June

23, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 42

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for

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

District of Topsail.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

members of the Summerside Lions Club for their unselfish volunteer work in the

town.

Mr. Speaker, on May 1, the above club celebrated its twenty-fifth anniversary

at their club in Summerside to which I had the honour of attending and bringing

greetings.

Mr. Speaker, the above club is well appreciated in our town, as they are

always there to lend a helping hand when people are in need.

The club participates financially in fundraising events such as the Max Simms

Camp, Janeway Telethon, Western Memorial Hospital Radio-A-Thon, the Children's

Wish Foundation, and provides free heat and light to the Early Childhood Centre

located on their premises, and provides financial assistance to its residents

when they have to travel out of town for medical reasons. The list goes on and

on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the club also has a child adopted through World Vision.

Mr. Speaker, last year alone they passed out over $10,000 to people and

organizations, including the local fire department and 4-H Club.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to acknowledge the Summerside Lions

Club on their twenty-fifth anniversary, and even though they are a small group

of men and women, they are making a huge, huge impact to society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for 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 launch of a new foundation

called Averee's Purpose that has been set up to raise awareness of Batten

disease within the Coast of Bays region as well as the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The foundation hopes that through research one day a treatment or cure will

be found and that children affected by this horrible disease will have a chance

to be cured - this is Averee's Purpose.

Averee Pierce is a six-year-old beautiful little girl who was diagnosed with

Batten disease at the age of four. Her parents, Roderick and Terri Leigh Pierce,

along with many loving family members officially launched Averee's Purpose on

June 5 at the Connaigre Arena in Harbour Breton. It was a great day, Mr.

Speaker, filled with guest speakers, free food, games and activities such as

face painting, balloon wishes and a jumping castle, along with some wonderful

live local music.

It was also a very emotional day, Mr. Speaker, as friends, family and

communities across the district banded together to show support and help raise

funds to fund a cure for this tragic disease. I would like to commend the Pierce

family and particularly, Averee's grandfather, Mr. Paul Stewart, who decided

that something had to be done to create awareness about Batten disease. I

encourage everyone to take some time to learn a little bit more about Batten

disease and show our support, especially the month of October, which is Batten

Awareness Month.

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

extraordinary commitment of this family to inform and bring awareness to Batten

disease. The support and caring that we can provide the Pierce family as a

community and as a Province can make the world of difference to them. Just

knowing that other people are aware and care means so much to Averee and her

family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

extraordinary volunteers from Conception Bay South.

On Thursday, April 22, the town celebrated their volunteers and their

community. Several deserving youths were nominated for the title of Conception

Bay South Youth Volunteer of the Year, namely: Jeffrey Webber, Jennifer

Stockley, Amy Marie Smith, Stephen Brophy, Amanda Stockley, Jamie Sweetland and

Kendra Scott. The youth were judged on their level of commitment and dedication

to volunteering within their schools and their community.

Ms Jennifer Stockley, a very busy and committed young woman, was named the

Youth Volunteer of the Year for 2009. As well, the town recognized and thanked

all of the volunteer groups that contribute to the quality of life within

Conception Bay South.

Mr.Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all nominees

in the Town of Conception Bay South's awards ceremony and the winner, Ms

Jennifer Stockley. The commitment and dedication of these citizens is a

representation of a vibrant community alive with passionate and caring youth,

and I wish them all well in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government takes the issue of contaminated site

remediation very seriously, and we committed to assess and clean up specific

sites in Newfoundland and Labrador, one of which is the Town of Buchans. Based

on environmental testing, along with the concerns raised by residents, we made a

commitment to immediately address health and safety issues associated with the

former Abitibi mine site. I am pleased to rise today to provide an update on our

remediation efforts in Buchans.

This past Friday, Mr. Speaker, we awarded a contract to P&B Trucking &

Rentals Inc. of Springdale for the remediation and capping of the tailings spill

and mucky ditch areas in Buchans. Tenders for this work closed on June 14, and

the company was the successfully bidder at a costing of approximately $3.1

million. This significant piece of work will now get underway, and should be

completed by early fall.

Based on a call for proposals last winter, contracts totalling $215,000 have

also have been awarded to the BAE-Newplan Group for the design, contract

administration and onsite supervision of this project. Mr. Speaker, together

with the tailings dam remediation project to be tendered later this summer by

the Department of Natural Resources, our government is carrying out its

commitment to address the areas of concern in Buchans.

Our efforts will be further complemented by a contract for approximately

$75,000 to CRA, an environmental consulting firm, for the development of a Risk

Management Plan for the town. This plan, Mr. Speaker, will address the

residential and public areas in Buchans where concentrations of lead in the soil

exceed human health guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, once the source areas are remediated, and the potential risks

associated with the residential impacted soil are managed, the people of Buchans

can feel assured that the immediate health and safety concerns from the former

mine site have been fully addressed.

These funding commitments are testimony to the great emphasis we place on

remediation of contaminated sites in our Province, Mr. Speaker. They also

clearly demonstrate that our government is not only responsive to the needs of

our environment, but to the needs of our residents as well.

We will continue to ensure a clean, sustainable environment that meets the

social, physical, cultural and economic needs of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement, and to

say that the remediation efforts that are ongoing and progressing well in

Buchans is no doubt a good news story. It is good to know that the residents in

the residential areas and the public areas, the people will know that they will

be safe after this work has been done.

Mr. Speaker, the minister started by saying that the government takes this

seriously. I know they do at that particular site, but, Mr. Speaker, you can

write a book in this Province about remediation efforts that need to be done.

All we have to do is look at the mess that was left in the Stephenville mill

area, the areas with the Grand Falls mill, Botwood where there have been

chemicals found; chemicals leaching into the Exploits River. The logging camps

that were left behind, Mr. Speaker, that has to be cleaned up. Lo and behold,

there is also one in the minister's district known as the New Harbour landfill,

something that has been going on for years. Government purchased membrane to

cover that site three years ago, and yet today the site is in just as big of a

mess as it ever was. Yes, there was some soil taken away, but I have to say, Mr.

Speaker, it is good to know that we are cleaning up one site but I just say to

the minister, there are many others in this Province that have to be done.

Thank you very much.

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 her statement.

I am glad to get the update on what is happening in Buchans. It is,

obviously, work that is absolutely essential to the people to put their minds at

rest. They need to be sure that they can enjoy a clean and safe environment.

Mr. Speaker, I too ask the minister, that if the government is so concerned

about the issue of contaminated sites in the Province, why doesn't the

government do what the Auditor General recommended in the 2008 audit of the

financial statements? Where the auditor recommended that the books of the

Province should be showing exactly what the liability is with regard to

contaminated sites here now and we should know how much money is going to be

expected of the government to take care of all the contaminated sites that

exist. What I would like to see from the minister, Mr. Speaker, is a list of the

sites that they know they have liability for, how much is expected for each one

of those sites that the Province has liability for, and what is the government's

full plan for remediation?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In august of 2008, we asked the Minister of Health to investigate the

unnecessary supply of oxygen cylinders to a government client. Information

provided to us indicated that a supplier was charging government for oxygen

tanks that were never required nor used by the client. A report was finally

received in March of 2009 and we asked for additional follow up. We have sent

three additional requests to the minister but we have not received a response on

this matter.

I ask the minister today: Can he provide us with an update on the status of

this investigation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am not familiar with the situation that the member talks about. It is

certainly something we will look into and I will try to determine the status of

the matter. I can indicate, Mr. Speaker, that in our department we certainly pay

close attention to how monies are being spent, especially how they are being

spent or not spent in the regional health authorities.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and one of the things I am going to look at

over the next period of time is to have our officials look at the regional

health authorities in terms of: Are they spending their money as efficiently and

as effectively as possible?

Mr. Speaker, in terms of health care, we spend $2.7 billion in the health

care system and I do not think it is only a matter of, the solutions to the

health care system or the problems we have arise from the spending of money.

Certainly, any issues raised by - like the one raised by the member today, are

ones that we will look into and certainly determine if the money is being spent

properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did send letters to that minister on October 28, 2009 and on February 18,

Mr. Speaker, the report showed that the supplier in question provided 148

cylinders to a government client in ten months. Meanwhile, the client says she

never used one of them. They sat in her basement from the time they were

delivered until they were picked up. The supplier in question charged government

thousands of dollars for this client. We received additional information which

we forwarded to the minister in June, 2009, that this same supplier was pulling

this scam with other government clients.

I ask the minister today: How much money has this cost the taxpayers of the

Province, and has this practice now stopped?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It sounds to me and I do not mean to put words in the member's mouth, but

it sounds to me like she is accusing someone of fraud and trying to defraud the

government of money. She uses a word like a scam and I can only suggest that if

she is going to make allegations like that, that she should be able to support

the same. If she is in the possession of the information that she has, perhaps

she should be sending it to the police.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, it was brought to the attention of your department in

2008 and you did do an investigation. You did not finish the job and we have

been the last year-and-a-half trying to get the answers that we need. If you

were up on your files, minister, you would know exactly what I am talking about

today.

The supplier clearly overcharged the government for oxygen tanks that were

not required by government clients. The report stated that there was no clear or

objective documentation available to track the client's use of E cylinders.

So, I ask the minister: What measures have now been put in place to ensure

that this type of practice cannot occur again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot speak to everything that took place in the department prior to me

becoming minister, but what I can assure the member opposite, that we have made

significant changes in terms of the way things are monitored in our office and

in the finance division especially.

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite is accusing someone of criminal conduct

then I can certainly suggest that she contact the police. Certainly, if you are

going to use words like scam and if you are going to use words like the kind

that she has been using today, then that is very serious language to be using in

the House of Assembly and I suggest she use it outside.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of being up on files, what I am up on, Mr. Speaker, is

significant files in our department that I have demonstrated day by day in this

House of Assembly. Unfortunately, Mr.Speaker, with a $2.7 billion budget I

cannot be aware of everything that happens, nor can I be aware of everything the

regional health authorities do.

