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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Quebec courts unfortunately rejected government’s request to appeal a decision related to Abitibi’s environmental remediation cost in the Province. We have raised this issue several times during this session and we now fear that the people of the Province will indeed be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs.

I ask the Premier today: Are you planning to seek leave to appeal this court loss to the Supreme Court of Canada at this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let’s do a little history lesson first of all, and what this is all about. This goes back to the late 1960s when we had the best project in the world that we wanted to develop but we could not do it on our own because we were a poor Province - because of what happened as a result of Confederation and everything else. We were the poor and the weak sisters of Canada. So, we basically entered into a partnership with Quebec in order to develop that particular project. For that, they acquired at least one-third of the company which developed that particular project.

Then, when it got down to the short strokes and we were months away from concluding it and we were out of money, the company was basically out of money, they squeezed us. That is when they squeezed us for another twenty-five years on a contract that already was a complete giveaway of a very valuable hydro resource. They squeezed us for another twenty-five years at a lower price -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Premier have leave to continue with his answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So based on that history, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly this Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and all these Newfoundlanders and Labradorians here and all the people in this Province, feel very, very strongly about the way Quebec has treated us. So if we have to fight them in the courts or fight them at the Régie, or if I personally got to get down and go toe to toe or roll around on the ground with them to fight them, we will do it.

So your answer is quite simple, we are now reviewing it. We are looking at asking for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think that, as a Province, we have to keep fighting Quebec because if we don’t they will take away everything we have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of the court decision, the Province will not be considered a secured creditor to receive compensation for the clean-up cost. We also know that we missed the deadline as a Province to be considered an unsecured creditor.

I ask the Premier today: What is the recourse for the Province to now be added to the list of unsecured creditors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we did not miss any deadlines. Any decisions that we made in this legal process all the way through have been conscious and deliberate and have been strategic. Of course, what we are dealing with is obviously a very biased court.

When you look at the Quebec courts, you look at the decision that was given here. The opinion, of course, that we have from our solicitors on this is that the court dodged a central legal and policy issue. So we had constitutional and factual arguments and the Court of Appeal completely and totally avoided that. In addition, they completely ignored the same rationale which has been used by the Ontario Court of Appeal, B.C. Court of Appeal, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada. So, basically, these courts are doing whatever they can to try and stop us.

The same thing with Judge Gascon, we just saw the Régie ruling which came out of Quebec, which is one of the most horrendous, absurd rulings that I have ever seen. They ignored facts. They said that what Hydro-Quebec was doing was discretionary. They ignored the evidence - a complete abuse of process. So, throughout this process we will just keep hammering away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will probably just re-ask the question of the Premier: What is the process that we take now to become listed as an unsecured creditor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, from day one, as the hon. member knows when we explained this when this all started - and I can quote from her in Hansard in the debate where she said, "…we certainly have no problem with supporting anything that is in this particular bill. We have had an opportunity to discuss it in great detail with the officials within the minister’s department and within the Department of Justice, and we have had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to ask the questions that we needed to ask in order for us to have a comfort zone with this."

So, they knew exactly what the ground rules were. They knew that when it comes to environmental liabilities we were likely to be at risk as unsecured creditors, but what this government did, and what we did unanimously, we expropriated the assets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, by expropriating the assets, we protected the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so now when the environmental liabilities come up at least we have an asset to go against those liabilities. Instead, Mr. Speaker - if I may have a moment -of what they have done in Botwood and Stephenville, put those assets in a shell company so that they could go bankrupt so that we get nothing. That is what would have happened with all of those assets if we had not moved them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our decisions were made based on the information that we were given by the Premier and by the government, Mr. Speaker, from the best legal minds that they had in the world is what we were told at that particular time.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost three courts cases in the Quebec courts recently, notably the data room case in November, the EPA case in March and the failed appeal from yesterday. In each of these cases the judges ordered that the Province pay for Abitibi’s legal bills. The Minister of Justice committed to getting me this information on April 28.

