May

19, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 28

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to welcome sixteen Grade 12 students from St.

Joseph's All Grade from the District of Bellevue. The students are accompanied

by their principal, Mr. Paul Watson; teachers, Tom Kennedy and Maggie Sullivan;

and their bus driver, Alf Kearley.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome nineteen Grade 8

students from Our Lady of Mercy Elementary from the District of St.

Georges-Stephenville East. The students are accompanied by their teachers,

Darlene Sexton, Lisa Gallivan; chaperones, Parnell Hallett and Gerald Sexton;

and their bus driver, Vaughn Hepperan.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for

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

Port au Port; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the volunteers, supporters and

cancer survivors involved in the Bay d'Espoir Cancer Benefit Concert.

Chaired by Ms Helena Thornhill, the Bay d'Espoir Cancer Benefit Concert has

enjoyed over a decade of tremendous success. Each year, the amount of funds

raised surpasses the previous one, reaching a remarkable $150,000 last year.

This is no small feat, Mr. Speaker, especially in a rural remote area with a

relatively small population base.

These donations were raised in a mere twelve hours through activities such as

the daffodil tree in memory of loved ones, ticket sales, craft booths, head

shaving and music from local entertainers of all ages.

The support they provide to cancer patients in the communities of Bay

d'Espoir is truly astounding. They help to offset costs for travel, meals,

accommodations, prescription drugs not covered by medical plans, prosthesis,

special foods such as Boost or Ensure and more.

Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of people to make an event like this such a great

success. I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing the

efforts of these outstanding volunteers your hard work is very appreciated,

and we look forward to another decade of tremendous support.

Thank you, 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.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House to recognize the

wonderful work that the Georgestown Neighbourhood Association does for their

community.

Georgestown is a unique neighbourhood in the heart of old St. John's

enclosed by Military Road, Bonaventure Avenue, Monkstown Road, Carpasian Road

and Empire Avenue.

The association was founded in the year 2000 at a public meeting of residents

interested in building that community and it is open to all residents and run by

a volunteer board.

Their goal is to keep neighbours informed, active and in-touch with one

another and is dedicated to improving the quality of life through community

service, proactive response to issues and working on a sense of togetherness.

They monitor and address issues concerning the well-being and quality of life

in the neighbourhood, and seek to preserve and enhance the social and physical

environment of the neighbourhood community.

In particular, the Georgestown Neighbourhood Association is collaborating

with the City of St. John's to create a plan to guide future development in the

neighbourhood. They hold neighbourhood planning events with topics such as

gentrification and diversity, green space, how high to build, mobility and

transportation, and zoning.

They organize an annual spring clean up, which is very successful, a flea

market and barbeque in the summer, as well as the winter skating party. They

also do good things for the environment like organize the dead battery drop off.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Georgestown

Neighbourhood Association and all its volunteers for their dedication. They are

a wonderful example for other communities and I wish them continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize

and congratulate the members of the Stephenville High School Band who were in

New York City from May 2 to May 10 to participate in the Heritage Music

Festival.

The Heritage Music Festival is a large organization that plans and organizes

music festivals in most major centres in North America.

Eighty high school students, ten chaperones, ten parents, seven former

graduates of the school and former members of the school band, and of course

their highly talented band teacher, Mr. Howard Larade, made the trip to New York

City.

The students performed at the Riverside Church; the tallest church in the

United States and the twenty-fifth tallest in the world. The performance, Mr.

Speaker, earned them a mark of 91.333 and an amazing gold medal. They were

ranked first in their class, placing ahead of schools from Canada and the United

States.

As a result of winning the gold medal, they are invited to return next April,

Mr. Speaker, to perform at the prestigious Carnegie Hall in New York yes, Mr.

Speaker, at the famous Carnegie Hall. What an honour, Mr. Speaker, for our

students, our school, and our Province.

I ask all hon. members of this hon. House to join with me in congratulating

the members of the Stephenville School Band under the musical guidance of Mr.

Howard Larade on a tremendous performance in the Big Apple.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a young and very active

volunteer in the District of Bellevue, Corey Hudson.

Corey has volunteered a great deal of his time to various committees and

organizations throughout his community. Corey is a graduate from the College of

the North Atlantic with Civil Engineering Technologist.

He serves on the Norman's Cove-Long Cove Town Council, the fire department,

the recreation committee, the beach festival committee, the Norman's Cove-Long

Cove 2903 Cadet Corps, the Norman's Cove-Long Cove Town clean up committee,

chair of public works committee, fire and emergency joint town planning

committee of Norman's Cove-Long Cove and Chapel Arm. He is also responsible for

developing town integrated community sustainability plan for Norman's Cove-Long

Cove and he canvasses for both diabetes and for Epilepsy Newfoundland.

Corey, Mr. Speaker, along with all his volunteer dedication to his town,

travelled to New Orleans for three consecutive years and volunteered after

Hurricane Katrina. He helped to rebuild the roads, schools, and community

centres and assessed private home structures.

Mr. Speaker, Corey Hudson was one of the eight URock award winners this past

weekend, May 14, 2011 and of which I had the great privilege of attending.

I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Corey Hudson,

and all eight award winners of URock awards in the great volunteer work they do

in their communities, towns and area. Your volunteer work is making a difference

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. To all volunteers in Newfoundland and

Labrador, we want to say URock.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to provide an update on the development of

the Provincial Minerals Strategy.

In keeping with the provincial government's commitment to responsible,

sustainable development of Newfoundland and Labrador's mineral resources, public

consultations on the development of a Minerals Strategy have been completed.

These consultations, held with industry and other key stakeholders, helped

identify areas of interest as we move ahead with the strategy's development.

I am pleased to report that close to 120 people attended the fourteen

sessions held in communities throughout the Province. Two workshop sessions were

also held in April, and involved industry and environmental representatives. The

first session focused on the environment and sustainable mining practices, while

the second session addressed exploration incentives, industry assistance, and

the streamlining of regulatory processes to ensure that we continue to have a

competitive business climate that encourages investment and exploration.

Consultations were held with the Nunatsiavut Government and the Innu Nation. We

also received thirty-one private submissions which can be viewed online, Mr.

Speaker. I thank all participants for their valuable input which will help to

strengthen the strategy's development.

Mr. Speaker, a Minerals Strategy will help to ensure long-term industry

viability by supporting exploration and development. It will help us determine

how best to attract investment and interest into the Province, while providing

further clarification to companies and investors interested in doing business in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our Province's mining industry is a major contributor to our economy,

representing more than 10 per cent of the Province's Gross Domestic Product. In

2011, the forecasted gross value of mineral shipments is $4.8 billion with

exploration expenditures expected to be $127 million. This industry provides

meaningful employment of over 5,000 person years in Newfoundland and Labrador,

particularly in our rural communities. Employment is expected to increase this

year as a result of more opportunities becoming available at mining operations

throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have a solid long-term plan in place to capitalize on

the economic and employment opportunities associated with this industry. A

Minerals Strategy will focus on creating additional employment opportunities,

the sustainable development of our non-renewable mineral resources, and

environmental protection, while contributing to future growth and success in the

best interest of the people of the Province. I look forward to the continued

work on the development of this strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. There is no doubt

in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we have been blessed with a wealth

of natural resources. It is the responsibility of the government to aid in the

development of these resources and to make sure that there is a clear path

forward to maximize benefits from these assets so that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, in general, benefit.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that the consultations for the provincial

Minerals Strategy has been occurring and been well received. We hope that the

strategy will form a comprehensive basis for supporting exploration development

within the Province and within the mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, we hope that it also promotes job creation

and, with it, good economic spinoffs for many regions of our Province. We have

learned from industrial development in this Province as well, and that is that

we have to be cognizant of the environment and that we develop in a sustainable

manner.

Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in this Province certainly bounced back from

the recent recession. In fact, we have seen our mineral shipments nearly doubled

in the last year compared to 2009, and we are hoping the market conditions will

improve. We look forward to seeing the expansions at IOC and Wabush Mines. We

certainly look forward to seeing new mines coming on stream in this Province,

the ones with Labrador Iron Mines and New Millennium in particular. We wait to

see what the Inuit in Northern Labrador will do with Paladin mines in developing

their operations up there.

Mr. Speaker, all in all there are a lot of exciting new opportunities being

developed in the mining industry for both gold, iron, copper, zinc, and rare

minerals. We certainly would encourage government to do the final strategy and

to bring it forward for the mining industry as soon as possible.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It is important

that this consultation took place and that the Department of Natural Resources

is looking at the whole issue of sustainable development of Newfoundland and

Labrador's mineral resources. It is absolutely important because of the fact

that minerals are not a renewable resource, that the mining has to create

sustainability not just for the mining industry itself but for the communities

that are affected by the mining that goes on and for the Province. Trying to do

it in a way that is going to bring benefits to everybody is extremely important.