Mr. Speaker, what we do in this department is monitor the monies that are

spent, pay close attention to the Auditor General's report and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is nothing only a defensive response from a defensive minister who does

not know this file and what is happening in his department, because, minister,

it is not about two years ago. It is about the letters that went to your

department, under your watch when you were the minister, outlining this entire

situation.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago when government introduced the new home oxygen

policy under the special assistance program it allowed government clients to

receive portable oxygen and the policy also allowed a set number of oxygen tanks

for each client each month. Three of the health boards are applying the policy

consistently and providing the maximum number of oxygen cylinders that the

policy allows, but, Mr. Speaker, urban Eastern Health is not following this

policy.

I ask the minister: Why is the same policy being applied differently within

the same health organization?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not being defensive about anything. I am indicating that I am not

familiar with the situation that is being brought to my attention by the Leader

of the Opposition. It is something that I certainly will check into.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have tried to do, since I have been

Minister of Health, is to be very proactive, to deal with issues that arise and

to address them before they become a crisis situation. The member opposite

presented a petition to the House of Assembly asking to have the air ambulance

moved to Labrador. We did that, Mr. Speaker. That is an example of listening to

the Opposition, of listening to a concern that was raised and dealing with it in

a proactive manner.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked by the Opposition House Leader in relation

to wait times. I indicated that certainly we had made some progress, but there

are other steps that need to be taken. We are willing to look at the steps that

need to be taken to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of being defensive by saying that I am

not familiar of every file that goes on in the health departments; it is a $2.7

billion budget. I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that if the member opposite

wishes I will certainly forward her letters to the RNC and I will also discuss

the matter with Eastern Health (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very shallow answers, I say to the minister. Also, Mr. Speaker, to indicate

for the record in this House, and Hansard will show that I have never presented

a petition in this House asking to move an air ambulance out of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let's get to the issue at hand because it is a serious issue.

Health boards are not applying the policy across the board, although it has been

a government regulated decision.

I ask the minister today: Why is it that Eastern Health in their rural areas

are allowing patients to have the maximum number of oxygen cylinders, but in

urban Eastern Health they are not applying the policy the same? I ask the

minister why that is the case.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions we

will check into it.

Mr. Speaker, the health department is huge; the health budget is huge. What I

recognized, as minister, when I became minister, was that we cannot solve all of

the problems at once. So what I have tried to do, Mr. Speaker, as minister, is

identify a number of priorities which we are addressing. The issue of the wait

times is one we addressed in the Budget this year with $4.7 million, and I have

indicated that there are further steps that will be taken.

We have identified, Mr. Speaker, mental health and addictions as a

significant priority and we are dealing with that. We have identified enhancing

rural health care, we are dealing with that. Cancer care, Mr. Speaker, we are

dealing with that. We have also identified wellness as being a priority.

So what I am trying to do is to be practical, to set goals that can be met,

as opposed to this wide-ranging review of the health care system, which would be

cumbersome and take forever and tell us that which we already know. I am trying

to identify priorities and deal with them. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that

I have all the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it is all a priority when it is a submitted to the office, it just does

not get followed up on. A patient in the Central Region is entitled to and would

receive ten E oxygen tanks, for example, yet the same person in St. John's urban

area may only get two because that is what Eastern Health urban is deciding,

regardless of what the provincial government policy is.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why are these decisions being made

inconsistently between these health boards when there are policies out there

that speak to it in a different way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The role of the Department of Health is to look after the provincial policy

and trying to set policy in priority areas, Mr. Speaker. Under the Regional

Health Authorities Act, the health authorities deal with the operations.

Now, what the member opposite is describing is an operational issue that is

looked at by health authorities on a daily basis. Mr. Speaker, we set, for

example, the priorities or the policy in relation to the Prescription Drug

Program. We deal with issues in relation to cancer care. It is up to the

regional health authorities as to how they deliver these priorities in each

region.

Mr. Speaker, we have four CEOs, in terms of dealing with the regional health

authorities, in Eastern Health, Central Health, Western Health and Lab-Grenfell.

These CEOs are in charge of running these health authorities like a company,

like a business. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Health, I cannot be delving

every day into the operational issues. If there is an issue raised, we will

check into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whenever government brings forward policies like this and those policies are

supposed to be done across the board, I do not see why there should be

exemptions in one organization.

Mr. Speaker, a doctor's prescription is required for portable oxygen. We

understand that there have been occasions when urban Eastern Health have

actually ignored these prescriptions, even though the policy states that they

are entitled to the home oxygen and associated funding.

I ask the minister: Why are oxygen prescriptions being ignored, and what is

this government doing to ensure that clients receive the oxygen that they

require and are entitled to under your own policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with a $2.7 billion budget, there is a lot of good news. There

are a lot of things that we are doing right in this Province, and there are

issues that we have to work on, such as reducing wait times. Later on this

afternoon, I will announce the injection of more funds into mental health and

addictions, in terms of community groups out there who need help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: So, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can criticize and she

can find things to be negative about.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker, of a country the size of Tanzania in

Africa 41 million people. They have a health budget of $750 million. Here we

are, living in a Province with a population with 508,000 people and we have a

health budget of $2.7 billion. So, Mr. Speaker, it is again, is the glass half

empty, is the glass half full? On this side of the House, the glass is half

full, on this side it is half empty, and that is why there are four of them over

there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am sure the people in the homes who need the oxygen would be much more

concerned about getting it than they would be about Tanzania or anywhere else

right now.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Environment stated that she would be

speaking to the Minister of Transport Canada today regarding changes that were

made in April to tugboat regulations in Placentia Bay.

I ask the minister if she has had an opportunity to speak with the minister

so far today, and if so, has he provided you with an explanation to the

rationale behind that decision and the impact it may have on safety and oil

spill response in Placentia Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have not had an opportunity to have a call with the federal

minister yet, but what I did do was I contacted a senior executive at the North

Atlantic refinery. I spoke to him personally and asked for some clarification

around this.

What was explained to me and again, I still want to speak to the federal

minister but what was explained to me was that they sought clarification

around the Maritime transportation regulations in two areas, both in escort

duties and in harbour duties. The response that they received is that for escort

duties out in the harbour, there are four people required. They currently had

three people, so they increased that from three to four people. For in harbour

duties, which involve product docking and undocking of product vessels, the

minimum requirement there is two. They historically had three; temporarily had

four, but they are maintaining three. They did not reduce it to the minimum

requirement of two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, members of the Save Our People Action Committee

met with three ministers yesterday regarding the moose problem in our Province.

They were very disappointed with the lack of progress made at this meeting and

were not pleased with government's response. This is not a new issue. It has

been discussed very publicly for years, especially during the past twelve months

as more and more moose-vehicle collisions are taking place.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Why is government taking such little action

to address this problem and refusing to implement some of the options brought

forward by SOPAC?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we had a really good meeting and, in fact, I heard an

Open Line caller this morning who was at the meeting. She thought the meeting

went very well and that there was good information sharing and so on.

To say we have not done anything, Mr. Speaker, is totally unfair. In February

of this year, we announced a suite of programs. We extended the season by three

weeks. We made some announcements on Sunday hunting. We increased the licences.

We talked about the brush cutting. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things

we talked about is the five-year moose management plan, and we committed to

doing consultations.

However, as I said, it is great for information flow. The young lady who was

on Open Line this morning had some great suggestions at the meeting. She talked

about incorporating being moose aware into the Young Drivers program. We thought

that was a fabulous suggestion and one that we are following up on. She also

talked about tourists coming into the Province and how we can better advertise

where moose are to them, in terms of on the boats and so on. So we are doing

that, but we can always -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, the time for sharing and talking

is over. What the people need now is action.

Mr. Speaker, the government committed to SOPAC that they would develop an

inventory with statistics showing where moose-vehicle accidents are taking place

in the Province. The group was very disappointed that this information was not

even completed for yesterday's meeting.

I ask the minister: Why hasn't government been able to develop an inventory

showing dangerous sections of our highways where the majority of moose-vehicle

accidents are taking place in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to accidents and all of the circumstances around

accidents and the factors involved, the time of day, all of that information,

Mr. Speaker, lies with the RCMP. So we have been having discussions with the

RCMP trying to collect that information and have a data base. Mr. Speaker, that

takes time, because the way the RCMP record their statistics on accidents are

not in the form that we need them in today. There was a member of the committee

that fully understood that because she had made contact with the RCMP herself

and she understands that it takes time. We are committed to doing it. We are

committed to working with them, but, Mr. Speaker, certainly the RCMP is the

holder of that information and we are working with them to get that information

and to pass it over to them as we receive it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that there are over 120,000

moose in the Province. Every year thousands more are born and the moose

population is increasing.

I ask the minister: Do you feel there are too many moose in our Province, and

are you looking at reducing those numbers to a more manageable level?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I mentioned, we did increase the number of licenses this year by 2,154.

Mr. Speaker, we saw an area where there were about 1,514 licenses that were not

being utilized, so we transferred those to the resident population. It is really

interesting, I showed the committee and I provided them with the maps that show

that these unused licenses, really a lot of them are along the Trans-Canada

Highway and a lot of them were in Central Newfoundland. We also increased it by

590 as per our population surveys and we put another fifty licenses into the

charitable organizations.

Mr. Speaker, one of the key things we committed to is the five year plan and

the consultations around that. That is an opportunity for the public to have

input anywhere from, anything I have heard in terms of either sex licenses, to

less moose management areas, to reducing the number of moose. It is wide open

and we are willing to consider any and all options put forward.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Jackson's Arm were hit hard by the sudden news

that their shrimp plant would not be opening this session, leaving 120 workers

without work. Yesterday, bureaucratic representatives from HRLE, Municipal

Affairs, and also from the College of the North Atlantic were in town to meet

with those affected to discuss retraining options. While workers appreciated

this information session they wondered why the company and probably the

fisheries minister or their MHA were not also present to provide some news on

the future of their plant.

