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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the Régie decision out of Quebec was delivered related to transmission capacity for Lower Churchill power, the Premier stated that he did not want to go through Quebec anyway, and the Maritime route was always his preference.

I ask the Premier: How far along are you in discussions on the Maritime route and what time frames are you looking at for its development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my preference was always the Maritime route but that was because it was a personal preference. I think it was more to get away from Quebec than anything, but it also has to be a rational decision and an economic decision and based on good financial consideration. So as a result, all the way through what we have done is we have done parallel plans. We have looked at the Quebec route and moving all or most of the power into Ontario but we have also, on a parallel basis, simultaneously looked at the Maritime route, and the Atlantic route.

As we all know, that is more expensive because it involves underwater transmission. It is well along. A lot of studies have been done. We have left that work primarily to Nalcor. Of course, they work with the minister’s department, the Department of Natural Resources, but a lot of studies have been done. A lot of work has been done over the years basically on the underwater development as well. It goes right back to the Lower Churchill Development Corporation twenty or thirty years ago. Timelines are not finite on this. This is an evolving circumstance because everything is still tied into environmental approval, finalization of the Aboriginal piece, but from an economic perspective we are in a situation where we have enough information to really sit down and talk with any industrial developer at any point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any potential Maritime route would have to go through New Brunswick. The Premier of New Brunswick and his energy minister are both quoted in this weekend’s telegram that they have not been approached by the Province to discuss any options related to the route.

I ask the Premier: If the Maritime route was his preference, and he indicates that it still is, why haven’t you started discussions with the Province of New Brunswick who would definitely be a potential partner, if not a customer in this project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear exactly what the minister said nor have I read exactly what either the Premier or the minister have said but I can tell you quite clearly, we have been talking to New Brunswick for some considerable period of time. At what level, whether - the Premier and I have had discussions at just a general level. However, Nalcor Energy and New Brunswick Hydro were into fairly detailed discussions, quite frankly, prior to them pulling the plug and going to Quebec and looking at the Quebec alternative. When that happened and they were doing their deal with Quebec we obviously pulled back and just let that evolve. Of course, we know what the outcome of that was, that was finally dissolved and that was the end of that.

So, we are now, even as recently - if I remember correctly, it was last week, had a conference call with the Atlantic Premiers to discuss Atlantic co-operation with regard to a full Atlantic energy corridor. That would involve the premiers working together, their departments of energy and or natural resources working together, their deputy ministers, as well as the federal government being involved in putting up money for studies which has already been allocated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly not the impression that was left by the Premier of New Brunswick.

In the same article, however, the Premier of New Brunswick did state that it is estimated that the price per kilowatt hour of electricity could be in the range of sixteen cents. This certainly does not seem like cheap power. This is the first time, however, that we have seen a cost attached to the purchasing of Lower Churchill power.

I ask the Premier: If this costing by the New Brunswick Premier is accurate, and if not, what are the estimates currently being used by Nalcor to determine whether this route is feasible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Government of New Brunswick has already indicated to us that it appears that – I do not know if I use the right term – the Premier was misquoted with regard to his article, or whatever release he did there last week. He had talked, I think, about the economic feasibility of the project. He talked about the technical feasibility of the project because of voltage leak.

However, let me assure this House and all hon. members and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this certainly is a feasible project. It is certainly technically feasible, it is economically feasible. From a perspective of the cost, I can tell you that this particular project is the lowest cost, the cheapest hydro-electric project in all of North America.

With regard to disclosing confidential information that would be very, very important in any negotiation, I would not be prepared to do that. As a matter of fact, I cannot even give you the exact number because I do not know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It would seem that if the Premier of New Brunswick is putting out numbers on the cost of per kilowatt power of the Lower Churchill and those numbers are wrong, I would think that it is incumbent upon the Premier and Nalcor to make those corrections. So I think it is time to start talking what the cost will be to generate that electricity. Mr. Speaker, we know that the US market is highly competitive for energy purchases and one of our direct competitors will be Hydro-Quebec.