For eighteen months in this Province, we had a labour issue that lasted right

into 2011 which began in 2009 and that had to do with the strike with regard to

Voisey's Bay, Mr. Speaker. These kinds of events that happen have to be dealt

with as well when looking at sustainability of the industry. I notice that the

minister did mention that one of the things they did look at during the

consultations was the streamlining of regulatory processes to ensure that we

continue to have competitive business.

I would urge the minister, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that they do not

streamline regulatory processes when it comes to labour relations and to labour

issues. If we do not have a workforce that feels safe in the workplace and feels

that their rights are being recognized and that they are being treated fairly,

then the mining industry will not be sustainable here in this Province.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of four-year-olds in the Province are now

proud owners of two children's books, thanks to a new partnership between the

Department of Education and the Provincial Information and Library Resources

Board, which administers Newfoundland and Labrador's public libraries.

The children are participants in KinderStart, a school transition program

offered to all children in the year prior to Kindergarten. They were given a

coupon to visit their local library and receive their first book and a library

card. On their return visit, they were presented with a second book.

Mr. Speaker, 86 per cent of our population lives within twenty-four

kilometres of a public library, which is quite remarkable for a Province with

our geography. In areas where the distance is greater, the books were mailed to

their homes.

The overall goal of this $75,000 initiative is to provide children throughout

the Province with quality literature, as well as to promote story time and early

literacy programming offered through public libraries.

Mr. Speaker, this program has been a great success to date. One mother said,

"My son will be a better reader than I am. He wants to come to the library every

day now." That is the kind of reaction we were hoping for, Mr. Speaker, and we

certainly intend to continue this initiative next year with two new book

selections.

Early childhood learning is a priority for government, Mr. Speaker. In Budget

2011, we announced a commitment of $4.8 million over the next three years to

begin implementation of our early childhood learning strategy, Learning From the

Start, with an initial focus on children from birth to age three. The goal is to

give every child the best possible start in life, and a strong foundation for

their future development and learning.

Thank you, 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.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

Surely, it is a good thing to see four-year-olds in our Province, or any age for

that matter, being presented with reading material. The minister noted that 86

per cent of the population of our Province live within twenty-four kilometres of

a public library. My district would be one that certainly would be an exception

to that. Much of the population would be much further than that away from a

public library and would not have the advantage of going in there every day. To

have books mailed to them is certainly a good thing and a good program. It is

good to see the response in statement by one mother, and I would trust that that

would a similar reaction, Mr. Speaker, from many of them.

Introducing children to libraries at an early age is important and in the

absence of the library, being able to make that connection so that children get

involved in reading is very important. We realize that literacy in our Province

is certainly below the national average, and these initiatives, I trust, would

help to bring that gap together and to improve their quality of reading and so

on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am very pleased with the initiative that she has told us about here this

afternoon. The more that we can get books into the hands of young children in

particular, the better it is going to be for the long-term development in our

Province, Mr. Speaker. The fact that this initiative encourages children with

their parents to become local library users where libraries exist is also great.

However, I would like to see libraries getting more funding so they can offer

more things like reading sessions with small children around the Province. This

is something that children really do enjoy, so the more we can offer it the

better.

This kind of initiative certainly has a long-term vision, Mr. Speaker, to

deal with our problem of illiteracy down the road. We still need to deal, of

course, with illiteracy in older persons. The latest data that is available

reveals that over 50 per cent of people aged sixteen to sixty-five in our

Province are still scoring in the two lowest literacy proficiency levels. So

while we deal with the younger children with the long-term vision, we also need

to increase working with older persons as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The Chair just stands to make a correction in the welcoming of some students

here to the House of Assembly from St. Joseph's School. My understanding is it

is Grade 10 and Grade 11 schools, and the member wanted to make sure that I

welcomed people correctly. Again, I apologize for the mistake.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in April 2005, the government started work on its cancer control

strategy. They released the framework in November 2010, and note that was just a

framework they released five years later, not necessarily the strategy. At that

time, Mr. Speaker, they said they would put a Cancer Control Advisory Committee

in place. I think they actually named the chair.

I ask the minister today: Has this committee been appointed? Are they in

place? Is there work being done?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member opposite knows, we have invested significant amounts of money,

time, and effort in the treatment of cancer in this Province. Cancer is a

disease, Mr. Speaker, that affects all of us everyone in this House and

everyone in our society.

Mr. Speaker, last year in the Budget we brought in the colorectal cancer

screening program which I am sure will go a long ways in terms of that

devastating cancer. We did bring in the cancer control strategy through an

advisory committee. Names have been submitted, Mr. Speaker, and we are waiting

for the finalization of that.

Mr. Speaker, in this year's Budget we invested another $17.2 million for the

completion of the PET/CT cyclotron project. Mr. Speaker, we recently announced

our continued implementation of the Cameron recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, everyone on this side of the House and everyone in this House

takes the treatment of this very devastating disease very seriously, and we are

all doing everything we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the committee is not in place. It took

government five years to get a framework not a strategy, just a framework. It

has taken them since November, now, to try and put an advisory committee in

place. Mr. Speaker, not only do we have the highest rate of colorectal cancer in

the country, but we also have the most people dying from it, and we have the

second-highest, overall, death rate from cancer in Atlantic Canada.

Minister, I ask you: Why have you delayed putting this committee in place,

because consequently, you are delaying a cancer control strategy for our

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the framework that was announced is, Mr. Speaker, a strategy. It

outlines our plan to deal with cancer prevention, through promoting a healthy

population, identifying individuals at risk, coordinating care, supportive and

palliative care.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite I am sure is aware, a committee or an

advisory council has to be comprised of individuals who can bring something to

the table. In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the VP of Cancer Care of

Eastern Health will be on the advisory council. We have representatives of each

of the regional health authorities, or the health authorities. We have, Mr.

Speaker, representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society, we have put forward

names of a number of members of the public who are cancer survivors. What we are

doing is we are simply finalizing the committee. As the member opposite knows,

or should know, having sat in government, there is a process we have to go

through, and we are finalizing that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, I asked the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs what was in place in case Canadian postal workers went

on strike in this Province, to ensure that cheques would be delivered. He

obviously did not know about the issue or had no plan. He referred it to the

Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, who later stated in the

media that there is no plan. So, I would like to remind the government, Mr.

Speaker, that we could see a strike as early as Tuesday.

I ask the minister today: it is twenty-four hours later, you now know about

the issue, maybe you could tell us what plan is in place to ensure that

government cheques will continue to get out in the event of a postal strike?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not need the member opposite to remind me of what is happening in the

Province, I am very well aware, and very much on top of our affairs. I will

remind the member that she directed the question to the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs yesterday, she did not direct it to me. Furthermore,

her question was about Newfoundland entering into an agreement with other

provinces in Canada. If she had asked me the question, I would have provided the

answer, and I provided the answer this morning, Mr. Speaker.

We have a plan in place; we will have a plan in place. We are focused on

planning with our own department and with our regional offices. We recognize

that people who are expecting to receive these cheques are in very vulnerable

situations. We are very cognizant of that. We will have a plan in place for

communication so that we can let people know very clearly how they are going to

get their cheques. Mr. Speaker, it is not rocket science. If the postal service

does not deliver it, we either have to deliver it or they pick them up, it is

very simple. We have more than 100 offices in this Province that we can use as

distribution sites and we will have a communications plan that explains all of

that to the public if and when we get to that point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A lame excuse; I have asked questions to ministers in this House all the time

and other ministers have answered. It is quite obvious that government,

including the minister opposite, did not have an answer, Mr. Speaker, or he

would have been the first one on his feet yesterday, I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, postal workers have informed us that this would not cost the

government anything to avail of the services that they are providing and they

could process and get all the cheques to people in the Province within

twenty-four-hours.

I ask you, Minister, here we are into a long weekend, I ask you why you did

not opt into that program that would have guaranteed quick and cost-effective

delivery of cheques to people in this Province, people who will need that money

on the day it is supposed to be received?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resource, Labour and

Employment.

MR. KING: The member opposite said one thing right, Mr. Speaker, at the

very end of her statement, that those people who are expecting those cheques

need the cheques.

Let me explain very clearly what the member opposite obviously does not

understand. We deliver cheques every, single day in this Province; every, single

day, and for more than 20,000 cheques. They go out twice a month.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the offer from Canada Post - the offer that was on the

table by the way, we did not reject it, we said it causes difficulty. The member

does not understand that. The offer that is on the table offered delivery once a

month, in about three week's time, Mr. Speaker. Also, it offered delivery only

in urban Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member opposite has little concern for

recipients in rural Newfoundland or not, last week she stood up and talked about

not wanting to consult with people, yesterday she talked about not wanting to

put dialysis on the Burin Peninsula. What is it, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has dropped the ball on this file and he knows it. He is trying

to save face. Mr. Speaker, he is trying to save face now because

twenty-four-hours ago he had no idea what was going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday our good friend of the Premier's, Mr.