I ask the minister today: What assurances have you secured from the company

that the Jackson's Arm fish plant will reopen next year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Immediately upon hearing that the plant in Jackson's Arm would not be open

this year, I spoke to the respective ministers and we put in place a team. In

conjunction with the member from the area, we then had these people go into the

town and set up and work with these people, as the member opposite has

indicated.

We have no indication from the company that they will not be open next year.

Mr. Speaker, we can only operate on the premise as to where we are now. If that

should be the case, we will continue to work with the people and the community

to find a resolution, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, these workers already had a short working season

last year. Many of them will run out of their employment benefits by July or

August. Yet, government is only offering make-work programs that will begin by

September or October, so there will be a gap without income for these people.

So, I ask the minister: Are you prepared to put in place a more substantive

package that addresses the real need of these people so they will not run out of

their income and will not have to work for programs that offer just the minimum

wage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, just as we have done in other communities that

were impacted like this, we will do exactly the same in Jackson's Arm. We offer

those supports. We have gone in there on the ground to work with these people

and, Mr. Speaker, we will do what we can to find a resolution to the issues that

have been raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what has been done in other

communities has not been enough, these communities have said so, and that there

needs to be a more substantive program.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the federal government cut the Gulf shrimp quota in

Area 6 by 28 per cent. We have seen the Northern cod quota cut by 40 per cent.

We have seen the Southern Gulf quota cut by over 60 per cent. Additionally, we

have had a shortened turbot season. We have seen a dismal lobster season and it

just seems to continue. Many are expecting that coming next year there will be

even more cuts in our resource quotas.

So, I ask the minister: Is there a plan with the federal government to deal

with these continued cuts in our quotas and address a fisheries crisis that is

threatening to crush and depopulate the rural parts of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have to speak, firstly, to the comment that

he led in with, that we have not assisted with communities and they have not

been successful. I would ask him to go and speak to some of the people in

Arnold's Cove, Mr. Speaker, where we did intervene. Where we continued to work

with the community of Harbour Breton, and diversifying in the aquaculture field.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you can be the pessimist or you can be the

optimist. It looks like these are the pessimists. We on this side, are very

optimistic, Mr. Speaker. We look at other opportunities, and that is what we

will do in Jackson's Arm and other communities around the Province.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, just recently I met with Minister Shea, with our

officials, and I am going to try and make this answer clearer than it was in the

paper the other day. Mr. Speaker, we did raise the issues around shrimp, the cod

quotas, and the impact that these quota cuts are having on these communities.

The important thing that we stressed, Mr. Speaker, was that we have accurate

science. We are not disputing the issues that have been raised but we want

accurate science.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, the Gallipoli , which services Grey River, Burgeo and

Ramea, particularly Grey River for vehicular traffic, has encountered mechanical

problems that have forced residents to keep their cars in the community. The

minister has been trying to help out in this situation. However, there are

several other individuals who need their vehicles to travel to medical

appointments as early as this weekend.

I ask the minister: Are there any options that might be available to these

people so that they are able to get their cars out of the community so they can

keep these urgent medical appointments that were booked months ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We have run into some difficulties with the Gallipoli , in the sense

that one of her thrusters is not working properly and therefore cannot dock

safely in Grey River. We have the Challenge One that is providing

service, and we are trying to make arrangements now with the people concerned to

move their vehicles out of Grey River into Burgeo so that they can basically

take care of their business, medical appointments and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

For the minister's information, I realize they have been trying to move the

vehicles with the Challenge One , however, all accounts down there,

mariners and residents alike say that she is not capable or fit to be used for

transport of vehicles. First of all, you might get them on in Grey River but you

cannot get them off in Burgeo. There is no way to remove them. So that is an

obvious logical issue that we have here.

Mr. Speaker, recent problems with the ferry system on the Southwest Coast are

creating significant havoc as well for commuters in the area of La Poile and

Grand Bruit. They use The Challenge One there which has a capacity to

carry forty people normally. However, that ferry has been taken off the run, I

believe put down on the Grey River run, and replaced with The Marine Eagle

which only has a capacity of twelve people.

I understand this matter has been brought to the minister's attention as well

and I am wondering: What plans are in place to address this capacity problem for

the people of La Poile?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the challenge that I have as minister, of

course, is the availability of vessels they are in refit or wherever. In this

particular case, we know that Grand Bruit is closing or resettling, and

basically we know as well that over 90 per cent of the time, the passenger load

on that particular run is less than fifteen.

So we feel that we can adequately service it with the vessel right now, but

of course in the future with our new ferries and that, obviously the numbers

will be thirty-five or greater which would certainly solve that particular

problem. Right now, it is the availability of vessels, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, no government in this Province's history has ever committed to

allowing its elected members to do the work elected members do in every other

Legislature in the country. Every province but Newfoundland and Labrador has

standing committees where draft bills are publicly discussed and debated before

going to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are entitled to have their elected

members work in open and transparent committees which address the important

issues of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will he instruct his government to begin the

process necessary to bring the work of this House of Assembly up to a national

standard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the workings of the House of Assembly is certainly

guided by the Members of the House of Assembly and we have a Standing Orders

Committee that is certainly doing a review of the Standing Orders in this House.

We will have the opportunity to receive that report and certainly have an open

and full debate in the House.

What is also important, Mr. Speaker, and certainly very important to this

government, is when we bring legislation or matters of public importance or

public policy decisions that are rooted in legislation into the House of

Assembly, we certainly do a full and open consultation process before we do

that. Whether we look at things like the Human Rights Act, or we look at animal

health, or we look at the workings of Child, Youth and Family Services and the

new legislation that went along with that department.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the public are involved and we have

certainly, as government, demonstrated that we see this as a priority for us.

The legislation that we bring forward is certainly reflective of public

consultations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister has a different understanding of open consultation than I have.

Mr. Speaker, in the other Legislatures in this country, public committee

meetings, all-party members of their Legislature publicly allow concerned and

interested members of the public to present their views on important issues in a

public and official way to all members of the Legislature who are on that

committee.

Mr. Speaker, this government claims it is committed to open and transparent

government. When is it going to see that just them sitting with people by

themselves having their consultations is not open and transparent? Will this

government support a truly democratic process, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is important to note that when we do

public consultations and we hold public meetings across Newfoundland and

Labrador that they are not closed. Any member of the House of Assembly who is in

that district or wants to go to another district they are more than welcome to

attend those meetings. We usually have a member from the House of Assembly or a

minister there, parliamentary assistant, we also ensure that there are officials

there, that there is accurate note keeping and records made of the information.

We take that information; we evaluate it as we develop policy and legislation

around that.

Mr. Speaker, there are times when some groups may want to speak to us

privately. They are not comfortable in a public forum. We will also entertain

that as well. Mr. Speaker, when we do public consultations across this Province

they are certainly open and transparent, recorded and that information is used

in our decision-making processes.

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.

The minister knows as well as I do that very few pieces of legislation that

come to this floor are part of public consultation. Mr. Speaker, this House of

Assembly

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: Public consultation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this House of Assembly has been recorded as having the fewest

sitting days of any provincial Legislature in the country. In addition, there

are no opportunities for the existing standing committees that are in our

Standing Orders to debate legislation. As a result of this we are pushing

through legislation without full discussion by either the full public or MHAs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she see that standing committees, as

she can see, by the way, she is given the power in these Standing Orders, will

she direct that standing committees function as they are outlined in the

Standing Orders of the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, today represents day forty-one in this particular

sitting of the Legislature. Also, Mr. Speaker, I can provide statistics that

will show that the highest number of days that this House sat from 1996 until

today, prior to this government, prior to this government in 2003 was thirty-two

days. This government has sat thirty-five days, thirty-eight days and

forty-three days. So, Mr. Speaker, when you compare back to 1996, this

government has sat longer than the governments previous here in the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Can I conclude -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, not only that there are thirty-one pieces of

legislation passed in this sitting and some with very considerable public policy

decisions reflected in that legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure today to stand and present a petition on behalf of some

2,100-plus residents of the Towns of Centreville, Trinity-Bonavista Bay,

Wareham, Dover, Hare Bay, Badger's Quay, Greenspond and Indian Bay.

Mr. Speaker, before I read the pray of the petition I want to say I had this

petition for a while and I thought maybe some hon. members from that area would

present them. I do not know if they had copies or not but if they did they

probably just passed them on to the ministers. It reads:

WHEREAS the construction of a Gambo bypass road for the Bonavista North area

would create prosperity for the towns; and

WHEREAS the economic development would be increased and therefore keep

residents in their own towns instead of going elsewhere for employment; and

WHEREAS this alternate route would result in a quicker response to and from

James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to move forward with the construction of a

Gambo bypass for the Bonavista North area that would help grow and create new

economic development opportunities for the region;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

As I stated this petition have some 2,100-plus names on it. The concern that

they have, they feel that there should be a bypass road. Maybe what prompted

this from time to time was, I know a couple of occasions which nobody has any

control over, the TCH had been washed out and those people had to travel quite a

distance down around, but they also feel that it is an injustice to their

communities and to the business in those areas. They are looking for ways to

make their towns more prosperous. They feel this is one way that this would

happen and it would also, they believe, stop out-migration of their young people

who, if there was greater economic development in the areas, would be able to

stay at home.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, as I have stated, is from those various

communities throughout the area, and I want to say it is a pleasure to present

this petition to government on their behalf. Hopefully, government will give

consideration to this bypass road which they believe will be nothing only a

tremendous asset to the people who live in that area, and give them at least

another access out if something should go wrong again, and also provide a

better, quicker, transportation mode; because they do their banking, government

business, and attend the hospitals and the ambulance all through to Gander. So,

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present this petition on their behalf.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It gives me great pleasure, again, on behalf of the people of La Poile, to

present this petition to the House of Assembly concerning their lack of a

waiting room-restroom facility in the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou which

might service the needs of the residents in that area of the coast.

