one example.  They should be calling him Dr. ‘Sealgood’, because when the seal issue was on the go he went around to every single embassy on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - he did an outstanding job –  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

PREMIER WILLIAMS: He identified for us who was with us and who was against us, and that was invaluable information to me.  That is one example.  If you have a couple of hours, I will give you another couple of dozen.  

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, my questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.  For almost two years government has promised the people of the Province a long-term care and community support services strategy that so far has not materialized, at least publicly.  

Mr. Speaker, people deserve to know what government is proposing.  We need a planned approached to solving problems with home care in this Province.  

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Could you please inform the members of this House if we are going to see this strategy released in this sitting?  

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

I can say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that the long-term care strategy is not complete.  It will not be completed for the sitting of this House.  However, I will also say to the hon. member that we are moving ahead with the implementation of the long-term care strategy, Mr. Speaker, in building long-term care homes.  This year we have committed $19.2 million for a 236 bed facility in Corner Brook; $9.3 million for a fifty bed long-term care home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; site selection for a 460 bed long-term care home in St. John ’s; $500,000 for site selection of a long-term care home in Carbonear; $30 million approximately for the construction of a new long-term care home in Lewisporte, and fourteen long-term care beds in the new Lab West health centre.  Whether it is a strategy or not, Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead and we are serving the people of this Province.  

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.  

What I have just heard the minister tell me is that the government is building long-term care facilities.  That is great; I am glad.  What I asked is: Do you have a plan with regard to long-term care and community support?  People in a town hall that I held last week in my district told me without any doubt whatsoever that home care is one of the best ways to take care of our sick and our elderly when they do not need long-term care.  People are being put there when they do not need it.  

Would you please tell me, Mr. Minister – I asked the Speaker to allow me to ask this question – what is in that strategy?  Where is that strategy headed?  

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

I have already indicated that the long-term care strategy is not complete.  There are people who are diligently working on the strategy.  There is no question that the strategy will encompass community care, home care, independent living, all of the aspects which are required for a long-term care strategy.  

What I am saying to the member opposite, though, Mr. Speaker, is that without the strategy being fully finalized, we are still moving ahead.  We are constructing long-term care.  We are investing in home care.  I also heard, Mr. Speaker – I watch the CBC Web site and I heard the stories of the people who are affected by home care.  I heard the hon. member outline her personal circumstances and refer to how it affected her.  Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the numbers of home care workers out there, but last year in the budget we put aside $16 million to increase home care wages, home care worker wages.  Since, Mr. Speaker -  

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.  

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  

We have infused $38.5 million since 2005-2006 in relation to the increase for home care worker wages.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has also said that there will be a new financial assessment process for home care recipients that supposedly will come into effect tomorrow, December 1.  At the forum last week, people talked about their problems accessing home care, that they do not believe will be helped by the new financial assessment process.   

Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell us when the new financial assessment process will actually be in place?  Is it starting tomorrow, and will he please give us the details of the new assessment structure?   

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!   

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.   

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the financial assessment tool will, in fact, be in place tomorrow.  The latest numbers I have seen, I think close to 1,200 people who have been assessed or reassessed.  I do not have the numbers in front of me, Mr. Speaker, but one example is that a couple, a seniors couple who would normally have to pay $1,100, as a result of this $7.5 million tool and the way it is utilized, will now pay $150; that a single individual, Mr. Speaker, who had to contribute a certain amount, it could have been around $700, would now not have to contribute anything.  

So, tomorrow I can actually find the numbers - I have those somewhere – in terms of how this financial assessment tool will benefit people.  It will be ready to proceed tomorrow.  It is good news, Mr. Speaker, like most of the things this government does.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice.  Minister, a year ago a review of the prison systems called Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light, was released to the public.  It contained seventy-seven recommendations in all.  One of those recommendations dealt with the construction of a pre-trial detention centre for youth and women in Happy Valley-Goose Bay , $2 million was in the Budget of 2009-2010 for that construction.  

Could you tell us if the tender has yet been issued for that facility, and if not, what is the justification for the delays?  

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!  

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I can tell this House that this government is committed, in public committed to correctional facilities in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and, at the present time, the discussions are ongoing with regard to that pre-detention centre.  There is a lot of work to be done on it.  There is some preliminary work that has been done and planning, but the discussion is still ongoing and regrouping is the way to how best to handle the situation.  

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!  

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.