Stephen Harper, reappointed Fabian Manning to the Senate.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Is she prepared or in the process of

reappointing another one of her failed Conservative candidates, Mr. John

Ottenheimer, who used to be the chair of Nalcor until a few weeks ago - is she

planning to reappoint him to that position or is she planning to reappoint him

to another position, such as the representative for Newfoundland and Labrador in

Ottawa?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes you have to be like Theseus with his ball of wool in

the maze to follow the logic of the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know how

you can reappoint somebody to a new position. Anyway, I think I got the gist of

what she is asking, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no plans around appointments at this point in time. We

are looking at the board of Nalcor, there are several vacancies there that need

to be filled, Mr. Speaker, and we will look at all candidates.

Let me say this, Mr. Ottenheimer has been a fine man to have involved to

represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this House and elsewhere,

and on the board of Nalcor. I would have no compunction at all at reappointing

or appointing him to a new position, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the Premier likes to pattern herself after Mr. Harper, so I guess we

will wait and see if Mr. Ottenheimer gets reappointed back into Nalcor

corporation or actually gets a new appointment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Whenever we ask questions in the House about Muskrat Falls, Mr.

Speaker, the Premier continues to provide wrong information or no information. A

case in point was yesterday in the House when the Premier stated that Holyrood

produced some 37 per cent of the Province's energy in 2009. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that in 2009 Holyrood only produced 17.8 per cent of the Province's

energy.

I ask the Premier today: Why did you provide that information to the House of

Assembly when we know it was wrong and that there is other information out there

that says it was 17.8 per cent?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I thank the Leader of the

Opposition for saying that I follow in the steps of Mr. Harper and what happens

to Mr. Harper happens to me, because I guess we are on path for a majority

government in October.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take that for granted.

I am going to work hard to win the respect and support of the people of this

Province. I am confident that when they look at the body of work that has been

done by this government, that we will continue to have their support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has no

compunction at all here in the House of Assembly, and on every media outlet that

she can get herself, by stating that Holyrood only produces 11 per cent of the

electricity that we need in this Province when she knows that that is only the

case for one year. Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House, time and time again,

there is a range and there is an average of electricity generated by Holyrood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows the information was wrong, and that is the reason that she

is just up talking for the sake of talking. When she talks about winning

majority governments and patterning herself after Harper in that way, maybe if

you were Calgary, Premier, but I would not get up on your high horse just yet in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be the people out in the Province who have

that final say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls Project was developed in secret

and negotiated behind closed doors. Information from government has been

incomplete and contradictory. There are no prospects of meaningful debate in the

House of Assembly, no assurance of release of legal documents, and no chance of

a truly independent review before we reach a conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: Will the Premier allow the Public

Utilities Board to conduct a full set of public hearings with no preconditions,

no restrictions, no exclusions, and no attempt to rig the decision beforehand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is getting

confused. What she just described was, in fact, what happened in 2000 when she

was a member of the Grimes government, Mr. Speaker. They brought in the enabling

legislation to allow the development of the Lower Churchill to be exempted. They

issued the order that the Lower Churchill be exempted from regulation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if anybody has any difficulty with what

I am saying, I would encourage them to go to the government's Web site, to go to

the House of Assembly, to go to the

section on regulations, and they will see

the order that you issued in 2000 to exempt Lower Churchill from regulatory

review by the PUB. What this government is doing is bringing the PUB back in,

something they did not want to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows that the Grimes deal was power for export. It was not power

that was going to be paid for by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker. The Premier also knows the deal was

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member, continue with her questions.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, she also knows that the deal was based on a Lower

Churchill Project, not a Muskrat Falls Project that gives away ownership to

other provinces like Emera in Nova Scotia, and not a deal that was going to

gouge the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows the difference and it is a

different deal.

I say to you, Premier: It is up to you to put this through a full and open

process, and will you do that on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador? Why do you want to preside over a secret deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

So, Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right: They exempted the whole 3,000

megawatts of the Lower Churchill from review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what we know. We know that the board of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro were not shared the details of the 2000 deal. We

know that the PUB was exempted from review of the 3,000 megawatt deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We know that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

were not given any information on the 2000 deal, but I will guarantee you

Hydro-Quebec knew all about it, though, didn't they?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having difficulty hearing the questions asked and the answers

given. I ask all members to show respect to those who have been recognized by

the Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier will not answer to the people of this Province because she wants

to hide this deal inside the walls of Nalcor, and for what, Premier? The money

is coming out of the people's pockets in this Province. Why do you want to

preside over a secret deal?

You are shutting out the Auditor General, you are controlling the Public

Utilities Board process, and you are shutting it down under freedom of

information and none of it is going to public tender. It is completely

secretive.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, she is working with her friend that she

appointed to the PUB, Mr. Andy Wells, to ensure that this project is compared to

only two other options in the Province. The options are the ones she chose. One

of them is actually building a transmission line to Nova Scotia and buying power

from the Maritimes to replace Holyrood.

So I ask you, Premier

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask you, Premier: Why are you stacking the odds in favour of Muskrat by

making the Public Utilities Board examine alternatives that are not realistic,

like buying power from Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these people sat in a government that threw the Auditor General

out of the House of Assembly, and you have the nerve to come back and make

accusatory remarks against this government.

Mr. Speaker, we have provided every piece of information other than the

commercially sensitive information, not only to the members of the Opposition,

Mr. Speaker, but to the people of the Province. We have done it through our Web

sites here in government and through Nalcor. We have done it through a series of

public information sessions and open houses in Labrador and here on the Island.

Mr. Speaker, we have informed the different caucuses of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we have endorsements from the Board of Trade, from the Federation

of Labour, from all three leaders in the last federal election. We are putting

the strategic question, the fundamental question for review to the PUB, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier today is throwing out the Auditor General, she is throwing out

the Public Utilities Board as we see it, Mr. Speaker, and she is throwing out

every public process around Muskrat Falls because she does not want the people

of this Province to realize that their light bills are going to double. They are

going to pay the price at the end of the day while Emera and Nalcor earn a

profit.

Mr. Speaker, one of the options that the Premier is not looking at and is not

being looked at by Nalcor is the excess power that is available from Churchill

Falls. According to some experts, including former board members of Newfoundland

Hydro, we could buy any power we need for a small fraction of what it will cost

to build Muskrat.

Premier, why do you not place the so-called

section 92A option before the

Public Utilities Board for its consideration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, they did not pay any more attention to

information when they were government than they pay to it today. That is what

her question indicates.

Mr. Speaker, there have been over twenty opinions given on 92A over the last

twenty years and none of them recommend that we take the action she is

recommending. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are charged with protecting the best interest

of the people of this Province. They did not act on 92A for the same reasons

that we do not act on 92A, Mr. Speaker. We have over twenty different opinions

on 92A, opinions that you concurred with obviously given that you did not act at

the time. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about do not do what we did, do as we say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier is prepared to look at real options here, why not look at all

the options? Why not refer it to the Public Utilities Board? Why not let the

people of the Province actually see what 92A involves? Is there a way that we

can recall that power, Mr. Speaker, for domestic use in Newfoundland and

Labrador and do so at a lot cheaper rate saving the people of this Province

money for generations to come? Why will you not do it, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, 92A would open the Province to all kinds of

liabilities, were we to move on 92A. All of the opinions we have, many of them

that at least your colleague and former Minister of Justice should be very

familiar with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of that there are 250

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - 250 megawatts of power in recall power available to

us seasonally out of Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of that you have to

layer on

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - transmission; we have to build transmission. How

are we going to get it to the Island? We have to build a subsea link; we have to

build transmission all down across the Island. All of those options have been

considered, Mr. Speaker, and it is not viable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We are going to get it but we have power that we can

sell $1.2 billion of it to Emera, Mr. Speaker, and at least another $1 billion

of it to markets beyond Nova Scotia.

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.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, last month a group of people from the Port Union

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits

& White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last month a group of people from the Port Union fish plant sat in the

gallery and protested and listened to the Premier make a commitment to move

forward on a proposal that would help these workers stabilize their lives after

their plant was destroyed by hurricane Igor. A month has passed, Mr. Speaker,

three ministers are working on the file and these workers have yet to hear what

is in store for them.

I ask the Premier today: Can she update us on the status of the proposal that

was put forward by the Port Union people?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, we did have the meetings with the people from Port Union. Since that

time through Department of HRLE we have

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: - we have mobilized people on the ground and we have had a

follow-up meeting with the union. Mr. Speaker, as ministers and our staff we met

yesterday. We are in the process now of setting up a follow-up meeting with the

people of Port Union probably within the next week or so. We will be indicating

to them a date very shortly, Mr. Speaker, to update them on where we are with

the proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, their fear is that this plant will not open next

year.

I ask the Premier or the minister if they have had a conversation with the

owner of the Port Union plant, OCI, about the future of the processing facility.

Have they gotten reassurances that this plant will open next year, or is this

another case of a slow death of a fish plant in rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we cannot prejudge what the company is going to

do. They have not indicated one way or the other yet, Mr. Speaker, whether it

will be a permanent closure.

