PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

May 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 25

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Wiseman):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start proceedings today, I want to welcome

some special guests to our galleries.

Today we are joined by Mr. Isaac Bonisteel of New

Harbour, who is a student at Crescent Collegiate, and he is the winner of the

2014 Lester B. Pearson Scholarship.

He is accompanied today by his sister, Erin, and their mother, Mary Harris.

Welcome, all of you, to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today we will have members' statements from the District of Lake Melville, the

Member for the District of Harbour Grace Carbonear, the Member for the

District of Lewisporte, the Member for the District of Humber Valley, the Member

for the District of Virginia Waters, and the Member for the District of St.

Barbe.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

RUSSELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Mr. Everett Cull of Happy

Valley-Goose Bay for his honesty and due diligence.

Mr. Cull is a taxicab driver who during one of his runs

happened to overhear a conversation where an elder mentioned they had lost a

significant sum of money. Mr. Cull

took note of the situation; and on a run the next day when another customer

opened the door to exit the taxi, a gust of wind swooped up a bit of cash

revealing its location.

Worrying that this might have been the other

passenger's money, Mr. Cull decided to contact those who previously received a

ride from him. He waited a week, and

after hearing no other inquiries about lost money, he handed over the cash

over $1,000, Mr. Speaker to that elder.

Mr. Cull should truly be commended for his absolute honesty.

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

recognizing Mr. Everett Cull, an honest hardworking Labrador man.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR.

SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

recognize a group of young men and women in my district, the Victoria United

Church Children's Choir.

The choir consists of members from age five to

fourteen, and perform every second week at the United Church in Victoria, where

they share their beautiful music and voices with the congregation.

This spring, they participated in the Trinity

Conception Music Festival, sponsored by the Kiwanis Club of Carbonear, and won

first place in their category. On

April 2, they performed in a community choir class and received a glowing review

and a mark of 85 per cent. The choir

gave their final performance for this year on Mother's Day and will resume again

in September.

Members of the choir include: Larissa Moores, Macie

Mercer, Erica Butt, Frankie Antle, Kendall Clarke, Ruby Burke, Norah Burke, Leah

Mercer, Dylan Moores, Kelsey Loch, Diego Colbourne, Katie Burke, Erica Evely,

Felicia Jensen, Noah Penney, Mackaila Jenson, Brianna Parsons, Brady Colbourne,

Zackery Colbourne, and Choir Director Kelly Loch.

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

recognizing the Victoria United Church Children's Choir and wish them every

success in their future performances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

MR.

VERGE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of an outstanding citizen.

Rowena Earle was born on October 11, 1927 in Point Leamington.

At the age of eleven, Rowena went to Botwood and began

performing household duties for various families.

She later moved to Campbellton, married Stanley Young, and together they

ran two businesses, a restaurant and a taxi service.

The Young's did not have children of their own, so in

1953 at the age of twenty-six, Rowena started to care for foster children.

Through the years, Rowena cared for over forty children in her own home.

Four of those children continued long term, and considered the Young

house as their own family home.

Up until the age of eighty-one, Rowena still

volunteered her time by driving special needs children to their educational

sites as well as continuing to care for two disabled adults.

She was recognized by the Foster Parents Association for her outstanding

service to the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sadly, after many years of giving to others, Rowena recently passed away.

Honourable colleagues, please join with me in paying

tribute to Rowena Young, a remarkable lady with a great big heart.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR.

BALL:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Salvation Army

Citadel Corps on its ninetieth anniversary in the Town of Deer Lake.

Just recently I had the opportunity to participate in

the celebration banquet to commemorate this anniversary.

It was an honour to attend this historical milestone event.

The Deer Lake Salvation Army has come a long way since

its beginning in 1924. Three

buildings later, the Salvation Army is still thriving in the community with its

goal of meeting the needs, both spiritually and physically, of those they come

in contact through their thrift store, family services program, and their

community involvement.

In 1959, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip

visited Deer Lake and were greeted by the Salvation Army band.

Mr. Speaker, during the last ninety years, sixty-eight officers have been

stationed in Deer Lake, with present clergy Majors Wayne and Betty Ann Pike in

charge of the corps.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Salvation

Army Deer Lake Citadel Corps on their ninetieth anniversary celebrations.

I commend them on the tremendous work they do and ask all members of this

House to join me in recognizing their special anniversary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the

friends and family of Dr. Jack Hand who have established the Dr. Jack Hand

Legacy Foundation to commemorate and celebrate his life.

Dr. Jack, as he was referred to by his young patients,

was a compassionate man, full of passion that showed in his life and work.

At the launch event this past Thursday, Jack's never-ending care of the

children and families he served was evident.

From diagnosis to treatment to the best and worst

outcomes, families of the children he treated felt he was right by their side

through it all. His humor, ability,

and compassion were as much a part of a child's recovery from cancer as medicine

itself. He stayed with us every

step of the way, one parent said, when we said good bye, he stood by us.

Dr. Jack Hand passed away in 2012.

As one of his young patients said, Because he was I am.

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

congratulating those involved in the Dr. Jack Hand Foundation, helping families

concentrate on what is most important when a child is being treated for a

hematology- or oncology-related illness.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR.

J. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, the blue whale is the largest living creature.

Measuring up to 100 feet and weighing as much as 100 tons, the North

Atlantic population is fewer than 250 individuals.

It was therefore a great loss when nine of these magnificent cetaceans

recently died in the heavy ice conditions of 2014.

One of the bodies came to rest in Trout River harbour,

Gros Morne National Park. Initially

a curiosity, as the carcass bloated, town officials soon realized that the

implications of such a huge animal decomposing in town.

Unable to dispose of it on land, prevented from disposing it at sea, the

town alerted NTV's Don Bradshaw, whose story of the exploding Trout River whale

went viral, even covered by reporters from Al Jazeera.

The Royal Ontario Museum quickly stepped up, salvaging

the whale and another at Rocky Harbour, preserving the specimens for display and

scientific research.

Quick to recognize an opportunity for the town, a group

of seven has mobilized to form the Trout River Blue Whale Corporation to

investigate and pursue long-term economic opportunities that may result from the

unfortunate loss of this magnificent creature.

Let's help them find the silver lining, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in the House to congratulate Isaac

Bonisteel of New Harbour, a Level II student at Crescent Collegiate, who is this

year's recipient of the Lester B. Pearson Scholarship for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As you just referenced, Mr. Speaker, Isaac is with us

today in the House. Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KING:

Mr.

Speaker, Isaac was selected based on his academic achievement, involvement in

co-curricular and extra-curricular activities, and his exceptional volunteerism.

As noted last week by my colleague, the MHA for Bellevue, Isaac, his

family, his teachers, and the entire Crescent Collegiate school community has

every reason to be very proud of Isaac.

Isaac is involved in a wide variety of school and

community activities, Mr. Speaker.

He participates on several school committees, the drama troupe, and in the

school band. Outside of school, he

plays piano, is a member of Allied Youth, a volunteer with Canadian Blood

Services, and much more. He is also

an exceptional athlete, an accomplished runner, and plays soccer on the

provincial under-eighteen team.

Mr. Speaker, this scholarship presents a once in a

lifetime opportunity and will no doubt help Isaac fulfill his long-term goals.

The Lester B. Pearson Scholarship is valued at $80,000 for two years of

pre-university study at Pearson College, a United World College in Victoria, BC.

Of that amount, the Department of Education will contribute $68,000, with

the remainder provided through corporate and community sponsors.

In September, Isaac will join Zo Wilkins, a former student at Ascension

Collegiate in Bay Roberts, who was awarded the scholarship last year.

I might add, in a rather interesting twist, Mr.

Speaker, Isaac's sister, Erin, who is here with us today as well, was the winner

of the 2011 Lester B. Pearson Scholarship as well.

Congratulations to Erin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KING:

Mr.

Speaker, I had the privilege to meet with Isaac, Erin, and his mom, Mary, just

before the House of Assembly. I have

to say, there is no doubt, he is a very strong individual, very deserving of

this. As I said to his mom, I am

sure they are all very proud of both him and Erin.

I want to say congratulations, and invite all members

of this House of Assembly to join in congratulating Erin for her past

achievements, but today is Isaac's day; Isaac, congratulations on behalf of all

of government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR.

KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement. On behalf of the Official

Opposition caucus, it gives me great pleasure to extend our congratulations to

Isaac Bonisteel on receiving the Lester B. Pearson Scholarship for Newfoundland

and Labrador.

This scholarship is well sought after through a highly

competitive application process that rewards students with the most exceptional

academic performance and involvement in their communities.

That is why it is so special that Isaac Bonisteel is the third person

from the Trinity Conception Placentia region to receive this scholarship in

the last four years, along with Zo Wilkins last year, and Isaac's sister, Erin,

in 2011.

The two-year International Baccalaureate program at

Pearson College is outstanding. It

gives students the opportunity to excel academically, met students and teachers

from around ninety other countries, and promote international understanding and

co-operation. These exemplary

students, Isaac, Zo, and Erin are ambassadors for Newfoundland and Labrador and

amongst our best and our brightest.