This is the second time I have done this, Mr. Speaker. We call it the

porta-potty petition, really, it has become known as, because these people who

use the ferry service on the South Coast do not have a restroom to wait in. If

they travel on the ferry service from Port aux Basques, where they usually go

for medical appointments, or Corner Brook, and they go back to Rose Blanche to

await the boat, it could be any kind of weather it could be a fine day - but

you still need washroom facilities. These people just do not have them. We went

through the situation down in Ramea, Grey River and Francois where they faced

the same thing for a number of years, and government did respond to the need in

that particular case.

Again, I will implore the government, if they could look after that inhumane

situation, actually. Besides health factors and public safety and everything

else, we do not need people in this day and age who use our public ferry

service, and particularly not only the residents, but there are tourists all

year round who find themselves in need of a washroom because they decided to go

visit these outport communities and they actually have nowhere to go. They have

to go bum someone's bathroom in their home or go find a restaurant or whatever

that might be kilometres away. So we implore government, if they would, Mr.

Speaker, to please give this consideration and hopefully the Minister of

Transportation will have an opportunity to see that the necessary work is

undertaken there as budgetary provisions hopefully will allow in next year's

Budget.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Red Bay to

Goose Bay. This petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by people in Forteau, L'Anse au

Clair, L'Anse-au-Loup, Red Bay and Capstan Island. Mr. Speaker, it is regarding

the highways in that area, and it reads:

WHEREAS the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a

section of the

Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and

WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel

this route; and

WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving of

Phase I and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS the residents of this region deserve a similar standard of road as on

the Island portion of the Province;

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

to provide funding to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions have been circulating in my district for quite

some time, and in the Goose Bay area, and, as I said, as they come in I will

continue to present them. People in this area, Mr. Speaker, feel that government

is not giving the attention that it needs to give to keep up the conditions of

the gravel roads in that area. In fact, this year there has been nothing only a

litany of complaints about the

section of road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay.

Mr. Speaker, all the articles that have been written in the papers, quotes

from people all over the Province and across Canada who have been using that

section of road, and all of the stories talk about busted tires, damaged vehicle

reports, shocked by the state of the road when travelling over it from Red Bay

to Lodge Bay. Mr. Speaker, the high traffic road is just as important as the

Trans-Canada was outlined by many people. Local people were quoted as saying we

have to travel that highway for medical appointments, and be able to catch the

ferry, which is our transportation link out of here.

Mr. Speaker, it has just been one thing after another. Truck companies,

Clarke's trucking, I have had calls from Christopher's Trucking, and I have had

complaints, Mr. Speaker, from the drivers with Way's trucking. These are people

who have to use that road every single day to deliver goods to all of these

communities, and they are doing it, Mr. Speaker, over one of the worst sections

of road that people have ever seen in their lives in this Province.

The road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay, there are sections of it that in ten

years have not been resurfaced. There is no crushed stone left on the road. It

is down to just the rock and potholes, and it is absolutely ridiculous to drive

over it. I drove over it again myself this weekend. A drive that usually takes

me an hour over seventy-six kilometres, took me an hour and forty minutes,

because the road was just so bad. You cannot drive more than twenty or thirty

kilometres and, as a result of it, people are damaging their vehicles to try and

get to a hospital, to try and get to the ferry, to try and get to an airport, to

be able to get in and out of the area, and they are asking the government to

deal with this situation and to address it immediately.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The routine proceedings being concluded, the Chair will now call on the hon.

Opposition House Leader and the Member for Burgeo & La Poile to deliver his

private member's resolution.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

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

I entered the private member's motion yesterday. I understand protocol

dictates we read it in. It is fairly lengthy, so I will read it quickly, it

being a matter of public record.

"WHEREAS the House of Assembly is the cornerstone of responsible government

in Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND

WHEREAS the smooth and proper function of the House of Assembly is

essential to good government, effective legislative process and an open

democratic society;

AND

WHEREAS there is a clear, present and pressing need for reform in the

Standing Orders and other rules and conventions which govern the operations of

the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly instruct the Standing

Orders Committee to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other

conventions governing Oral Questions and the legislative process, and to

consider, among other things:

1. Methods of elevating the decorum of all members to strengthen the dignity

and authority of the House,

2. Examining the convention that the Minister questioned need not respond,

3. Dedicating one question period per week exclusively for questions to the

Premier,

4. Establishing guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements

and the full text of Bills to ensure that members have sufficient time to

examine and analyze their content,

5. Strengthening the operations of Standing and Special Legislative

Committees to allow analysis of Bills with public hearings if required,

6. Prohibiting substantive amendments to Private Member's Motions, and

7. Streamlining the introduction and consideration of Private Members' Bills.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Standing Orders Committee reports its

findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other

conventions, within six months of the adoption of this order;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the report be made public immediately by

posting it to the House of Assembly website on the day that it is received."

Mr. Speaker, as you can see from the seven items that are enumerated there,

there is a whole pile of suggestions that are being considered. My role today

would not only be to lay out the motion in general form, make some specific

comments regarding some of the 1 through 7 items that are noted, but my

colleagues, of course, as time permits today - we are limited in terms of how

much time we have - they will also each be making some comments with regard to

these items and their experiences in the House, and what they feel needs to be

done to have a more productive and effective system as well.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly, of course, is the crucial piece to

operating in a democracy. We have a government, of course, which dictates the

policy of the day, the direction of the day, but the bottom line is when it

comes to the passing of legislation and taking the government policy and putting

it into play, it has to be done legislatively and that is done here in this

House of Assembly. On occasion, of course, it works quite well. On other

occasions it does not work so good. Sometimes we end up with a piece of

legislation here that is quite contentious because people do have different

policy considerations, and that is the whole purpose of debate, of course, is to

let each and every person who is in here, who has a right to speak, to speak on

legislation and voice their concerns. At the end of the day, democracy unfolds

and a vote is taken. That is the process. There is a good way to make it work.

There is a good way to make it more effective, to make it more efficient than

what we currently the situation that we deal in. That is where my comments

will be directed today.

For example, we have come some ways with changes. We came into televised

debates, for example, some years ago. Back in 2002, I believe it was first in

this Province. I think that has been very helpful because there is an old saying

in the justice field that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be

done. I think that applies to democracy as well. Just about every democratic

society in the western world that I know of today have televised debates. We are

certainly there when it comes to that.

Most democratic institutions today have an elected Speaker, for example, and

it is important. He is the main referee. He is the main cog in the wheel that we

call the House of Assembly here. We had a Standing Order change back in 1999 I

believe was the actual year, when Premier Tobin was the Premier. That is when we

adopted the new Standing Orders saying that a Speaker would be elected. At that

time it was the Member for Trinity North, I do believe, or Terra Nova, Mr. Snow,

who became the Speaker. He had been appointed under the old process. Of course,

because he stayed Speaker for the duration of that government until October

2003, there was no need to use the new system. As soon as the government changed

in 2003, of course, this new Administration did in fact use the election process

for the Speaker, and that was good to see. So, we have had some changes when it

comes to the operations of this place in the last ten years, for example, the

televised piece and the election of the Speaker. So that is good to see.

We do, of course, have certain committees of this House. We have committees,

for example, Estimates Committees we call them. That each year, when there is a

Budget process, they take the various departments that fall into their budgets

and they go off. That is when Opposition members and government members get to

question the ministers and their officials as to what is in the Budget

Estimates. That is a good process but it is not complete, we would submit. It is

not complete because it is not televised. There is no reason in the world why

Estimates Committees should not be televised the same as the House of Assembly

is televised. We have the physical apparatus in place. It is a matter of booking

the time to do it.

For those who are out watching, there is quite a difference between Question

Period and the Estimates process. In Question Period you can ask a minister a

question and you may or may not get an answer. You might ask it of one minister

and someone else may answer, but at least in Estimates when you can drill down

into the details you get someone to answer, either the minister does it or if he

is not up on every little piece and detail of his department budgets of course,

estimates, he can defer to whomever his officials are that he or she has with

them to get that information. So, there is a good exchange but it is not

televised. It is not transparent to the people as to how that information gets

out there. Of course, you are left to put out press releases or come back to

Question Period and ask questions about it.

Whereas we could make it much more

efficient if we would simply televise the Estimates Committees themselves, but

of course, that has not been done. So that is one suggestion that is being made.

Probably some of the best suggestions put forward into how the House

procedures should be revised were put forward by the current government when

they presented their 2003 Blue Book we call it, the platform for election. Now,

the unfortunate part, Mr. Speaker, is they never followed through. This very

government today, the people who are the government, who form the government

members of this House of Assembly did not follow through on what they themselves

committed to the people of this Province they were going to do.

Now, they can stand up today and tell us all they want about how the system

works. They can say all of that, but the bottom line is they obviously thought

it was not working properly to put it in their Blue Book, but they changed it. I

am going to quote, Mr. Speaker, from one

section of their Blue Book. Number five

from the 2003 PC Party Blue Book says, just to give one example, "Setting up

legislative committees in key policy areas with the power to initiate

legislation, propose amendments to government legislation, and investigate and

report on the progress of government programs in their policy areas." It is not

done. Put out there by this government as a good reform for this House of

Assembly, not followed through on.

When I talk about Legislative Committees - I already referenced the Estimates

Committees. There is a Standing Orders Committee. I am a member of the Standing

Orders Committee, as is the Speaker. There are a couple of government members on

it as well. We had one meeting last year in June to say that we would look at

maybe doing some revisions. We have not met since. There has not been a meeting

since.

