PDF Version

June 1,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 37

The

House met at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

MR. KIRBY:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of order, the hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today on a point of order under Standing Order 1, General Rule, Application of

Standing Orders & cases not provided for.

Under

Standing Order 1,

(1) The proceedings in the House of Assembly and in all

committees of the House shall be conducted in accordance with the following

Standing Orders and with the sessional and other orders of the House.

(2) In

all cases not provided for in these Standing Orders or by sessional or other

orders of the House, the Speaker shall be guided by the following in the order

which they are stated: (

a) the usages, customs and precedents of this House; (

b) the Standing Orders and sessional orders and forms and usages, customs and

precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and those of any province or

territory in Canada; and (

c) in all cases not provided for above, the usages,

customs and precedents of the House of Commons at Westminster in the United

Kingdom.

The

volume of House of Commons Procedures and

Practice, Second Edition , edited by O'Brien and Bosc, is a key procedural

authority used by the Canadian House of Commons. It is a compendium and a

codification of parliamentary law and precedence as it exists in Canada and it

applies and is frequently referred to here in the House.

Chapter

4 of O'Brien and Bosc deals with the House and its Members and it says the

following: One of the Member's primary duties is to attend the sittings of the

House when it is in session, unless the Member has other parliamentary or

official commitments, such as committee meetings, constituency work or

parliamentary exchanges. This obligation is enshrined in Standing Order 15:

Every Member, being cognizant of the provisions of the

Parliament of Canada Act , is bound to attend the sittings of the

House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or

on public or official business.' The Speaker has traditionally discouraged

Members from signalling the absence of another Member from the House because

there are many places that Members have to be in order to carry out all of the

obligations that go with their office.'

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday during the proceedings of this hon. House of Assembly the

of Members of this House of Assembly during the course of our proceedings. He

made these postings while occupying his seat in this House.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to a ruling made by one of your

predecessors in the role of Speaker in this House almost four years ago on May

9, 2012, regarding an accusation made on Twitter by this same Member, the Member

for Mount Pearl North.

That

Speaker in his ruling said the following: Here is a point I would ask you to

keep in mind, or one of the points I think it is significant to be guided by:

had this accusation of lying been sent while the House was sitting so as to

escape being sanctioned for unparliamentary language while still making the

accusation, I believe it would be a prima facie case of privilege. I remind all

members of the privilege they enjoy as members of this House and with that

privilege comes a responsibility that all of us have to maintain the integrity

of this House.

This

ruling is significant, as the Member for Mount Pearl North is once again trying

to do through the back door that which he is explicitly prohibited from doing

from his seat in the House of Assembly. By signalling the absence of Members of

Mount Pearl North did yesterday the Member is in violation of the rules of

this House as laid out in O'Brien and Bosc.

This is

in the least a violation of the rules of order of this Legislature; however, Mr.

Speaker, more concerning is the fact that this Member's behaviour may, depending

on your ruling of our rules, procedurally, actually have constituted a prima

facie case of privilege, which is an even more serious violation of our rules.

With

these points in mind, I respectfully request that you review the postings made

by the Member for Mount Pearl North and make a ruling on his behaviour

accordingly.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

going to say I'm surprised by the point of order, but given its origin, I'm not.

This is clearly an attempt to change the channel for the government and take

away from the important issues that we need to debate and discuss in this hon.

House. I'll stand by my comments yesterday. Anything I wrote myself does not

reference individual Members of this House. I think the hon. Member knows quite

well that retweets do not necessarily equal endorsements. Anybody familiar with

I don't

believe, Mr. Speaker, that I've violated any rules, but I'll certainly await

your review and ruling and if there is anything that I need to do differently in

future based on your ruling, I'm certainly happy to do so. But having been here

for a long time, I didn't write anything yesterday myself that would constitute

a violation of the House rules. This is a desperate attempt by the Education

Minister to try and change the channel. They're having a rough week in the

House, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

haven't seen the tweets being referred to. I will review those tweets, but I

will say that it has been ruled in this House on previous occasions by previous

considered unparliamentary if done on your feet in the House is still considered

to be unparliamentary.

I will

review the postings by the hon. Member. We'll review the Twitter posts. If there

was a reference made that would be considered unparliamentary if said on the

floor of the House, it would be considered unparliamentary.

The

Speaker is bound by previous rulings of the House of Assembly. I will take time

to take it under advisement. I will rule on this either later today or tomorrow.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Member for the Districts of Fogo Island Cape Freels, Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main, Cape St. Francis

and Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

The hon.

the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

once again a privilege to rise in this hon. House to bring birthday greetings to

one of the residents of my district. This lady would have loved nothing more

than to be sitting in the gallery today, watching this government in action.

In 1927,

this lady was born on the Northeast Coast in the community of La Scie, but due

to family hardships, she transferred and grew up in the St. Anthony orphanage.

She remembers attending the funeral of Dr. Wilfred Grenfell.

From St.

Anthony, she moved to work in St. John's where she met and married her husband.

They moved to Wesleyville to raise their family. During this time, she became

involved in her community and an active caller to

Open Line where she expressed her strong political opinions.

To this

day, she leads an active life, driving herself wherever she desires to go,

including to Grand Falls-Windsor and Gander for visits to friends and family

there.

Today,

surrounded by a loving support network, Mrs. Vera Barbour celebrates her 89th

birthday.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in wishing Vera a very happy birthday.

Happy

Birthday!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to acknowledge a woman who has chosen Labrador to be her homestead and has

contributed immensely to the region since that time. Judy Pardy settled in

Cartwright in 1972, and since then has made an immeasurable impact on the

economic and social development of Labrador.

She has

worn many hats over the years, working at Hudson's Bay Company, Labrador

Airways, Pardy's Store and a litany of other jobs. She has also committed her

heart and soul to volunteerism, spending 15 years as a Girl Guide leader and

playing a role in the establishment of two community youth networks, six family

resource centres, among a number of other vital projects in the region,

including the shrimp processing facility in Charlottetown.

She

recently travelled to the Truth and Reconciliation hearing with two victims of

residential schools. It was an overwhelming experience for her. She is currently

assisting senior families and upgrading their homes, and she continues to work

as a peer support volunteer.

Judy has

excelled in her many years as a volunteer, lobbyist and advocate, and she's

known as the go-to person in her town whenever there is a need.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in expressing gratitude to such an exemplary woman

who has committed her life to making her little corner of Labrador a better

place to live.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

today to salute a constituent and tireless volunteer who was recognized in April

for her contributions to one of our major tourist attractions.

The East

Coast Trail Association named Mona Rossiter as the winner of the Flamber Head

Award at their annual volunteer recognition event.

The

Flamber Head Award is given to members of the East Coast Trail Association who

have demonstrated exceptional commitment to volunteerism and the association.

Mona

took on the role of Vice-President of Marketing and Communication about

three-and-a-half years ago. If you follow such things, you have seen for

yourself how, in the words of the board, Mona's knowledge, expertise and

passionate support of trail have been instrumental in setting the pace for

marketing and communication. The East Coast Trail has an established and lively

The

board made special mention of Mona's leadership role in overhauling and

enhancing the marketing of their major fundraising project, the Tely Hike.

That

hike, I remind the hon. Members, takes place this Saturday, and there is still

plenty of time to sponsor Mona or another participant so the valuable work of

maintaining and enhancing the East Coast Trail can continue.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, today I give

rise to share another enlightening and positive story from my district.

Saturday

I shared the guest list with Members from Conception Bay South and the Member

for Topsail Paradise in awarding service medals to firefighters in CBS.

To Fred

Kennedy, Lawrence Pond Road, Upper Gullies, a 20 year, long service medal

recipient, congratulations.

In my

short six months as a Member of this government, I had the privilege of

attending two firefighters' anniversary banquets. The first, in Avondale, was a

celebration honouring their 30th year of fire protection volunteer services.

It is

appropriate that we honour our firefighters, the men and women who no matter

what, night or day, are firefighters first.

I quote

Ambrose Redmoon, Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather, the judgement

that something else, is more important than fear.

Thank

you for your unselfish service, dedication and professionalism. We appreciate

you, we are proud of you.

I ask

Members of this House of Assembly, in recognizing that silent gratitude isn't

much use anymore, to proudly applaud together in appreciation of their personal

achievements.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize one of the most active volunteer fire

departments in the province. Last year, the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department

answered 234 calls.

For the

past 42 years they have served the towns of Flatrock and Torbay, with 40

dedicated members that are on call 24/7, and Chief Mike McGrath has been there

since day one. The department takes great pride in the level of training their

members have.

Mr.

Speaker, the department has a very active ladies auxiliary. They work side by

side with the department, and the work they do is really appreciated.

Both

town councils of Flatrock and Torbay have played huge roles in ensuring the

department has the resources it needs to do their job.

At the

annual firefighters' ball, several members were recognized for their outstanding

work and dedication. Best attendance award went to Captain Ken Dodd and

firefighter Shelaine Wade. Honorary member inductee was firefighter Pat Butler.

This year's William Manning Award for firefighter of the year went to Captain

Ken Dodd.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating and thanking all volunteer

firefighters for their dedication, hard work and commitment.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I rise to congratulate Mr.

Don Northcotte of Hermitage-Sandyville for receiving the St. John Ambulance

Life-Saving Award on May 26, 2016 for his heroic efforts to save the life of his

eight year old son, Lincoln.

Lincoln

had run ahead of his family at the local swimming hole and jumped right in.

Horrified, his mother, Nina, saw him go under. Don immediately jumped into

action and flew down the trail and into the water to grab his son, who, after

the longest seconds of this family's life, was not moving. Don retrieved

Lincoln's limp body and commenced CPR while waiting for the ambulance to arrive.

Had it not been for Don's quick decisive action and knowledge of CPR, acquired

through a St. John Ambulance course, all witnesses do not think that Lincoln

would have survived.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me to offer special recognition to Mr.