We wish them all the best but we also hope, Mr.

Speaker, we hope they will return to Newfoundland and Labrador with experience

that benefits, not only their future, but the future of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. I am looking for the

minister and I just found him. We

have had a few changes.

Congratulations to Isaac Bonisteel on receiving this

very prestigious scholarship. The

minister notes Mr. Bonisteel's active involvement in community events.

The arts and athletics are big for him, not just his educational

achievements. I congratulate him on

his hard work, enthusiasm, and dedication.

The minister also notes how proud his family, teachers

and classmates are of his accomplishment, and to that I say they too should be

proud of themselves. Isaac's

accomplishment did not come out of nowhere.

I am sure he would agree that without solid support from his family,

friends, teachers, and the community as a whole, he could not have accomplished

what he has, although we totally understand what he has done as an individual.

So, congratulations to Isaac and also to the wonderful

community that has turned out such successful students in this area.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, it is my privilege to stand before this hon.

House and recognize May 12 to May 18 as National Nursing Week.

Currently working in our Province, we have 6,340

registered nurses, the most in our Province's history, and 2,421 licensed

practical nurses. Overall, we have

more registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and nurse practitioners per

population than the Canadian average.

Nurses play integral and valuable roles throughout the

entire health care system. With a

vast array of duties delivered in a number of settings, including long-term care

facilities, emergency departments, to frontline health services in schools and

clinics, nurses are often the first face patients encounter when they enter the

health care system. Nurses also play

an important role in post-secondary education, administration, and research and

policy.

Nurses are leaders in health care.

They are responsible for providing direct care to patients, mentoring new

employees and students, and ensuring that everyone under their care is treated

respectfully.

Mr. Speaker, it is a special kind of person who wants

to care for and help improve the lives of people around them.

Nurses improve the quality of life for many and they help make our

communities a better place in which to live.

To be a nurse is to take on significant responsibilities, and I applaud

every nurse working in our Province who chooses to answer this call.

Our government will continue to work with and support

nurses through new negotiated agreements, ongoing signing bonuses and retention

initiatives, and through our nursing education programs.

Clearly, we see the value and importance of nurses in the delivery of

health care.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone in Newfoundland and

Labrador to recognize National Nursing Week by thanking and recognizing the

efforts of our professional nurses, their tireless work, and their dedication to

patients and families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I want to commend each

and every nurse in this Province for all that they do.

They play such a valuable role in our health care system, and I doubt

there is one of us in this House who has not had some kind of effect on their

life because of the impact of a nurse.

Again, we thank them for everything they do.

When we talk about nurses and what an important job it

is they do, sometimes their job is made harder because of policy decisions that

are made that they must carry out.

In fact, I had a conversation with some this past weekend when it comes to one

of those decisions. That is cutting

out the nighttime snacks when it comes to patients in acute care.

It is unfortunate, when you see these patients are getting upset again,

snacks are being cut out. It is

nurses who have to go into these rooms and take the flak for decisions such as

this that are being made obviously for budgetary reasons.

Again, it is difficult for a nurse to do their job on

an ordinary basis, but when you have a government decision like this, it

obviously makes it that much more difficult.

In closing, I want to commend the nurses for all their

hard work and dedication each and every day.

They obviously make a significant difference.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. I also join with him and

with the Opposition House Leader in applauding the excellent nurses in our

Province. They are highly educated,

professional, and so very good at what they do.

Whenever we get complaints as MHAs in our office about

health care, it is never the nurses who people are complaining about.

As a matter of fact, they always point out how wonderful the nurses are.

Rather, it is the system under which they are doing very difficult work.

People praise the nurses themselves, but we know they

are understaffed. One real example

is the ER, and another is long-term care.

If government, Mr. Speaker, really wants to work with and support nurses,

they could revisit the number of nurses assigned to our health care institutions

to correct this understaffing problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the Premier said he would table the many

documents that we have been asking for and looking for on the Humber Valley

Paving. We have yet to see any of

them produced. One of these was the

government's correspondence with Humber Valley Paving last September when the

contract was extended for one year.

I ask the Premier: Will you honour your commitment and

table that correspondence today?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week during Question Period I also

made reference to some of the documents that the Opposition had asked for.

I said that I would seek legal counsel as to what could be released here

because there is some commercially-sensitive information there and we are still

going through that process. Once we

get that information we will pass it on to the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has also said that Humber Valley Paving was

paid 60 per cent of the contract value for 60 per cent of the work, but has yet

to provide the analysis that shows that 60 per cent of the work was completed.

I ask the Premier: Since you now claim to be open, will

you table the department's analysis of the work of this contract that shows in

fact that 60 per cent was completed?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I tried to detail last Monday here in

Question Period exactly the amount of work that was done.

There is an eighty kilometre stretch of highway that was being

constructed, upgraded, and then blacktop put on that.

Of the eighty kilometres, all of the eighty kilometres has been

constructed, all of the eighty kilometres has been upgraded with Class B and

Class A, and twenty kilometres of the eighty kilometres has been paved.

On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we have also had all of

the guideposts put in place, and all of the guiderails put in place.

We have a professional team in Transportation and Works who goes in our

engineers go in and they analyze how much work is left to do.

That is what the 60 per cent is based on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are aware of the minister's response last week.

What we are asking for is since this document exists, will you provide

this information to the people of the Province?

I ask the minister again: Will you table the document

related to the 60 per cent analysis that you just spoke about will you table

that in the House of Assembly?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Opposition is

questioning the integrity of the engineers in the Department of Transportation

and Works, but I have full confidence in all of the employees within the

Department of Transportation and Works that they know exactly what they are

doing. Those engineers, they go in

and they analyze exactly how much of the work was done.

In this case they have done that, and that is what was paid out through

the Department of Transportation and Works for this particular project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I am certainly not questioning at all the work

and the integrity of the staff that we have at the Department of Transportation

and Works. They have done good work,

it seems.

I ask the minister: At least just table the analysis

that the minister is referring to will you table it here in this House of

Assembly?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Member of the

Opposition that they have done exceptional work here.

I am very pleased with the work they are doing, and they will continue to

do that work.

As you know, the AG is doing a full report on this

particular project and all of that information will be given to the AG.

If he feels he should release that, then by all means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is well within his rights to table that

document here in the House of Assembly.

I ask the minister: Given the detail that is explained

in this, why would he not table that in the House of Assembly?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I said, the Auditor General will

be doing a full report on this, and a lot of those papers that we are working on

now are still being completed. If

the Auditor General feels that is necessary, by all means he can release them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I just heard the minister say that they are

still being completed. We just

mentioned that the analysis is already done.

All we are asking is that the work that is already done, will the

minister table that here in this House of Assembly?

The information about the 60 per cent of the work completed for 60 per

cent of the value, will you put it here in this House of Assembly?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly have no problem tabling that.

As a matter of fact, we tabled it in

The Telegram

about a week-and-a-half ago. All of

that information was tabled in a report in one of

The Weekend Telegrams ;

but if the member would like it to be tabled here again, I have no problem

tabling that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I say to the

minister we look forward to that, and yes, he can table that.

The minister stated

that he had his first conversation with the company rep on March 13.

Government cancelled the contract on March 21 .

Apparently, the Premier did not hear anything about this until around

April 26, which was about five weeks after the decision was made.

I ask the Premier: Are you saying that cancelling of a

major contract, a major construction contract benefiting the incoming Premier,

was not discussed at all with you or with Cabinet at any point before a decision

was made?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House on Thursday, we

were aware that because of the fires, the exceptional circumstances that took

place in Labrador West and Labrador East, that the company had extreme

difficulty and had incurred losses because of those fires.

It could not get its liquid asphalt from the point where it had it to the

site. It was delayed because the

roads were shut down. Then the stuff

had to go back and it hardened, and losses were handled.

We knew the company was going to go after the government in seeking

compensation.

In terms of the resolution of the matter, in terms of a

negotiation of the contract

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

and in terms of being advised that the contract had in fact been settled by the

release of the company from the contract, it came to me in Halifax Airport on a

Saturday, which I think was April 26.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has confirmed that the contract was

terminated on March 21. Government's

registry of the mechanics' lien says that a claim of lien must be registered

within thirty days of the completion or the abandonment of the work.

In this case, that would have been around April 20.

I ask the Premier: Is that your understanding of how

the mechanics' lien works, that a claim would have been filed before April 20 in

this particular case?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of reading the Mechanics' Lien Act over the

last ten years since I came in here, but I do know that if somebody has done

work on a project, if someone has supplied materials to a project, or if someone

has provided labour to a project, the lien comes into existence at the moment

they do it and the lien continues until they provide their last bit of labour or

their last bit of materials. Then,

it continues. The lien exists and it

continues for thirty days after that date.

Then, you have to file in the Registry of Deeds a claim for lien and give

notice to the other side, then that extends the lien for the period of another

sixty days.

The lien comes into existence automatically.