When you check to see, before last year in 2008, the last meeting of the

Standing Orders Committee took place, no one can tell you, Mr. Speaker. Nobody

can tell you when the last meeting of the Standing Orders Committee of this

House of Assembly took place beyond last year, in 2008, two years ago. Nobody

can tell you. Now, that is not good enough for a House of Assembly that is going

to consider whether it is or is not working properly. So, that is why the

grounding of this resolution is let's look at what changes might or might not be

feasible. If they are, let's send it off to the Standing Orders Committee and

let the Standing Orders Committee get into it in depth and come back with any

suggested recommendations that they think we ought to do to make some

improvements.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of items here; first of all, the decorum

one. This member is no different than anybody else. We have all lost our cool in

here. We have all said things from time to time, ashamed to say, but been

disrespectful to each other but that is not what is supposed to be going on in

the House of Assembly. I do not think any other Legislature that I have ever

watched, except I saw a clip one time from China, I think, where they got into a

big fist fight in their Legislature in the China Parliament. I do recall seeing

that one, but normally in Western democracies we work on a different basis, a

different plateau than fist fights in the House of Assembly; and God forbid that

it should ever come to that.

I know there was one incident of a physical altercation in the House some

years ago, when a certain person hit somebody, but God forbid if we ever go back

to that. That is not to say that anybody is any worse than anyone else here or

any better than anyone else, but we all have our faults. We have all been

responsible for causing disruption in here, being disrespectful from time to

time, and unless we are going to get the public respect for what this

institution demands and requires and change that, we are never going to get to

where we need to go in that regard.

My colleagues will have more to say about decorum as well, but probably the -

in addition to the Estimates being televised, two major issues that this member

has had are the standing committees. For example, in the federal House of

Commons they have a standing committee on judicial issues, for example, or there

is a standing committee on fisheries. So it is quite common that there are

legislative committees. The people who actually run the departments, the

bureaucrats, for example, they are not the policy drivers when it comes to all

this stuff on a federal level. That is a parliamentary committee that is set up.

You can call whatever officials you want to the standing committee and have

those people input, yes, but one of the obvious means you do it is by having a

committee or you strike a special committee of the House of Assembly to consider

certain things.

For example, the last all-party committee we have had in this House, I do

believe, was with the FPI thing back in about 2002, early 2003. The last

all-party committee we had. We had one some years ago when I first came here,

under Minister Efford, who was the then Minister of Fisheries, on the seal hunt,

and went to Ottawa, and that all-party committee actually made a presentation to

the federal parliamentary committee on fisheries, a Standing Committee on

Fisheries. So, it does allow you an avenue to bring your concerns, to get

different opinions to different policy issues and then when you form your policy

at least you have heard from everybody.

The minister, with all due respect today, the Government House Leader, talked

about public consultation. I think the Leader of the NDP is quite right. You can

put a fine tune on what is public consultation. When you go out and you invite

stakeholders in and ask them your opinion that is not public consultation. Yes,

it is consultation. It is asking members of the public, invested stakeholders to

come in and give some input, but it is not always allowing everybody who might

have something to say, just because you are not a stakeholder of a particular

group does not mean you should not have some input into it. That is what you

would get if you had a public consultation process when it came to all major

pieces of legislation.

That brings me to my final point here when it comes to how legislation is

presented here. We all live with the system as it exists, but there are some

serious weaknesses in the system. For example, the Government House Leader

talked about doing thirty-five pieces of legislation. We dealt, last week, in

this House with three major pieces of legislation and the Opposition only had a

chance to get briefed on them the day of the actual time the bill was called in

this House, Mr. Speaker. That is not good enough. That is not good enough when

you take something as important as the Human Rights Code and you are going to

make it the Human Rights Act, and the Opposition Party, who is expected to get

up here and give some proper analysis of it, get a briefing on it from officials

the morning of. We did that in the case of the Animal Rights Act that we brought

in last week. The day of the presentation in this House, we got a presentation

that morning. That is not good enough, if it is going to let people be informed

so that they can come here and be properly prepared to give some good

conscientious consideration, debate and discussion to various pieces of

legislation. It is not the most efficient, it is not the most productive and it

is not the best way to act.

We already went through the process here one December when we took a quick

piece of legislation because the Premier indicated that it was urgent to do it.

We did it, no question about it. We went to a briefing at 1:00 o'clock and we

were in here by 3:00 o'clock. We repossessed all the properties of

AbitibiBowater. To this day, everybody, including the government will say we

made a little mistake here, folks. It might be a big mistake before it is all

over. That is where quickness, without proper consideration, gets you.

Maybe there was a sense of urgency but to bring that in two hours before you

pass such a massive piece of legislation without giving anybody the proper

opportunity to evaluate it of their own accord, when you are given it and you

are told here is what officials think and that is why we should do this and you

do not have the opportunity to go do your own analysis, that is not proper. At

the end of the day because we do not have that efficient system of drafting and

preparing and getting our legislation here with everybody having input, that is

a major weakness in the system, Mr. Speaker.

My speaking time is up and I will turn it over now - I guess one of the

government members will have something to say as well.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes with regard to the private member's motion

that has been put forward by my hon. colleague with regard to the various - the

resolution that has been put forward with regard to standing committees and so

on within this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read through the private member's motion that

he put forward, just to make a few comments with regard to items number four and

five. I just want to, I guess, go into the one where it states, "Establishing

guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements and the full text

of Bills to ensure that members have sufficient time to examine and analyze

their content..."

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague touched on that, but

from a personal note I know, this session, there was five or six pieces of

legislation that was brought forward that I was critic for from the Department

of Government Services. I have to say only that the hon. minister and some

officials in his department, from time to time when you want a briefing on it,

they are very cordial in that way. I guess that is the way you get through it,

but if it was a piece of legislation and the time frame sometimes you receive

them, I have to say that we hardly have the time to research into it, to get

into it and get the information that we need to be able to debate it in this

hon. House. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is something that we should consider

through this motion.

The other one I want to touch on is item number five, "Strengthening the

operations of Standing and Special Legislative Committees to allow analysis of

Bills with public hearings if required" I want to take this back for a moment

to some commitments that were made in 2003 in what we classify as the Blue Book,

where the government, when they were seeking election at that time, stated that

the House of Assembly will play a key role in enabling real public dialogue that

will have a genuine influence on government policies and priorities. They

continued by saying that government will adopt an open legislative process to

allow maximum consultation with groups and individuals to open forums,

particularly through legislative committees. Also, legislative committees will

be able to call government ministers, senior civil servants and experts outside

government to provide information and analysis in public sessions so that

committee members and the public can benefit from informed opinions on specific

issues. They also went on to say, Mr. Speaker, that committees will be expected

to meet regularly outside of St. John's if needed to provide better access to

the general public.

Mr. Speaker, that is what I am going to base my few comments on because we

all know that this hon. House received Rebuilding Confidence: Report of the

Review Commission on Constituency Allowances and Related Matters by the hon. J.

Derek Green, commissioner, dated May 2007. Mr. Speaker, at that time, he went

through some extensive research into how the House of Assembly operated and the

various issues that transpired at that time.

One of the issues that he did go into and I guess this one is very dear to

me because in June 4, 2008, the Public Accounts Committee, through the

Forty-Sixth General Assembly was constituted. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, some

of the context that he had at that time with regard to the Public Accounts

Committee had to be dealt with because he noticed how there was very little time

when the Public Accounts Committee held meetings. He went on to say he felt that

it was a political issue and that there should have been more consultation in

meetings with regard to either public meetings or hearings.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe and the members that are here today - since

we formed, we have had fourteen members, four of the original seven still

remain, and I believe we have made tremendous strides with regard to the Public

Accounts Committee. I really believe that. We have had fourteen meetings and

quite a bit of work have been done along those lines. When we listen to the

Green report, I do not think we have gone the full distance of what he is

referring to.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned we have had fourteen meetings, but we have also had

fourteen members. The hon. members that are on the committee now, they have met

fairly regularly. The last three members that came on - we have had five

meetings and they have been all in attendance. Some of my hon. colleagues, I am

looking at now, one of them who has been there for the full duration two of

them, as a matter of fact, sitting side by side.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the Public Accounts Committee

and what we are referring to here, I believe we have to abide by the rules more

and see that those very important committees within our hon. House of Assembly

carry out the work that we are asked to do. For that very reason, I believe the

work that has been done with regard to the lack of meetings, the political

partisanship taken out of it maybe not 100 per cent, maybe not 100 per cent,

but I think we have made great strides - Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we have

to adhere to the request that was made by Chief Justice Green that we should

hold public hearings or meetings.

I believe once we reach that stage - and we have meetings coming up now,

hopefully, the middle of July. We have met and reviewed the Auditor General's

report. As a matter of fact, various committees have met three times with the

Auditor General and his committee, gone over the issues, and we will be dealing

with those issues.

All I am saying is, I think if we are going to have a review on the

committees, whether it is a standing committee or special committees of this

hon. House, I think we should take into consideration what Green said and take

it to the fullest; because he made a comment that, he felt that if the

committees would not work now under the guidelines that he put in place, he felt

that he would have to put equal numbers on them.

The reason I am saying that, Mr. Speaker, we bring up some serious issues

from time to time, and I know in one particular meeting a motion was made that

we would bring forward an official in an enclosed meeting, an in camera meeting,

to just check with that official, but it was turned down. Why, I still do not

understand; because as Chair, I can assure you, I have no political ambition on

this with regard to any topic that comes forward.

I believe that if we had those meetings we would not be just writing letters

back and forth and that is good. When we started, we asked the various

departments for their co-operation. I think three or four departments wrote back

to us and said they would abide by the rules and regulations, and they have. We

did not hear from the others, but they do correspond within the timelines that

we have.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time has come, and more so now that we are

asking for a review of various issues within our hon. House of Assembly, that

this is another step that we should take to make sure that the rules are carried

out. We have been very fortunate since we became a Public Accounts Committee. We

have also been blessed

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: We have also been blessed, through the Speaker and the

Management Commission

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, please.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say since we formed our new Public Accounts Committee in June 2008 we have

had, through the Speaker and the Management Commission, a researcher has been

provided for the Public Accounts Committee. That gentleman also did a total

review on the process that is carried out through the Parliament in Great

Britain, in our own country, and the jurisdictions throughout this country. I

think each and every one of us knows how every jurisdiction operates in our

country, and I think we should go by the same guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments that I have to make with regard to

this. If a total review is done, hopefully the Public Accounts Committee can be

included in that, so that, even though we have made great strides, we can take

each issue and deal with them on a non-partisan level so that we can either call

in officials from within the departments and government outlines this

themselves in the Blue Book, that they thought this is the way the House of

Assembly should operate, the committees should operate. They knew there were

problems in the past.