So I ask the Premier: How competitive will we be in the marketplace, and have you secured any long-term customers that are willing to sign on to this power agreement for the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I just said it before and I will say it again. This is the lowest cost hydro-electric project in all of North America. That is equivalent to – could deal head on with La Romaine or any other projects that come on stream from Quebec.

So from our perspective - this one really slays me to be quite honest with you. Here we are with the best projects, with the cheapest project. We have a situation where we have the Province of Quebec, who have already skinned us alive on the Upper Churchill and are not prepared to just sort of, stand aside and work with us - and we will pay. We will pay for upgrades; we will pay for transmission costs. We could provide the Government of Quebec, the people of Quebec with probably $200 million a year, basically, in rental fees, but yet they are prepared to try and block us every step of the way.

I can guarantee this House and the hon. members opposite and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will not allow them to stand in our way. We will keep pushing forward. We will keep fighting the regulatory process and we will make sure that our project, which is the best in North America, will eventually come to fruition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have one province out there saying it is going to be costly power, we have the Premier saying it is going to be the lowest cost power, but nobody is showing us the numbers. I think it is time to start showing the numbers. It is one thing to continuously say it is feasible, it is another thing to start proving that it is.

Mr. Speaker, Premier Graham also indicated that the project has significant obstacles such as technical issues, as the Premier just alluded to. The New Brunswick Minister of Energy has even stated that the Lower Churchill project could be at least ten to fifteen years out.

I ask the Premier today: How significant are these technical issues and what impact will they have on the feasibility of the Lower Churchill project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated, I have indicated that even the Government of New Brunswick, officials from the department in New Brunswick have contacted my office to indicate that perhaps the – and I cannot give you the exact terms because I (inaudible) to the conversation, but perhaps the Premier was quoted out of context. That is probably the fairest I can be to the Premier of New Brunswick in these particular circumstances.

We know the cost, we know the facts, we know the technical feasibility; we have done the studies. We have hired the best that money can buy. We have engaged and we have on our own staff the best that money can buy within government, within Nalcor Energy. We are doing this right. We are not doing it the way it was being done with the last government when it was all basically being given away in the Grimes government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was part of. We are prepared to give them the marketing and the construction, and ultimately turn the project over to them; then we would have lost it all. We would have given it all away again.

That is not going to happen. We know exactly what we are doing, and we are not going to give our competitive advantage away by disclosing numbers in this House that would be of benefit to the people who we are going to be selling the power to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the same government who knew what they were doing on Abitibi as well, Mr. Speaker. They also said that they had the best legal minds in the world, Mr. Speaker, when they did that deal.

I ask the Premier: Is he saying today, and to confirm for me that there are no technical issues that will impact on the feasibility of the Maritime transmission route?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we certainly did know what we were doing with Abitibi. There is absolutely no doubt about it whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We are now seeing today that the company that has been losing half a billion dollars a quarter is now going to go through a restructuring. It is going to be slimmer, it is going to be leaner, and it is going to be fitter. We know how it has done that. We know how it has done it. It has dumped off its environmental liabilities. It has sold off assets. It has closed down mills all over the country. So basically what it is has done is taken all of its financial obligations and dumped them on somebody else, but by doing by what we did, which the hon. member opposite agreed with and has stated so publicly, we have saved the Province from the embarrassment of having being left with all of that liability.

From our own perspective, as far as the Upper Churchill goes and the Lower Churchill goes, that is a great project. It is a good project. It is a project that we can be very proud of, but we will not give that away either, and we will continue to stay the course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier again if he will confirm to the people of the Province today that there are no technical issues that will impact upon the feasibility of the Maritime transmission option under the Lower Churchill project.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There absolutely will be technical issues that will impact upon the project. Anybody with a clue at all would know that there is going to be some technical issues when you do a $6 billion to $12 billion project.