It expires, if you do not take the action, thirty days after you provide

your last work. If my memory is

still there, I think that is correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week there was going to be a lesson, I guess, in

mechanics' liens as well as bonds for the Opposition, but I will ask the

minister this question, since you are familiar with the situation that is

ongoing here with Humber Valley Paving and the subcontractors.

My question is about the protection of the

subcontractors: Is it your impression that the last day to actually file a claim

on the mechanics' lien was April 20?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the mechanics' lien works on a

case-by-case basis. Each

subcontractor or supplier that supplies anything to a company, the mechanics'

lien is automatically in place. If

they feel they are not going to be paid their money, they have to within the

thirty days file notice of that and then they can file for an extension.

To the best of our knowledge within the department, when we were

terminating this contract there were no mechanics' liens placed at all or

inquired about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are trying to establish here is the date that

this mechanics' lien or the opportunity to file against the mechanics' lien

would have terminated.

I ask the minister: Is it your understanding that date

is April 20?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is a case-by-case individual

here. You claim against the

mechanics' lien according to the case.

From the last day you actually do work or have any expenditure towards

the company you are dealing with that is when the mechanics' lien would kick in.

You have thirty days after that, and then you can get an extension of

sixty days. Then, if you are still

not satisfied, you can take legal action.

The advice we would give is that each individual

subcontractor or supplier would deal with their own finances or with their legal

opinions from their counsels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that it is case by case.

The case we are talking about is the one about Humber Valley Paving.

The minister should know this because he is on record as saying that all

the subcontractors had the opportunity to go seek compensation under the

Mechanics' Lien Act. He also

mentioned about the court challenge, which without the bonds in place there is

not really much they can do there.

I ask the minister one last time: April 20, is that the

date the subcontractors could file against the mechanics' lien or not?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again I say it is on a case-by-case

individual. When I say case-by-case

individual

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MCGRATH:

I am talking about the suppliers

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MCGRATH:

and the contractors. Each supplier

and each contractor, once they are finished the work with the contractor they

were dealing with then they have thirty days.

After that, each individual subcontractor or supplier can get an

extension of sixty days. Then, if

they are still not satisfied, they can seek legal action.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have asked for a copy of the company's request to

cancel the contract, but government has yet to provide those documents.

I ask the Premier: Will you table a copy of Humber

Valley Paving's request to cancel the contract?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there were conversations with

the department. Once we realized we

had two options to go, we had an option to go down the legal route or we had an

option to move forward with this contract.

Then the department got in touch with Humber Valley Paving to see what

could be reached, what negotiations could be reached, and then from the contract

we went into a letter of termination.

We gave them the options we were putting on the table, if they wanted to

mutually terminate this contract, and then we waited for them to get back to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has claimed they relied on the legal advice,

as the minister just said, before making the decision.

We have asked for a copy of those legal opinions as well, but government

has still not provided them.

I ask the Premier: Will you table a copy of the legal

opinions government received on this file?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, as I said Thursday, we are going to have the Auditor General come in

and everything will be given to him for him to do his audit and to do a review.

With respect to other documentation, Mr. Speaker, I

understand there are discussions going on between the lawyers for the company

and the lawyers for the government.

As soon as they are resolved, I will be happy to table in this House the

documentation the Leader of the Opposition has requested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the minister said the decision to cancel a

contract with Humber Valley Paving was to protect employment of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

Since your government claims to be protecting jobs by

the decision, I ask the minister: How many people were at risk at the time of

the decision, and how many are still working with Humber Valley Paving since the

decision?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for how many employees

are working for Humber Valley Paving.

What I will speak to and I think it certainly directs the question from

the Leader of the Opposition is protecting the jobs for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. By retendering this

project, then we are going to make sure the project is completed on time, on

budget, and that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will still be employed within

that project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week it was about protecting employees of Humber

Valley Paving, this week I just noticed that the minister said on this project.

In 2008, when Island Aggregates was in a similar situation as Humber

Valley Paving, government would not help them or provide the protection for

their employees. They said to

interfere in a market driven sector would be a major policy shift for this

government.

I ask the Premier: Does your recent move say that

Humber Valley Paving this is now a significant policy change for your

government?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, I am not familiar with that particular fact situation that the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition is referring to.

What I can say is I have heard comments, and the Opposition have heard

comments in the media, concerned about punishing the company.

That happens in criminal law.

You punish, somebody goes to jail, somebody you sanction, and somebody pays a

fine.

This is civil law, this is business law.

What had happened, because of exceptional circumstances, because of the

forest fires that raged, the company had losses, and government's concern was

getting the work done. If a bonding

company had been involved, the odds are that they would have tendered the work

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

and government has done the same thing.

The minister was concerned about getting the work done to meet the

commitment to people in Labrador, and that is what he did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said many times that

terminating the contract along with the bonds for Humber Valley Paving was

because the company was losing money and calling the bonds would have put the

company out of business. He also

contends that the forest fires, which closed the Trans-Labrador Highway for a

number of days, was a contributing factor.

I ask the minister: Will he confirm whether or not

government has penalized other contractors in similar circumstances?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to clarify a

comment made by the Leader of the Opposition.

I have always maintained that I wanted to protect the jobs for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If

those employees happen to be employees of Humber Valley Paving, so be it as long

as they are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

That is part of my mandate, to protect those jobs.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done in this particular case

is we have gone out and we have tried to make sure the job was completed.

Whether it was the circumstances of the fire, or everything else put

together, our job is to get the job completed within the department.

That is the decision that we have made, get the job completed, get it

completed on time, and protect the jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Whether or not government has

penalized other contractors in similar circumstances?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the department we deal on a daily basis

with different contracts. Every

contract is dealt with differently.

You look at the circumstances that are put before you.

In this particular case, you had very extenuating

circumstances that were beyond the control of the contractor or the government.

In a case like that we sit down and we try to do what is best for all

included, especially the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what we did in this case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, tender 07-13 is a contract for brush cutting and clearing on various

sections of Route 2. Due to

unforeseen circumstances, primarily the early and harsh winter conditions, the

contractor found himself in the same dilemma as Humber Valley Paving.

Even though the contractor requested that the contract be terminated, he

was treated much differently than government treated Humber Valley Paving.

I ask the minister: Why is it that Humber Valley Paving

received preferential treatment while another contractor had his certified

cheque cashed and was banned from bidding any further government work for twelve

months?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I will say that the department

deals with contractors and contracts on a daily basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Each contract is dealt with in dealing with the circumstances that are put

before that. I can only speak for

this contract that we are talking about here today, that we looked at the

circumstances, we looked at the best case scenarios; two options, go down the

legal road or go down the road that we went down to get the work done, get it

done on time and on budget. That is

the decision that we made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, two different contractors, very similar circumstances, two different

ways of treating them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

OSBORNE:

ask the minister: Why was one contractor treated with preferential treatment but

another contractor banned from tendering on any work for twelve months?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I will state that we deal with

every contract on a case-by-case basis.

You look at the circumstances that were put forward, and if you feel

you go a legal road or you go the road we went on this one.

That is what we do. Each case

is dealt with differently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier said a few moments ago they do not penalize contractors,

that that is not the business of government.

Clearly, the minister did with this particular contractor on Route 2.

I am asking the minister now: Will he reverse the

decision to ban him from bidding on contracts for twelve months?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, once again, each contract and we deal

with several contracts on a day-to-day basis.

Each contract is dealt with the circumstances that are put forward and

the rationale of why that contractor cannot finish the contract.

We look at that as a department and then we make a decision.

That is what we have done here.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, did the minister get personally involved in the other tender on Route

2, where the contractor was banned from bidding for twelve months on government

contracts?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the way they like to play with

words. The minister is involved in

most everything on a day-to-day basis, and then the minister has a full team of

professionals who I either go to for advice or I advise them to move forward on

how they deal with a contract. Every

contract that could come forward I could be dealing with it, but then you go to

your department officials to move forward with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Late last week we heard about job cuts at College of

the North Atlantic and while some of these job cuts were expected due to last

year's program cuts, some employees are being relocated to other areas of the

Province with only days' notice.

I ask the minister: Why weren't impacted employees

given more notice?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

Mr.

Speaker, all the way through this process in regard to making College of the

North Atlantic responsive to the labour demands of the Province, all of the

instructors knew that some of the low-uptake programs would be cancelled.

They all knew that upfront going through the process.

Certainly, I want to ask the member, too, is she

implying that we should continue to fund low-uptake programs and ignore the

labour market demands of the Province, Mr. Speaker?

I do not understand where she is coming from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

DEMPSTER:

Mr.

Speaker, my question was about relocation with no notice of employees.

Prospective students of the College of the North

Atlantic should have received their letters of acceptance in April, yet many

have yet to be sent out.

I ask the minister: Is this delay due to program cuts

at the College; and if so, why are the announcements on cuts being made at the

eleventh hour?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

Mr.

Speaker, these are not cuts and announcements being made at the eleventh hour,

as the hon. member implies. These

are things we have been talking about for many months now in regard to CNA being

responsive to the needs of the Province and the labour market demands of the

Province. We will be introducing new

programs in different colleges right around the Province.