Northcotte for his very deserving receipt of the St. John Ambulance Life-Saving

Award. By telling his story, we can highlight to all parents just how important

it is to have some type of first aid and emergency response training, because

one never knows when something tragic will happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration

of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Honour 100, we have

the Member for the District of Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

I will now read into the

record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in the First World

War, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve, the

Newfoundland Mercantile Marine or the Newfoundland Forestry Corps. This will be

followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we

forget: Dugald Steed, Owen William Steele, John Sydney Stephenson, William

Stephenson, Charles Stevens, Alfred Stevenson, John Stewart, Peter Stewart,

Ingram Strickland, Frederick Stockley, Levi Stockley, Edward Stone, Harry J.

Stone, Henry Stone, Lyman Stoodley, George Alison Strange, Harry Groves

Strathie, Frederick Stratten, William James Stratton, Edward J. Strickland,

Walter Strickland, Ward Strickland, Ambrose William Stride, Bransome Stride,

George Stringer, Charles St. Clair Strong, Norman Wheatley Strong, Ross Strong,

John Stroud, Adolphus Stuckless, Silas Stuckless, John Sulley, Thomas Sullivan,

Michael Francis Summers, John Sutton, Patrick Sweeney, Frederick Joseph Targett,

Elias Tarran, Albert E. Taylor, Alfred Penny Taylor.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to proclaim May 30 to June 5 as Safe Kids Week.

This

annual awareness campaign takes place across Canada to focus attention on

preventable childhood injuries. Parachute Canada, a national charity,

coordinates activities with provincial safety advocates. This morning I joined

Len LeRiche from Safety Services NL and students at Topsail Elementary school to

officially proclaim Safe Kids Week in our province.

I am

pleased to note that 2016 is the 20th anniversary celebration of Parachute Safe

Kids Week. Over the course of those two decades, this campaign has shed light on

important information. For example, many Canadians are surprised to learn that

preventable injuries kill more children every year than any disease.

summer holidays will soon come for school children, I reminded the students at

Topsail Elementary that they need to wear bike helmets on all public roadways in

the province. I also showed the children how to check if a helmet fits properly,

which is important, because a properly fitted bicycle helmet can decrease the

risk of serious head injury by as much as 85 per cent.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage children and parents throughout the province to reflect on

Safe Kids Week, and keep safety at the forefront of everything they do.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. As the Official

Opposition, we, too, recognize May 30 to June 5 as Safe Kids Week throughout the

country.

We'd

like to recognize Parachute Canada for their efforts regarding the prevention of

injuries and saving lives. Their focus this year is keeping children safe at

home, at play and on the road. We encourage everyone to be in the conversation.

This

summer, as we get out there, it's important that everybody realizes that

children like to play, and we have to be very careful and make sure we're

watching at all times. Any injury that can be prevented or a little bit of

advice that can be given will be huge.

Let's

hope all kids stay safe this summer.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Preventable injuries kill more children every year than any disease. I didn't

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, but I do thank him.

This is

the second year we are celebrating Safe Kids Week with a mandatory bike helmet

law in this province. I hope this focus has helped reduce bicycle-related

hospitalizations among children which were twice the Canadian rate when the

legislation was introduced. I look forward to that information from the

minister.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to rise in this hon. House

today to announce changes to regulations that will provide operators of public swimming pools in our province

with greater access to trained lifeguards.

Having

lifeguards present on the pool deck to provide critical rescue and life-saving

services when they're needed is a key aspect of pool safety. As a government we

are committed to ensuring the safety of recreational activities for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. These new amendments to the

Public Pools Regulations reflect that

commitment.

First,

we have lowered the lifeguard minimum age from 17 to 16 years of age. Secondly,

we have included the Red Cross Lifeguard program as an acceptable lifeguard

certification program.

These

changes come at the recommendation of Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador, the

Lifesaving Society and the Canadian Red Cross. They are consistent with most

other jurisdictions across the country.

The

combined effect of these changes will provide public pool operators especially

those in rural areas with access to an expanded number of qualified

individuals for their facilities. The changes will also benefit young people

being trained as lifeguards, as they will now be able to be employed as

lifeguards a year earlier.

I'm

pleased to stand and highlight these amendments today. I'm confident they will

have a positive impact on communities throughout our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. Not only would we like

to share in thanking lifeguards, both professional and volunteers, but also we'd

like to take the time to thank Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador, the

Lifesaving Society and also the Canadian Red Cross for their input, and also

their continued dedication to the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll take a moment, as summer approaches, to remind all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians of the importance to be aware and mindful of each other's

safety at all times, especially when it involves water activities including

swimming.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Lifeguards are indeed key to

ensuring the safety of the public as they enjoy public swimming pools. However,

a quick call to the Red Cross informs us that the Red Cross Lifeguard program

has not yet been approved for rollout in this province and the timeline for

offering this course is also not defined.

I ask

the minister, while it seems like a great initiative and it is when will

young people in the province be able to take advantage of it?

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House of Assembly the Minister of Natural Resources indicated

she had received a copy of Mr. Ed Martin's contract on or about March 4.

I ask

the minister: How did you come to receive that contract? Why did you ask for it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for the question. I, in the course of my duties, asked for a

copy of the contract. There wasn't one existing within the Department of Natural

Resources and I could not find one, so I asked the former chair of the board if

I could have a copy.

We were

doing a lot of work around Muskrat Falls, we were doing a lot of work with EY,

and I just asked for a copy of the contract. It is in the course of my duties.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

ask the minister: When did you first familiarize yourself with the contents of

the contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked

for a copy of the contract on March 3, I believe, and on or about March 4, I was

delivered a copy of the contract. I perused it at that time. I didn't take it in

absolutely I think he asked me for details on the contract. I perused the

contract and put it in a file, which is where it belongs, because of course the

contract is with the board of directors of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

think the minister said that she perused it on March 4, around the time that she

received it.

I ask

the minister: Did you bring a copy of that to your meeting on April 17?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you again for the

question.

Mr.

Speaker, when we were requested by Mr. Martin to meet on the evening of April

17, we certainly were happy to do so at the request of the former CEO of Nalcor.

I did not bring a copy of the contract because I didn't think it was required at

the time. Again, the contract rests with the board of Nalcor. It was signed by

the former chair of Nalcor and the contents rest with the board of Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I'll ask the minister: After your first meeting on April 17 then, before, in

preparing for the meeting on April 19, did you then re-familiarize yourself with

the contract or bring a copy of it with you to the meeting on the 19th?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you again for the

question.

Mr.

Speaker, I can say that, again, the contract rests with the board of director.

The chair of the board fully acknowledges that it rests with the board of

directors. It was signed by the former board of directors.

No, I

did not peruse the contract myself to familiarize myself. We were having

discussions that Mr. Martin raised and I did not have the opportunity to bring

the contract with me. We were having discussions around what his direction would

be for his future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So just to be clear, Mr.

Speaker, the minister is going back to a meeting on the 19th, knowing that they

were going to discuss the future of Mr. Martin with Nalcor, because that's what

the meeting of the 17th turned out to be about going back to one on the 19th,

she had a contract. So you didn't familiarize yourself again with the contract

before the 19th. I believe that's what the minister is saying.

Can you

confirm that, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I've

already said, Mr. Martin requested a meeting on the night of April 17. We were

able to grant his request for a meeting. He came in. He spoke to us about three

options that he saw were before him. We had a good discussion around those three

options.

We came

back again and said let's get some time which is a prudent thing to do, is

take some time between hearing some things and making a decision on some things.

Usually, you'd take some prudence in time to reflect on that, which we did. We

had a further conversation on April 19.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

now we're finding out the minister is not going to answer questions. We've seen

that here in the House before.

I'm

going to ask the minister because you said the contract was with the board of

Nalcor; you're having a discussion about Mr. Martin's future. Did you invite

anyone from the board to attend either meeting on the 17th or the 19th?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To be

clear, again, it was Mr. Martin who requested the meeting with the Premier on

April 17. During the course of that meeting, it was determined we'd have a

follow-up meeting on the 19th. So it was at the request of Mr. Martin that he

had a meeting with us. It was at his direction. He brought whom he wanted to

that meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

question wasn't about the 17th. The question was about the 19th. So going into

the 19th meeting you knew exactly what was going to be discussed. You didn't

bother to familiarize yourself with the contract that Mr. Martin has.

So at

that point in time, knowing that you're saying the contract's with the board,

did you bother to call anyone or contact anyone on the board and invite them to

come to that discussion about Mr. Martin's future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of who was coming to that meeting was with Mr.

Martin. He was the one who requested our time on the evening of April 17. He was

the one who came in, at his initiation, to have a meeting with us.

As a

course of that meeting, we said we'd get together the 19th. If he felt he had to

have somebody else at the meeting or wanted to bring someone else or have

further conversations, Mr. Speaker, he certainly could have invited them to that

meeting. It was really Mr. Martin's meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, on the 19th your meeting was a follow-up to the 17th, is what took

place. You knew you were going back to a meeting on the 19th. Are you telling

me, as the minister responsible for Nalcor you say yourself the contract was

with Nalcor, you're discussing Mr. Martin's future, you're discussing his

employment contract that you never brought or invited or thought to invite

anybody from the board to participate in the discussion on the 19th? Is that

what you're saying, Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question, but I think it's very important to remember that Mr.

Martin requested the meeting. Mr. Martin reached out and asked for the meeting.

Mr. Martin knows his relationship to the board. Why would I prejudge the CEO of

Nalcor the former CEO of Nalcor in terms of whom he's going to invite to a

meeting?

Mr.

Speaker, he knows his relationships and responsibilities. He knows his contract.