Mr. Speaker, we will do our part as a government to support the workers

there. We will enter into discussions, as we have already with the company. We

will wait to see what the outcome is, but we cannot prejudge that, 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.

Mr. Speaker, in last week's Fisheries Estimates, the minister stated that the

Northern shrimp quota would not be as high as the interim cuts that were

announced, which were at 40 per cent inshore and 10 per cent for the offshore

fleet. In fact, the minister stated his understanding was that it would be

somewhere between 10 per cent and 15 per cent.

I ask the minister today: Does he have any new information he can share with

us on his proposed shrimp quota reduction? When does he expect a final decision

will be coming down from the federal government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, if we follow past policy of DFO, as I have

indicated in this House, in the three years previous, two decisions were made in

May and one was made in July. They always announce a preliminary number to get

the season started.

Mr. Speaker, we are more than pleased this year with the shrimp fishery. This

is the highest record price that has probably been ever seen in the shrimp

industry. Things are underway. We are awaiting certain sectors, but, Mr.

Speaker, this is going to prove to be a good year for the shrimp industry. We

will await the final decisions. I am sure it will not be too much longer, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

When questioned in this House last month, the Minister of Government Services

confirmed that three Occupational Health and Safety officers in his department

were being let go despite his department only being 50 per cent compliant with

their own health and safety rules.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, in providing his answer, it was clear that the

minister totally missed the point at the core of the issue as we asked about it.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether those positions were temporary, as the

minister said, it is that the work is not yet done, and there are no plans to

finish it.

I ask the Minister of Government Services: Who is going to conduct hazard

assessments of high-risk positions now that your OHS co-ordinators are gone?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to make reference to

the three employees that the hon. member mentioned. These three people were

hired on a temporary basis to help with a review of the Occupational Health and

Safety affairs with the Department of Government Services; not only Government

Services, but also the other social service departments within government.

Mr. Speaker, they were told at the beginning they would be hired for a

three-year period. They were told again in January of this year that they would

be terminated at the end of March this year, because the work they had been

assigned to do would be completed at that time. The remainder of the work would

be done by our own people within the department.

Thank you.

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.

My question today is for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, even though the Province has a Provincial Wellness Plan, the

links between wellness and disease prevention seem to be very weak at the

departmental level. The wellness plan is supposed to be guided by principles of

collaboration, but department officials told the Auditor General that chronic

disease management and the Health and Promotion Wellness Division are not

working together to achieve results.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is his department doing to improve this

situation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In the debate yesterday on the private member's motion, I referred to the

quote from the World Health Organization on the importance of prevention in

reducing chronic diseases such as diabetes. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to

obviously distinguish between treatment for type 1 diabetes and the prevention

of type 2 diabetes.

Mr. Speaker, this government, we have invested this year alone, $700,000 in

Wellness Grants; grants that are going to youth groups, grants that are going to

seniors groups, grants that are going to community groups, to encourage physical

activity, to encourage healthy eating, to encourage education and awareness.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we have recently established a chronic disease control

division within our Department of Health and Community Services. As I indicated

yesterday, the strategy will be forthcoming in the near future. As I talked

about yesterday, we have also the insulin pumps for young people up to age

twenty-five in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and also $75,000 to the Canadian

Diabetes Association (inaudible).

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.

I have to take it from the minister's answer, that at this moment the

department is not doing anything to make sure that these two groups, the chronic

disease management and the Health Promotion and Wellness Division, work

together, as they indicated to the Auditor General they are not doing. So, Mr.

Speaker, let's try another one.

Insulin pumps have greatly helped people who cannot control their diabetes.

According to Eastern Health, people who need insulin pumps require a lot of the

resources available under the diabetes education program. Mr. Speaker, Eastern

Health does not have enough diabetes nurses trained to help new pump users.

Nursing resources are stretched, in terms of taking on new diabetes patients and

new pump users.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: What is his department doing to help

authorities attract and train more nurses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, this is what this government is doing: $2.3

billion investment in health care this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: This year alone, this government will spend $140 million in

infrastructure in health care, Mr. Speaker, a lot of it in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador. Eastern Health has over 10,000 employees with a $1 billion budget.

What we are doing is we are increasing awareness in education by funding

community groups; we are funding the regional health authorities.

Let's talk about insulin pumps again for a second, Mr. Speaker. We have,

right now, increased insulin pump coverage to age twenty-five. We started out in

2007, up to age eighteen and in Budget 2010, up to age twenty-five. Mr. Speaker,

this government is investing strategically in our health care system and

realizing that prevention is a key factor.

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.

Once again, I did not get an answer to the question. He did not deal with the

fact that new pump users cannot occur if we do not have nurses to do the

training with them, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, another question, there are four fairly simple and

straightforward tests that people at risk of diabetes should have regularly to

maintain good health, but in 2009 only 21 per cent of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians received them.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: What is his department doing to work with

the health authorities to ensure that everyone at risk of diabetes gets these

tests on a regular basis? It is part of management of the disease, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's talk about nurses for a second, Mr. Speaker. We currently have, in this

Province, 6,060 registered nurses, the highest number of nurses we have ever

had. Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2011, there were 22.5 new nursing positions

announced. In 2010, 86 per cent of our new graduates were hired by the

provincial regional health authorities. Currently, 171 of 189 students who will

graduate this year, 90 per cent, have been recruited in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: With all of these nurses out there, Mr. Speaker, I will

certainly talk to Ms Kaminski and see if we can make sure that the nurses are in

their proper positions. Mr. Speaker, one thing again we have done, we have made

our doctors happy and we have made our nurses happy with very fair and equitable

compensation packages.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Committee have

considered the matters referred to them and have passed without amendment the

Estimates of the following departments and offices: the Department of

Transportation and Works; the Department of Finance; Public Service Commission;

Office of the Chief Information Officer; the Department of Government Services;

the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs; Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat; and Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and thank the Committee members: MHA,

Port de Grave, Vice Chair; MHA, St. John's East; MHA, The Straits & White Bay

North; MHA, Kilbride; MHA, Bay of Islands; MHA, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; MHA,

Burgeo & La Poile; and MHA, Baie Verte-Springdale.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further presentation of reports by standing and select

committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I

hereby table the Report of the Public Tender Act Exemptions for March 2011.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to move the

following resolution:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides that the Office

of the Chief Electoral Officer be filled by resolution of the House of Assembly;

and

WHEREAS subsection 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act provides that a

Commissioner for Legislative Standards be appointed by the House of Assembly on

the motion of the Premier following consultation with the Leader of the Official

Opposition and representatives of the other registered political parties having

representation in the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Victor Powers be appointed Chief Electoral

Officer and Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, further notices of motion.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that

this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador with

regard to the Trans-Labrador Highway.

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline to the

Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and

allowing residents to obtain health care and other public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway

are unpaved, in deplorable condition and are no longer suitable and safe for the

traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading or

paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to urge government

to provide additional funding for much-needed improvements to Route 510 and

connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, I have been presenting this petition almost every day since the

House of Assembly opened. The reason for that is because the road in that part

of the Province is in an unacceptable condition for motorists to be travelling

over.

Mr. Speaker, every day I am getting phone calls from all regions of Labrador

from people who are using that road and taking them twice as long to navigate

the road as what it would normally take. I am getting e-mails, I am getting

stuff on Facebook, and I am getting everything, Mr. Speaker, from people using

the road in that area of the Province.

I am soon going to put out a brochure with all of the numbers of the

government members, Mr. Speaker, so that they can start calling them. It is

ridiculous that people in this part of the Province, Mr. Speaker, should have to

come to the government begging and begging and begging every single day for

someone to address the need of their road.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, when I was listening to Cec Haire on CBC, he was

tweeting this morning saying anyone out there travelling on the long weekend, if

you do not see the lines painted on the road let us know. Well, Mr. Speaker, you

will not see any lines painted on the road I can tell you going through my

district and going into Happy Valley-Goose Bay because there is no pavement to

put lines on. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. So you will not be getting any

tweets I say to CBC about no lines on the road up there. Now you may be getting

a lot of them about lines on the road, Mr. Speaker, on the Island because I have

had three or four myself today

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - from people telling me about lines that are not painted

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - on the road on the Trans-Canada and in different areas across

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is the long weekend and people in Labrador want to be able to

get in their vehicle and drive out for the long weekend just like everyone else.

They should be able to do so, Mr. Speaker, and be able to travel comfortably.

They should at least have some crushed stone on that road up there, some top on

it.