As a matter of fact, there will be more employed tomorrow once those

programs are instated or started than before we discontinued the low-uptake

programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have been told that the opening of the new

Hoyles-Escasoni long-term care facility will provide sixty-seven extra long-term

care beds.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services:

How many people are currently on the wait-list for these beds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the Third Party for her question.

Long-term care is a very important matter for the Department of Health

and Community Services, and I know it is also very important for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. One of

the signature, or very important significant projects we are conducting is the

construction of a new long-term care facility in the east end of St. John's.

It will have 461 new beds for long-term care for Eastern Health.

It is a significant investment by this government, a significant piece of

work, and we look forward to the opening of that new facility in the coming

months.

Mr. Speaker, wait-lists change from day to day.

While we acknowledge there are wait-lists for people for long-term care,

there are a variety of programs we try to avail of to look after the needs of

the people of the Province.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I note the minister did not answer my question.

Since the figures we have are a couple of months old and it takes us more

than a month to get up to date, I ask him to table in this House the up-to-date

figures on wait-lists.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I pointed out to this government years ago that our

aging demographic would result in an increased demand for personal care home and

long-term care beds.

I ask the minister: Why didn't the government make

adequate plans when they had the choice?

Because I can assure him, they do not have enough beds for the wait-list.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I acknowledged, there is a wait-list and a demand

for service. We have an aging

population in Newfoundland and Labrador and we recognize that.

In fact, as a government we are taking great steps.

We are building, as I mentioned, a new significant piece of

infrastructure in the east part of St. John's, a new long-term care facility.

It will have 461 beds. We are

building a new one in Carbonear with 228 beds.

We are adding capacity to Labrador City; we are adding capacity to Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. We are adding

capacity to smaller areas such as Bonavista, Clarenville.

We are adding capacity as well in Burin.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, we have made significant

investments for people who need long-term services in Newfoundland and Labrador

and we will continue to make those investments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is acknowledging we have a looming

crisis, really. The need is getting

greater. I would like to see the

plan, Mr. Speaker, with details of how they are going to make sure the

wait-lists end.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember as a fairly new MHA, when I first came to

this House of Assembly, there was a significant piece of work being underway by

the Department of Health and Community Services surrounding long-term care and

the needs of our aging population.

It is a strategy that was released in 2012, Mr. Speaker.

It is available on our Web site.

I can provide her with a hard copy and documentation if she would like to

have it as well. It was a good piece

of work. It is a foundation of the

plans for this government for us to move forward and deal with the needs of

long-term care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have read that document and it does not have the

details I am asking for.

Mr. Speaker, we are told of a senior moved from his

community in St. John's to a personal care home in Long Pond, out of reach of

family members who are as old as he is, and community support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MICHAEL:

ask the minister: What work is being done by the department to ensure that

vulnerable patients are not isolated from family and community support?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to focus on any individual case and I do

not feel it to be appropriate to talk about any individual circumstances that

may face any Newfoundlander or Labradorian and discuss those on a personal level

here in the House of Assembly.

I would advise the member opposite, if she ever took

the drive from Confederation Building to Long Pond, as my friend opposite here

can tell you, he does it every day, sometimes several times a day, it takes him

about sixteen minutes to do it, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a lengthy drive and it is part of the metropolitan, greater St.

John's area, I say to the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we made significant investments

for the people of this Province. We

have made significant investments in health, and particularly for the needs of

our aging population. We are making

great strides in doing that, and we will continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some residents of Deer Lake are deeply concerned with

the rising water table and constantly flooding properties.

They believe that there is a fault with the Deer Lake Power Canal that

diverts water along the affected area that is

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MURPHY:

leading to severe mould problems for some and flooding properties to other

residents.

Does the government know about the problem, and what

are they doing to address this?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KENT:

Mr.

Speaker, the member spoke to me on Thursday, I believe.

He sent me an e-mail. We had

a conversation in this very House where I confirmed for him I was looking into

the matter.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with the

Town of Deer Lake council on Friday and their staff, discussed the issue,

confirmed that it is indeed a municipal issue that the town is well aware of,

and the town is in regular communications with the residents that are affected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While some consider this to be a municipal matter, this

may require a lot of money for the municipality to fix it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MURPHY:

Will government step in with assistance to both the municipality as well as the

residents there to investigate the Deer Lake Power Canal situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KENT:

Mr.

Speaker, I had a productive discussion with the members of Deer Lake council on

a number of issues on Friday when I was there to make a capital works

announcement. On this particular

issue, given that I had correspondence with the member, had a conversation with

him about it hours later in this very House of Assembly, I had a discussion with

the town council

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

KENT:

the town council acknowledged the issue and said that if residents have concerns

that they wish to discuss, then Mayor Ball and members of that council are more

than prepared to continue the dialogue with those residents.

The questioning today is rather surprising given the

conversations I had with the member on Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East, for a quick question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MURPHY:

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to know if they are communicating with the residents.

I keep getting e-mails, including this morning, from residents who are

concerned. They are not hearing a

word. I wonder when they are going

to talk to the residents there about this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KENT:

would encourage the Member for St. John's East to give Mayor Ball a call.

I am sure he would be happy to answer his questions.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Yes, the time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice of the following private member's

resolution moved by me, the Member for Virginia Waters:

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador communities face very

real challenges due to population decline and population aging; and

WHEREAS the Province can no longer rely on employment

alone to successfully compete and attract and retain skilled workers needed for

growth in a global environment; and

WHEREAS the significant economic, social, and cultural

contributions of newcomers to our Province are well recognized; and

WHEREAS international migrants, including immigrants,

temporary workers, and international students will continue to play an

increasingly important role in helping to sustain and grow a diverse and

prosperous future; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has among the lowest

newcomer attraction and retention rates in the country;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly

urge government to implement a worker recruitment and protection act similar to

Nova Scotia and Manitoba, which would require an employer registration process

as well as a licensing requirement for companies and individuals recruiting

foreign workers.

This is seconded by the Member for The Straits White

Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), the private member's resolution just entered

by the Member for Virginia Waters is the one to be debated on Wednesday.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR.

KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS provincial funding and support for an

arms'-length advocacy group is needed in order to promote, protect, and ensure

full citizenship rights for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with disabilities;

and

WHEREAS the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities

(COD-NL) has advocated for persons with disabilities in Newfoundland and

Labrador for nearly thirty-five years; and

WHEREAS people with disabilities across the Province

rely on COD-NL to navigate and access support services, educate the public, and

provide outreach; and

WHEREAS long-term sustainable funding for COD-NL should

be a key building block in the Province's strategy for the inclusion of persons

with disabilities; and

WHEREAS federal and provincial funding cuts continue to

threaten COD-NL's capacity to provide important advocacy, public education, and

outreach activities;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate funding

cut from the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador in

2013 and provide a long-term sustainable funding arrangement for COD-NL.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I presented previously

in the House of Assembly and it looks like this one has residents of the

Province entirely from the community of Peterview.

We have received petitions from members of the public from all across the

Island.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this

Wednesday, May 14, at 7:00 p.m. in the great, historic District of St. John's

North, the annual general meeting of the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities

Newfoundland and Labrador is taking place at the Fairfield Inn & Suites on

Kenmount Road. That is this

Wednesday, May 14, at 7:00 p.m. I

have had the great privilege of attending that AGM since I was elected to the

House of Assembly and I have certainly run into other members on both sides of

the House there.

I do note that the first year prior to the funding cut

to COD-NL, there were full-page advertisements in there from the former Premier

of the Province, from the former Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, and

even the member whose district their office was located in at the time, all

congratulating COD-NL for their great work, their advocacy, and so on and so

forth. Then before the dust had

settled on all of those congratulations, the funding was cut from the

organization. They were struggling

to survive and find even a place to keep their files and have a telephone.

So I encourage government to reconsider that decision.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR.

SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the communities of New Ferolle, Shoal Cove

West, and Reefs Harbour have always relied on the fishery as a means to earn a

sustainable income; and

WHEREAS the main employer for these three communities

has been a seafood processing plant located in New Ferolle; and

WHEREAS this plant was seized by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of mortgage arrears; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

then permitted an outside operator to operate the plant, but that operator

became insolvent and closed; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

then sold the plant to another operator for the sum of $1 and has not operated

the plant but instead has stripped most, if not all, of the equipment from the

plant instead of operating it;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to find a local operator for this plant so that people can go back

to work.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I brought this petition here once before

and I am bring it back here again now.

Basically, what the people in that area would like is to go to work.