I ask the minister again today: What is the cost to the people of the Province for the legal fees for our lawyers and Abitibi’s lawyers in all three of those cases?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we do not have those figures because the damages that were allocated against the Province have not been forthcoming and we have not received any notice of any damages that will be applied – cost, that is. Until such time as we get that, Mr. Speaker, we will not be able to answer the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also requested a breakdown of the $8 million in fees spent by the Department of Natural Resources last year related to the expropriation. The minister has yet to provide that information in the House, although she committed to do so on April 29.

So, Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister expropriated a mill and she hid it for ten months, so maybe she can hide this information for a lot longer, but I ask her: Are you prepared to share the information with us?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken to provide that information to the Leader of the Opposition. When it is prepared, she will certainly have it. They also have a freedom of information request with regard to that information.

Again, I have to correct her, it was not ten months before we disclosed. We disclosed in February. She missed it, Mr. Speaker - not surprising for the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister needs to do her math.

Mr. Speaker, it certainly appears that there is no requirement for Abitibi to clean up their former properties in this Province. The courts in Quebec have ruled that way and the company has already ceased doing cleanup activities in the Province.

I ask the Minister of Environment: Now that it appears that we will be responsible for the cleanup costs, will you finally put a price tag on this expropriated liability?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has given up, and as this Premier just clearly indicated, we have not given up. We are going to do everything we can to ensure that Abitibi is held liable and responsible for the environmental issues here, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, we are disappointed with the decisions out of the Quebec court, but we cannot stop there, Mr. Speaker, and we are reviewing all of the options that we have before us before we decide how we proceed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in questioning in the House of Assembly, the minister said that under section 99 it is the polluter that pays. Well, we already know what the court rulings are on that now, Minister. We also know that section 99 states, as well, that the owner pays. Under Bill 75, aren’t you now the owner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, under section 99 of the act, I issued the orders in reference to section 7 of the act where it clearly defines that the person who releases the substance into the environment is the person who is responsible for cleaning up. That is the general premise of the polluter pays principle, Mr. Speaker. That is why we appealed this decision and that is why we are looking at our options now on a go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker.

We cannot let Abitibi off the hook. They came into this Province and they reaped the benefits for years and years here. Mr. Speaker, all we are asking is that they return the environment back to the state they found it in when they came here and used our resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister forgets that it is her government who let them off the hook in the first place. You are the ones who made the mistake and expropriated the liabilities. You are in the courts now fighting to give it back, I say to the minister – to give them back the liabilities. You are the one who let them off the hook in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we know the Minister of Environment has not completed her due diligence during this entire process. She has continually suggested that Abitibi would have to submit remediation plans before they could provide information. Minister, it appears that is not the case.

I ask the minister: Will you now complete a detailed inventory and remediation plan so the people of the Province will know exactly the scope of contamination and what needs to be done to address these problems?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about not doing due diligence, we saw an example earlier in the House this week when she was wrong again in insinuating that I sat on a report for eighteen months - clearly a mistake on her part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: She was also in this House, Mr. Speaker, saying that I did not provide writing under section 27 of the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Clearly using the wrong section of the act, Mr. Speaker. Section 27 references section 26 where the minister has the authority to designate a site as a contaminated area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Again, a misinterpretation on her part, Mr. Speaker. We see this time and time again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty in hearing the hon. minister and the questions asked. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I think the minister needs to check her facts, I say to the minister. Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting a week for government to provide an English translation of the Régie decision out of Quebec.

Government has a full division of translators within Executive Council, as I understand it. They must have reviewed this document by now and translated it. Surely, the Premier and the Cabinet must have had access to it.

I ask the Premier today if he is prepared to table a copy of the English version of the Régie decision in the House of Assembly so that we may have the opportunity to read it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I said it last week, and I can say it again in all honesty today, I have not seen an English copy of the Régie decision. We are waiting on the Régie to provide us with an English copy.