He knows the relationship with the board and that contract. So I think that

would have been Mr. Martin if he thought it was required of him to have

somebody at the meeting, he would have had them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the minister: During the work you're doing to prepare your work and so on, did

you bother to look at the Energy

Corporation Act to determine and understand what your responsibilities are

when it comes to Nalcor, who you appoint and who you're responsible for, because

that's very clear in the act?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find

it difficult, to say the least, that the hon. Member would question whether or

not I was familiar with

an act belonging to my department. Let me just say that,

Mr. Speaker. Yes, I'm very familiar with

section 7 and

section 9 of the

Energy Corporation Act . I know whose

responsibility it is, I know good governance and I know that it is the board of

directors who are responsible for that relationship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

under the Energy Corporation Act , it's

the CEO, the chair and the board who are all appointed by government by

Cabinet, actually. It's all those appointments. Her position is that it's the

board that is responsible for Mr. Martin, yet the minister neglected to do her

own work and her own due diligence by inviting a representative of the board to

a meeting to discuss Mr. Martin's future, Mr. Speaker. She neglected to do her

own job, neglected her own responsibilities.

So I'll

ask you again, Minister: Why did you not think to invite the chair of the board

to come to such an important meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

he's asking the question to the wrong person. I'm wondering why Mr. Martin would

if he felt he had to have somebody with him at the meeting, he knows the

relationships, he knows the responsibilities of the board of directors, he knows

the responsibility of the chair, Mr. Speaker. And that is good governance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

good governance makes the minister responsible it makes her responsible. It's

your responsibility to step up and take charge. It's your responsibility to lead

the file, not to follow, Minister.

So you

had a meeting with Mr. Martin about his future and his contract with the board

of directors. You're responsible for the board of directors. You're responsible

for Mr. Martin.

Why did

you not think to invite the chair of the board to come to such an important

meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I know

the Member opposite is quite animated and upset this afternoon. I can be very

clear here today, Mr. Speaker. I think Mr. Martin knows whom he should invite to

his own meeting his own meeting. Remember, he asked for the meeting.

How do

we know that he didn't have a concern about the board or something that he

wanted to express at that meeting? He understands the requirements under the

act. I can tell you, Mr. Martin is a very intelligent man. He knows the

requirements under the act. He knows to whom he reports. He knows the fiduciary

responsibilities of the board. I think, Mr. Speaker, he would have invited whom

he felt was required to be at that meeting that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Who does the chair report to?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know

you recognized me, but the minister couldn't hear the question.

Who does

the chair of the board report to?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to

give a governance lesson here today, but the role of the board of directors, the

responsibility of the board of directors is to the corporation. The shareholders

and that is all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have a reporting

mechanism. The chair of the board is appointed by the government, as had been

the board members.

Mr.

Speaker, it's unfortunate that the board didn't have as many members on it. I

understand from Mr. Martin and from the former chair that they were working very

hard with government to ask them to put more board members on the board, but the

former government did not fulfill their requirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

minister says good governance is well, she's responsible for good governance

is what she's saying. She's now throwing responsibility somewhere else. We've

seen this government do that before.

Minister, you claim that it wasn't until you returned from Houston, in your trip

to Houston, before Mr. Martin's resignation was actually that he was fired.

Now you say it wasn't until you were back from Houston.

Do you

stand by that? Is that true?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

they're kind of loose with my words. What I did say was I did not see the

severance or I think in a former question was a termination agreement the

severance agreement until May 9 when I returned from Houston. I did not see the

severance agreement.

At no

time, actually, was this government given a copy of the document, asked to

comment on the document, asked to review the document, asked to sign the

document, because of course the board knows the responsibility of that severance

agreement and the contract with Mr. Martin rests with the board.

received a copy when I returned from Houston, because the government received a

copy on May 5. I was travelling at the time, but when I came back into the

province on Monday I certainly saw that document.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

minister, while you were travelling to Texas I know you were there on

government business didn't your officials keep you abreast of what was

happening with your own department?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Of course, they kept me

abreast of what was happening in my own department, Mr. Speaker. I certainly saw

the headline on Wednesday, May 4, that said about the severance that was paid to

Mr. Martin.

On May

5, the Premier's office received a copy of the severance agreement. On May 5, I

was travelling back. On May 6, I was at the hospital with a family member. On

May 9, when I was back in my office, I reviewed the severance agreement.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, we were not asked. We did not see the severance agreement. We were

not asked to review the severance agreement. We were not asked to sign the

severance agreement. It rests with the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are

aware the minister says that she wasn't aware of the details until some weeks

after.

I'll ask

the minister: Didn't you receive an email from the chair of the board of Nalcor

on the morning of April 20?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did

receive an email from the former chair of the board at 8:55 a.m. In that, he

said that the contract rests squarely with the board rests squarely with the

board.

The

former chair understood that the contract rests squarely with the board. The act

says it rests with the board. I'm not sure why the Leader of the Opposition

doesn't understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: When did you reply to the email?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did

not reply to the email. I did not reply to the email. It was addressed to the

Premier and to me. The Premier replied to the email at 9:25, saying he'd speak

after the board meeting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't

realize you'd addressed me, thank you.

Minister, Mr. Marshall had stated that he had a conversation with the Premier

prior to the vote taking place.

Do you

know this to be true?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot

comment and the Premier will be back tomorrow, you can ask him yourself. I

cannot comment as to a content of a conversation between these two gentlemen. I

was not privy to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So,

minister, are you telling us that you saw there was a reply to an email but you

didn't get updated and briefed on the most recent updated information before you

went before the microphones to brief the people of the province. Is that what

you're saying?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the

8:55 a.m. email from the former chair of the board, the contract rests squarely

with the board. That's what he said.

We were

busy having conversations with Mr. Martin and Mr. Martin's team about getting

prepared for our 11 o'clock press conference. Mr. Martin's was going out at

11:45. Yes, there were lots of conversations with officials, with Nalcor, with

Mr. Martin, to prepare to go public at 11 and 11:45.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the

minister was too busy to follow-up.

Minister, I'll ask you this, then: When did you finally have that discussion

with the chair of the board, Mr. Marshall?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say that I did not have a conversation with the chair of the board of Nalcor.

The Premier had one at some time, I'm hearing in the morning of the 20th. I

understand the Premier responded the email was addressed to the Premier and

the minister. The Premier responded saying he'll catch up with him. I thought

that was adequate. If the former chair needed my attention, he certainly could

have gotten it that morning. We were speaking to Nalcor on and off all morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So what

we have here is we have a significant movement of changes happening at the

largest Crown corporation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

minister was too busy to follow-up at the time because there was too much going

on. We know that government knew on April 20 that Mr. Martin was terminated, and

the minister had knowledge and was familiar with the contract of Mr. Martin but

failed to follow-up with the board of directors who was responsible for it.

Is that

what you're saying, Minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I just

want to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition understands. I had multiple

conversations that morning with people talking about getting prepared for the 11

o'clock and 11:45 press conference.

I want

to just remind the Member opposite that Mr. Martin said in a news conference

following his scrum: Mr. Martin, do you feel you were pushed out, asked the

reporter. Mr. Martin: No, it's my decision.

At 12:15

Mr. Martin was scrummed, as I just said, and he was asked about the status of

his severance. He said he indicated to CBC that it's still up in the air and

that it was with the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'll ask the minister: From

whom did she obtain a copy of the settlement agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I

travelled back from Houston on May 5. The Premier's office received a copy on

May 5. When I was in the office on May 9 I explained that I wasn't in the

office on May 6, I was out because of a family illness. On May 9, I was given a

copy of that by the Premier's office and we had a discussion concerning the

same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After

weeks of us in the House of Assembly trying to seek information here, the

minister decided, in the middle of the night, to release a piece of information,

the documentation pertaining to this matter.

Minister, why did you decide to release a document pertaining to this matter in

the middle of the night, a May 10 letter to John Green?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly wouldn't have been my choice to release it in the middle of the night;

you can believe you and me. Mr. Speaker, it was in response to the comments

the release of the severance agreement last evening. As you saw, there were some

questions about the direction. I think that's the germane point, whether or not

government gave direction to the board.

The

questions were concerning the direction that we may or may not have given the

board. I made clarity around that to the new board of Nalcor because we have to

recognize we have a new CEO, a new board that is steering this company in the

right direction. So we released that as soon as the other documentation.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason why we want to go to the Auditor General is so that all of

this information is out there, and the reputations of those involved are there

as well.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that

the Minister of Natural Resources has decided to release documents to the media

in the middle of the night that suits her own needs, I'll ask the minister: Will

you now table all the records, emails and documentation in the House as your

government has committed to do? Will you release them in the House and make it

available to the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

have the emails I referenced earlier. I would be happy to make those available.

I made available last night in response to having the severance agreement out

there I made the letters available. The severance agreement is out there.

Mr.

Speaker, we have an Auditor General's process here. We have asked the Auditor

General because the germane point is did or did not the government give

direction to the board? I can tell you, in my view, no, they did not give

direction to the board; but we want to have an independent body have a look at

the chain of emails, the exchange of information, the severance agreement and

that is with the Auditor General.

If he's

asking if I will release the emails of that morning, I certainly will this

afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's

great. After weeks of asking for information, we're finally going to get a

little relief. At least it won't be in the middle of the night this time, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Finance when she took the unusual step of criticizing the

leadership of Nalcor in her budget speech, were your statements intended to

provoke the constructive dismissal of Mr. Martin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, two points, as

the minister just referred to, the day that Mr. Martin stepped aside, in his

words, he very clearly said that it was his choice to do that. In the context of

the budget speech that, I, as the Minister of Finance, had to present in this

House, the context of the financial situation that was facing this province

required that every single thing we could look at, we would look at. And that

included Nalcor.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a serious financial problem in this province. We have had to

borrow $3.4 billion this year, of which $1.3 billion is related to an equity

injection into Nalcor. The performance and the cost and the

schedule associated

with Muskrat Falls are very serious concerns, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on April 20, the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources told the

people of the province Mr. Martin has stepped down.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: You knew, in the case of resignation, Mr. Martin would

not be entitled to severance, as with your experience on a Nalcor board; did you

discuss your knowledge of the contract with the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as I said to

questions from the Member opposite from the Third Party on Monday, I have a

fiduciary responsibility, as a former director on the board of Nalcor, not to

disclose confidential information. I had no conversation with any minister. I

had no conversation with the Premier around the contents of Mr. Martin's

contract.