I call upon government, of course, to try to get an operator for that

plant in New Ferolle. The people

over there deserve it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS consumers and businesses in Newfoundland and

Labrador pay some of the highest automobile insurance rates in the country; and

WHEREAS part of the recent increases in automobile

insurance rates is due to uninsured automobile coverage, which could increase by

329.3 per cent in 2014 for taxis and limousines insured by the Facility

Association; and

WHEREAS consumers may see an increase in taxi fares and

limousine rates as a result; and

WHEREAS consumers insured by the Facility Association

could see their own auto insurance rates increase partly due to uninsured

drivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to establish a

procedure for insurance companies to co-ordinate with police, highway

enforcements officers, and the Motor Registration Division to remove unlicensed

and uninsured vehicles from our Province's highways.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I went to a meeting of taxi drivers, I

think, it was some three weeks ago now who are really quite concerned about what

is happening with their insurance rates.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal going before the Public

Utilities Board right now, the third-party liability increase they are asking

for right now is 50 per cent for the Facility Association in a residual market.

For accident benefits, we are talking about 294.3 per cent or an extra

$235 to a driver, and for an uninsured automobile, 329.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, these increases that are proposed and gone

before the Public Utilities Board are, in one word, outrageous.

We are at risk as consumers ourselves of being tagged with the

possibility of increases particularly for uninsured automobile coverage.

We know every day in the news we are hearing about it,

that police are hauling in various vehicles that are unregistered and finding in

some cases that these are uninsured.

The unregistered

part I can see, where there is a way for Motor Vehicle

Registration to co-ordinate with the police; it is the uninsured part that we

are talking about here when we are talking about uninsured vehicles.

We have a possibility here that we can get good

co-operation from the insurance companies to co-ordinate this.

I know in conversations with my own insurance company and with other

insurance companies on the outside they are not required under the law to report

that to Motor Vehicle Registration.

So the question here being asked by taxi drivers particularly is if the

uninsured question can be addressed here by government and co-ordination brought

on part between government and the various justice officials, then obviously

that part of their insurance rates would not be impacted.

Mr. Speaker, I leave that to the House of Assembly to

determine. I am told that I am going

to be getting a few of these petitions in the next couple of weeks, so I will

stand and talk about high insurance rates as they deal commercially when it

comes to taxis and limousines but not only that as well to the consumer in

general.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there are extreme overcrowding issues in St.

Peter's Elementary and Mount Pearl Senior High, a direct result of poor planning

by the Department of Education; and

Board to deal with this now crisis situation will have a devastating impact on

many students, families and teachers in Mount Pearl Senior High, Mount Pearl

Intermediate, St. Peter's Elementary and Newton Elementary; and

WHEREAS there are other less disruptive solutions which

can be introduced to alleviate this overcrowding issue including capital

investment as a preferred option as well catchment area realignment.

WHEREAS the school board was not provided with the

financial flexibility by the Minister of Education to explore other more

suitable options;

WHEREAS the government has intervened in board

decisions in the past such as in 2005 when Bishop Falls, reversing the closure

of the Leo Burke Academy during a by-election, I might add;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to intervene in this matter, commit appropriate resources to the

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one petition I have, of many, and

there are many more coming in. I

actually had a message from a parent in my district this morning who has several

of them signed. This issue is not

going away. We have a situation in

Mount Pearl where as a result of neglect over the years by the school board

the then Eastern School District there was poor planning, and we saw all the

specialty spaces at St. Peter's Elementary, all the specialty spaces at Mount

Pearl Senior High, get chopped up into classroom space as the population grew.

Now we are to a point where both of those schools have

all their specialty spaces gone. We

have kids, for example, at St. Peter's Elementary who are eating lunch at their

desks while they are doing gym class and music in the cafeteria.

They have lost their resource library, they have lost their computer

room, and the solution being brought forth is not going to change that.

As a matter of fact, next year that same problem will still exist at St.

Peter's, and now they are talking about chopping up Newtown Elementary and

losing some of their specialty space as well.

Mr. Speaker, this was a poor decision, and it was

brought upon by the fact that government did not provide any financial

flexibility to the board to make these decisions.

Certainly, we are calling upon the government to have a change of heart,

to provide that opportunity for the school board to come up with more suitable

options for our students.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS most communities in the District of Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair do not have adequate broadband service; and

WHEREAS residents, businesses, students, nurses, and

teachers rely heavily on the Internet to conduct their work and cannot afford to

wait until 2016 to access a potential plan in partnership with the Muskrat Falls

development; and

WHEREAS there are a number of world-class tourism sites

in the region, including a UNESCO site at Red Bay, Battle Harbour Historic Site,

and the Mealy Mountains National Park;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to work with the appropriate agencies to provide adequate broadband

service to the communities along the Labrador Coast.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to bring this petition

forward. It is a huge issue; it

crosses many sectors in the district.

It is really stunting the growth in many ways; 95 per cent of the

Province we know is connected, but of the 5 per cent that is not, that includes

an awful lot of my district. I am

still asking for a list of where the 5 per cent of communities are that are not

connected. I still have not seen

that list, Mr. Speaker.

Tourism is huge.

We are just coming into the tourism season.

We are in a technological age.

People go into a region now and they expect to be able to stay in contact

with people, and for many it is even doing business on the road.

More importantly than that, yes, we need the tourism,

we need whatever ways we can to generate revenue into rural areas, Mr. Speaker,

but there are things that we could be doing in health care.

People should be able to sit in front of Skype now and see their

specialist here in St. John's and save money if that infrastructure was there.

We spend a lot of money trying to entice professionals

into the community, many who want to continue their studies through distance

education but basic things like streamlining and because of the ten

communities that we say have Internet are actually maxed out, have exceeded

capacity so this prohibits them.

Businesses not able to do something like use a simple Interac debit machine

without putting their own booster on.

Mr. Speaker, I heard from hotels last week that are

missing business because they are not able to get on and reply back to e-mail of

tour groups that want to come into the region and want to stay with them.

It is a very, very serious issue, one that is certainly negatively

impacting my area. I will continue

to stand and lobby for this service.

We cannot wait until 2016, until two years.

We want to know what is the interim plan, what is being done right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of

the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the residents of Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, and

Franois of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador must use Route 480 on a

regular basis for work, medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Route 480 is in deplorable condition, such that

the shoulders of the road continuously wash away and there are huge potholes in

the road; and

WHEREAS the condition of Route 480 poses a safety

hazard to residents and visitors to Burgeo, Ramea, Grey River, and Franois; and

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works is

responsible for the maintenance and repairs in the Province; and

WHEREAS the local division of the Department of

Transportation and Works does make periodic repairs to this route but these

repairs are only temporary patchwork and this road needs to be resurfaced;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to support the users of Route 480 in their request to have Route

480 resurfaced.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to stand up today and

talk about the state of this road because it has been in a deplorable condition

for some time. Yesterday we had a

very serious situation when we had another washout on this road.

The road closed and people were not able to get back and forth.

We had people who were looking to get out of town so

they could go and have surgeries. I

actually heard from people who work for the ambulance service calling and

concerned about what could happen. I

had seniors calling me. This is

beyond the usual calls you get from people whose vehicles have been damaged and

have to pay for the cost because this road is not fit.

The good news here is the local employees of Transportation and Works

attended to it and got the situation taken care of so that people could go back

and forth.

We are still speaking on a greater level.

When it comes to these decisions that are being made, this road is not

fit. It is in a deplorable

condition, yet there is absolutely nothing getting done besides the usual

patchwork. People keep sending me

pictures of their cars taking terrible damage.

Again, they are being left to hold the bag because there is no money

going into this district. I guess it

is just located in the wrong spot.

I am putting it out there.

There are a lot of people who have to travel over this road.

People have to take a ferry to get there in many cases, if they are

coming from Franois, if they are coming from Ramea, or if they are coming from

Grey River. When you get up there

and you cannot get back and forth.

This is the second washout, the second summer, and we are still seeing the same

thing. People are not getting the

same quality of roads that they should as elsewhere.

I am going to continue to make this an issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As per Standing Order 32, I move, seconded by the

Minister of Environment and Conservation, that we move to Orders of the Day.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded that we now move to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion Carried.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I move, as pursuant to Standing Order 11,

seconded by the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, that the House not

adjourn at 5:30 today, Monday, May 12, 2014.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn today, Monday, May

12, at 5:30 p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarity, I understood I probably should do

them as two motions that is why I split them up.

I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not

adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, May 12, 2014.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. this

evening, Monday, May 12.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I am going to move to item 10 on our Order Paper.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and

Conservation, for the following resolution:

WHEREAS subsection 20(7) of the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act provides that a change to the

level of amounts of allowances and resources provided to members not be made

except in accordance with a rule that has been first laid before the House of

Assembly and adopted by resolution of the House; and

WHEREAS an amendment to the Members' Resources and

Allowances Rules, which would change the level of the amounts of allowances and

resources has been laid before the House by the Speaker;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House of

Assembly adopt the amendment to the Members' Resources and Allowances Rules, as

approved by the Management Commission of this House on April 14, 2014 and tabled

by the Speaker of the House on May 8, 2014.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

members have heard the motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the

motion?

MR.

KING:

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I think, with leave, I am speaking quickly for both of

the Opposition parties just to provide a very quick explanation here.

The Members Resources' Rules were amended a short while ago by this House

unanimously. It came to our

attention that there was a typographical error with respect to two particular

districts, the one for Lake Melville and Labrador West.