I can tell the hon. member opposite that there will be no technical difficulties that will be a complete obstacle that would ever prevent that project from happening. All she has to do is read the journals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The problem is what the hon. member opposite is doing is reading the nonsense that is being put out by Hydro-Quebec, that is being put out through journalists that write articles in The Globe and Mail that say this technology is not available anywhere else in the world when there are all kinds of examples. Whether they happen to be in Europe, whether they happen to be in Tasmania, they are everywhere. So she should stop reading Quebec propaganda and believing in it, and believe in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a very typical show that you see in Question Period. Whenever the government has the heat put on them, when there are questions they do not want to answer, the first thing they do, Mr. Speaker, is they stand up and attack the person who is asking the questions – question their patronage.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier cannot have it both ways. It is either the Premier of New Brunswick is right that there is some technical impact or there is not, so he cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, before any Lower Churchill power project can be transmitted between Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, an environmental assessment study will have to be completed. We know that the environmental assessments have not been filed for the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I ask the Premier: When will these environmental assessments be filed, what are the projected costs of these studies and when will they be completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment for the generation has been filed now for a long time. In fact, it will be going through the public hearings come the fall. The environmental assessment for the transmission has been filed as well, Mr. Speaker, and it was certainly open to public comment for the member opposite or anybody in the public to comment on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Wednesday, we were briefed by Nalcor, and I put the question to Ed Martin. He informed me at that time that there was no environmental assessment on the Maritime route, and I ask the minister to clarify her comments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we deal with the environmental assessments that are submitted by the proponents, and those are certainly up for review. So, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member is going, but those are certainly filed on the Web site. It is open for public comment. It is open for the public to comment on. The transmission route has been filed. Perhaps if you want to clarify it further, I can help you out some more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the minister’s information, he informed us that the EIS on the generation of power was filed, the EIS on bringing the route to the Island was filed, but not the Maritime route, I say to the minister.

I ask you, when government intends, through Nalcor, to file the environmental assessment on crossing the Gulf of St. Lawrence as part of the Maritime route for the transmission of power?

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, the Leader of the Opposition is getting ahead of herself again, as usual.

Mr. Speaker, we have not filed the environmental assessment across the Gulf of St. Lawrence at this point in time because we have not decided which route. We have not yet sanctioned the project, Mr. Speaker. Until we decide where we have the transmission capacity, only then will it become necessary, if we decide to go the Maritime route, to submit an environmental proposal. That will be done at Nalcor at the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Finally, Mr. Speaker, it goes to show once again that the Minister of Environment has no idea what is going on with environmental files in this Province, not even a project as big as the Lower Churchill, I say. Mr. Speaker, finally, we get the right response.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this, now that we have established and you have admitted that there has been no EIS filed on crossing the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and we know there is not too many ways to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I ask the minister if she can tell us when the EIS will be filed and when we can expect to see it completed? Will it take two years, three years, five years or ten years, Minister?

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, we will file the EIS when it is appropriate to do so. It will be appropriate to do so once we get transmission rights through New Brunswick and decide that that is the most appropriate route to wheel our power. Mr. Speaker, we have not ruled out, at this point in time, wheeling power through Quebec and if we wheel the bulk of our power through Quebec, an environmental assessment will not be required of the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, the issues we are working on at the moment are transmission of power through Quebec, transmission of power through the Maritimes. We are using the OATT process in both of those circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Nevertheless, Minister, you know the EIS would have to be completed before there is any Maritime transmission route of Lower Churchill power.

Mr. Speaker, last year the Premier stated that he planned to put power lines through Gros Morne Park but backed off when public pressure was mounting against the plan. Since then, the government has stated that they plan to put transmission lines through the Long Range Mountains.

I ask the Premier today: Has Nalcor evaluated the technical ramifications of that plan, and how much will this route add to the cost of developing the Maritime route for access?