And,

quite frankly, for the Member opposite to insinuate that I should, I would ask

him: Are you suggesting that I break the law, Sir?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader, for a very quick question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board of Newfoundland and Labrador

just to do her job. That's all we're asking over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

She spoke of fiduciary

responsibility, that's related to obviously inherent things that you would know

that you wouldn't disclose (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to get to

his question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

contract which is now been

made public.

I ask

her again: Did you meet with anybody? So if you're saying you can't due to

fiduciary responsibility, can you carry out your duties as Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board? How do you do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the

Member opposite that I am very capable of doing the job that the Premier of this

province has asked me to do.

Mr.

Speaker, I will remind the Members of this House that over the last two weeks we

have seen the Members of the Opposition, that party there, ask over 102

questions around the issue of Mr. Martin's severance. They have not asked one

question, not one, on the safety issues that happened this week up in Muskrat

Falls. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Midnight

on Sunday we had an accident at Muskrat Falls that could have been a major

catastrophe.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: What inquires has she made and what responses

has she received concerning the circumstances around the accident at Muskrat

Falls on Monday that injured seven workers on site?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, as we know and

the people of the province know there was a serious incident at Muskrat Falls on

Sunday night. One worker was hospitalized; the other seven were treated at the

scene. That is now with Occupational Health and Safety. There is a review on the

site. They are doing an investigation on the site and of the incident, as we

speak.

Mr.

Speaker, this happened Sunday night and I just wanted to inform the people that

Occupational Health and Safety is doing their due diligence, the workers of

Occupational Health and Safety, to ensure the safety of all workers in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I thank

the Member for the question because it is a very important issue for all the

workers at Muskrat Falls that safety is a paramount issue for this government.

Occupational Health and Safety is there doing the work, and I thank the workers

who are up there making the place safe for everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Natural Resources: Can she give us an update on the court case

and the issues between ANDRITZ and Astaldi and how this will affect the

scheduling on the project.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you

know, this is a contractual discussion that is going on between two companies,

one of them being, of course, Nalcor. They're working, I know, to resolve the

issues around that. They're going to continue to work around those issues.

This is

part of a large construction project. There are going to be these kinds of

contractual obligations and requirements that are going to end in dispute at

some time. I know that Nalcor is working on that and I have every confidence

that our new CEO Stan Marshall will take this in hand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. John's

Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Finance was on the board of Nalcor for five years and was even chair. She was

one of the architects of the lucrative contract giving over $6 million to CEO Ed

Martin after being dismissed. There are similar contracts for other senior

management at Nalcor.

The

minister was also the architect of a budget taxing books, closing libraries,

schools, cutting jobs, home care hours and crucial drugs for seniors. The most

regressive and worst budget this province has seen, grinding our economy to a

halt.

I ask

the minister: How is either of these in the best interests of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Member

opposite has asked two separate issues; one was around the compensation package

that was in place in 2005, prior to my joining the board, that was renewed in

2009 as has been publicly disclosed. As a former board member, the confidential

discussions that happened as part of any director's agreement or disagreement

with things that went on at the board table are confidential.

Mr.

Speaker, my role as Finance Minister, we presented a very difficult budget.

Quite frankly, we are in a financial situation that nobody in this province

expected because of the poor planning of the former administration and the lack

of attention to taxpayers' money. We'll continue to do that hard work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the

Premier made it very clear he has grave concerns about the

schedule and cost of

the Muskrat Falls Project.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: How can she continue to just pour an additional $1.3

billion of the people's money into the Nalcor trough in light of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you

that as a representative of this government, as a representative of the

constituents in the district that I represent, that I have extreme concerns

about the cost and

schedule liabilities related to this project. That is why I

support our government in our work with Ernst & Young to do a review of all of

the cost and

schedule and to make sure that the things that need to be done to

protect the investments of the people of the province are done.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason we are in this situation today, quite frankly, is that a

government did not provide the oversight and the governance to a company that

was running a multi-billion-dollar project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

is expired.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, it is

parliamentary practice that when a minister reads from a text in the House that

she table those documents. During Question Period, the Leader of the Opposition

was asking the Minister of Natural Resources she was reading from text in her

hand. I ask that she table those documents.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I think, Mr. Speaker, he's

referring to I did refer to Ed Martin's news conference, the information from

Ed Martin's news conference. If you'd like to have those documents, I would

certainly be happy to provide those.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

You can have it. I'm happy to

do so, Mr. Speaker. It's the notes from his press conference of 11:45 a.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I table the

annual performance of WorkplaceNL in the House here today.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Thursday, June 2, 2016.

Mr.

Speaker, I further give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the

House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, 2016.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It being Private Members'

Day, we do not have time for petitions. I will ask the Member whose name the

motion is in to present the private Member's motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

BE IT

RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the government to postpone the commencement

of full-day kindergarten to avoid other decisions that will negatively impact

students. Seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North.

Mr.

Speaker, it's indeed an honour to present the private Member's bill. For those

who are in the gallery and those who are watching at home, just an explanation

of what a private Member's bill is all about.

It's an

opportunity for a private Member in the House of Assembly to present the bill

that they feel will enhance the quality of life for citizens in our province.

It's something that gets debated by the presenter and six other Members in this

House of Assembly, by the Official Opposition and the Third Party and also by

the government party. The intent is to present something that people feel will

indeed be an enhancement across the board.

I've had

the privilege this year to speak to two previous ones that were presented here.

I'm happy to say that we could all agree and all, at the end of the day, voted

in favour of those. As a matter of fact, one of them we had an amendment to that

was accepted by the government and then voted on and accepted.

These

were very important issues. One was about honouring the veterans, particularly

around World War One. It was something that a lot of us spoke very passionately

about because it's something we see the benefits of. It's part of our history,

it's part of our culture and it defines who we are.

The

second one that I had the opportunity to speak to was around the Wabush miners'

pension and how they have been devastated by the cuts by no design of their own.

We all met and discussed here about how do we better improve that. I give credit

to the Member for Labrador West who presented that. We made an amendment that we

felt enhanced it. It was accepted by this House and passed unanimously.

I'm

presenting what I feel and what our Opposition here feels is in the same light.

It's something around improving the quality of life for people in this province,

particularly the students, who every day go to our schools, who every day have

hope about inclusion, who have a plan for their future, their parents are

engaged, how the administrators, how the communities themselves benefit from

having those students have a good quality of education.

What

we're talking about here is all-day kindergarten. I have to make it totally

clear for those who are listening and I've had a number of emails over the

last few days where it was made public that I was going to present this, where

people have said no, Dave, we understand there are some fiscal restraints here,

but we agree with all-day kindergarten. We like that. We would have loved to

have it when we had it.

I went

back to everybody and I say here in this House and I know everybody on this

side agrees with it we wholeheartedly support all-day kindergarten. It was our

administration who developed the process, researched it, came up with it and

made it part of our mandate to implement. The issue at hand right now but that

was at a different time. We were in a different place financially.

Right

now the province is in a financial challenge. As a result, we accept that and we

understand that. We understand exactly that the government at this point have

some fiscal challenges that they have to deal with. This is one of the things we

would understand and support, that this wouldn't be the right time to implement.

Our own

administration, our own caucus have said, if we were the government now we would

make it perfectly clear, while we support all-day kindergarten and we will

implement it one day, we would have to delay it. We're asking the government to

do the same thing.

There is

no politics to this part of it, because there are tens of thousands, and I mean

tens of thousands of people, parents people who have no direct connection to

the school system, don't have grandkids, don't have kids in it, have no real

connection realize what's happening right now, while they support all-day

kindergarten, if we implement it at the process we're using right now, it's

going to be to the detriment of the existing 1 to 12 grade system that we have.

That's not acceptable.

We've

made major strides over the last 20 years to move the education system forward.

We don't want to make it regressive. If we invest the money in all-day

kindergarten right now for a small proportion of the students who no doubt could

benefit from it, but it would not be something that would be detrimental to them

because we're not taking away something they had. Because we're implementing

this, what we're doing is taking away existing programs that students,

administrators, councillors, organizations, the not-for-profits who oversee

this, the unions everybody has seen it as a benefit, as something that has

made our education system progressive and has made us move up the ladder, could

be more engaging, and particularly, more competitive when it comes to our

education to get people to the post-secondary level.

It's

ironic, but it's a positive move when you hear the federation of student unions,

who deal with the post-secondary, saying they have a challenge right now and

they have a fear that if all-day kindergarten, the way it's being implemented

and what's being announced as the cuts that would be to the mainstream school

system right now, would be detrimental to students being prepared for

post-secondary.

They

support all-day kindergarten, but their objective and everybody else's here is

to make sure the quality of education improves. No doubt, all-day kindergarten,

when implemented, will go a small way in improving that. The cuts that are being

proposed now are going to be dramatic. There's not a student, there's not a

teacher, there's not an administrator, there's not an organization out there who

has an education background and those being from the Faculty of Education, to

a concern of where we're going right now.

As a

result of what we're proposing, the implementation and the costing related to

that, it's having a major impact on some of the other things we would have liked

to have done. Things around school closures, things around, obviously, teacher

layoffs, which are dramatic, cancelling or deferring infrastructure projects

that are very important here. We've talked about that in this House numerous

times, about projects that need to move forward. It's very important to the

communities.

I even

had the Members of the government side get up and present petitions for

infrastructure projects that are related to schools in their own districts and

rightfully so, congratulations to them to do it because they are important

projects.