The motion we are bringing forward today simply fixes the error and

honours the intent of the motion that members of this House voted on several

weeks ago.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

members have heard the motion.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Motions, I am moving to Motion 5.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of

Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs, to ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Establish And Implement A Province-Wide 911 Telephone

Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies, Bill 14, and so move that the bill be

now read the first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Establish And Implement A Province-Wide 911 Telephone Service For The Reporting

Of Emergencies, Bill 14, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

have leave to introduce Bill 14, and that the said bill be now read a first

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs to introduce a bill,

An Act To Establish And

Implement A Province-Wide 911 Telephone Service For The Reporting Of

Emergencies, carried. (Bill 14).

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Establish And Implement A Province-Wide 911 Telephone Service

For The Reporting Of Emergencies.

(Bill 14)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR.

KING:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 14 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education

and Skills, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 16, and that the said bill be now read

the first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Student

Financial Assistance Act, Bill 16, and that the said bill be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

have leave to introduce such bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance

Act, carried. (Bill 16)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act.

(Bill 16)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR.

KING:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 16 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Child, Youth and

Family Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act And The Tax Agreement Act, 2010, Bill 17, and that

the said bill be now read a first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act And The Tax Agreement Act, 2010, Bill 17, and the said bill

be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

leave to introduce Bill 17?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue

Administration Act And The Tax Agreement Act, 2010, carried.

(Bill 17)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act And The Tax Agreement Act,

2010. (Bill 17)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 17 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fish

Processing Licensing Board Act, Bill 18, and that the said bill be now read the

first time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fish Processing

Licensing Board Act, Bill 18, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall

have leave to introduce Bill 18?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fish Processing Licensing

Board Act, carried. (Bill 18)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act To Amend The Fish Processing Licensing Board Act.

(Bill 18)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 18 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time I call under Second Reading Bills, Order

4, second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure, Bill

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to speak to Bill 1,

seven years in the making, and certainly exciting for the people of the Province

to finally see this legislation on the books here at the House of Assembly.

The provincial government promised to create this

legislation to protect employees who want to report what they consider

wrongdoing. That promise came after

a 2007 review of the Province's Legislature by Justice Derek Green, and the

promise came before the 2007 provincial election.

In his report from the review, Green recommended a law under which public

servants, without fear of reprisal, could disclose others' improper or unethical

behaviour.

In the 2008 Throne Speech, government committed to

introduce the whistleblower protection legislation that same year, after

appropriate consultation had taken place.

In 2009, former Premier Danny Williams reiterated his government's

position and promised to create the legislation.

In May, 2012, Justice Minister Felix Collins said there

were problems with the legislation elsewhere, the Province had looked.

He also said he believed the existing legislative regime in

Newfoundland and Labrador may provide adequate protections for government

workers. My question to the

minister today, Mr. Speaker, would be, why has it taken seven years for us to

get to this point where this legislation is going to be enacted?

As recently as last Monday, I have had a situation

where I had an individual seek counsel from me as an MHA on a circumstance

related to their employment and are concerned as to how they might go about

resolving that. While this

whistleblower legislation, assuming it comes into effect in July, would have

applicability to this individual, certainly based on the dates and the lack of

clarity around situations prior to July of 2014, this individual does not have

clarity. We have seven years where

individuals who have worked for the provincial government in a variety of ways

do not have clarity on how they can provide feedback, concerns, and questions in

a way that does not put them at risk of retaliation.

The bill itself has four basic problems.

There is no internal review process.

There is lack of proactive disclosure. The

release of documents to authorities in the past the Office of the Citizens'

Rep has denied under certain circumstances those documents being released in the

past, which has made circumstances difficult to be resolved.

The biggest question from my perspective comes down to

the issue of the dates and the fact that this legislation promised seven years

ago really will have little effect on feedback, concerns, questions, information

that may need to be discussed, may want to be discussed over the last number of

years. It would seem to me, and

appear to me, that if this government had been serious about the whistleblower

legislation when they announced it years ago, they certainly would have been

making sure they were acting in a principled way, providing an opportunity for

employees to give feedback where appropriate.

I think the dates in particular provide some concern to

government employees who may feel that the dates do not allow them to go back

under a certain period of time and talk about things.

Whether it is in a certain department, whether it is a conversation they

were part of, that they do not really know what to do with.

The fact that there is no internal process does not allow the individual

to be able to go to their direct supervisor, their direct boss, or somebody who

has the authority and should have the authority inside government in the

management team to be able to deal with the situation that the employee brings.

This is quite the contrary to what I have seen in the

private sector, and certainly it would require a more open process to allow

internal resolutions to happen on a more eased basis.

If you are an employee who works outside of a driving distance from the

Office of the Citizens' Rep, certainly phone conversations are much more

difficult to have if you are looking and seeking advice then it would be to have

a face-to-face conversation. This

legislation certainly makes it difficult for individuals to have a face-to-face

conversation at a time when it is important, a time of undue stress on an

individual and an employee.

The issue that was spoken about in this House last week

around retrospective versus retroactive I think is a very meaningful one.

I am at a loss to understand, as I said earlier, why a government that

committed to people, promised to people this legislation, would feel the need or

feel it was in its own best interest not to implement legislation that allowed

for everything that needed to be disclosed by employees to be disclosed prior to

the implementation of this legislation.

That the simple act of changing the language and allowing retrospective

to be used, it would have certainly enabled those employees to make that change.

We also have a number of areas in the act that I

believe need to be reviewed.

Certainly, making sure we have dual remedy and internal complaints investigation

is one area where there is an opportunity to improve the bill.

The whistleblower should be protected from reprisals when they are making

good faith complaints internally, as well as going to the Citizens' Rep.

An individual who speaks to their direct manager, their direct support,

whoever is providing coaching and counselling and feedback to that individual

should feel comfortable speaking to their direct supervisor.

I ask the question: Is there a need to amend the

regulation

section to give authority to set up an internal complaints review

system? Wrongdoings to which the act

applies this bill may need to be amended to apply to wrongdoings that occur

subsequent to October 9, 2007, not the day the act comes into force, as per

section 4.(2).

When you think about the list of exemptions and things

that are not applicable around Cabinet confidences that are exempt to access,

whether it is Cabinet records; memorandums; discussion papers; agendas; minutes;

records used; records created by a minister; record created during the process

of developing and preparing a submission to Cabinet; discontinued Cabinet

records; official Cabinet records; supporting Cabinet records; discounted

Cabinet records. All of these items

certainly exclude a significant area of work that public sector employees work

in and provide an opportunity, if you had a situation where we had dual

reporting processes, you could certainly look at situations where somebody could

report to their direct supervisor possibly around some of these particular areas

that have been exempt.

When an investigation is not required and the terms of

when an investigation is not required, there may be a need to add certain

conditions for when an investigation is not required in the act.

This would include things like the alleged person who committed a

wrongdoing is deceased, resides outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, or is in

such a mental condition as to be unable to respond in a meaningful manner;

subject matter may also have been otherwise heard or adjudicated by another

public body or, at the time of the disclosure, before another public body was

empowered to hear a rule on the alleged wrongdoing.

So there are some requirement to make some adjustments there, I believe.

When an investigation is not required might also

include that if criminal activity is reliably alleged, the Citizens'

Representative shall refer the matter to the appropriate police force for

further investigation, without disclosing the name of the whistleblower, unless

the disclosure is found to be erroneous or made in bad faith.

Again, I refer to the date of July of this year, when

we have situations, as I mentioned earlier, that I am dealing with in my office

right now of an individual who has concerns and questions and is at a loss as to

how to resolve those through an internal process, because there is not one that

is available, or now the external process is not available to them until

post-July. Certainly, it is very

concerning and frustrating and does not inspire confidence for this particular

individual in this government's desire to act in good faith under the

whistleblower legislation.

There is reference in the act around the annual report.

As the bill now says, an annual report must be tabled within fifteen

days; however, if the House closes before the fifteen days of being received by

the Speaker, within eight, for example, it must be tabled before the House

closes. If the report is completed

and provided to the Speaker between the two sessions, it must be tabled within

three days of opening. That

certainly is a concern based on the history that this House has had in the last

number of years around when the House closes, and there could be a situation

where the reports would not be available to be reviewed.

One of the things that Justice Green, if you go back to

his report, certainly made clear is that he felt the information needed to be

disclosed in the House of Assembly in a way that allowed those people who were

elected by the people of the Province to act in the best interests of the people

of the Province. He wanted those

discussions to happen here and I would assume the same would happen around

discussions in this annual report.

Protections of the employee: Somewhere in the bill is

this the best place there must be sanctions against individuals who are guilty

of taking a reprisal against a former employee.

New Brunswick has made this recommendation and by doing this it shows

reprisals will not be tolerated. One

of the certainly challenging things for an individual who steps forward bravely

to talk about a potential wrongdoing, concern, or conflict they feel is how do

we protect that individual, not only from reprisals from their boss or their

direct report, but also from their peers?

