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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly wish him well because I tend to do that every day, Mr. Speaker. It is not an easy job I say to my friend in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier confirmed the taxpayers would be on the hook for the environmental cleanup cost of Abitibi’s former sites in the Province - and we know that could be hundreds of millions of dollars. He also stated that he knew very early on in the process that this would be the case. However, on April 27 the Minister of Natural Resources stated, and I quote, "Mr. Speaker, the polluter pays and under no circumstance will we be responsible for remediation that Abitibi is responsible for. That is the bottom line."

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources today: Were you out of the loop, or were you providing inaccurate information to the public of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this House there is only one group out of the loop, and –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I will not point to them but they are on the other side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our provincial legislation states quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the polluter pays. That is the law in Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have facing us now, Mr. Speaker, is the courts in Quebec saying that the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador do not apply what is more important is the financial restructuring of AbitibiBowater rather than the environmental laws of the provinces of this country. That is disgusting, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say to the minister, she may think we are out of the loop but we certainly knew a lot more about what was happening with this issue than she knew, or certainly alluded to in this House.

I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker, I ask her why the Premier would state yesterday that he knew that this was the case for some time, yet she would stand in this House on numerous occasions and say that the polluter pays and that it would not be the Province that was on the hook.

I ask the minister: Why are you being less than truthful with your comments in this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the assertation that has been made by the Opposition time after time in this House, in this session, has been that because we expropriated the mill in Grand Falls-Windsor that that action put us on the hook for remediation. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Our legislation says that polluter pays. Because of the CCAA process, the courts in Quebec have now said, your legislation does not matter, it is not going to be applied because the financial viability of this company is the most important thing to us, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, AbitibiBowater just went before the courts in that same process and asked that Botwood and Stephenville, two parts of their company that we did not expropriate, be put into a shell company, which they are going to collapse and we now become responsible for those two areas of remediation, Mr. Speaker. We did not expropriate either one of those, and had the mill still been with us, they would have been in the shell company as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious the Minister of Natural Resources got the same briefing book that the Minister of Environment has, because, Mr. Speaker, under questioning in the House of Assembly the Minister of Environment accused us of not understanding the principle of polluter pays. It is obvious again today, Mr. Speaker, that the person with the lack of understanding was the minister herself. She stated continuously that she could not provide any remediation plan or costing of these environmental liabilities until Abitibi submitted their plans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Is she still going to wait for Abitibi, a near bankrupt company, to submit a remediation plan or is she going to do her job and get this process started?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this morning to hear the Leader of the Opposition on CBC and she said at that time that what we did was very deceptive. Mr. Speaker, there is no deception here. We have a former Attorney General of the House, opposite of us, who is a former Minister of Justice, who full well knows how, or should know –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - how to interpret the Environmental Protection Act.

Under the Environmental Protection Act it is very clear that the person who releases the substance into the environment should be the person to clean that up. That is the basic premise that we went forward with, Mr. Speaker. However, this ended up in CCAA court, Mr. Speaker, and we would never have thought that two Quebec judges would have total disregard for the provincial law that we have here, Mr. Speaker. Now we see very clearly why they did, because they have to protect the interests of thousands of Quebec workers. That is very clear to us now. We never did suspect that. That is exactly…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister does not have the notes that the Premier has because he obviously understands what is happening here and realizes that this Province is on the hook for liability. Why the minister continues to say the polluter pays when she knows in her own legislation it states that the owner pays, Mr. Speaker, and under Bill 75 you are now the owner.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When are you going to complete the next phase of environmental assessments to determine the scope of work required to clean up those sites in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a former Attorney General, a former Minister of Justice, take out the Environmental Protection Act and have a look. Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of that is the person who releases the substance is the person who has to pay. That is the whole premise that we issued those orders under section 99 of the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we had no control over what happened in Quebec, but as the Premier clearly, eloquently stated yesterday, we have to fight back, Mr. Speaker, and one of those things is considering going to the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision has very serious implications for every single province of this country, Mr. Speaker, and I will be speaking to all of the Ministers of Environment. Should we proceed with that, I certainly suggest that the Opposition should be backing us on this because it has serious implications for our provincial laws.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we could ever get to the facts of this and ever to the bottom of it and ever get a full understanding of the information, we might be able to make a decision, minister, on if we could back you or not. Mr. Speaker, the minister also knows that the polluter pays is a different concept under expropriation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What cost estimates do you have for this clean up within your department and will you share that with the people of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we have been following through a process throughout this. We have gone through the court under two occasions. We have seen what has happened there. We have seen the bias that is in those courts, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot stop there. We are reviewing all of the opportunities that are before us at this point. One of the things we are considering is going to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, in the first look at this decision, this is very precedent setting for all the provinces across Canada. It is something that we all should be concerned about in this House and throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker. So until we have reviewed our options and exhausted every opportunity before us, Mr. Speaker, we are not giving up on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about doing something about it. She does not know the scope of the work out there that needs to be done, she has not done all of the assessments, she cannot give us a cost estimate on environmental liabilities. So, minister, I suggest you start doing your work at home.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources also stated on April 22 that Fortis and Enel, the third party companies also impacted by government’s expropriation of the Abitibi assets, will be kept whole as a result of this action. She stated that several options were being negotiated with the companies.