There are sections of the road, Mr. Speaker, that are ten years old ten

years. You know yourself, anyone in this House anyone who has ever lived in an

area with a gravel highway, Mr. Speaker, knows that after ten years you have to

resurface that highway and you have to put crushed stone on it. That is all the

people are asking. It is unfortunate that every single day I have to stand in my

place to wait for a response from government to make a commitment to do that

road in that part of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise to enter a petition in this House on behalf of the residents of La

Poile and the residents of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou and anyone else who might

be travelling in our Province as tourists who from time to time, visit the South

Coast, which many of them do. The petition reads, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order

to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town

of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom/waiting room area at the Town of Rose

Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry services may utilize washroom

facilities; and

WHERAS citizens of all ages including men, women, children, seniors, and

disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course

of their travels and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a

waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such

that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile

may be able to utilize such waiting area and washroom facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I actually have several e-mails from someone because I have

entered this petition in this House several times and when I do of course it

sparks more petitions from those particular residents and from that particular

area. I have received e-mails from people in and around this Province who simply

cannot believe that in this day and age an MHA is standing asking that a

washroom be constructed by the Department of Transportation and Works, which

operates the ferry system. They just cannot believe that we live in such Third

World conditions here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If you get on the ferry to go to Bell Island, for example, and you have to

use the washroom, you have washroom facilities available. You get on it to go to

Fogo, you have them available. Thank God we have it now if you are going to Grey

River or Ramea but only due to seventy-one petitions that were brought forward

in this House, until the minister became tired of hearing from me. He put one

down in Burgeo just to shut me up basically, Mr. Speaker. I hope he shuts me up

again, because it is direly needed. Surely, he can find enough money to put a

washroom facility there next and adjacent to the ferry so that people who are

waiting for the ferry in all kinds of weather, all through the year, will have

the basic human needs satisfied, that you can go to a washroom rather than have

to go up behind a rock or behind the old fish plant that is there. It is

absolutely degrading, dehumanizing and not necessary. It should not be in what

we today are referring to as a have Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people in the District of

The Isles of Notre Dame.

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial

Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed last summer and did not reopen in

the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of

Twillingate and New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in people being denied

admittance to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate, New World Island do not want to see their

health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the five acute care beds in

the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

Mr. Speaker, the situation here in this particular area is really

unfortunate. These people were used to having a number of beds in the acute care

centre at Notre Dame Bay Memorial Health Centre in Twillingate. There was a need

in that facility obviously for restorative care beds. There was a request that

went into government to have those restorative care beds added to the

Twillingate hospital.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what government did is back last summer they

closed down five of the acute care beds in the region. They closed them for the

summer with a commitment to reopen them in the fall, but they did not reopen

them in the fall. In fact, what they did is they reallocated them from acute

care beds to restorative care beds in the same facility.

Then what happened is the minister and the member for the area, the MHA, went

out there, Mr. Speaker, and had a press conference and said that we are going to

add five restorative care beds to the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Health Centre. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, what they were doing is they were taking out five acute care

beds, beds that people were using every day for emergencies, beds that people

were using every day for normal procedures. They took those beds out of the

facility and reclassified them as restorative care beds.

That was supposed to be a good announcement for the people in that area.

Well, it was not a good announcement. That is why thousands of people have

signed these petitions, petitions that are still coming into my office, Mr.

Speaker, from people out there who are signing these petitions because they are

not happy. They are not happy with the fact that their member presided over this

and did not consult with them, but, in fact, took beds out of their hospital

without their knowledge. They are not happy and they are asking the government

to reinstate them.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present another petition,

particularly for the members of my own district.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of the Northeast Coast feel that due to high winds and

stormy seas during the months of December through February; and

WHEREAS during the last number of years we are able to do little or no

hunting during these months; and

WHEREAS there is an abundance of eider ducks in the last few years; and

WHEREAS eider ducks will not nest until mid-May;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to

urge government to extend the hunting of eider ducks until March 10 during these

designated hunting seasons.

As in duty bound, your petitioners ever humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, this may not seem earth-shattering to some members of the House

of Assembly this afternoon, but it is an important petition that I bring forward

in several ways. I realize the actual hunting season is something that is set by

Environment Canada, I believe it is. Mr. Speaker, I would call upon the

Department of Justice, with Intergovernmental Affairs, to make representation on

behalf of the members who have signed.

I have the signatures of about 800 or so people. Many of the people are

involved in the eider duck hunt. The fact that the season is closing so

prematurely, in terms of weather, it really jeopardizes the opportunity for them

to participate, first of all, in something that has been a tradition for them

for many years. It is a means of food for them.

Mr. Speaker, my concern would be one of safety. I live in the area and we

know along the Northeast Coast that December, January, and February are

certainly not good months to be on the water in smaller speedboats in

particular.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to stand and present this. I would

ask government to look at it seriously and to do anything they can do to see

that the request of the petitioners is granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to begin the Orders of the Day, on the Order Paper we will first

do the third reading of the three bills that are ready for that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, that Bill 21,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 21,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act, be now read a time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture, that Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now

read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 29 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 29 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act No. 2, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2, be now read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2.

(Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that this bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 2", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural

Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider Bill 31.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000". (Bill 31)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is Bill 31, which is the child care tax credit, which received approval

in principle from hon. members in this House. Since then, we have been advised

by the Canada Revenue Agency - this particular bill gives a tax credit for child

care expenses over and above or in addition to the deduction that taxpayers both

federally and provincially get from eligible child care expenses. We asked the

Canada Revenue Agency, which collects and administers our taxes under the Income

Tax Act, if they would review the legislation and they finally did that. They

have recommended that we make an amendment.

I want to move an amendment to Bill 31, seconded by the Minister of Justice,

that clause 2 of the bill be deleted and the following substituted therefore:

that subsection 23(2) of the act is amended by adding immediately after

paragraph (b.2) the following: (b.3)

section 17.2. This amendment would amend

the bill to more accurately reflect the order in which the credit is referred to

section 17.2 is to be applied.

Now, Mr. Chair, for the benefit of members, and I advised both the Opposition

and the Leader of the NDP early this morning of this amendment. This is a tax

credit, and I understand in the Income Tax Act that the tax credits are ordered

and that some of the tax credits like the new child care tax credit are only

available in the year that the expense is incurred by the taxpayer. If they are

not taken advantage of that year, they are lost and therefore cannot be claimed.

There are other tax credits which can be transferred or carried over to

following years.

To maximize the effectiveness of the child care tax credit, it would be

better if that credit was put before some of the transferrable credits. In

particular, the Canada Revenue Agency has recommended that the new

section 17.2,

which is the child care tax credit that we passed in this House yesterday, be

reflected as a new paragraph (b.3) in subsection 23(2) rather than as (h.1) as

drafted.

By claiming the child care tax credit before the medical expense amount

credit, a taxpayer who will be entitled to claim both will have greater

flexibility in choosing his or her twelve-month period ending in the year for

purposes of claiming medical expenses. So it would be a benefit to the people of

the Province. As seconded by the Minister of Justice, I recommend that the act

be amended accordingly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay

North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will take just a moment to speak to the change that the minister has

referred to. Again, the child care tax credit is a good thing. Child care, as we

know, is very expensive for those who require it. Being able to take advantage

of a tax credit is certainly important to the families who are involved in child

care day-to-day for their young families.

It would be important that they can utilize or take advantage of that child

tax credit in its best form I would say, Mr. Chair. This problem that has been

identified, as the Minister of Finance has mentioned, is one whereby it needs to

be amended so that it can be utilized in its best way.

The draft of Bill 31 to implement the Budget in 2011 for the child tax credit

was prepared over a particular period of time. Before final direction was given

or it was received, the review from CRA was necessary. Again, it suggested that

this amendment would take place.

It is certainly important that CRA would do their analysis, do their review,

and give their approval to anything in terms of a tax credit, Mr. Chair, because

obviously to implement a legislation that does not agree with the federal

legislation that would govern and allow that type of credit federally, obviously

would be an exercise with no purpose. The outcome would not be what we might

like it to be.

It is, as the minister stated, one that cannot be carried over from one year

to the next. We know there are several types of tax credits that can be carried

from one year to the next. Some of them can be carried for a number of years,

but this is one of those tax credits that either you use it or you lose it kind

of thing. If they are incurred by the taxpayer in a particular year, then it is

in that year they have to be claimed. If they are not claimed then they are

effectively lost. It is important that it is done properly and that people are

able to take advantage of it.

As the briefing note suggests on the change, just by shifting it in terms of

its sequence and putting it prior to other types of medical expenses, it gives

it more flexibility. It gives it an opportunity to be used to more advantage to

the taxpayer. Certainly any time the taxpayer has an opportunity to take

advantage of a tax break or a tax credit, they want to be able to utilize that

in the best way possible.

This is just a quick change, Mr. Chair, and certainly we will be supporting

that change. It is good to be able to speak to it just for a minute or two this

afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CLERK: The amendment.