That legislation and recommendation that has been changed in New

Brunswick certainly is worthwhile for us to take a look at.

Complaints to the Labour Relations Board: The

organization that employs the person found guilty of the offence at the time of

the offence was found to have been committed is deemed to be liable for the

wrongdoings of the offender and shall be jointly and severally liable of such

wrongdoings, as well as any penalties imposed or remedies ordered.

Certainly those changes would ensure that the right person pays for the

infraction, for the misjudgement, for the situation that was not handled in the

best interests of the people of the Province and in the best interests of

government.

This particular piece of legislation, the minister has

said, is based on four pillars: employees may disclose serious wrongdoings, the

Office of the Citizens' Representative would be involved, there will be

anti-reprisal protection, and the Labour Relations Board will hear complaints

and award remedies. Again, I go back to

my comment earlier about no internal process.

It seems quite inconsistent with how a best-in-class organization would

want to operate, assuming that is what this government wants to operate in its

employee relations, is a situation where you have a lack of a mechanism inside

government that allows for an internal disclosure process.

Many of these situations that arise can be handled internally, assuming

that you have good discipline, good systems, and good communication amongst

management and front-line staff that allow for those discussions to happen.

When you take those discussions out and you force them

into a third party, then you restrict the employee's ability to have an open and

frank discussion with their managers.

You also limit and restrict the manager's ability to act in good faith on

what might be a small infraction that could be handled quickly, efficiently, and

in the best interest of the people of the Province.

I would ask the minister if he could provide clarity on

how, in the absence of an internal process, employees and managers will be

functioning together when there are situations that need to be handled on a

timely basis, and how taking those situations outside of a normal work

discussion into the Office of the Citizens' Rep, which may be required, how that

will improve employee productivity and help improve situations where things can

be resolved in short order.

There is a need for continued discussion and dialogue

on this particular bill. It has been

a pleasure to rise here today and speak to it.

I think the act and the discussions we have had over

the last number of days around this, certainly some key themes would include

concern about why a date of July. As

government has said, they are an open government now, one that is operating in

the best interests of the people of the Province.

It would seem to me that if that was a commitment they wanted to make

that they would back this up with a commitment under the whistleblower, which

they promised in 2007.

With that said, I thank, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR.

HEDDERSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be on my feet today to talk about

I believe looking around that I might have got up a bit prematurely.

I am looking down the row at the member.

HON. MEMBER:

for it.

MR.

HEDDERSON:

am looking at the minister and the minister says: Go for it.

I apologize to the member for Bonavista down there.

Mr. Speaker, I am so anxious to stand up and talk about

Bill 1, a bill regarding Public Interest Disclosure and Whistleblower Protection

Act. This is a bill that has been in

the making for a fair amount of time.

When you look at Bill 1, in any session, you look at it as an important

initiative that the government feels quite serious about, obviously, to name it

as Bill 1, and to see that it is the right time to do the right thing and to put

forward a significant piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to get up and

have some words on what I believe to be a very solid bill.

I commend the minister for putting together a great deal of research and

comparative analysis to bring forward a bill that I would say will stand the

test of any complaints; complaints from the Opposition, complaints from the

Third Party, complaints from outside parties as well.

These complaints are very necessary in a debate, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is listening attentively as the speakers on both

sides of the House get up and talk about this particular bill.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, this is a case where

government has certainly listened to the people of the Province on an issue that

is very important to them. It is not

something that was taken lightly because whistleblower legislation even though

it is, I believe, in six or seven jurisdictions, it is relatively new.

By doing some good comparative analysis, hopefully we, as a jurisdiction,

will not go down a road that some others have gone down and run into significant

difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, significant difficulties with

whistleblowing means that individuals who came forward were not given the

protection they thought they would get.

So, as a government, you want to make sure that what probably happened in

some other jurisdictions is not going to happen in this jurisdiction, because of

the seriousness of the nature and the intent of what this bill is putting

forward.

Again, Mr. Speaker, any time is a good time to do the

right thing. We said as a government

that we would do this legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, I am standing here as part

of a government that is moving forward with it.

From what I am hearing from across the way, especially from the Third

Party, there are a lot of good things they see in this legislation, one they

have anticipated for a period of time and very hopeful that this bill will take

care of the intent.

Mr. Speaker, what is the bill?

The bill talks about an independent mechanism for the disclosure and

investigation of wrongdoings in or relating to the public service and protect

employees who make the disclosures from reprisals.

That is always the danger.

You see a wrongdoing and you have to judge for yourself whether you want to put

yourself on the line so to speak. In

many cases you are putting yourself on the line with regard to employment.

You are working in a particular area with a particular

group of people and you have to make the judgement as to whether or not you are

going to be the one who would bring forward some type of wrongdoing, knowing

full well that you are probably going to have to suffer some reprisals for doing

so. It is not as simple as saying:

No, that is not going to happen. It

is the right thing to do. It is

about justice and so on and so forth; because, as all of you know in this

Chamber, this is Newfoundland and Labrador and, believe it or not, a very closed

community in a lot of ways.

Even within government departments, in the larger

government, a lot of people know each other and if there is a wrongdoing in some

of these units or some of these offices, it will become quite obvious.

Even though you say you can protect, I think it would be quite obvious to

who might be the one who is bringing forth that disclosure.

So it is very, very important that we have tight legislation which makes

sure everything is done, everything that is possible is done so the identity of

that individual is not known.

I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be a

tough job, a very tough job. I am

satisfied that this legislation is going as far as it possibly can but it is not

as simple as black and white. Again,

we must, as a Chamber, look at all aspects of this bill and make sure it is what

we think it would be.

Now, the scope and the scope is line departments or

public bodies. That is what this is

all about. As a government, we have

an obligation to protect the employees who fall under our jurisdiction, our

responsibility. Of course, you would

hope that we are doing what we believe is the right thing for our employees and

you would hope in private business they would look at having similar mechanisms

as we do in government.

We also know, for example, that Memorial University

does have really robust whistleblower protection.

We are satisfied everything has been done in that academic community

because it is a little bit unique, as we as a Province are unique.

When you have an academic community, that too lends itself to making sure

you are doing the right thing, because you have a closed community, and a large

community, when you look at Memorial University.

Having said that, there is always an opportunity for

that public body to avail of this legislation.

At some future date, if something is brought to the attention of

government or to Memorial, that their protection does not match up with what has

been legislated, we hope, in this particular bill.

The scope is our line departments, our public bodies.

The intent is to uphold the integrity of the public service.

I have been around government now for, going on any number of years and

have been very much involved in at least six departments.

MR.

JOYCE:

(Inaudible).

MR.

HEDDERSON:

look at the Member for Bay of Islands, I am not saying I am here too long, but I

am here long enough to have had some great experience with some of the

departments. I am sure he is nodding

as well, in saying that I have met some tremendous individuals who are dedicated

to public service in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are intent on making a

career out of it. Whether it is in

Transportation and Works, whether it is in Intergovernmental Affairs, in any

number of departments that I was there.

The integrity of the public service is so, so

important. We must as a government,

as a Chamber here, do everything we can to uphold that integrity.

The way to do it is to make sure the people who work in government or any

associated bodies, that we give them the protection and the opportunity to make

sure that they feel very, very comfortable and protected as they would move

forward with what I believe to be very, very difficult decision makings and

judgements. That is to look at

wrongdoing within your department, for example, and go forward.

The pillars have been mentioned, and every bill has to

be based on strong principles. The

first one, and the most important one, is disclosure without fear.

That is sort of all right for me to stand here and say to the public

employees out there that this bill is going to allow you to go forward without

fear. I am in a real world, and I

know that if the decision is made to go forward with disclosure, regardless of

what kind of protection we have in this bill, there will be apprehension, and

there will be someone who perhaps feels uncomfortable.

The principle is that we have to do everything that we can in legislation

to allow for that employee to make the right decision, not only to make the

right decision but to do it in a manner which allows him or her to be able to

move forward.

The second pillar I like the aspect of the

independent investigation. I fear I

differ. I know the member who stood

just before me on the Opposition talked about the two aspects: the internal as

opposed to the external. I think the

seriousness of this particular disclosure calls for complete independence.

I know that there are some cells, some units, within

government where you would have a half-a-dozen people and it is very, very

difficult for one of those six, for example, or one of those four, or one of

those seven who have worked together very closely perhaps for a period of time

it is so difficult for an employee to just turn around and go to one of them, in

many cases, what they consider to be their family and talk about a particular

wrongdoing of a third party or of the party themselves.

That is why we are introducing this.

If it is anything less serious, I am sure that they could probably work

it out amongst themselves.

This calls for an independent where you can step out of

where you are, go to a place where you are going to get total independence,

assessment, advice and so on and so forth.

That is most important because of the seriousness of the nature of this

wrongdoing.

It is not going to be a trivial thing, I can tell you

that, as someone who sees something they need.

This one stream or this one mechanism, that is where I would be.

I think in other jurisdictions they found that would be the best route to

go. Not only that, but that

independent mechanism is our Citizens' Representative.