It is really interesting, too, when you go on their Web site, pretty well everything that they have is always in English and French, but on this particular one we have not been provided an English copy. That tells me a lot about the Régie, the attitude of Quebec against Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why government is paying all the translators if we have to wait a whole week and we still cannot get an English version of the copy, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, we will wait a few more days and see what happens.

On Monday, we questioned this government about the fifteen striking Burin Peninsula workers and their fourteen disabled clients who are impacted by this. Again today, Mr. Speaker, these workers protested on the steps of Confederation Building. Today, government is saying no to reclassification within their agreement, yet in 2007 an agreement was reached with these workers and the employer and government. Correspondence was circulated to NAPE indicating that the positions would undergo a reclassification review. I say to the minister, it was your government who had the final say before it was signed.

I ask you minister: Why did your government agree to this reclassification review for these employees in their last contract, yet refuse it today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have taken a look at the collective agreement. The undertaking with respect to job classification is signed by the employment corporation; government is not a signatory to this contract.

Mr. Speaker, this strike has gone on for a long time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there is an impasse here and it is a monetary impasse. Government has made a very fair offer of 21 per cent – compounded 21.4 per cent over four years and NAPE is requesting, from the employment corporation, 43 per cent over four years. We are too far apart, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have made a fair and generous offer and it is appropriate now for NAPE to come forward in negotiating an agreement with the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that schedule B in the contract speaks to the reclassification. He also knows that they could not sign on and have this agreement approved without government agreeing to it. That is the reason they are on strike today is because government is not agreeing to it.

Minister, I ask you: Why are you demanding that the reclassification clauses be removed from these contracts before they go back to work? We do not understand why government is so insistent on this for the sake of less than $20,000.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in the negotiations NAPE requested from the employment corporation the government template, and the employees are not employees of government. There is also a reference in the contract to where the employment corporation has provided undertakings with respect to a job classification system, and yet this is the government’s job classification. It is inappropriate that it apply outside of government.

The bottom line here is that we value very much the work that the workers in Burin do but they are not employees of this government. So we have made a very fair offer of 21.40 per cent. It is fair and generous, especially in these times, especially in these economic times when we see what is happening over in Europe, we see what is happening with the price of oil. It is a fair and generous offer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These employees are more than happy with the agreement they have reached with their employer. The problem is that the government will not sign on to the reclassification, and that will only be settled once government comes to terms and makes that decision.

Mr. Speaker, there was $30,000 found to settle the VON strike in Corner Brook a few years ago by your government, yet you cannot find the money to settle this particular contract with these workers. I ask you and urge you minister to do so immediately so they can get back to work.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the classification system, I mean NAPE has agreed that the classification system can come out for more money. The problem is if you come out for money we are just hassling over the amount of money. We have offered 21.40 per cent; they want 43 per cent over four years. There is an impasse, there is a difference of opinion, and we will continue to negotiate. Hopefully, for the sake of the people in Burin and for the sake of the people of the Province, we will reach an agreement acceptable to both sides.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unjustifiable how this government can find a way to pay John Rorke $175 an hour to be a child advocate in this Province but cannot find a little over $17,000 to put fifteen workers back to work to provide services to fourteen disabled people in this Province.

I ask you minister: How do you justify keeping these minimum wage - mostly women - workers and their disabled clients on the street for so long?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, government has put a lot of money into aid for people with disabilities; over $27 million this year, including about $6.8 million to provide employment opportunities for people that work with employment corporations, not just one but twenty, which are right across the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, DFO has released its shrimp quota allocation for this season and there will a quota cut at 28 per cent in Area 6. This decision violates three of the principles of the management plan of the northern shrimp, including that of adjacency. In my region, a group called NOFTA will lose its entire quota of 3,000 tons in Area 6 and they are expressing severe disappointment with this decision. The Minister of Fisheries indicated in his press release this morning that he sent a letter on April 26 to the federal Minister of Fisheries on this matter stating the government’s position.