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, before I answer the question, I just want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that we would not take on millions of dollars of liability doing environmental assessments that are not required, that is why we need to decide which way we are going to wheel our power before we engage in full environmental assessments of certain routes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the second issue there are a range of transmission routes undertaken and studied when Nalcor did the financials around this project. There are at least four to five routes that are considered to be - that we could work with in terms of bringing that power out of Labrador and down through the Island. All of them have been assessed internally, Mr. Speaker, and all of them have been costed internally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we do know is that government is still looking at the Maritime route as a preference; however, they will not tell us how much it is going to cost to generate power through that route, whether it is going to be feasible in terms of giving us numbers. They are not filing any environmental assessment to make it happen through that access. They are not talking to New Brunswick, Mr. Speaker, and last week in a technical briefing with the officials from Nalcor, we asked for the timelines for developing a Lower Churchill project. They said they would have to check with the Premier before that information could be released. In the article this weekend the Premier stated that he would have to check with Nalcor.

I ask the Premier: Now that you have had an opportunity to check, or one of your talks back and forth, how many years are we talking here before we see the Lower Churchill developed in a manner that is feasible both from a cost and technical perspective?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Obviously, it is something that the Leader of the Opposition is not used to. There is obviously a mutual respect between the Premier’s office, the government, and the Department of Natural Resources, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and or Nalcor. We check with each other. We do not, on the eighth floor, decide that for political reasons we are going to do a deal with Quebec, and we are going to give it all away to Quebec, and we are going to let them build it, and we are going to let them finance it, and we are going to let them sell it, and then finally when we do not have enough money to complete it, we are going to let them take it over. Then not only would a Liberal government have given them the Upper Churchill and taken all of that away and costing us billions and billions of dollars every year - we could have been a have Province probably twenty years ago if it had not been for the Liberal government, but no, what was going to happen with the next Liberal government, the Grimes government? They were going to give it all away again, because do you know what? They were not going to check with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They were just going to go up and tell the officials at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, this is the way it is because we know what we are doing. Well, that is not the way this government operates. We work collectively with them. We work together with them. We share information. We co-operate and when the time is right that project…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the Premier that the only thing given away in recent years is a free tab to AbitibiBowater when they pulled out of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the government opposite likes to talk about their preceding governments but they do not like to tell us what the plan and the scope of the plan is that they have themselves. It is just all rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, the Premier issued a press release encouraging both sides in the Vale strike to find a resolution. Well, it was nice to finally hear some word from government, I say to the members opposite, but three years ago this government stated that they were considering bringing forward anti-replacement worker legislation.

I ask the Premier today: Keep it simple, and tell these workers enough time has passed, whether your government will bring forward the legislation or whether it is something that you are not entertaining?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, over a year - nearly a year ago I actually went to the picket line. So I met with these workers on the picket line in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The minister has met with the company on at least one occasion, maybe other occasions, has met with the union, has met with the President of the Federation of Labour, has spoken with her in telephone conversations. I have spoken with her personally, face to face on this. I have spoken to her in telephone conversations about this issue.

We have been constantly on top of this issue. I can say it has been discussed at Cabinet on several occasions. It is something that is very, very important to government. What I decided to do last week was to call the Premier of Ontario because quite frankly, I think, as we all know; the problem in this strike is in Ontario. It is not going to be resolved until it is resolved in Ontario. If I remember correctly, I think there are like 3,000 workers that are affected in Ontario. Even if this government brought in anti-scab legislation, it is quite possible that our actions would not even end the strike.

So I phoned the Premier of Ontario, who happened to be in Israel at the time, and suggested to him, and he agreed, that we work together. That we monitor this very closely and that we encourage both sides to get to the table and get this resolved as soon as possible. So we are very concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it might not have ended the strike immediately but it certainly would have put a lot of pressure on this company to the point that they probably would have ended up in shutdown mode.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government today, because the commitment was made to these workers several years ago that there would be some consideration given to anti-replacement worker legislation. I have been on those picket lines many times in the last year, I say to the government, Mr. Speaker, and I have met with the company as well. These people deserve to have an answer. We know that the Board of Trade, the Federation of Business and the Manufacturers Association do not want to see anti-replacement worker legislation in the Province. However, we do know that the unions are supportive of it.

I ask the government today, to let the people know what your response is: Is this doable in Newfoundland and Labrador or is it not, so that these workers can get on with trying to settle what needs to be settled on the ground in this strike?