I served on the Public Accounts Committee the second year I was elected. When

we were in government, we had meetings. The Opposition - as a matter of fact,

Ambassador Sullivan was the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at that time,

and we called in officials from the various departments and the Opposition, and

the government members - asked the officials questions. It was not trying to

pinpoint something on a minister; it was trying to come up with issues to

probably correct problems that were within the department. That has happened

from time to time.

There has been occasion in the past when they went on the road with their

meetings so that they could get the views of the people. When we talk about

public meetings, it is not inviting all the public in, and that they take part;

nobody can have a

part in the meeting. It is just within the confines of whoever

that individual is, called before the committee to deal with the issues at hand.

Mr. Speaker, with that, those are the only two comments I am going to touch

on. I do believe the other one with regard to the various bills, the various

pieces of legislation I know government cannot get them to you as fast as they

would like on times, whether it is through the printing process or what have

you, but I believe that whoever is in Opposition who knows what day the shoe

will be on the other foot - regardless of who is there, I think they should have

adequate time to have legislation put forward so they can review it in a timely

manner.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I will take my place and have someone else

speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to stand and take a few moments

to speak to this private member's resolution on reform of the House of Assembly

that we presented just a short time ago. As our members have been speaking to

specific pieces of this proposal, then I would as well speak to one or two of

the clauses that are involved in the resolution.

I would be remiss if I did not speak to decorum, being one of the rookie

MHAs, I guess, in the House for this year - certainly not a rookie individual

but a rookie MHA coming in, in the fall session, and being involved since then.

I believe there is a lot that is left to be desired in terms of the decorum of

the House of Assembly. You know, there is no greater witness to that, and no

greater confirmation to that, then to talk to visitors who come to this hon.

House of Assembly to engage and to just evaluate and take in the proceedings of

the House of Assembly. In particular, as we know, most of them will stay for the

thirty minute Question Period and most often we will see the visitor galleries

empty once Question Period is over. People I have had the opportunity to speak

with since I have been an MHA - and before, quite frankly, but more particularly

since I became an MHA - about the decorum and what takes place in the Question

Period time can be described by them quite often in a word, and that word is

horror. It is breathtaking, it is very disappointing, and it really sets them

back to come into the House of Assembly and see the way that forty-eight or

forty-five or whatever the number might be at that day, that forty-five members

or so of the House of Assembly engage in debate back and forth across the floor,

so to speak.

We realize that it is something that needs to be improved. I believe it needs

to be improved tenfold when it comes to decorum. When we consider this House of

Assembly today, we have five members who sit in Opposition: four in the Official

Opposition, and we have the Leader of the NDP. We sit with forty-three members

and we have nine or ten of those, or whatever the number is, that sit right

immediately adjacent to our seating arrangement. We have no problem with that;

we welcome them and do not have an issue with that at all, but, as you can

appreciate, in any crowd - you stand in a crowd - whether it is at a function of

some sort, or a meeting and so on, if you have forty-plus people speaking while

you are trying to speak then the noise level becomes quite disturbing. It

becomes very interrupting. That is the case that I find, as a new MHA, coming

into this House of Assembly.

I have never seen it before. I have been in many arenas in my life, so to

speak; I have spoken a lot in my day. I have been in a lot of different

settings, but I have never been in a setting where, when you stand and speak, no

one listens to you. Not only do they not listen to you, but they all talk and so

on while you are speaking. That is the House of Assembly, ladies and gentlemen.

You experience it, I experience it, and we do it to each other every time we

stand.

I could point out three or four people in this House who regularly listen

very attentively to what goes on, but other than that, the rest of us - and I

say us because it is not a matter of finger pointing it is a matter of pointing

out the process, that when we stand everyone else is on a BlackBerry, as my good

friend is here right now, or they are reading a newspaper, or they are reading a

clip or they are just having a good old chat. That is the process, so to speak.

That is just the way it goes in the House of Assembly. It is very normal for the

House but it is not a very normal process is what I am saying. It is just what

we do. We all do it.

As our own members speak, as Opposition members speak, as government members

speak, we all kind of do it back and forth. It is just the way it is, and very

innocent. Quite frankly, the speaking in particular more so than the other

things, but the noise level that is generated really adds nothing to the

deliberation and the outcome of what is being said at that point in time. I

guess, basically, the bottom line is it is time to be respectful of each other

as Members of the House of Assembly. We have all come to represent our

constituents. We have all been sent by the electorate. We have all been sent for

the same purpose. Even though we hold different positions, and most are on the

government side, the minority is not on the government side, and some are

Cabinet ministers and so on. There is a respect that comes with that position as

well, and we recognize that. Yet, we are all here as MHAs and we have the same

rights when it comes to coming into the House of Assembly. So we should be able

to give the same to each other in terms of decorum, and we should be able to

respect and return the same to the others as well.

Another part of the motion this afternoon speaks to number 2, "Examining the

convention that the Minister questioned need not respond". What I find quite

interesting when we come to Question Period, and the government members who have

been involved in Opposition would know that preparing for Question Period takes

time. I know for our own selves just being a small caucus, we spend a lot of

time in preparation, along with our research people, in getting ready for the

House of Assembly every day. We want to come and we want to question the

government on issues that are important to the people of this Province. It is

not just for the sake of trying to embarrass the government, or to expose a

weakness or whatever the case might be, but it is to hold government

accountable. Obviously, that is the main purpose, if you will.

Question Period is one of the main ways or one of the key ways that we can,

as an Opposition, hold the government accountable by asking them questions. It

is recognized as one of the most exciting pieces. As I said, it is the one that

visitors want to sit through. It is one that they enjoy to sit and listen to the

debate and the exchange between government and Opposition in Question Period. It

is often the focus of media coverage as well. Very often it is where the scrums

are generated from. It is what we see in the newspaper the next day. It is what

we see on television that evening and so on. It is all a reflection of what took

place during the Question Period.

What I find interesting about Question Period is that we ask very important

questions - and in preparing for today I have taken time to go back and read

Hansard in several days over the past eight or ten weeks that we have been here,

and I have looked at some of the answers. I thought I would bring some of them

in but I did not do that. I chose not to do that, but I looked at some of the

questions that I have asked myself to ministers, and I have four portfolios that

I am the critic for. While there have not been a lot of questions to some of

them, others there have been more, and I have had the opportunity to offer

questions to portfolios that I do not directly critique. Yet, to listen to some

of the responses that we get back in terms of the questions that we put forward.

The questions, even though there is a

preamble to them, typically the

question is fairly straightforward. Mr. Minister, Ms Minister, whatever the case

might be: Can you tell me why, or can you tell me how, or can you update us? The

responses that come back in Hansard, it is almost like reading a cartoon. It is

so evasive at times and it is so off the question. Again, that is just the

process. That is allowed. Some ministers, quite frankly, are very, very good at

it. It is hard in itself - and one in particular, that I will not look at and

will not mention, of course, which would not be appropriate, does an excellent

job of not answering a question. I guess they have just learned how to do that

along the way.

That is just one of the pieces that I have noticed in terms of Question

Period, and as this private member's motion calls for reform, it calls for it at

a time when there is, I believe, a broader concern about the decline in public

opinion of the House of Assembly, in the decline of how people feel about us as

members and what we do in the House and the real productivity that is here and

so on. The most obvious place or gauge that we have to understand how the public

feels about the whole process is at election time. We know that the numbers at

election time, the percentages are way down. There was a time when 70 per cent

or 80 per cent would get out and vote, and it drops to 60 per cent. As we look

at the by-elections that we have had throughout this year, we know that voter

response is very, very low. Sometimes that is a reflection of just the attitude

of voters towards the process of the House of Assembly and so on. So, Mr.

Speaker, these are just a couple of things.

One last thing I would like to mention is on number 4, "Establishing

guidelines for the advance release of Ministerial Statements and the full text

of Bills" My hon. Member for Burgeo & La Poile mentioned the bills in his

presentation and the fact that the scheduling of second readings, committee

stage and third readings and so on and the minimum time frame does not always

allow for the proper type of research for us as MHAs to be able to just debate

the bills and to understand the bills, to listen to what is said in the second

reading and to be able to take it into committee stage. When it comes kind of

bang, bang, one behind the other, it does not allow necessarily for the type of

consultation and debate that we would like to do.

Also, something as simple as a ministerial statement; again, I get them

everyday and I am sure I will get another ministerial statement tomorrow. I am

looking forward to it. We are trying to set a record here in the House of

Assembly for the number of ministerial statements. Well, most of them are fluff,

we know that, but sometimes there is good stuff said in ministerial statements

though. There are significant announcements made there, if you will, and things

that are important to the running of the Province and the programs that

government offers and so on. We do not get that ministerial statement until

thirty minutes before we come to the House of Assembly for our session to begin.

Like clockwork, at 1:00 o'clock the door opens in the Opposition room and in

walks the gentleman with our ministerial statements. Very dependable, I might

say, never late, but yet never early.