I ask the minister today: What exactly was confiscated from these companies that will require compensation from the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these companies, Fortis and Enel, had arrangements with AbitibiBowater with regard to power generation on the Exploits. Fortis was a partner in one of their generating assets and Enel was their partner in another.

Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to both of those companies that regardless of what happened with Abitibi, at the end of this process we would ensure that they were kept whole, that they were properly compensated for fair market value for the assets, and the PPAs that they have with Abitibi would also be honoured, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I ask the minister: What the compensation will include? Will these particular companies become partners with Nalcor in this power project, or will it be a lump sum cash payment, or will they continue to receive royalties from the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are negotiations that are ongoing with Nalcor and with these two companies. At the end of this process, we will have a good understanding of what the value of that asset is, what amount of compensation is required to keep the companies whole, Mr. Speaker, and we will live up to our obligations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that there is a bill associated with the expropriation of monies that will have to be paid out to Fortis and to Enel. Mr. Speaker, whether that is royalties, whether it is shareholder status with Nalcor or whether it is cash, we are not able to determine according to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that the government, through Nalcor, is currently providing or making the payments on a $59 million loan for Fortis, monies that were involved with the Exploits River project.

I ask the minister today: How much are those payments?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that exact information and provide it to the Leader of the Opposition if I am free to do that.

Mr. Speaker, these are liabilities that these companies had in association with the operation of their businesses on these projects. As part of our obligation of keeping that company whole, Mr. Speaker, we took on those financial liabilities associated with the operation of those projects until we come to the end of the negotiation process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that government has no handle on the financial cost of this to the people of the Province. We are finding out again today more money is being paid out - the minister cannot stand in this House and even give us the figures. I can only say I hope the minister will be more forthcoming with the breakdown as she was with the $8 million breakdown that I have asked for, because we do not have that yet either.

We know the Province will not be a secured creditor in this process, but there is an option for being listed as an unsecured creditor.

I ask the Premier today: Is this an option that you will pursue, and if you do that, will this open us up to a court challenge in the Quebec courts, a countersuit in the Quebec courts regarding Abitibi’s assets?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping all our legal options open. As you know right now, we are seriously considering an appeal, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to deal with the adverse Quebec rulings.

What is happening here is the Leader of the Opposition is painting a picture that is completely contrary - I do not want to use words like misleading because I am not allowed to use that. I do not want to say that she is lying because I am not allowed to use that, but in some manners, there are facts being presented by her in a manner that are not actually correct. When we talk about the environmental liabilities - because what she is trying to do is stack everything up to figures that have been $500 million, $750 million, $1 billion, completely and totally erroneous. She was on the radio this morning and she was asked by the moderator: Are we not in a net better position with the assets? Do you not agree? Well, I am not saying that we might not be. All I can say is it is a good thing we have some assets.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier not to go reading from documents or newspaper items or other comments that were made, but just paraphrase and refer to the documents.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, it is a good thing that we have some assets. So she has acknowledged that. Secondly, when we start talking about the environmental liabilities, ballpark, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of those liabilities are in connection with Buchans, they are in connection with Stephenville and they are in connection with Botwood. None of those were expropriated assets. None of those had anything to do with the mill. Those are liabilities that would have been there anyway.

One final example, Mr. Speaker, when they were in government, the Hope Brook Gold Mine, there is a press release that was out in 2002 whereby your Minister of Mines and Energy acknowledged that they were paying $10 million for environmental cleanup. That happens. Government end up with the liabilities when the polluters go bankrupt or they go into receivership. That is the way it is. The difference is we are protected because we all have the assets (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the difference here is that in 2008 the Premier stated that the expropriation action would not cost the taxpayers of this Province. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is what we know so far, that we will have to pay for the brick and mortar assets of Abitibi. We know that we have to pay out millions of dollars in legal fees for lost challenges in the courts. We know that we are paying millions of dollars for maintenance and security. We are paying millions in compensation as far as we know at this stage, probably even for Fortis and Enel. On top of that, we have a $500 million NAFTA challenge, and we could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

I ask the Premier today: Why not come clean with the people of this Province and tell them the amount of money that we are on the hook for as a result of this expropriation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, or are you trying to build the case for Abitibi so that they can go to NAFTA and say the Leader of the Opposition said this is worth $500 million or $600 million or $700 million? That is what you are saying; that is what you are doing.