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, as the Premier answered in the previous question, I have had the opportunity to speak with the Nunatsiavut government, with Vale Inco, with the union and with the Federation of Labour. At all of these meetings, Mr. Speaker, replacement worker legislation has been discussed. They understand very clearly the difficulties in doing it. We continue to examine the issue, Mr. Speaker, and try to work through the complications.

Mr. Speaker, they also acknowledge at all levels that this will not end the strike. Worker replacement legislation would certainly put more pressure on the company, but, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the problem certainly seems to be in Ontario with the nickel bonus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, another day and another ferry out of service. The residents of Bell Island are now experiencing three to five hour delays since The Flanders is in for repairs and The Nonia is the only vessel left servicing the area. There are obvious problems when two vessels that service Bell Island have to go in for significant repairs within a month of each other.

I ask the minister: What types of repairs are being conducted on The Flanders and when can the residents of Bell Island expect a dependable and reliable service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just in response to the member’s question from across the way. Certainly, The Flanders was put out of commission over the weekend. She had some damage done to her bow thrusters and we hope to have it repaired in the next number of days. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to keep some level of service to the people of Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When communities such as Bell Island experience delays in their ferry service many concerns arise. Residents of Bell Island rely on the ferry to get to work in St. John’s and the surrounding area and they rely on it for social reasons, but most importantly medical emergencies and appointments.

I ask the minister: What other solutions has your department been considering to ensure that these residents are able to fully and reliably access when necessary for travelling from Bell Island to St. John’s?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware as a government of our responsibilities, not only to the people of Bell Island but the people of the Province. In these cases we do everything we possibly can to make sure there is a level of service that will meet their basic needs.

In this particular case, in emergency situations we will deal with through air or other means in order to take care of that particular situation.

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, last Thursday the Minister of Finance said that government was coming to the end of its five year video lottery terminal action plan and that government will now decide which way to go. The minister did not support the idea of holding public consultations. Mr. Speaker, a sensible way to proceed would be to hold broad consultations that would aid government in developing its next steps in dealing with the addictive nature of video lottery terminals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask it the Minister of Finance: Since 72 per cent of problem gamblers are VLT addicts, why won’t the minister commit to holding consultations around the Province to get input?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the one thing this government has done since it came into office in 2003 with respect to VLTs is reduce the number. We have reduced the number of VLTs in this Province by 25 per cent. We have reduced hours of access. We have reduced the pace of play. We eliminated the stop button from the machines.

We hear from the general public on this issue. People have very strong views on all sides on this particular issue. The options are clear. It will be necessary for government, when the current policy ends on March 31, 2011, it will be appropriate then for government to get together and consider the options that are before it and make the necessary decision to move forward.

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.

This government holds consultations on all kinds of issues. Right now we have got a whole set that are going to happen with regard to environmental issues. So I ask them minister to look at what is happening in other departments.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said last week during Question Period on Thursday that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation had provided government with some information regarding VLTs and on-line poker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: What kind of information did ALC provide, and will he release this information to the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in the public domain that the ALC has contacted this government, along with the other governments of the Atlantic Provinces, to allow it to move forward into new areas, including on-line poker.

The Government of Prince Edward Island has, in fact, passed legislation to allow that to happen. The Atlantic Finance Ministers intend to meet at the FPT meeting in Prince Edward Island next month to discuss this particular issue. I will be bringing the matter to my colleagues in order for them to be informed and to make a decision on this issue. At that point, government will make its decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the spirit of openness and transparency, I would ask this minister to release documents so everybody else can have the information to give feedback to him.

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard, during Question Period and debate on the NDP private member’s motion, that the Ministers of Finance, Health and Community Services, and Business are all very concerned about problem gambling. However, Mr. Speaker, when asking the Minister of Finance if his government would nominate a representative from the Department of Health and Community Services to sit on the board of ALC, the minister just listed who sits there now – basically refusing to answer the question.

So I ask the minister: Why is he against nominating a representative to the ALC board whose responsibility would be the health and well-being of the people in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Very simple, there is no vacancy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.