A little refresher for Steve Kent, from the marathon House of Assembly sitting of December 18-19, 2012. Here are the 5000 or so words he spoke to Bill 61; emphasis added:
I just need to make a few comments in speaking to Bill 61 now that we are in Committee. I think it is an appropriate time to remind members about Bill 61.
I love Canada. I have travelled in Canada. I have not been to Iceland. I hope to get there some day. In certain places in Canada there are hot springs. Have any of you been to Banff?
Filibustering is wonderful, it is fine. We can do it until the cows come home; however, we should at least talk about the legislation that is before us.
Perhaps in the next little while we will hear a few more stories about travels to Iceland, dips in the hot springs, perhaps even Doc McStuffins. I hope we will soon talk about Bill 61 and the legislation that we are here to actually debate.
I thought it was important to rise once again to speak actually to Bill 61 and the clauses that we are here to debate, and to provide some clarity on that particular issue. I hope, given the amount of time we have spent on clause 1 and considering much of the debate has not even addressed clause 1, that we are going to get to a point really soon – especially given the positive spirit that seems to exist in the House this morning; maybe it is the Christmas spirit that is getting to people.
Nalcor, since its inception, has been incredibly prudent. They have been incredibly cautious in managing the project and its financing, and this has been proven by a number of external studies. It has been proven by independent studies by Manitoba Hydro International. It has been proven by studies by Navigant, and other consultants as well as we have moved through the decision gate process. We are really confident in Nalcor's record. We are proud of the careful management they have exhibited and we are pretty sure that this kind of success is in fact going to go continue.