I ask the minister today, knowing these quota cuts were coming, can he tell us what other dialogue, face-to-face meetings, whatever, he has held with the minister to ensure our Province’s position was clearly put forth?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I received some information indicating that this was going to be the ruling just prior to April 26. So immediately, we engaged our staff to forward a letter to Minister Shea indicating that we totally disagreed with the last-in first-out amendment.

As the hon. member has mentioned, we do feel that adjacency is the key here, and in my news release this morning I indicated that we are totally dissatisfied with the decision and disappointed that the federal minister did not see fit to take the side that we had promoted as a Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that we will continue to pressure the federal government on this because if that rule continues, Mr. Speaker, we could have the Innu of Labrador losing their shrimp quotas, we could also have the Fogo Island Co-op losing their quotas, if further cuts were to come about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We realize that they violated their own plan. This quota cut to NOFTA represents a loss of income for some 350 fishing enterprises on the Northern Peninsula, and it is an economic loss from the region of over $1.2 million. At the same time, licence holders, as you know, from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are allowed to fish quota adjacent to our waters.

I ask the minister: Now that the cuts have been unleashed on our Province, what do you plan to do as a counteraction or as an offset to this devastating fallout for our communities and people along our North Coast?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we know that there a number of harvesters that are impacted on this and I expect that we will receive representation from them.

Mr. Speaker, the important thing here is we do not disagree with the science as to there is a reduction in the quota. What we disagree with is how the cut was distributed. We have lost those allocations because of the last-in first-out formula, which the federal government has instituted, and which we totally disagree with, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Conservation issued notices to remove structures being occupied by gravel pit campers. The minister has recently stated that this does not apply to short-term gravel pit structures, but rather only to permanent and long-term structures. This distinction between short-term and long-term camping structures has been causing some confusion.

I ask the minister: Can you clarify the criteria that determine whether a structure is short-term or long-term?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear from day one, back a year-and-a-half ago now, when I got some first inquiries about this, we have absolutely no issue with people going out and enjoying our great outdoors. We have an absolutely beautiful Province here to explore. If people want to go camping on a short-term basis, or if you want to take your trailer and go moose hunting for a week or two, or go berry picking, then by all means go out and explore our beautiful outdoors.

The issue becomes when people take over ownership of an area and it becomes permanent. That is in violation of section 32 of the act, but it is also unfair to the people who might want to go up to that very same spot a week or two later and use that for moose hunting.

All we are asking here is that fairness be applied across the board to all residents of the Province so that everybody can have an equal opportunity to enjoy our great outdoors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to go back to the minister again. I ask her to identify for me what is short-term.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is easier to explain what long-term is. What we see as long-term is when people start putting outhouses or decks or bridges and taking ownership of a certain site, when they leave their trailer there for the weekend and go home. We want them to take the waste back with them, and we want that site opened up for somebody else to have an opportunity to use.

If people are out having a vacation, whether it is a week or two – typically, however long you take for a vacation in the Province - as long as you are not taking permanent ownership. The basic premise here is that all residents of the Province have fair and equal access.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member was on Crosstalk today, and I am sure he heard from the majority of callers exactly what I am saying in terms of the reports that I got back. They all agree that it should be fair and equal; nobody should take ownership of a certain spot.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is after telling me now that short-term is so that someone can go to the gravel pit for a weekend and come home and let someone else go there. All along, when this started, it was get everybody out of the gravel pits because it was an unsightly issue.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the removal notices given to gravel pit campers. This is a tradition in our Province, and one which engages a responsibility. We are heading into the May 24 weekend, which is a popular time for campers to set up their camps for the summer; however, these people are concerned that as soon as they set up camp they will be evicted.

I ask the minister: Can you clarify whether gravel pit campers across this Province will be permitted to set up temporary camps for the duration of the summer without being served with a notice?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are options available to these people. The member leaves the impression that there aren’t any options. We have clearly said to these people - and people who have written me and I have written them back - that they can certainly form an association, as they have done. The Member for Cape la Hune, they are very happy - the trailers in Howley that have been removed - they have formed an association so that everything is done in a proper manner. They get the proper approvals from Government Services in terms of septic and water and so on. If the environment is protected and they find a piece of land and form an association, that is how you should stay there for the entire summer.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of times there are pristine spots, salmon rivers and so on, that you or the person sitting next to you, or every single resident in this Province, should have equal and fair opportunity to use those sites. I wonder if the member opposite agrees with that fair and equal opportunity principle.