What we do have is we have the power projects, and we have millions of hectares of land, and we have our forest back, we have our timber rights back, and we have the mill. Now that may have been an error, but it is a good thing, because the situation in Stephenville - what is going to happen in Stephenville is that we are going to end up with the mill anyway. We are going to have the environmental liability, because at the end of it, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if the person who is responsible for the pollution is not able to pay, we will have to pay.

The difference in this situation is that we have the assets, and you, yourself, acknowledge that is a good thing – and I agree with you on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government knows that this deal that they have bungled so badly on Abitibi makes the Sprung Greenhouse look like a success story, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality of what we are dealing with here. It has taken us weeks in this House of Assembly to finally get the government to admit that they made a mistake and they blundered. It has taken us weeks to get them to admit that there is going to be liabilities on behalf of the people of the Province.

So I ask the government today, Mr. Speaker, continue with the disclosure and tell the hard-working people of this Province how much money that they are on the hook for as a result of this blunder by your government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hard-working people of Grand Falls-Windsor that we paid $40 million in severance pay, an unprecedented act that has not happened anywhere else in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will tell the hard-working people of this Province that national unions have written me personally, have written the ministers personally, and written the government, and said how proud they are of the action that we have done here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I will tell the people of this Province that I have letters from community leaders –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - in communities where Abitibi operates their businesses, and those communities have written and said how proud they are of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for doing what it is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is what I will tell the people of this Province!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the decision by this government to remove the air ambulance medevac service from St. Anthony continues to be unacceptable to the people of the region, and indeed by the Province, simply because it is a wrong decision on so many levels. For some time, and as late as today, the Mayor of St. Anthony has been asking for a meeting with the Premier to have the people’s voices heard before the service is moved at the end of the month.

I ask the Premier today a very simple question: Will you show some compassion here and at least meet with the mayor and his delegation so they can express their views before the air ambulance assets are taken from them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been dealt with. It has been dealt with by the minister. The minister has met with the officials from the Town of St. Anthony. He has met with the group that came in, the protest group that came in. This matter has been dealt with time and time again. We have indicated, in all fairness to the people of St. Anthony, that this matter is final. This decision has been made. This has been done.

The reason it has been done is because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presented a petition and asked that this service be moved to Labrador. If that had not happened this matter would never have been studied, it would not have been questioned, it would not have arisen. I said before when I got on my feet, I was not even aware that it made more sense to put this, actually, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I was not aware that if we even put another air ambulance in the air -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If interruptions continue, the Chair will have no other choice but identify the people who are causing disorder.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that if we put a third new air ambulance in place that it would actually end up in Deer Lake. That would be the next choice. So, as a result of her actions and as a result of this study, St. Anthony has fallen far down the list.

Just a word of advice to the people of St. Anthony, it is unfortunate - the mayor is trying to do a very good job and the people are trying to do a good job, but there is a lot of nastiness coming out of St. Anthony from various groups. I would just ask the member to convey my concerns to the people of St. Anthony; things that have appeared on Web sites, things that have been said publicly. So it would be better if they tone down their rhetoric and cease that kind of action because that does not help anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the frustration is because the people have worked hard and they are prepared to come and sit with the Premier of this Province and discuss the issue with him and he has refused to do so. So, that is where the frustration is coming from, Mr. Speaker.

To suggest that this would never have been an issue, then I would suggest he might want to read the letter from the former member, the minister of his Cabinet, who suggested that he had worked hard and tirelessly within Cabinet to keep the air ambulance there for the number of years that he was there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Again, I just ask the Premier: Why in this case will he not meet with those people to hear their concerns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The matter is done, Mr. Speaker, the matter is final. Cabinet has made a decision. We have made a collective decision and that decision will not be reviewed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, DFO cuts to the shrimp quota in Area 6 continue to obviously be a great concern to the people of our Province, particularly the Northeast region which has been hardest hit by this slashing. The fishery minister’s response, as he mentioned yesterday, was to write a letter to the federal Minister of Fisheries. This is simply not an acceptable representation of our concerns, given the devastating impact, not just on this region but to the Province overall, and the gravity for fishers and communities.

I ask the minister: What is he prepared to do on behalf of the people of the Province to effectively push this issue with the federal government and help get this industry through this very challenging time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that the federal government understands. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I have directed staff to write a follow-up letter to Minister Shea. Immediately upon hearing that this was a possibility, a letter was directed to Minister Shea. We have a follow-up letter and, Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I am doing at this particular point is having staff do an assessment of where the plants are and what impact this will have on operation.