Thirty minutes to read that statement and to understand the different pieces

that are being covered in that statement, and then to be able to respond in a

practical and sensible fashion it is not about coming in and discrediting the

statements that have been made by the minister, but it is an opportunity to

speak to that statement. It is an opportunity to encourage what is in the

statement, but it is also an opportunity to really challenge when challenge is

necessary as at oftentimes there is. Again, that is our job to do that. To be

given it thirty minutes before, really speaks to it is not a big issue, but it

is one that is on our Order Paper every day. We know that one, two or three

ministers will stand and they will give a statement about things that are going

on in their departments. I would encourage that if the statement is important

enough to give, then it should be important enough to give in an advance time

that allows me, allows another MHA, whoever is responding to that statement, it

gives them time to have it, to read it, to digest it, to prepare a proper

response, and to come in and really share in that statement, because that

statement is meant to be a good news story, and typically, that is the way it is

presented. So we would like to be able to come and respond and share our

thoughts as well about that good news piece.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are the things that I would refer to in this private

member's motion. It is great to be able to present it in the House of Assembly

this afternoon, and I thank you for this time to be able to present my own

thoughts.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been in this House for ten years now. I celebrated my tenth

anniversary in April.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: During that period, I have seen a lot of interesting things

happen in this House, and a lot of good debate, a lot of good, intelligent

discussion, but I have seen a lot of politics being played as well in the last

ten years, and I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this tops the bill. This tops it all.

What we are hearing today are members opposite, I think, at the end of a

session, trying to pretend that this is the most significant thing to all of the

people in Newfoundland and Labrador today, is reform of the House of Assembly

and how we function. They have been a bit cute about it too, Mr. Speaker,

because if you watch the House of Assembly, and for those of us who sit here day

after day, would recognize that the Opposition has been somewhat flat in the

last week or two. They have not gotten much press coverage; they have been

criticized for their lack of leadership, not being able to present an

appropriate alternative to government, which is what Opposition parties do.

So they want this session to end, and when they wake up tomorrow morning,

they want the tail end of The Telegram or the evening news to record that

the Opposition is trying to reform the House of Assembly. That is how they want

the headlines to read, Mr. Speaker, not that they had a terrible session, not

that this government has brought in some very progressive legislation that was

debated in this House and will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is not the headline they are looking for. They want to be seen here as

actually trying to lead political reform in the House of Assembly, and they are

being a bit cute about it, Mr. Speaker. That is the interesting thing, and that

is how politics gets played by the Opposition in this House day after day.

We just listened to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North get up in

his innocence and talk about decorum and a poor victim of what happens in this

House, but members opposite have forgotten, four or five short weeks ago, that

same member, because he was challenging the Speaker, because he criticized a

member of this House by saying he was dishonest and would not withdraw the

comment, which the rules of order say very clearly, the rules of order are clear

about this, you cannot be defaming an individual in the House of Assembly. He

accused a member of this House of being dishonest, then refused to apologize and

left the Speaker with no choice but to actually expel him from the House. He

stands here today almighty and says decorum in here is terrible and how we are

victims of that terrible government over there who exercise the strength of

numbers to overpower us, we are mere victims over here, innocent people and

would not ever say anything or do anything against the Speaker's ruling. That is

the hypocrite in the member opposite coming out.

I say, Mr. Speaker, the second speaker who stood and spoke made a reference -

the Member for Port de Grave. He stood in this House today, held up this motion

and said I will bring your attention to number four: We are establishing

guidelines for the advanced release of Ministerial Statements. The same member

stood today in the House of Assembly and said: I thank the member opposite for

giving me an advance copy of the statement. So, if you look at the statements

made by members opposite, this is pretty hypocritical.

I say, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the motion itself and ask yourself what

is the motivation behind this, is there much substance to this. If the members

opposite want to have better answers to questions maybe they should send the

questions over before they come to the House. That is an idea. If you want good

answers you heard the Leader of the Opposition stand today and ask the

Minister of Health a finite question about the expenditures on oxygen in a $2.6

billion budget, what about a company that billed someone for some oxygen back in

2008; do you know the answer to the question? What a ludicrous question to ask a

Minister of Health about a $2.8 million budget about what might be a $500 or

$600 invoice sent to Eastern Health three years ago, or two years ago.

If you want quality answers, have some quality questions. One of the ways

might be to, in fact, advance the questions to us in an advance of Question

Period. Mr. Speaker, I am not standing here today as a member of government,

government does not own this House of Assembly. We are all members of the House

of Assembly and the House of Assembly is governed by committee structure. You

have a Management Committee and ironically, Mr. Speaker, we have a committee of

Standing Orders.

It is interesting because the Opposition House Leader, who introduced this

motion today, is a member of that committee. He sits on that committee, Mr.

Speaker, together with, I think, it is four other people. He made a reference

today to the last meeting back in 2008, and as I understand it, it was the first

part of June of 2008. During that meeting the members present and those that

were not present, as I understand it, were given a binder of documentation, a

jurisdictional scan of how other Legislatures work and how other Legislatures

function. Members in that committee were asked to take this document, read it,

digest it, understand how jurisdictions work and have a look at what other

changes might be made in this Legislature here. How might we do things different

in this Legislature? So, there is a process already in place, Mr. Speaker, and

the member opposite who made this motion participates in it.

My question to him is rather than come in the House today and ask us to vote

on a motion that says we call upon the committee for Standing Orders to do such

and such and do this and this, I say to him why don't he do his job? He is a

member of a committee. As members of this Legislature, and I am one of them,

have charged five of my colleagues in this House to be members of a committee.

We all have that. All of us in this House are represented by five members who we

appoint to a committee and say: Listen, will you do the research, have a look at

how Legislatures function, find out what is the best practice, examine what we

do here, is there something we can do differently, how might we improve how the

Legislature works, and bring back to this body here, this whole Legislature, a

series of recommendations.

The member opposite has not done that. As a sitting member of that committee

he has not said: Listen people, we should get together and have a look at this.

He has not reported to this House that I have examined the material that I was

given and here is my commentary, here is my understanding of it and here are the

suggestions that I am making. He did not do that through the committee process,

which the Standing Orders lay out how this Assembly functions.

So, if members opposite want amendments to how the Standing Orders actually

direct the activities and govern how we function here, my comment is clear,

follow the existing Standing Orders before you start talking about changing them

to improve them. Members opposite are not even living up to the Standing Orders

that exist. One of them lays out a mechanism to bring about change in this

Legislature and how the Legislature functions. So you cannot be hypocritical.

The Standing Orders that we are now currently working with were established

in 1951. They were amended, I understand, in 1999. If you look at the document,

it notes when amendments were made and 1999 appears here, and the last one was

2005. So, in March of 2005 this same standing committee made a series of

recommendations and brought them forward to this House and this House endorsed

them.

What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, today the Opposition House Leader is

anxious and wants to present himself as interested in reforming the Legislature,

but back in 2005 when the Standing Committee brought forward a series of

recommendations, the Government House Leader of the day stood and spoke to the

suggestions, spoke to the proposed changes and endorsed them and made comment on

them. The Leader of the NDP at that time, Mr. Harris, stood and he commented on

them.

Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing was, every single member of the Liberal

Party who sat in the House at that time in 2005 had an opportunity to stand and

provide commentary on the proposed amendments at that time. They did not have

enough interest to do so. Not one of them stood to speak. They were not

interested in what was going on in the House of Assembly at that time. They were

not interested in bringing about legislative change in the Orders of the Day,

making changes in the rules of order of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, not at all.

Members opposite stood this week and talked about decorum and who has

responsibility for decorum. So if you look at the Standing Orders now, it talks

about the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of

order. In my ten years, it has only been the second time that I saw a point of

privilege raised in this Assembly and it happened in this session. We saw the

Leader of the Opposition stand in this House and defiantly, defiantly challenge

the role of the Speaker, challenge the ruling of the Speaker. It was that

person, Mr. Speaker, who exhibited a behaviour that challenged the integrity of

the Speaker, undermined the decorum that takes place in this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, in this session we have had one member of the Liberal

Party expelled because of his behaviour, we had the Leader of the Opposition

party stand and apologize for taking basically, taking the House on her back,

trying to challenge the Speaker who is responsible for decorum. Then they have

the audacity to stand in this House today and try to suggest that they are

innocent, they are angels, and there is a problem in this House and they have

been victimized by that.

Mr. Speaker, I am not nave enough to try and no one on this side of the

House, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, will stand in this House and defend some of the

things that may go on in here. As legislators in this House, we all have an

interest in improving the decorum that is here but there is a process in place,

Mr. Speaker. We have a committee process in place. Let that committee do their

job. Let that committee do their job, Mr. Speaker.

The member who made this motion and introduced this motion, let him live up

to his responsibility to all forty-eight of us in here

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: - because he is on a committee that has the role and

responsibility to bring forward recommendations to improve how this House

functions. He has not done his job, and he is trying to stand here today on the

closing days of this Legislature trying to look like he is going to deliver us

from evil and he is going to actually introduce some decorum in this House, and

without his intervention this House would continue to be an unruly place and

they would be victims of that unrule, Mr. Speaker.

So, I say, there is lots of opportunity for change. There is lots of

opportunity to improve what takes place in this House, and I think when we look

at all these suggested changes, and many more that we could all add - every

single one of us in this House could come up with a list of half a dozen things

that we think, if changed, would improve how this House functions. So no one is

saying that the status quo should stay. No one is defending what we do.

All we are saying is let a standing committee of this House do its work, and

if you are a member of that committee, if you are one of those five, live up to

your responsibility to be a member of that committee, a functioning member of

that committee. If you do not think the committee is actually functioning well,

you, as a member of that committee, have a responsibility to call upon the

Chair, who happens to be the Speaker of the House, to call upon the Chair to

convene a meeting of that committee and let's get on with the task at hand.