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, with the latest court ruling from Quebec against this government it has become clear that government is not able to control some of the biggest issues facing this Province, from the AbitibiBowater assets to the Lower Churchill development. It seems government is at the mercy of the legal systems in Quebec and is powerless to move its own agenda forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: How will he restore people’s confidence that government knows what they are doing, as they claim they do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, 93 per cent is a lot of confidence. That is the kind of confidence I think people have in this government as a result of our performance so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to just rest on our laurels. When we go back and we look at our record, and we look at things that we did from a negotiations perspective - you look at the Hebron agreement, the White Rose agreement and Hibernia South - that has put anywhere from $30 billion to $40 billion extra into this Province.

The reason we got those is because we have a mantra which is no more giveaways, and we intend to stay with that. We are not going to give away any more of the assets of this Province. As I said to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, we will fight them wherever we have to fight them in order to prove our point. If that is in the Quebec courts - we know what the attitude is in Quebec courts, we know what the bias is in the Quebec courts, but there are higher courts than that and we are not going to give up.

If the attitude is to sit back and go in on our hands and knees, like we did back in the 1960s when a Liberal government negotiated away the Upper Churchill and gave away our right to be a have Province for thirty years - and they did it – we are not going to that. We have no intention of doing that. So we will carry on as we (inaudible).

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.

I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he is going to fight it the way he is talking about, and going to the Supreme Court, this is going to take quite a bit of time, and a lot more money too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I want to ask the Premier to explain to this House and to the people of the Province what the implications are. If he takes that action, what are the implications for the CCAA proceedings to come up with a plan, for Abitibi to come up with a plan for their creditors who are waiting as well? We are not the only creditors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, if we had not taken the action that we took, if we had not expropriated those assets, we would have absolutely nothing to put against the environmental liabilities that this company has left us with in this particular Province.

So we have those assets as a result of the action we took, and as a result of that we have given a severance to the workers in Grand Falls; we have put over $100 million into projects. The amount invested in Central Newfoundland this year is over $200 million in total. That is what we are doing with it.

So, as a result of our positive, our affirmative, action –

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: – and instead of our mantra of no more giveaways, we took it away. We took it away from a company that had abused this Province, had not fulfilled its mandate to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, were given land assets and timber assets and hydro assets to run a pulp and paper mill and they did not. They tried to walk away from it, so we nailed them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

All of that will mean nothing if the courts of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Everything that the Premier has just said will mean absolutely nothing if he cannot convince the Supreme Court of Canada that he is as right as he thinks he is, and then we will lose everything – because we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to allow the member to ask her question, and I ask the hon. member to pose her question now.

MS MICHAEL: While government is spinning its wheels in court, there are issues here at home they should be dealing with: a health care system in trouble, inadequate home care and long-term care, a serious lack of affordable housing, and a fishery in crisis, to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will he admit that there are things that are beyond his control, and deal with the issues he can deal with here in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, making sure that Quebec will never get the better of us again is not beyond our control. It is fully within our control and we will fight that to the very end.

The hon. member, in all fairness to her, does not understand the consequences – no, really you do not. Going to the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the ultimate consequence on Abitibi. We have the assets. We will use those assets to counter any liabilities at the end of the day so we are in a net positive position. That was the whole purpose of the exercise. Appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada has absolutely nothing to do with that.

In addition - I mean if I had enough time we could go down through the Budget. Was the Budget $6.7 billion? Is that the total amount of the Budget? You know what we have done in affordable housing. You know what we have done in health care. You know what we have done in education. The problem with the hon. member is it is never enough, but money does not grow on trees; that is the problem. That is the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.