But as

we invest in all-day kindergarten right now, at the expense of things like that,

then we have a real problem with it. I know the tens of thousands, if not

hundreds of thousands of people in this province who become more and more aware

of what impact this is going to have will be totally against directly putting

that in right now; but, no doubt, would support all-day kindergarten, when we're

ready, in a year or two when we are ready. When financially we're ready to do

that, that will be the benefit, but taking away existing programs and services

is not the right way to move our education system forward.

When

you're talking about doing combined grades, multigrade classrooms, these are

things we do in some places and the minister will get up later and he'll tout

that we've been doing it for years, no doubt; but I have hundreds from people

who will talk around small communities it was done because at the end of the

day, we wanted to keep the resource there, to ensure that those resources in the

school were open so that everybody in the community, every student in the

community, could benefit from our education system.

They'll

also talk about we've had to do it because of our infrastructure challenges.

That's why over the last 10 years we've invested in 62 major projects, building

new schools or major renovations to schools over the course of a year it is a

major investment because, in some cases, you had no other choice to do

multigrading, you physically didn't have the space.

invested in modular classrooms as a temporary solution, not as ongoing for

decades and decades. That wasn't the intent. In some cases, it took a decade to

get a new school in place. In some cases, unforeseen growth in those communities

dictated that you needed to build on even before you were completed, but we

started that process and we moved it so dramatically forward that it was being

touted as a positive move for education.

The

NLTA, the Federation of School Councils, even the Federation of Students' union

have seen that. The individual school councils saw the benefits and were very

supportive of what we were doing.

What's

happening now, one of the biggest impacts I shouldn't say the biggest, one of

the immediate ones, and it's a big one. One of the immediate ones is the

Intensive Core French program. Keeping in mind, for those who are not familiar

with it, there are two streams of the French program that you have. You either

do French Immersion when you come right into the mainstream school system, and

not every student chooses to that. Sometimes it's not available for every

student. Sometimes parents want to choose a different route, let their kids not

have to be so engulfed into it right now, to see how they fit into the school

system.

But then

when you get grade six, by that time, you'll have an understanding if that is of

interest to you, if it's something that you will be able to handle because

it's a little bit more intensive; that's why obviously the labelling of

Intensive Core French a little bit more to catch up, but it's that option to

be able to do that and then go on to the mainstream French system in junior high

and high school.

What

we're doing here now, we're eliminating half the opportunities for students to

be engaged in Intensive Core French. One of the most humiliating things and

this is the emails and letters I get from people those kids who get into it

now are chosen from a lottery draw. They get a letter sent home after the fact.

These are grade-five students, 10 year olds who have no idea why they can't go

into a school system or a grade they are comfortable with, or a type of leaning

they wanted with their friends that they came right up through from

kindergarten. Now they want to continue with that. In some cases, we have two in

the same family. One gets in the system and one doesn't.

These

are that things that are the major cuts. It's not an attack on anybody or the

government here. It's a realignment of exactly where the priority should be

here. If the priority by the administrators, by the unions involved, but

particularly by the parents and by the students says we need to go another route

because we don't want to have our education system fall backwards, then I would

think any government should be smart enough and more open enough and engaging

enough to listen to that particular group.

That's

what we're asking them to do. That's what we're asking here with this private

Member's bill. What I will be engaging I will get to speak again from another

15 minutes at the end of it is I'm going to be encouraging all Members,

particularly on the government side, to reassess exactly the impact this is

going to have in their own districts, but on all students in this province, and

do the right thing. Vote for something that is progressive, not regressive.

We will

get to all-day kindergarten. Hopefully, the economy turns around, oil prices,

diversification, all the other things we need in this province take off quicker

than we thought and maybe it won't be a long stall for all-day kindergarten.

Those parents and those students can avail of those extra services.

There

are other things that have gone part and parcel with the amount of money we're

investing here that could be better used in the areas where we don't have to cut

54 libraries. Do you think they don't have an impact on students? Of course

they do. Everybody's got them. The minister has gotten hundreds, if not

thousands, of emails regarding the impact it's going to have. A lot of our

public libraries are in schools. There's a partnership there. People gain from

that. When the seniors in the community are engaged with the students in the

community, it obviously has a positive impact.

We're

going to jeopardize that because we're going to invest in something we've never

had and there's not a big outcry to have. No doubt, everybody feels one day we

should have it, but not at the expense of an existing system that we have.

Some of

the other things we've done: reducing post-secondary scholarships for those who

could avail of it to offset some of their cost of going. These are some of the

things that because we're spending money in all-day kindergarten, they're having

an impact on our education system.

Cuts to

Memorial University: I see why the Federation of Students' union have an

understanding of if you cut on one side of it, it has a long-term impact

somewhere else. If you invest too much or not in the right areas or in another

area, it has an impact, there's only so much money to go around in any sector.

I was a

minister, so I know. I fought for my piece. I knew what I had to do with the

money I had. It could only go so far. No doubt, the Minister of Education has

the same challenge.

We're

asking, look at the monies that you're going to invest in all-day kindergarten,

delay it for a period of time. Take that same investment, put it back into

reducing our cap sizes, doing less layoffs for teachers, making sure programs

that exist continue to exist, find other ways to improve our education system,

invest in some of our infrastructure programs to ensure overcrowding is not an

issue, to ensure that we've got sustainable schools, that communities that are

growing have that ability to engage new families coming in.

The

first thing a family will look at, when they're going to move from one community

to another, particularly if they're coming to this province, is what is the

school system like. What programs does it offer, but particularly what is the

ability to engage their students.

They're

not going to want to bring a student into an overcrowded classroom. They're not

going to want to bring them into a school system where there's no cafeteria,

their physical activities are limited because they can't get outside, the space

has been used for modular classrooms or there are not enough teachers to do

proper supervision and the students end up at their desk for four or five hours

a day. That's not conducive to engaging any group, particularly engaging and

promoting our significant movement forward on our education system.

Tax on

our books; while it's going to generate a minimum amount of money, the savings

we could have by not implementing all-day kindergarten right now and waiting

until our fiscal reality changes and our fiscal line is in a better place, would

be a benefit to everybody. It would mean more students can be engaged in

reading. Their family members can be more engaged by buying books and reading.

There's a better way of doing this and a better way of ensuring that our

education system moves forward.

I would

think, I would hope and I'm fairly confident that if not all, most on the other

side appreciate the benefits of education. Appreciate that we've come a long way

from the day I was in school and, no doubt, some of the other Members were in

school and where we've gone to and how we compete in that sense. No doubt, the

Minister of Education he has an education background understands there are

challenges.

You

can't offer all programs for every sector, but you can offer the programs that

are going to better equip the students to be able to be engaged in education, to

be successful in education and to have better opportunities for choices. The

objective in our education system has always been engagement and preparation. We

prepare them for the next stage of life. The next stage after our primary and

secondary school system is our post-secondary.

What

we're doing here by investing in all-day kindergarten now when we're not ready

for it not that it's not a valuable point, but when we're not ready for it

is at the expense of our present students. The opportunities they're going to

have for future careers, the opportunities they're going to have to be better

engaged in the school systems, their own physical and mental health in the

school system. These are the key things that we need to address.

So I'm

asking and I'll have another opportunity the last 15 minutes of the House

today to implore and almost beg my colleagues on the other side to see how we

can move this forward and do the right thing and improve our education system.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The hon. the

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm

pleased to stand and support the implementation of full-day kindergarten in

Newfoundland and Labrador, whereby some 23,000 students, children, in this

province will manage to catch up with the rest of Canada, finally, starting in

September of this year.

Just a

couple of notes about what the Member just said. I'm not sure the Faculty of

Education actually, I'm pretty sure there's nobody at the university who has

been speaking out against full-day kindergarten, and whatever federation of

student councils he's talking to, I've not heard from any of them either. I know

there have been letters to the editor supporting full-day kindergarten, but the

Faculty of Education, and I don't know who the federation of student councils

are, but I haven't heard from them.

It's

interesting that the Member has a change of heart now at the 11th hour and wants

to pull the rug out on the 23,000 or so students who are going to benefit from

this over the next four years. I remember in December of 2013, when I was an

independent Member of the House of Assembly, I was called over to meet with the

Minister of Education of the day. He said, we're going to do full-day

kindergarten. I said, oh, are you really? He said, yes, we're going to do it in

we're going to announce it, we're going to do it in September of 2016, it's

going to be in the budget. I said, well, my preference would be that you phase

this program in, and I gave him the details of what I was thinking. They went

against what we had recommended and set aside $30 million for full-day

kindergarten.

As I've

said repeatedly in the House of Assembly, it's unfortunate the Member hasn't

gotten it, that millions of dollars have been spent on this program. They

promised it in their election platform, as did all the political parties in the

province in the election. I overwhelming hear from parents that they support it,

not just those who have children kindergarten age.

The

other thing I find odd is that in 2013 their government cut 160 teaching units;

yet, in 2014 they didn't reinstitute 160 teaching units, they announced full-day

kindergarten. Last year, in 2015, they cut another 78 teaching units. They cut

238 teaching units over that two-year period. They didn't cancel full-day

kindergarten. They cut 238 teaching units, they increased the class-size cap,

they cut specialist teachers, they cut school administrators, they made all

sorts of cuts to education and they didn't back away from full-day kindergarten.

So to say this is not politically motivated is surprising.

It's

also interesting to hear this Member, who was minister of Transportation and

Works, talking about how school overcrowding is a terrible thing, that students

eating their food at their desk is a terrible thing and not having a big enough

gym is a terrible thing. Well, why didn't you do something about it?

It's

just ironic to see him talking about Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, where he stood

up in the spring of 2015 and guaranteed those parents in that community

guaranteed them, he was certain. He told CBC that school was going to be ready

for September 2016. He went around knocking on doors during the election. I'm

pretty certain he told people that very same thing.