CHAIR: I am sorry.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill as amended?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 31.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 31 and ask

leave to sit again.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole has asked me to report Bill 31 with some

amendments and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the

Committee has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to

report Bill 31 with an amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, assuming we can do two stages of any bill on any

given day, I will proceed to third reading of Bill 31.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, that Bill 31 be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe I can ask the hon. the Government House Leader to

proceed with the reading of the amendments to Bill 31 before we move to go to

third reading, since the amendments have to be read the first and second time as

well.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, that the amendments be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the said amendment be

now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the said amendments

to Bill 31 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall Bill 31, as amended, be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, amendment read a first and second time. Bill ordered read a third

time presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess for the second time I will say: I move, seconded by the hon. Minister

of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 31 be now read the third

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 31 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now want to call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4 is a resolution put forward by the hon. the

Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board the following motion:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a tribunal under

section

28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and

benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice

on September 30, 2010; and

WHEREAS the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges

Salaries and Benefits Tribunal was tabled in this hon. House earlier; and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under

section 28.2 of the act to

approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of it being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask the House to accept the recommendations

of the tribunal as contained in this report of September 30, 2010;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of

the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and

Benefits Tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce this motion, the

resolution adopting the recommendations of the 2010 Provincial Court Judges

Salaries and Benefits Tribunal. The tribunal process is set out in the

Provincial Court Act and has been articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in

a series of judgements concerning judicial independence.

Mr. Speaker, the independence of the judiciary from the Executive and the

Legislative Branches is a cornerstone of our system and, by extension, is the

cornerstone of our democracy itself. Judicial independence is enhanced when

judges are seen to be deciding their cases free of economic and political

influence. Financial security therefore demands, Mr. Speaker, that the process

of determining judicial compensation be depoliticized, be fair and be

transparent. This means that there must be an independent body established to

determine the appropriate salary and benefits for judges, and in this Province,

that is known as the Provincial Court Judges Salary and Benefits Tribunal.

Mr. Speaker, this whole resolution today is presented in the context of

judicial independence. I want to say a few words about judicial independence to

set the necessary backdrop to the recommendations of this tribunal. There are

three aspects to judicial independence. First, there is the security of tenure.

Under the Provincial Court Act, 1991, a judge is appointed for good behaviour,

and a judge cannot be removed from office except by an independent body known as

the adjudication tribunal. That is a tribunal established under the Provincial

Court Act. There is a complaints system in place under that act to receive

complaints, and there is an adjudication panel established under that act, which

makes decisions with regard to judges being removed from office.

The second aspect of judicial independence, Mr. Speaker, is administrative

independence. That means that within his courtroom, or her courtroom, it is the

judge who manages and controls what happens with respect to matters that come

before him. In other words, he is in charge of his own courtroom and matters

affecting the exercise of his function in that courtroom. So there is an

administrative component to judicial independence as well.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, of course, there is financial independence, which is

what brings us to this point today. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada, in

a case known as the PEI Reference case, established the groundwork and the

ground rules for establishing compensation benefits in the context of judicial

independence. The issues of judicial independence and judicial remuneration are

considered, Mr. Speaker, in the context of the Charter of Rights,

Section 11(

d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That issue was considered by the

Supreme Court of Canada in a leading decision, seminal case known as the PEI

Reference case, decided in 1997. There were four appeals before the Supreme

Court of Canada in that reference case, Mr. Speaker, and that case decided

whether and how the guarantee of judicial independence in

Section 11(

d) of the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms restricts the manner and the extent to

which provincial governments and Legislatures can reduce the salaries of

provincial court judges.

Chief Justice Antonio Lamer presided over that case, Mr. Speaker, and he

declared that there was an institutional dimension to judicial independence. He

said that institutional dimension of financial security had three components. To

avoid the possibility or the appearance of any political interference through

economic manipulation, a body, such as a commission, or in this case a tribunal,

must be interposed between the judiciary and other levels of government. The

constitutional function of this body would be to depoliticize the process of

determining changes to or freezing or increasing judicial remuneration. That is

the purpose and the backdrop of the tribunal and the report we present today.

That case, Mr. Speaker, also determined that the tribunal established must be

independent, it must be effective, and it must be objective. Any change to

judicial compensation or remuneration without recourse to such an independent

commission or tribunal is unconstitutional.

The second institutional dimension of financial security that Chief Justice

Lamer laid down is that under no circumstances is it permissible for the

judiciary, not only collectively but individually, to engage in any negotiations

over remuneration with the executive or representatives of the Legislature. Any

such negotiation would be fundamentally at odds with judicial independence.

Thirdly, and finally, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada in that case

determined that any reduction to judicial remuneration cannot take those

salaries below a basic minimal level of remuneration which is required for the

office of a judge. The Supreme Court stated that public confidence in the

independence of the judiciary would be undermined if judges were paid at such a

low rate that they could be perceived as susceptible to political pressure

through economic manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, the decision in that case has been confirmed in a number of

follow-up cases. Again, by the Supreme Court in the Bodner Decision in 2005 when

the Supreme Court of Canada again stated, as a matter of general principle, that

"Judicial salaries can be maintained or changed only by recourse through a

commission that is independent, objective and effective."

Mr. Speaker, there have been five tribunals in the history of this Province.

The first tribunal was called the Whelan Tribunal, which commenced in 1991 and

delivered its report in 1992. The tribunal makes recommendations based on a

four-year period and that tribunal made recommendations from 1992 to 1996. These

recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were deferred at the time because of the public

sector restraint legislation of the government of the day.

In 1996, the next tribunal was the Roberts Tribunal, which reported in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, following the PEI Reference case which came down in 1998, the

Provincial Court judge in this Province commenced a challenge against the

government's decision not to implement the Whelan Tribunal. Our Court of Appeal

declared at that time, in the fall of 2000, that the Roberts Tribunal was a

nullity and ordered the implementation of the Whelan report.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2001, the government appointed the Hoegg

Tribunal to make recommendations as to salary, compensation and benefits for

judges for the years 1996 to 2000. The Hoegg Tribunal reported later that year

and the government introduced a resolution which varied the salary

recommendation of the Hoegg Tribunal. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador ordered the implementation of that tribunal's salary

recommendations following application by the judges seeking a review of the

government's decision. In other words, the government did not implement - or

varied the recommendation of the Hoegg Tribunal. That was challenged by the

judges in the Supreme Court after which the Supreme Court ordered that the

recommendations of the tribunal be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, the Steele Tribunal was appointed in 2005 to make

recommendations to government for the four fiscal years from 2004-2005 to

2008-2009. That report was presented to government in May, 2006. All of its

recommendations, Mr. Speaker, were implemented by the government.

Which brings us, Mr. Speaker, to the latest tribunal; in December, 2009, a

tribunal consisting of Mr. Lewis Andrews Q.C., Mr. David Norris and Mr. John

Clarke were appointed to make recommendations for the four-year period from

2009-2010 to 2012-2013. Mr. Andrews was the tribunal chair, Mr. Norris was the

appointee of the government, and John Clarke, a lawyer, was the appointee of the

judges.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Andrews had been a practising lawyer in this Province since

1974 with the firm of Stewart McKelvey. Through his entire career, he was a

bencher of the Law Society of Newfoundland and served the treasury of the Law

Society in 1988 and 1989.

Mr. Clarke has been a member of the Law Society as well since 1979. He holds

a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Memorial University and a Bachelor of Laws

from the University of Saskatchewan. He now practices as an arbitrator, a

mediator with the Centre for Innovative Dispute Resolution, of which he is the

founding principal.

David Norris, Mr. Speaker, was the government's appointee on that tribunal.

He is currently a financial management consultant as well as a corporate

director of Fortis Inc. and Fortis Properties corporations. He was appointed to

the Board of Directors of Newfoundland Power in 2003. From the period of 1984 to

2001, he was an Executive Vice President of Finance of Fishery Products. In 1969

to 1984, he was employed in the provincial public service of Newfoundland and

Labrador serving in a number of positions, including the Deputy Minister of

Finance and Secretary to Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, a very qualified, eminent tribunal has presented this report.

Both parties provided written submissions, both the judges and the government.

Both were represented by legal representation and provided submissions. Public

hearings were held by the tribunal in April, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal provided its report to the government on September

30, 2010. This House, some members may remember, we amended

section 28 of the

Provincial Court Act to allow the tribunal to present its report later than the

act prescribed, because the act prescribed that the report had to be in by March

30. It was very evident from the beginning that was not possible in this case,

so the act was amended in the last session of the House to delay the report to

the end of September.

The tribunal has provided its report, Mr. Speaker. The government is now

pleased today to introduce this resolution implementing the recommendations of

the tribunal. The recommendations, Mr. Speaker, have to do with judges'

salaries, they have to do with a salary differential for the chief judge and the

associate chief judge, a recommendation on vacation, one on sick leave, one on

the parental and maternal leave, a recommendation on judicial identification,

and a recommendation of cost.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, both parties would have made recommendations on all

of these things, and the panel would have considered the recommendations of both

sides, much as does a judge in a trial. You hear both sides before the tribunal

makes its recommendation.

The fact is that the tribunal would have considered, obviously, the

protection of judicial independence and the public interest in the

administration of justice. The panel would have considered the nature and

importance of the work performed by judges, and their unique role and

responsibility in our society. They would have considered the need to attract

and motivate and retain the most highly qualified candidates from all areas of

practice. They would have considered the increase to the cost of living. They

would have considered how the salary compares with other relevant groups in

society, and other judges across the country, the fiscal capacity of government,

in light of the current economic conditions, and the precedents that were set by

recommendations by previous tribunals.