Let's bring about the necessary reform in this House that will improve how we do

our work, improve the work that we do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, but let's do it in the context of the already established rules of

order. If you are going to preach the need for change and preach the notion of

having rules of order, then be prepared to live within them. Be prepared to live

by them, and we will not witness the spectacle that we have seen in this session

by having members opposite being expelled for their behaviour, having leaders of

a political party having to stand in this House and apologize for their

insulting behaviour and their direction and insults to the Speaker, and to

challenge and undermine the integrity of this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate as a member of this Legislature, not as a

member of a political party or a government, but as a member of this

Legislature, having the opportunity to make those few comments about the need

for change in this House, yes, but let's comply with and use the already

established mechanism to do it. Do not stand in the closing days of a session

and try to make cheap political gain by suggesting that government has somehow

or other, has now made this House dysfunctional and you are about to save it and

you are the only one who can do it. Do not be that hypocritical. Let's live

within the already established rules.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard a lot of tripe in the fifteen years I have been in this House of

Assembly, but I have rarely heard it, Mr. Speaker, as clearly as I have today.

If you want to talk about cheap politics, we will talk about cheap politics,

Mr. Speaker. It comes from a government who tells people what they want to hear

when they are knocking on doors and do something completely different after.

That is what the Williams government did in 2003, Mr. Speaker, when they went

out and told people in this Province, on Web sites and in Blue Books, how they

were going to reform the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador to do the very

things that we present in a private member's motion here today.

What happens, Mr. Speaker? You get the spokesperson for Trust Magazine

on the other side of the House of Assembly stand up in here giving up a

litany and a speech on politics, the very member, Mr. Speaker, who sat in one

caucus and plotted to join another caucus. Now, there is openness and

transparency for you, I say to the hon. members. That is the spokesperson for

the government today on trust us in how we do our jobs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for

one will not forget that this is a government that is not poised on openness and

transparency. In fact, it is the very opposite, Mr. Speaker.

They are a government who tells people what they want to hear. They are a

government who will convince them that they are going to do something when that

is what people want them to do, but they do the very opposite, Mr. Speaker. Do

you want to talk about hypocrisy? We will talk about hypocrisy, because I have

never seen it more blatant, more evident, Mr. Speaker, on any government in my

life than I do every day when I sit in this House and I look across the floor,

Mr. Speaker, I see hypocrisy, I say to the Member for Trinity North and I listen

to it every day.

In 2003, Mr. Speaker, this government opposite went out and told the people

of the Province that our aim is to create a system of government in which power

is shared with the Legislature and the people instead of being concentrated in

the office of the Premier and the Cabinet. Now, isn't that something, Mr.

Speaker? Here today, you cannot get a private member's motion through the House

of Assembly unless they shred the guts out of it and change the WHEREASES and

THEREFORES and come in; because, Mr. Speaker, they do not have the guts to stand

on their own two feet and debate the motion that the Opposition brings forward.

They do not have the guts to do that. They come in and they shred it. They take

it apart and they put in a wishy-washy clause that asks the government to do

absolutely nothing, only reach behind my head and pat myself on the back for a

great job that I am doing. That is what we have seen, Mr. Speaker. That is what

we have seen.

The Williams government, Mr. Speaker, in 2003, in the PC Party Blue Book

says, "Setting up legislative committees in key policy areas with the power to

initiate legislation, propose amendments to government legislation, and

investigate and report on the progress of government programs in their policy

areas." The Leader of the NDP got up today and asked questions on it, and nearly

got her head lobbed off in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, for dare

suggesting dare suggesting - such a thing as openness and public consultation

and review. My, my, my, but in 2003 that was their commitment to the people of

the Province. That was where they were going to govern. That was how they were

going to do the business of the people of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in the other sections they talked about in their Blue Book, 2003

PC Party Blue Book. We are going to, "Ask the Legislature to adopt family

friendly election timetables and work schedules." Well 2:00 o'clock the other

morning, Mr. Speaker, when I was standing in my place in this House debating a

very important piece of legislation that I was briefed on only that morning, Mr.

Speaker, I tell you, I felt like I was in the family friendly situation, oh yes;

but, Mr. Speaker, whose family is up until 2:00 in the morning waiting for the

Legislature to close? That is the kind of commitments they made: we are going to

make it family friendly. Then they keep you here debating bills 12:00, 1:00,

2:00, 3:00 o'clock in the morning, if you want to have your say, Mr. Speaker. If

you do not stay and have your say, you do not get to have your say. You do not

get to have your say. That is how it works.

They want to do this family friendly session, Mr. Speaker, the Blue Book say,

"so that Members can combine their work more easily with family and childcare

responsibilities." Yes, I can tell you, doing homework at 3:00 o'clock in the

morning with your five-year-old, Mr. Speaker, has to be tough; it has to be

tough.

Mr. Speaker, " Under a Progressive Conservative government, the House of

Assembly will play a key role in enabling real public dialogue." We talked

about consultation today, having an opportunity to have bills to consult with

people, to get their feedback. We just passed three pieces of legislation in

this House of Assembly last week in which the Opposition were given the bills

only hours, or days I should say, before it was debated. We had the briefings

hours before it was debated on the floor of the House, and now we have people

out there in the Province today who did not realize these bills were going

through. They did not realize what was in them, and now they want to see

amendments. All three bills right now that people are asking for amendments in

because the time did not permit for anyone to have a dialogue with the public.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the PC government Blue Book in 2003 said that they will play a

key role in engaging and enabling public dialogue that will have a genuine

influence on these policies.

They said, "A Progressive Conservative government will adopt an open

legislative process to allow maximum consultation with groups and individuals in

open forums, particularly through legislative committees."

Mr. Speaker, what a joke that is. You have a Public Accounts Committee in

this Province and you cannot get the government members on the Public Accounts

Committee to even get enough backbone to vote to get one bureaucrat from a

department to come in and sit before the committee to ask a few questions. Mr.

Speaker, how weak is that? How weak is a government that is afraid their own

members are afraid - to call in the very bureaucrats who work for them in the

departments and ask them a few questions? I have never seen it so weak in my

life, Mr. Speaker, never.

The government goes on in their Blue Book the Williams government from 2003

saying, "Legislative committees will be able to call government ministers,

senior civil servants and experts outside government to provide information and

analysis in public sessions so that committee members and the public can benefit

from informed opinion and specific issues."

Well, no one told the members of the PC caucus on the Public Accounts

Committee that this was the new belief of the PC government. The committee will

not call a minister, they will not call a bureaucrat, and they will not hold a

public session. It is the Public Accounts Committee. You are dealing with the

expenditure of the people of this Province, and they do not have enough

backbone, they do not have enough guts, Mr. Speaker, to actually hold a public

session. That is how weak the caucus members on that Public Accounts Committee

are. They cannot go in there and sit there and hold their head up high and say:

We have a job to do. We have signed on to do this job, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier, as the Opposition Leader was speaking, she used the words "has not

got the guts" and used it again. I just want to draw your attention to

section

489 of Beauchesne , where it certainly indicates

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: that the expression "has not got the guts" is considered

unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to have that withdrawn, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Given that the Speaker has certainly not been in this

position before, in my short tenure as a Speaker, I will just have a talk with

the Table Officers and get some direction, please.

[Speaker consults with Table Officers]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On consultation with the Table Officers, and referring to Beauchesne ,

section 489, the phrase "does not have the guts" has been ruled unparliamentary

in the past and, as such, I would ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if

she would withdraw the comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the comment "guts". I think the correct parliamentary language is

"intestinal fortitude" and I would use that in substitution, Mr. Speaker,

because what we have not seen is the intestinal fortitude of the members on the

other side of the House to do the jobs that they are entrusted with. That is the

problem, Mr. Speaker. That is the entire problem here.

They sit on the Public Accounts Committee dealing with the taxpayers' money

of this Province and they are afraid to hold a hearing, they are afraid to hold

a public session, and they are afraid to call anybody in. Mr. Speaker, that was

the commitment that they made to the people of this Province when they were

getting elected in 2003. They told people what they wanted them to hear, pledged

to them what they wanted people to believe, and did the exact opposite, Mr.

Speaker. That is what they have done, the exact opposite.

Today we are in this House of Assembly and we are asking for the opportunity

to look at the rules, Mr. Speaker, so that we can strengthen the operations of

our Standing and Special Legislative Committees. We want those committees to be

able to do hearings, to be able to analyze bills, to be able to take information

to the public. That is the role of Parliaments. That is the role of Parliaments

all across Canada, Mr. Speaker, and we should not be restricted in our ability

to do our jobs as MHAs.

The House of Assembly is not about the government. The House of Assembly is a

place in which the government plays a role. Mr. Speaker, we do not operate under

a presidential system. We have a Premier, a Premier who leads a government of a

party who gets a majority in this Province. That is how it works. Individual

MHAs control the House of Assembly and under our Standing Orders those MHAs do

not have the ability today to bring forward private members' bills to this

House, something that is done in the House of Commons, bills that we could put

forward.

We just saw the MP Scott Andrews bring forward a bill in the federal

parliament on the Bagby bill. We saw Siobhan Coady, another member here in St.

John's bring forward a bill last year representing an issue from this Province,

bills that are going through the House of Commons. As individual MHAs in this

House you either be in Opposition or a cheerleader of the government, Mr.

Speaker. You have no power to bring forward your own bills, your own ideas, your

own way of thinking in terms of encouraging changes within the House.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we think that there should be more

guidelines established around private member's motions. Right now, in this House

of Assembly, the Opposition brings forward private member's motions because we

believe in them. We are prepared to stand and defend them and to represent that

issue, but the government opposite are not prepared to stand on either side of

it, and what do they do? They bring forward amendments that shred the entire

private member's motion that actually asks that they do nothing other than

compliment themselves.

I have a whole list of private members' bills here that we have brought

forward in this House of Assembly that were legitimate issues that we believed

in, that we supported, and that we, as individual MHAs, should have the

prerogative in our own Legislature to bring forward, and every other MHA should

have the prerogative to have their own views and opinions instead of just being

a cheerleader on the other side, Mr. Speaker, for the government when they gut

those motions to ensure that it is something that they can vote against without

becoming unscathed, Mr. Speaker. That is what they do, they bring in amendments

so that it asks them to do nothing or it compliments themselves as opposed to

standing up and having the intestinal fortitude, I say to