That

school is not going to be ready for September 2016. We'll be lucky if it's ready

sometime during the 2016-17 school year in the winter or the spring. We'll be

lucky of that. So it's highly ironic that he basically is trying to blame all

that on somebody else when the blame sits squarely on his shoulders. That he

takes no responsibility for it is completely irresponsible and disgraceful.

I just

want to say a few things that are actually factual about this program.

Kindergarten has been around since the 19th century. That's how long it's been

around. The half-day model really comes from the fact that we had a couple of

world wars I wasn't born in the early 20th century and there was a shortage

of teachers, especially elementary school teachers. There was a shortage of

teachers. A half-day model was largely adopted in the United States because of a

shortage of teachers. That's the history of the half-day program.

The

full-day model is what really was envisioned. In 1968 and '69 when Dr. Phil

Warren recommended that we implement kindergarten in the province, because it

largely didn't exist, it was something new to us. The half-day model is what was

adopted because we were following along on practices in other jurisdictions.

There

are schools right now in Newfoundland and Labrador that have actually been

offering full-day kindergarten under the current allocation. I don't know if the

Member wants them to get rid of that in those communities as well. Maybe he

ought to tell the people in Churchill Falls, for example, that they shouldn't

have a full-day program. Other schools on the North Coast of Labrador and so on,

I don't know if he wants to do away with that as well.

The

program that we have that the previous government stood by and now is throwing

some 23,000 children in the province between the ages of zero and four years

old, throwing them under the bus. This model was envisioned based on good

pedagogical practices when it comes to kindergarten.

The

whole idea that the environment in the educational setting as a third teacher

if you think the first teacher is the parents of the child, the second teacher

is the teacher in the classroom, and the environment of kindergarten is the

third teacher. That is the pedagogical basis for the full-day program. This

completely adheres to that mission that dates back to the German ideal of

kindergarten or childgarden' that dates back to the 19th century.

It's the

21st century, and the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is mired in the 19th

century when it comes to educational practices, and predates the early 19th

century in terms of what they want for children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It's breathtaking that anyone would have that lack of understanding of what is

modern and what is important in our education system.

As we

said a number of times in the House of Assembly, every jurisdiction in Canada,

other than our own, has some form of full-day kindergarten at present. This

Member wants us to jettison their plan based on the incompetence of his

administration when they were in power. Things that they didn't get done, the

debt that they ran up, now he wants to throw tens of thousands of children in

this province under the bus because he wants to score cheap political points,

and it's nothing more than that.

I've

been meeting with lots of people, school councils, and about a quarter of them

have said to me that this is an option they would want to pursue. A quarter of

them, and I have spoken to hundreds if not thousands of parents who support

MR. LANE:

(Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY:

I don't know why the Member

for Mount Pearl Southlands is heckling me over here. I'm just trying to

participate in the debate. This is not how you participate in the debate, I

suggest. If you have something to say stand up and participate in the debate.

In any

case, Madam Speaker, this really goes to the heart of the quality of education

that we want for our children. This is why we're implementing the program

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

MR. KIRBY:

this year.

People

have sent me the odd critic will send me academic articles, because you can

find things that people assume discredit the full-day program. It's funny,

because if you actually read through these, if you read through these academic

studies that are legitimate, I have not found one that does not say one thing

positive about a quality, play-based, full-day kindergarten program and its

impact.

One of

the things that are in almost every one and one of these I have is a really

good meta-analysis of full-day kindergarten studies that have been conducted to

date. It demonstrates that those children who come from low socioeconomic

backgrounds inevitably benefit throughout their school years from this. Children

whose parents don't have a lot, children who have low literacy in their

families, children who don't have the opportunity to go to a half-day play-based

child care program, those children, by and large, to a study and I would like

to see one that doesn't demonstrate this that looked at that particular

variable, that does not show that is a fact. That is a fact. There are other

benefits of this program. We have talked about it here until we're blue, red and

every other colour in the face.

There

are 20,000 articles 20,000 articles that you can go and get on the Internet

that show that quality, play-based, full-day kindergarten benefits our kids. And

the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is standing here today saying, no,

let's continue with educational practices that predate the nineteenth century.

It's ridiculous. There was a document prepared under the previous government

that goes into heavy detail, pages and pages of a literature review, of a

research review that looked at all of the more recent contemporary historical

studies of full-day kindergarten that they said it was a worthwhile program that

would benefit our children tremendously.

When

they were cutting 238 teaching units in the province they cut everything

they still proceeded with full-day kindergarten. And you can go back to Hansard

in 2014 where Members on the government side, the PC administration at the time,

were imploring Members of the Opposition to vote for the budget because you know

that full-day kindergarten is worth it.

Over a

two-year period, where they announced 238 teaching unit cuts, everything from

the principals right on down, they still went ahead with it and they implored

everybody else to support them because it was worth doing. It is absolutely

unbelievable.

Now

they're of the opinion this doesn't give children a significant start in school.

It's not worth it to give children, especially the poorer children, the

underprivileged children, the children who do not have what more affluent

children have in this province, it's not worth it any more to make sure those

kids get the best start that they can get in life.

They

don't want our children in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the same

opportunities as children in British Columbia, as children in Alberta, as

children in Ontario. Ontario has a universal, full-day kindergarten program, not

just for five-year-olds, like we're going to be in September; they have it for

four-year-olds as well. They are way ahead of us; Ontario is. We are so far

behind because of the inaction of the previous government. They had 12 years to

bring this in.

It was a

Hail Mary pass towards the end that they brought it out. We will be basically

still way behind Ontario if we do this. If you look at the other Atlantic

provinces, they have been way more progressive under governments of different

stripes it didn't matter in implementing full-day kindergarten, not just for

five-year-olds. Our program is going to be optional. Some of these provinces

have a mandatory program, a legislated statutory attendance for kindergarten in

their provinces for full-day kindergarten, and ours is still optional.

there's anybody out there who thinks well, don't do this because for some reason

despite the 20,000 or so research studies that are easily available, all of

which show some benefit in one form or another, if they don't believe it, then

they still have the option of not participating, should they want to, but other

programs have not gone down that road even. They are way, way ahead of us. If

you think about all of the research on neuropsychology today, a child's brain

development, we know that it is absolutely important that we get them at the

earliest years

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

I could go on, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

I remind the hon. Member his

time for speaking has expired.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you. I really

appreciate the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's

indeed a privilege to get up here today and speak to this motion brought forward

by the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island. It was interesting to see

the minister get up beforehand. Part of his statement there, just to show how

angry he was getting towards another Member here, here's the person leading the

Department of Education, supposed to be setting an example to the children of

Newfoundland and Labrador, it is shameful, very shameful.

Madam

Speaker, this budget that was brought down there are a lot of things in the

budget that, at the end of the day, it's all about choices. It's about choices

the government made and everybody parents, school councils, students,

educators realized that there had to be some difficult choices made in this

budget. What I'm going to talk about today are the different choices that

government made here when they did their budget.

What I'm

hearing and the minister just said he's met thousands and one-quarter are

saying go ahead with full-day kindergarten. That leaves me to think that 75

percept of the people the thousands of people who are out there 75 per cent,

he's not listening to them. He's just not listening to 75 per cent of the

people. He said he met thousands, so 75 per cent of the people are like me.

I am 100

per cent in favour of full-day kindergarten, but here it is. I bet out of the 75

per cent of people he just talked about are telling him they want to see

full-day kindergarten go ahead, but not at this time until finances are in place

so we don't need to do the cuts we're doing to people, to our communities, to

our children, to schools, to education in this province.

Here's a

choice that you make. The choice is let's introduce full-day kindergarten in

September, or let's close libraries down now. Let's combine classes, let's

increase the cap on the number of students in classes, let's cut programs, let's

put children on a bus when it's dark in the morning grade kindergartens on a

bus in the dark. Safety should be the most we look at anything with our

children. We had a great Member's statement here today and I applauded the

Member and said how our children should be safety. In the summertime when you

look at them out running around you just hope that nothing happens, and you're

always concerned about safety. Parents are like that; we were all like that. The

number one concern is the safety of the children.

Here we

are making a decision that costs a lot of money. It's not a decision that we're

saying this is only a couple of hundred thousand dollars; this is millions of

dollars. It is millions of dollars that we're going to invest in full-day

kindergarten which we all agree with. I agree that we need full-day

kindergarten. I think it's a great program;, I think it's something the province

does need and it'd be very beneficial for our children.

But I

look at the choice that we've got to make. The choice is simple: Do we cut

education? We came a long ways. I can remember going to school when I was in

class in grade 11 with 40-odd children in the class with me 40-odd. The

education that you get with 40 children in a class versus 27 or 28, it's

unbelievable. It gives our teachers the capacity to be able to teach. It gives

our children the ability to be able to learn.

We're

changing all that. This Education Minister is stepping our education system

backwards; he's moving us backwards. I got to get back, because the way I want

to talk today, I really want to just say that I am in favour of full-day

kindergarten. I really am in favour, but this is not the time to do it. Our

finances can't afford to do it. Do not cut education. Do not do what you're

doing to the children of the province, cutting education.

Everyone

I know, I spoke to different Members here in the House of Assembly, and I can

tell you, ask your school councils. I go to regular school council meetings; I

spoke to all the school councils in my district. As a matter of fact, I'm going

to talk a little bit about a school council clear of my district now shortly.

They all are telling me: Kevin, look, delay full-day kindergarten. Delay it for

a few years until hopefully our finances will get in better shape and we'll be

able to afford it.

Madam

Speaker, it's like going out and buying a new car, or like going and purchasing

a major thing for your home or whatever. If you don't have the money in your

pocket to do it right away, you try to save up a little bit so you can get a

down payment so it isn't as harsh on the system; or, do you go out and buy a new

car and say, okay, I'm not going to pay for the groceries this month or I'm not

going to pay for my light bill? Because that's what this is doing. It really is.

Same-day

kindergarten is a great thing. It would be a great thing to have, but we can't

afford it right now at the expense of our children, at the expense of our

schools. If you look, there are five schools scheduled to be closed in the

province. We're closing schools and we're bringing in same-day kindergarten.