Equally, Mr. Speaker, I have had representation from the Member for St. Barbe who informed me that he has been contacted by some individuals. So we will do some follow-up work with the plants and the processors up there to see what impact this is having and see what we need to do from there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we also heard the news of fishers and community people reacting to this cut and they are discouraged about the future, obviously, in the Province. Many are talking about packing up and leaving. These people need our help.

I ask the minister again: What is this government prepared to put into place to help compensate these fishers for the loss, especially given the fact that the EI system is just inadequate to them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I heard an interview from a Mr. Dwight Spence, who I think is a very recognized individual in the shrimp industry on the Northern Peninsula. There is no one disputing the difficulty that this presents. This cut impacts some 350 harvesters, right in the member’s district and along the Northern Peninsula, and it impacts the Northeast Coast in general, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, we are doing an assessment of the situation. We will follow it up with the federal minister and see what we can do to ensure that they relent on this decision or that in future, that this not be the policy that they abide by, Mr. Speaker.

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, on December 16, 2008, when we all passed Bill 75, the Abitibi expropriation bill, we had to trust the Premier and his legal minds who drafted it. He asked us to trust him.

Mr. Speaker, in Question Period that day I asked: Who would be responsible for environmental liability with this new piece of legislation? The Premier explained at the time that the expropriation legislation would supersede federal bankruptcy law and that Abitibi would be liable.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier said in this House and I was therefore able to say yes to the legislation that was provided to us on extremely short notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, now that the Province has lost every court case trying to prove that what the Premier said on December 16, 2008 was correct, I am asking the Premier: Where does he stand now with regard to this piece of legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, you can still trust this Premier, in case she is implying otherwise.

Secondly, at the time that we expropriated, and she certainly can remember this, there was no bankruptcy at the time. This company was still solvent. We had the foresight and we took the initiative at that particular point in time to get out ahead of it because we saw and we anticipated the fact that this company could possibly go bankrupt.

The reason that we actually expropriated, as I have said time and time again in this Legislature, was to get control of the assets so that we did not end up in a situation where somewhere down the road, if the company actually went bankrupt and if there was nothing in the bankruptcy and if there were no assets - because that company’s stock at that particular point in time was plummeting. We were watching it daily, so we knew exactly what was going on. If it got in a situation where it went into bankruptcy - even if we had priority in a bankruptcy and the legislation provided for the environmental liability - if there is no money there and the secured creditors happen to rank ahead of us, then we had nothing left, but if we went in and if we actually seized the assets, then we were in the driver’s seat, and that is exactly where we are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, based on the Premier’s answer and based on my memory of what we discussed here in this House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - on December 16, 2008, I ask the Premier: When his legal people were putting this legislation together, did they look at the implications of the CCAA and that ruling that would come into place when bankruptcy happened? Did he think about that? Did his legal minds think about that? If they did, why were they not ready for what happened in the courts in Quebec this past week?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, we had opinions from the best people we could find in this particular field. They advised us on exactly what the consequences were of various options, whether it was a CCAA proceeding, whether there was a bankruptcy proceeding, whether there was no bankruptcy, whether assets were sold. We looked at every possible avenue, and we were provided with all those alternatives.

What we probably could have predicted but we would have thought hopefully would not have happened, is that Quebec and the Quebec judges and the Quebec courts would have shafted us once again, and that is exactly what has happened in every single decision that we have had out of that Province in the last month. That Régie decision, as I said in the House, was absolutely shameful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Quebec lovers –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If we could only keep the Quebec lovers quiet, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Excusez- moi, I am going to go back there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: So we had a terrible decision from the Régie which ignored all the rules - all the rules - and then we had a judge who single-mindedly wanted to make sure that Abitibi was restructured, even if that was at Newfoundland and Labrador’s expense. You cannot predict that; there is there nothing you can do about biased judges.

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, yesterday the Premier finally admitted publicly that the Province - that we - are on the hook for the cleanup of the AbitibiBowater sites, no matter what happens in court; we know we are going to have to pay.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier take immediate action to figure out how much it is going to cost, so taxpayers will know how much this is costing them?

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process, and we are in the process, of course, of estimating exactly what those liabilities are. As I indicated in a previous question from Mademoiselle, the Leader of the Opposition, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of this cost will actually be related to non-expropriated assets. Those assets would actually be Buchans - which is the lion’s share of all environmental liabilities – Botwood, and also the Stephenville mill, which is long past but, of course, obviously which we are going to end up with at the end of the day because they have moved those assets over to a shell company in order to avoid liability.

The difference is, and I keep repeating this, that we are in the driver’s seat. We have control of these assets. They are not in the hands of a receiver; they are not in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy; they are in the hands of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.