Based on that, Mr. Speaker, the tribunal made the following recommendations.

The first recommendation is the recommendation on a judge's salary. With respect

to Provincial Court judges' salaries, the tribunal has recommended and increase

of 11.5 per cent for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. This means that effective the

first of April, 2009, a Provincial Court judge's salary will be $197,425,

bringing this Province's judges into approximate parity with the other Atlantic

Provinces' judges. The tribunal has further recommended 3 per cent increases for

the following three fiscal years, ending in 2013. So, Mr. Speaker, the

compounded increase, then, over the four years, 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, is 21.8

per cent. This is comparable to the 21.5 per cent, compounded, given to the

civil service in the current collective agreement.

With regard to salary differentials, in this Province we have twenty-three

Provincial Court judges. One is designated Chief Judge, and another is

designated the Associate Chief Judge, and in recognition of their administrative

duties, the tribunal has recommended that the Chief Judge receive an additional

8 per cent over his salary, and that the Associate Chief Judge receive an

additional 4 per cent as compensation. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a slight

increase from what the previous tribunal recommended, but it brings the salary

differentials for the Chief Judge and the Associate Chief Judge of this Province

in line with the other Atlantic Provinces. Both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia

pay their Chief Provincial Court Judge an 8 per cent pay differential. Nova

Scotia pays a 5 per cent differential to an Associate Chief Judge; New Brunswick

provides a 4 per cent differential to an Associate Chief Judge. Prince Edward

Island has only three provincial court judges and they pay its Chief Judge a

fixed differential of $5,000.

The third recommendation, Mr. Speaker, had to do with annual leave. The

tribunal has recommended increasing annual leave from twenty-five to thirty days

a year. The tribunal reviewed all the other provinces in Canada and every other

province, Mr. Speaker, offered at least five more days of annual leave then our

provincial court judges had.

The fourth recommendation, Mr. Speaker, had to do with sick leave

accumulation. A judge in this Province is presently entitled to take sick leave

of up to six months and upon returning to work that judge is then eligible to

take a further six-month sick leave. The tribunal, Mr. Speaker, after hearing

the presentation by both sides and examining the jurisdictions across the

country, has recommended that the judges should accumulate sick leave at a rate

of one and a quarter days a month to a maximum of 240 days. The tribunal has

also recommended, Mr. Speaker, that judges are entitled to an advance of up to

130 days sick leave in the event they are ill before they have accumulated

sufficient sick leave.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just comment on that for a moment, the tribunal

regards judges' circumstances as being different from those generally prevalent

throughout the public service. Judges of necessity joined the bench at an

advanced age in their careers and in so doing they must sever previous

employment arrangements, sever their client relationships, business

affiliations, particularly potentially significant change of lifestyle with

little prospect of turning back. The tribunal is of the view, Mr. Speaker, that

it is unreasonable to expect an individual to make such a fundamental change in

career direction and lifestyle and then face the possibility that an unforeseen

illness shortly after joining the bench could leave him or her seriously exposed

financially. Indeed, such potential exposure might deter some from choosing to

join the bench in the first place. That is the reason, Mr. Speaker, for the

tribunal's decision on its upfront availability of benefits of 130 sick leave

days.

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal feels that this upfront accommodation is

imperative. The advance would be reduced, of course, and eventually eliminated

with the accumulation of the service credits under the previous

section of this

recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to maternal leave and parental leave, judges,

unlike the public service or other employees, are unable to contribute to

Employment Insurance. It is Employment Insurance which, for the most part,

provides parental leave benefits to eligible employees; judges cannot do that.

Provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova

Scotia now provide some form of maternal or paternal leave benefits for their

Provincial Court judges. The 2010 tribunal has recommended that judges who are

birth mothers receive two-thirds of their salary for a period of seventeen

weeks. The tribunal further recommends that all judges, male or female, should

be entitled to take a further thirty-five weeks of unpaid parental leave during

which their benefits can continue.

Mr. Speaker, recommendation six was one of the issues which were raised

before the Steele Tribunal, from the previous tribunal which was not resolved

under that tribunal, and that concerns judicial indemnification. This is

indemnity policy for legal costs incurred by judges in certain circumstances,

quite unlike an indemnity policy currently in place for the public service. The

2010 tribunal has recommended the creation of an indemnity policy for legal

costs incurred by judges in action arising in the course of their judicial

duties. There is no indemnity for judges for action as a private citizen or for

any action that occurred prior to his appointment of judge.

With regard to this recommendation, Mr. Speaker, the judge can select the

counsel and the Province will pay reasonable fees and costs of the legal action.

That cost, that fee, would be subject to taxation by a retired Supreme Court

justice. In order words, there would be an independent assessment done of the

bill for legal costs.

The last recommendation deals with the issue of cost, a separate issue, the

costs of the tribunal and the judges' presentation to this tribunal. Mr.

Speaker, I said earlier in my remarks, the principle driving the whole tribunal

process is the constitutional issue of judicial independence and because of the

importance of judicial independence through the proper functioning of the legal

system and democracy, typically, judges will not be expected to bear all the

costs associated with their representation before the tribunal.

So, the 2010 tribunal has recommended that the Province pay the

representational costs incurred by the Provincial Court judges in relation to

the submissions that they made to the tribunal, to a maximum of $75,000. The

legal costs of the judges in appearing before this tribunal, presenting their

case, and making their case to the tribunal, the tribunal has recommended that

the Province pick up the costs of that to a maximum of $75,000. This

recommendation is consistent with previous tribunals in this Province, and

tribunals in other provinces as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are seven recommendations made by this tribunal. I would

be remiss, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if I did not acknowledge on behalf of

myself and my colleagues in the House of Assembly, the vital role played by the

Provincial Court and the Provincial Court judges in this Province. We all

recognize the importance of judicial independence, and we acknowledge the role

of the 2010 Provincial Court Judges Salaries and Benefits Tribunal in this

regard, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the resolution

and the seven recommendations set out by the 2010 Provincial Court Judges

Salaries and Benefits Tribunal, and I look forward to quick passage of this

bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak to the motion that has been put forward by the

Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, the motion, as you can see, is dealing with

the judges' salaries and benefits in the Province, and it is dealing with the

tribunal that was actually completed in which, I think, there was a three-member

tribunal that was set up: a representative from the justice system, normally a

representative from government, and a person who is appointed jointly between

both of them. What they do is they look at the salaries and benefits of all the

judges in the Province and then they make recommendations to the government.

Government, then, Mr. Speaker, has to bring those recommendations to the House

of Assembly in the form of a motion that we see today and have it ratified in

order for the recommendations to be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, we were one of the last provinces, I would think, in Canada that

brought in the tribunal system for judges. Ironically, I think it was Clyde

Wells, when he was Premier, who was one of the ones who was very vocal in trying

to shut out a tribunal process in Newfoundland and Labrador simply because he

felt at the time that judges were being paid enough, Mr. Speaker, and a tribunal

meant that government was tied to those recommendations and they would have to

pass them. At a time when a lot of the public service was going with wage

freezes, having a tribunal for the justice system for judges meant that

government would be bound by those recommendations. Anyway, I remember back in

those days there was a lot of hype about it; it was a very public issue.

Ironically, it was Premier Clyde Wells, former Premier, who went on to be the

chief justice of the Province. It is ironic how that happened.

Mr. Speaker, it was in 1997 when there was a Supreme Court case in PEI. The

case was known as the PEI Judges Reference case. It pointed out at that time the

constitutional standards that were affecting judges. That is what led to

legislation being passed in nearly every province and every Territory across

Canada that would deal with remuneration and compensation for all of these

judges. We became bound by that Supreme Court decision and that was when Premier

Wells had no other choice only bring in the system of a tribunal.

The report that was submitted to the minister in September of this year by

that particular tribunal was made with respect to salaries, to judges' pensions,

their vacation time, maternity leave, sick leave and some other items. There

were a number of critical factors which we need to keep in mind in weighing out

the compensation for judges.

First of all, it includes our constitutional requirement. Like I just said,

it is not optional. In terms of saying we are going to give all of the public

service in the Province a raise of 2 per cent, and that might be what the

Province would submit to the tribunal for judges, but if they submit they think

it should be 10 per cent, then oftentimes it will end up somewhere in the

middle. It is a constitutional requirement, and we are really tied to whatever

that recommendation is.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the need to maintain independence amongst the judiciary

system. That was one of the key reasons to have all of these salaries and

benefits set for judges through a tribunal process, is because they wanted to be

kept independent. They did not want it to be necessarily dictated by government

or influenced by government or some conflict that may be ongoing between the

judiciary system and the government of the day. The independence piece was one

of the key pieces the Supreme Court looked at when they made that particular

ruling.