The

minister mentioned the poor children. There is no doubt about it, any child, I

don't care if they're poor, rich or middle class, I treat all children the same.

Anything we can do for our children, no matter what they are, I think education

is paramount. We need to get a great education.

Our

choice, where is it? It's in rural Newfoundland. In rural Newfoundland there are

54 libraries being closed. Now, I'll ask the minister: If a child doesn't have

Internet service in their house, doesn't have resources at home, where do you

think, in these 54 communities, that child is going to be able to go get the

resources, the ability to go use a computer? Maybe they won't have a computer in

the house. Maybe they don't have Internet in their house.

So tell

me, for $1 million you're shutting down 54 libraries in this province, and we're

bringing in same-day kindergarten? Seriously, for $1 million, that's what it's

costing. That's what I said when I first started. It's all about choices.

We agree

that full-day kindergarten is a great thing. We agree with full-day

kindergarten, but the choice to do what you're doing here today and what you did

in this budget, the choice is not right. Talk to the school councils, talk to

the parents. The minister said he's after meeting with thousands, and 75 per

cent of them are against full-day kindergarten; 75 per cent that he met with. So

he's not listening. That's typical for this government.

We're

seeing all kinds of protests at schools. I've been to three silent protests,

very well organized. They just want to be out there and show, look, here we are.

I went to a protest down in Torbay at the high school. We had over 100 high

school students come out to protest busing.

talked to parents at the elementary school, their concern is they're going to

have to put their children on the bus in the dark 56 days of the year. Think

about it. Think about the safety of the children. In the dark getting on the

bus, a little child we just talked about the safety of children today, about

how young children are running around. It's true. Just think about those things.

That's all I'm asking here today is for you to reconsider and think about the

priorities.

I want

to talk a little bit about libraries in my district. We had an issue at the

library in Torbay. The library board in most of these towns are all volunteers,

and I want to thank them for all the work they do. They're concerned I bet

every one of you who know your library boards really know that these people's

main concern is to provide something for children, to provide something for our

seniors. To make sure there is a place people can go to use the Internet and the

sharing of books. The more we can encourage our children to read the better it

is.

At the

one in Torbay, there is a great Mother Goose program there that they all get in

on. I know my niece's little fellow, he used to just love going over. His nan

used to take him over all the time to the Mother Goose program, which is great.

I heard the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune tell me the same thing. It's a

big day the morning they all go down and they have reading time. That's good,

because that's really educating our young children.

Here we

are, we're going to close libraries. We're closing this. They're talking about

our children. They're talking about how important we agree that full-day

kindergarten is huge, but don't close libraries at the expense of it. It's a

choice that you made. This is a choice. We're asking you to look at the choice

you're making and not close the libraries. Don't close the libraries.

Do not

put grades five and six in the same class. Do not, as the Member for Conception

Bay East Bell Island

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS:

No, it's not called Cape St.

Francis.

Anyway,

he just said a story about French and how for core French they have to pick

names out of a hat. That's what we're doing, picking names out of a hat for

education. That's what this is coming to.

I'd like

to speak about this for a little bit, from Mary Queen of Peace. Mary Queen of

Peace parents now parents, the school council, the same thing. There are two

Member across the way who have constituents of theirs going to Mary Queen of

Peace. I was asked by the people from their districts to present a petition here

in the House of Assembly. I said no problem at all, because a good few of them

are former constituents of mine. When the realignment came in, I had a good part

of Stavanger Drive and I met a lot of these people that way, and I had no

problem doing it.

Here's

what's happening and I could name off one of my schools or I could name off a

school in Mount Pearl, but I'm just going to talk about Mary Queen of Peace a

little bit here now. There are 700 students at Mary Queen of Peace. If you look

at Mary Queen of Peace, 700 students, it's a K to 12. For the last year, the

first time in 10 years, they got an extension on their school. Over the last 10

years they had some pavement done, they had new lockers put in, but last year

they got an extension put on their school.

This

year, due to the cuts that are going to be in this budget, the cuts that are

going to be at Mary Queen of Peace, they're going to lose three teaching units

and it's going to result in grades three and four being combined and grades five

and six. Madam Speaker, 14 children won't be able to take Intensive Core French

14 children's names will not be picked out of a hat to do French, that they

want to do.

We saw

examples of a little girl on the front page of the paper crying. We're after

hearing about twins. One got picked and one didn't. What are we doing here? What

are we doing to our children? Think about it. Really think about this.

We're

looking at a school that we're going to introduce full-day kindergarten to next

year. Right now, they have to split the day in half because they don't have any

cafeteria facilities. So we're going to introduce more children, they don't have

a cafeteria. They have no functioning library. They have no computer lab for

their kids. The kids are split to times so that there's enough room outside for

them to play. That's not in rural Newfoundland; that's right here in St. John's.

That's just one I picked. I didn't pick any one down in my own area, but that's

what the parents

Do you

know how many names from your districts signed this petition so far? Almost 500

parents in your district signed a petition talking about education. At the end

of their petition this is what they said this is what they want the government

to do: To instruct the school boards to delay the implementation of full-day

kindergarten until such time as the province's financial circumstances improve

and restore programs, teacher allocations and class-size caps to 2014 levels.

That's all we're asking. We're asking what the parents are asking. We're asking

what the school councils right across this province are asking for.

Madam

Speaker, I only have a minute left. I wish I had a little bit more time because

I really want to touch we've done a lot in education since I've been here and

over the last number of years. I can remember listening to

Open Line shows in the '90s when school was closed down because of

mould and everything else. There were a lot of issues in my own district. I'm

very proud of the investments that were done in my district. Holy Trinity High

was opened in 2008. There's another new school getting built right now for five,

six and seven. There was an extension put on Cape St. Francis, with two modular

classrooms because of the increased size, a beautiful little school. St. Francis

of Assisi right now has another extension on that also.

Investments in education have been fantastic in my district, and I'm very proud

of the investments they done and so have they been done right across the

province. Right now, it's just not the time to introduce full-day kindergarten.

Let's not cut education. Let's keep education where it is to

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.

MR. K. PARSONS:

and when we can afford it,

do full-day kindergarten.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm

privileged today to stand in this hon. House and speak to the private Member's

resolution that the Official Opposition has presented for us to debate this

week. The first thing I wanted to say, Madam Speaker, is I have a tremendous

amount of gratitude to the constituents in Windsor Lake who have elected me to

be their representative in this House. It is a privilege to be standing up and

discussing any topic, including those that touch very closely to the

constituents that I represent in my district.

certainly want to acknowledge that, like many Members in this House of Assembly,

I have had communication with my constituents around their concerns around the

education decisions that were made as part of this budget. I've had the

opportunity, in my own particular case, to meet with representatives of the

school council for two schools in my district and had discussions not only with

those individuals, but also had contact with a number of parents who have

expressed concerns.

I have

tremendous empathy for the families that are going through and being impacted by

the transition. I think the school board, as the Member opposite referenced,

when the school board made the decision to implement a lottery, I am not sure I

would have chosen that option. Certainly, it has created a huge amount of

concern for those children who believed they were going to get into Intensive

Core French and now can't.

Madam

Speaker, I'm also elected to represent the entire community of my district and

we are in this House representing the entire population of the people of the

province. For the 23,000 children who are now in the queue, so to speak, to take

advantage of the opportunity of full-day kindergarten, I'd like to share in the

time that I have remaining, some of the things that, I believe, make this social

policy decision a very important one.

I want

to correct the Member opposite. The Member for Cape St. Francis referred

incorrectly to 54 libraries closing, when, in fact, my understanding is some 26

of those, if the numbers are correct, are actually in schools and remaining

open. Madam Speaker, as has also been discussed in this House, he is also

incorrect when he speaks about the remaining libraries that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs has spoken frequently in this House about those libraries

being part of the work that his department, in conjunction with the Department

of Education and the libraries board to see what are the unique and innovative

ways we can

MR. K. PARSONS:

A point of order, Madam

Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Cape St.

Francis, on a point of order.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Madam Speaker, the hon.

minister just said that I was incorrect. I have a copy of their news release and

it says library closures, and there are 54 names on the library closures, and

it's a news release that came from the department. So it says 54 library

closures. So that's where I'm getting them, Minister. Have you changed something

since then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Madam Speaker, I can't

explain why the Member opposite doesn't have the most current information.

Certainly, we will endeavour to provide him with that information post-haste.

When we

talk about the children and the choices, the social reasons for implementing

full-day kindergarten are very, very clear. Full-day kindergarten is associated

with a diminished

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. C. BENNETT:

It's associated with improved

early word reading, it is associated with academic achievement, and more

importantly, it is associated with a predictor of long-term health.

British Columbia, the full-day kindergarten that was implemented there led to an

increase in grade four educational attainment. Students in full-day

kindergarten, based on a study by Hough and Bryde, outperformed half-day

students in language arts and math.

Madam

Speaker, when we look at the social and economic impacts of why it's important

to make this investment, the early years are the most important years. Between

the ages of three and six children will develop the most intellectually that

they are capable of; it's when the most brain synapses develop. It's one of the

reasons why we have to provide every child the opportunity to enter school on a

level playing field and take away any disadvantage that any child in any corner

of our province, from coast to coast to coast, whether it's on the Island or

whether it's in Labrador, take away any potential disadvantage that child may

have when they enter school for the very first time.

Early

years, as I said, are very important. We've seen that full-day kindergarten

students from families with low socioeconomic circumstances continue to achieve

at par with the rest of the school district. As the district develops

standardized tests, we see improved performance.

There

were some other points and some sources of reference on the validity of

investments in full-day kindergarten. The Upper Canada District School Board

says that students who attend full-day kindergarten are 5 per cent more likely

to achieve academic success in grade one reading, writing and math scores, while

reading levels were 6.4 per cent higher for full-time students.