The other thing was the need to attract excellent candidates, to attract

people to the role of a judge in this Province, and to also look at what the

unique nature of a judge is, Mr. Speaker, and the role they play in our system.

We need to be mindful of how compensation in our jurisdiction compares to other

jurisdictions. That is one of the things the tribunal does take into

consideration when they are reviewing what judges should be paid and what their

benefits are. They do look at what the process is right across Canada, what is

happening in other provinces, and they make that comparison to Newfoundland and

Labrador in terms of establishing what is fair benefits.

They also look at the cost of living in the Province. They look at whether

the cost of living is going up, stabilizing, or staying down. They use that as

well as a measure to determine what the compensation should be. They look at

what is fair and reasonable in terms of the economic situation in the Province.

For example, if we were a Province where our annual revenues were declining and

we were going through an economic recession, obviously, that would impact how

the tribunal would look at the rates and salaries and benefits for judges. If it

is a time when the economy is growing, it is a time when we are stably growing,

I should say, and we are not dealing with any economic threat to the people of

the Province, then, Mr. Speaker, it would be obviously a different determination

in terms of what is fair and reasonable.

The other thing they look at is the nature of the particular judge's

jurisdiction and the responsibility of that particular court. For example, Mr.

Speaker, we have some judges who work in our court system right here in the

capital city in Provincial Court. We have judges who work in areas like Corner

Brook, for example, where they might deal with a broader range of cases. They

might deal with many more clients.

Mr. Speaker, we have judges in Provincial Courts, like in Labrador, where

they do what is called the circuit court. I know they do that in Corner Brook as

well. They do what is called the circuit court. They go into communities. Maybe

they will go into Rocky Harbour, or they will go into Hawke's Bay, or maybe they

will go into Port Hope Simpson or Nain, and they will have what is called a

circuit court.

The responsibilities vary with the jurisdiction that you serve in as a court

judge in this Province. The role of judges in St. John's may be somewhat

different; the scope may be somewhat different and the caseload may be somewhat

different than what you are going to find in a judge that might be based in

Corner Brook or in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. So, Mr. Speaker, those things are

taken into consideration as well when the tribunal is doing their review of what

is fair and what is reasonable in terms of remuneration and compensation for

judges in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the most contentious issue I would say that was at hand in this

particular report that was just completed is the question of salary. I think the

two most important factors that we have to consider are the Constitution of

Canada and the need to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

In the PEI reference case, the Supreme Court identified three characteristics

that were critical to a judge's pay. First of all, Mr. Speaker, they identified

that when you are setting a salary for a judge you need to consider financial

security, the security of the tenure, and the administrative independence. Those

were three things that they were asked to look at through that Supreme Court

decision when it came to setting what the pay would be for judges. They felt

that these factors were key to helping ensure judges are free of temptation from

corrupt economic pressure. The underpinning of a free and democratic society is

having an independent judiciary. I think we all recognize and realize that, and

that is what separates the legislative and judicial arms of government today.

Mr. Speaker, a judge's capacity to render such decisions based on the facts

presented must therefore be untainted. What they say is when you set the salary

for a judge in this Province, you need to consider the financial security that

the judge will have, you need to look at what the security of the tenure will

be, and look at administrative independence.

They want to make sure all judges are going to be free from temptation from

any of the economic pressures that might be out there facing us in society, Mr.

Speaker. In other words, they do not want our judges to get their hands dirty,

so they make sure they can afford them some financial freedom, Mr. Speaker. It

is very important because they are the independent body, they are the body that

has to preside over and make decisions in this Province on some very important

legal matters. Therefore, they need to be untainted. We cannot have judges on

the bench that have been tainted. Therefore, there are some protection clauses

that are always built-in and one of those protection clauses is in terms of

salary in ensuring that the salary is fair, Mr. Speaker.

In determining judges' salary the government must consider, as I said, what

the economic conditions are. This can be by looking at what the GDP is, or

whether it is growing or going down. It can be by looking at employment growth,

looking at the unemployment rate, retail sales, inflation, housing starts all

of these things, Mr. Speaker, are considered.

They look at things like the oil revenue we have that currently drives the

government's Budget every year and now provides, Mr. Speaker, for 30 per cent of

all the money that we spend in the Province as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

So those things are considered. They consider what the unemployment rate is and

if the unemployment rate is going down or going up. The reason is because that

often reflects on the crime, it reflects on the number of cases that judges may

often have to deal with. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the things that they

look at when they set the salary, the benefits for judges in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, from this particular report, and I think the minister outlined

some of this in his comments, it looks like the current base salary for judges

today is $177,063. The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court judges

association was proposing a base salary of $203,662 which would mean an increase

of about 15 per cent in these particular recommendations of the tribunal. The

provincial government, Mr. Speaker, did go back and in the tribunal did agree

that an 8 per cent increase would be fair, but of course the judges' association

insisted on 15 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the 8 per cent was a fair offer by the government

because it certainly reflected on what was happening with a lot of public sector

groups out there, the kind of raises that they were seeing and it was very

balanced in terms of across the board.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the tribunal, as I said, hit somewhere in the

middle of that, and what they recommended is that the judges' salaries should be

increased by 11.5 per cent. They also recommended that it be retroactive to

April 1 of 2009. It is not just retroactive to April of this year or April of

last year, but it is actually retroactive to April of 2009. Mr. Speaker, what

you are actually seeing is an increase now of 11.5 per cent that will be

retroactive, from what I can understand, for the past three years. I guess that

means that there are some big cheques coming to some judges in the Province in

the next little while because that is a pretty huge increase and when you are

making it over that period of time, of course it all adds up.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, the result is today that once this bill is passed in

the House of Assembly that starting April 1, I think it is this year, the judges

will be getting a salary of $215,732 a year, almost $216,000 a year. Mr.

Speaker, our judges are going to be well paid in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

think they will be very happy with the salary that has been recommended for

them, and that the House of Assembly will have to pass for them. It would be

nice to be a judge today, I would say to the Minister of Justice, if you were

going to get that kind of a salary and a bonus and an increase all coming to you

at the one time.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I guess what the tribunal focused on is that our economy

is growing. Our revenues are increasing. The flip side of that, of course, is

when revenues start to decline and the economy may not be in such a stable

position, I do not think the salaries of judges are going to decrease in the

Province. It may not increase by 11.5 per cent during those days, but it

certainly will not decrease.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the work of the

tribunal is legislated in Newfoundland and Labrador. The recommendations that

they bring forward to the House of Assembly, we are mandated to accept under our

laws. Whether we think the raise is excessive or whether we do not, I guess that

is the process that we have signed on to in this country and in the Province and

there is very little that we can do about it at this stage as we are legislated

by the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions, Mr. Speaker.

I also believe that any group, when they are being given raises in the

Province, not only should be evaluated based on what the economic circumstances

are in a Province but they should also be evaluated based on what the merit of

their position is and what their contributions are to their particular workplace

and to their career. So, I think there are a number of evaluation criteria that

still could be considered.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would have to say to the minister - because

I have no other choice, and we are bound by law - that we will support the

motion and it will have to pass in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am happy to have a few minutes to speak to the motion regarding the report

of the tribunal dealing with salaries and benefits of judges. The minister - and

I thank him for it - gave a full explanation of the report of the tribunal and

the Opposition Leader has also spoken in great detail to it. I do not intend to

take a lot of time.

Obviously, I do believe the tribunal system is a good system. Having a

tribunal that is a third party group that are objective and can take the

representations both from the association of judges as well as from the

government and a look at what they both are presenting with regard to where they

think judges' salaries and benefits should go is a good system. There is no

doubt about that.

As I look through the nine recommendations of the tribunal that deal with

salary, pensions, sick leave, maternity leave, paternal leave, and vacation,

obviously they have gone into all of the benefits that make up any workers'

salaries, whether it is a judge, whether it is a Member of the House of

Assembly, or whether it is a worker out in the private sector. One of the things

I found good, of course, in going through the report, is the tribunal really did

try to deal fairly with the positions that were being presented by the two, who

were the important parties making presentations to them. They, in some cases, I

suppose, did have to play the role of Solomon in determining where to go with

recommendations. Being in the middle of negotiations around salary is not an

easy one. As was said by the Leader of the Opposition, they sort of took a

middle of the road approach to how to deal with the two differing positions

presented to them with regard to salary. As the Leader of the Opposition has

indicated, basically what we do here in the House of Assembly, because of

legislation, is rubber stamp the recommendations of the tribunal.

I have to say, I think they do deal with something that is important, that we

do not deal with here in the House of Assembly, and that is looking at sick

leave for judges, and also looking at maternity and parental leave for judges.

We started a process under the House Management Commission of trying to look at

maternity and paternal leave for members of the House of Assembly, and we got

nowhere, Mr. Speaker, simply because there were really no models for us to

follow here in Canada. None of the Legislatures have dealt with this issue for

its members, and there were very few Legislatures in the world that had dealt

with it.

I am glad to see that judges have dealt with maternal and paternal leave. It

is extremely important. I hope that someday there will be a way for us to deal