Families, as has been referenced in this House, will have decreased stress of

finding child care and increased family income so they can support early

learning. Full-day kindergarten has been associated, as I said earlier, with

diminished socioeconomic status differences in the early word reading. Progress,

as measured on kindergarten report cards and readiness for first grade, were

rated significantly higher for children in full-day kindergarten.

There is

more time for the children and their teachers to devote to language arts and

mathematic activities. Students in full-day kindergarten outperform, as I said

earlier, half-day students in language arts and math.

Madam

Speaker, the former government made the decision in their budget of 2014, I

believe, to begin phasing in full-day kindergarten. I remember it very clearly

because it was during the by-election for the former district that I

represented, the district of Virginia Waters, that the government decided it was

going to implement full-day kindergarten.

Madam

Speaker, I understand the Members opposite talking about difficult choices, and

this budget certainly has been one that has been very difficult. We have a very

difficult fiscal situation in our province. As a society, as parents, as a

community, to say that we pick one child over another child who's just entering

school 23,000 of them will be entering school over the next four years.

To hear

Members opposite talk about choices about the education for the most vulnerable

people, the youngest children in our province, quite frankly, I think it begs

the question as to why they feel the need to associate those two things. I think

as a government and as they did when they were in government supporting the

development of young people in our province, most importantly, young children

who are developing at a faster rate between the ages of three and six and can be

supported through the early learning opportunities full-day kindergarten

provides them, is an extremely important social policy.

The

Member opposite spoke very eloquently and passionately about a school in my

district, Mary Queen of Peace. One of the things that I'd certainly like to ask

the Member or remind him, he spoke about Mary Queen of Peace getting an

extension for the first time in 10 years, and then he read a litany of things

that the school doesn't have.

Madam

Speaker, I would ask, for 10 years why didn't they make those investments? Why

did it take the implementation of full-day kindergarten in their 2014 budget to

begin the process of investing in schools in that district?

When the

Member opposite talked about teaching units, as I have explained to the

constituents in my district, the school board will continue to assign teaching

units throughout the course of the summer with the final decisions being made

just before school opens.

I take

quite exception to the Member opposite speaking about the investments they made

in education. At the same time, they had the highest royalties, they had the

highest oil production. They had every opportunity to invest in full-day

kindergarten much earlier than they did, but coincidentally only decided to

implement full-day kindergarten during a budget that was announced during a

by-election.

Madam

Speaker, as a mom I understand. I have constituents that are very, very, very

upset about the changes that this budget made for their individual children in

schools in my district. I'm sure we all have those situations happening, but our

responsibility here in this House is to make sure that when we make decisions

about investments, that we think of the broader community and we think about not

only the people we represent but, in my case and in the case of this policy

decision by our government, the 23,000 children who are going to take advantage

of full-day kindergarten.

I think

for the Members opposite, I understand the need for them to speak to this issue.

This is a very important issue about education for our children, but the facts

are: oral language, thinking abilities and coping in grade one set the

children's trajectory for achievement that are difficult to change. You get one

shot at it. When you set them up for success in kindergarten, they can do much

better in subsequent grades.

Self-regulation or the capacity to manage our behaviour, emotions and attention,

shapes the quality of thinking abilities and coping essential to emerging

literacy, numeracy and inquiry skills. As I've said earlier in this debate,

between the ages of three and six the brain's neuro-circuit networks responsible

for maintaining attention and focus undergo a growth spurt building on earlier

neuropathways that manage emotions and behaviour.

Madam

Speaker, I recognize there has been a loud voice from constituents around many

of the districts, not all the districts in Newfoundland, but certainly those

districts where the combined classes or the busing changes, and certainly the

intensive core French are most felt.

Our

government went to the people of the province and campaigned in several I

campaigned in a by-election, plus a general election, on full-day kindergarten.

The reason I did it is because as a mom I believe very passionately that we must

make sure that those children who don't have the advantages that other kids have

enter school on the same footing, and full-day kindergarten provides that

opportunity for them, Madam Speaker.

We see

health outcomes that are better. They have a greater chance of completing

post-secondary education. They have lower crime rates and substance abuse

issues. They are more engaged and involved citizens. They do so because they

learned to play and socially interact. They have strong language and wise

decision-making skills because they got them in kindergarten in kindergarten.

It's a critical investment in families. It has an impact on population growth,

making it easier on families to have children and reducing the cost of arranging

care for the other half of the day.

Madam

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity, and to the House, to be able to speak to

this issue today. I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate and

recognize the difficult situation the province is in. This is a very important

progressive not regressive, progressive social policy.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I am

pleased today to stand and speak to the private Member's motion with regard to

full-day kindergarten. A motion that is not asking for full-day kindergarten not

to happen, but is asking that it be put off until we have the money to make it

happen.

personally, and our caucus have been calling for full-day kindergarten for a

long time. We have been completely supportive of full-day kindergarten. We know

very well and it's been part of our policy that a full-day kindergarten

combined with a solid, early childhood education play-based model is one of the

best things that could be done for children, providing opportunities for all

children and a level playing field for children.

What

this government has done though and I want the government Members to listen

clearly to what I've said. We fully support full-day kindergarten, but we're

extremely disappointed that this government has chosen because that's the

thing, it has chosen to put it in place at the expense of other things in the

educational system, instead of recognizing their responsibility to make sure

that the resources were there so that nothing else in the system suffered if

all-day kindergarten was put in. I think this is an extremely important point.

They

will try to make it sound like we are against all-day kindergarten when they

know we're not. We have to make sure the public hears what we're saying clearly,

and I think they do.

I have

spoken with parents. I've spoken with teachers, specifically kindergarten

teachers who are saying to me: Ms. Michael, we want it, but we've gone so long

without it we can go a few more years until the money is there. Now the thing

is, the government could have chosen to put it in without making the rest of the

system suffer. This is the thing they have to take responsibility for.

I have

in my hand today a statement and call to action, it's called a Belief

Statement and Call to Action which was actually signed in the last two

days by the Presidents of the Canadian Teachers' Organizations of all the

country. They were meeting here in St. John's. They are here right now. Their

meetings end today. These presidents developed a Belief Statement and Call to

Action. They developed it because of overwhelming concerns on educational

reform, inclusive education, austerity budgets and teachers' mental health and

wellness.

There

are a couple of points in this statement which are extremely important that the

Presidents of the Alberta Teachers' Association, the Northwest Territories

Teachers' Association, the Nova Scotia Teachers association, I think it's the

Manitoba Teachers' association and the Association des enseignantes et des

enseignants franco-ontariens.

All of

these presidents have put this statement together, and it says:

BELIEVE that austerity budgets undermine the strength of our public education

system as students and their teachers lose out, and families are left out.

BELIEVE that publicly funded public education must be fully funded to support

student learning.

BELIEVE that a successful inclusive education model requires sufficient funding

and teachers/educators to ensure student needs are addressed.

BELIEVE that fiscal deficits must not be solved at the expense of the public

education system or on the backs of our children.

I'm not

reading their whole statement. I'm reading parts of the statement that are very

pertinent to what we're discussing here today. If this government thought the

time had come to put all-day kindergarten in place, I would have applauded it

100 per cent if it didn't mean that at the same time others in the system were

going to suffer.

The

government is adding 142.5 kindergarten teachers to our system, and isn't that

wonderful. That would be wonderful if at the same time the government weren't

removing 219 teachers from the rest of the system. Cannot the government side of

the House see how idiotic that is? It would have been fantastic from an economic

perspective, not just from the perspective of education. It would have been

fantastic from an economic perspective if 142.5 teachers were added to our

system; 142.5 more trained kindergarten teachers working; 142.5 more young

people coming out of university with jobs; 142.5 more young people looking at a

future in this province. But what we have happening is 142.5 moving in and the

loss of 219 from the rest of the system. I don't care whether the government

calls it loss by attrition or whatever they want to call it. It's loss of

positions. It's loss of places where people coming out of university can go. We

have people who are going to be retiring and the positions are going to be gone.

This is the issue.

If this

government had not put in place an austerity budget, which they admitted on

April 14 was going to weaken our economy, if they instead had put in a budget

that was built to strengthen our economy and put in a budget that was going to

make sure we have new jobs happening in the province instead of a loss of jobs,

which they admit is going to happen with this budget, if they had done the

opposite, how much more sense that would have meant.

So look

at, what do we want in the educational system in September 2016? We want all-day

kindergarten. Well, then make that happen, but don't make it happen by, at the

same time, adding another 135 classrooms in our province with as many as 2,400

students in multigrade classrooms.

One of

the issues around that is multigrade classrooms are going to be a lot more in

urban centres where teachers have not been used to teaching multigrade, where

training is not going to happen to help teachers in multigrade, where there's

not going to be a curriculum developed, a specialized curriculum, because that

is required with multigrade classrooms.

The

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development and just after him, the

Minister of Finance, are making it sound like we are backward here in on the

Opposite side, that we don't understand what should happen. They're the ones who

are backward. They're the ones who are tearing our system apart. They're the

ones who are leaving our parents and our children and teachers in absolute

confusion.

The

multigrade classroom model is going to involve 135 teachers with limited

experience and training in multigrade teaching. I've heard the minister say

there will be one day of training for teachers. This is unbelievable. What's

going to happen is that we're going to have administrators who are absolutely

confused.

We're

going to have children in a school, for example, where you have three

children, say, grade five, and you have three children too many for the

class-cap size, those three children are going to go into probably a grade four

classroom or a grade six classroom, all by themselves in a multigrade classroom.

That's not multigrade teaching that's not multigrade teaching at all. They're

expecting parents, teachers, children and the Opposition Members in this House

of Assembly to accept it without asking any questions. How they could do what

they're doing and think that we're all going to say isn't that wonderful, it

just doesn't make any sense.

This

government has had, as we have, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people

from various schools who are speaking out and saying this can't happen, just as

they've had t