I have already heard that gentleman talk about how they

are prepared for this, how they are looking forward to this, how they do have

right now, they feel, the resources to deal with this.

What better place and what better office to deal with this very, very

sensitive matter of an employee within a certain unit or department talking

about some wrongdoing that they have witnessed that they need to have addressed?

Thirdly and let's be honest; as much as you have the

independence of the Office of the Citizens' Representative, as your outside the

work situation, there is an investigation that takes place.

Let's be honest if you look at the numbers that are used, a small

section

here, a small

section there, it might become quite obvious and, in many cases,

it will of who the whistleblower is.

Once that happens then, just by the very fact that

there is knowledge of it there may be in some indirect or direct reprisals

against that individual. It is all

right to say that we will protect you, but we cannot give 100 per cent

guarantee; nobody can. If the

identity becomes obvious, there may be individuals or an individual who within

that work unit will look for reprisals.

It might be a look. It might

be some verbal communications that would suggest abuse.

It is also very important, if that is there, the pillar

is if that happens there is somewhere else that the individual can go for

further protection. Of course, you

have to look for a second independent body, and the labour council would be

again an independent body who knows how to deal with labour-related matters, as

this would be, and could address the necessary compensation, action plan or

whatever that is required to allow this individual, this public servant, as

someone who has talked, who had the courage, because it is going to take

courage. I do not care what it is, I

do not care what type of wrongdoing or whatever, it takes a lot of courage for

somebody to stand up and say: This is not right.

The labour council can then, as an independent body, assess the situation

and make sure what is necessary to be done is indeed done.

Of course, Opposition parties and government parties,

no matter who we are or on what side of the House, guess what?

It always comes down to the details.

That is where we have to look.

I like the detailed part of it because there is a single disclosure

process that eliminates cumbersome administration and paper trail.

You have one independent office dealing with this, and from what it is to

where it should go. Basically, it

eliminates that discomfort and that apprehension an employee might have in

having to go to their supervisor, their director, or whoever.

I like, again, the independent body in the Office of the Citizens'

Representative as well as the Labour Relations Board.

I think there are seven provinces and the feds who have

this legislation in place. I think

we, as a government, have done enough of the comparative analysis to know what

is best for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is it exactly the same as all other jurisdictions?

No, and I would not want to be, I say, Mr. Speaker I would not want it

to be.

Our population is not a great population of

500,000-plus people, but I believe we as a government have done a good job in

making sure we are as a jurisdiction doing this, but secondly that we are taking

the best we have seen across this Nation, federally and provincially, and

incorporated it into a bill. I

believe we have cut the cloth to fit the job.

We are focused on wrongdoing, not routine operational

or HR matters. That is obvious, I

think. When you are dealing with HR,

we have unions and so on, and we have this, that, and the other thing, but we

are focused where we did. As I

already pointed out, MUN is exempted because we believe their program takes care

of it. We do know that Cabinet

confidence is again protected, that hallmark of democracy that obviously allows

our Cabinet to function in a democratic manner in which they should.

The accountability I know some are questioning the accountability.

When I look at the Speaker and the Chair and know that this Legislature

has mechanisms that would insist on reports being brought in and made public in

the most opportune way, I am very, very comfortable.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I certainly am very supportive

of this bill. I know that both

Opposition Parties believe in the principles that we are putting forth.

I would encourage them to continue to bring forth their concerns.

Because in the end, we want, as we do with all of our legislation, it to

be the best in not only this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we as a

government would want it to be the best in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

HEDDERSON:

believe, Mr. Speaker, we set the table and it is up to us here in this

Legislature now to go forward with what I believe to be a very important

initiative from this government. We

have listened and we have acted.

Here is Bill 1; take it as it is.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER (Verge):

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any argument from

anybody on either side of this House that whistleblower legislation is needed.

It is a long time in the making.

It was promised several years ago by government and I think everybody

will be happy to see the day that whistleblower legislation is finally brought

into effect. There are some concerns

with it and I will get into that, but I will say that whistleblower legislation

is certainly a long time in the making and long overdue.

After years of waiting, we finally see the legislation

brought to the House of Assembly.

There has been some debate and I think some very good suggestions by members on

this side of the House on how this legislation can be improved.

Public servants have wanted this for a long time, Mr.

Speaker. I know in 2007 House of

Assembly employees were protected under similar legislation or clauses as a

result of Justice Green's report, but public servants have wanted this

particular legislation for some time.

Public servants know that there is wrongdoing from time to time within

government, either at the departmental level or politically and they want to see

an ability to be able to inform the public of when a wrongdoing is taking place.

If that had happened, Mr. Speaker, maybe what happened

back in the early 2000s where we needed to see Justice Green come in and make

the changes here in the House of Assembly, maybe that would not have happened.

Because there were bureaucrats who obviously understood and saw that

there was some wrongdoing and that needed to be corrected.

So, it is needed. Public

servants now want the same protections and the same rights that certain members

of the staff of the House of Assembly currently have.

I do have some questions, and I know that based on this

legislation we are going to potentially see an increased workload for the Office

of the Citizens' Representative, but we do not see any increase in the budget in

the Office of the Citizens' Representative for an anticipated increase in

workload. If there is work referred

to the Office of the Citizens' Representative, is that going to be covered under

a special warrant? It will have to

be. We will have to bring a special

warrant to this House to cover any additional work that their office cannot

afford to undertake because they have seen no increase in this year's budget.

That is one example, and I know that we are still

deliberating and debating the Budget, Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly one

example where we could see an improvement to this legislation by means of

increasing the budget for the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

The act comes into force on July 1, Mr. Speaker.

So, clearly, what you have is April 1 is the new fiscal year, you have

all of April, all of May and all of June that the Office of the Citizens'

Representative would not see an increase in work; but as of July 1, you have

nine more months that the Office of the Citizens' Representative could

potentially see an increase in workload.

Mr. Speaker, if a member of the public service were to

blow the whistle to the media, for example, rather than making a written

complaint to the Office of the Citizens' Representative, would they be

protected? I am not clear under this

legislation. In fact, I do not think

they would under this legislation.

It does not specifically outline that, but I do not think they would be

protected under this particular piece of legislation if they were to speak with

the media.

So is that something intentionally that the legislation

has left out? Are we trying to

discourage members of the public service from speaking to the media if there is

a wrongdoing? Do we want them

specifically to go in writing to the Office of the Citizens' Representative?

Mr. Speaker, the Citizens' Representative is not

required to investigate complaints that are considered frivolous or vexatious,

and they say that such complaints could damage the reputation of those being

named. So, safeguards will be needed

to ensure that reputations are not damaged unnecessarily.

If somebody has a beef with a manager, a director, a

deputy minister, or a minister, for that matter, they could make a frivolous

complaint to the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

We do need to ensure that if such a complaint is made, that those who are

in positions of authority are protected, if it is proven and if it can be shown

that is a frivolous complaint, that the reputation of somebody is not damaged

simply because somebody has a beef with them.

We need to look at the legislation and we need to ensure that the

legislation is a little bit stronger in those regards to ensure that we do

encourage people to come forward, we do encourage people to make the complaint

if they see a wrongdoing, but we also need to ensure that people are protected

against frivolous complaints or vexatious complaints.

Mr. Speaker, clause 4 of the act only applies to

wrongdoings that occur after July 1 of 2014.

What about issues that happen prior to July 1, 2014?

I will give you a prime example; we are talking now about Humber Valley

Paving. I am not going to say that I

have evidence that could be brought forward, but that is something that has been

hotly debated back and forth across this House.

There are different opinions on that particular issue, so it is a fine

example. If this legislation comes

into force, it comes into force July 1.

Something such as Humber Valley Paving, if a public servant is aware that

there is a wrongdoing with that cannot come forward with it.

There are other cases, Mr. Speaker, where public

servants would not be able to come forward if they have a concern or a complaint

of a wrongdoing that happened within government prior to the July 1, 2014.

What about ongoing issues and events that have taken place prior to?

It does not protect anyone who makes a complaint about something that

happened prior to July 1, 2014.

I think that is a weakness in the bill.

I think that is somewhere that we could look at improving this bill, Mr.

Speaker. I would say that we should

look at putting in place going back to when the legislation was promised,

ensuring that as of the time the legislation was promised, people have the

ability to come forward and say that something happened, something went wrong

within government. We should amend

that, Mr. Speaker. The act should

also apply to any reports of wrongdoing which take place after this comes into

force. We do not provide any post

facto blanket amnesty for events that happened prior to.

Mr. Speaker, under clause 8, disclosures must be

signed. There is no provision for a

valid anonymous disclosure or complaint.

While I understand to a certain degree the need for that, at the same

time, on the same token, the other side of it, there is perhaps at times a need

for an anonymous complaint because of somebody's connection to the person they

are complaining about within a department or the sensitivity involved.

I would say that is something that should be looked at, whether or not it

was overlooked. I think we should

look at and maybe put in clauses that would say under certain conditions an

anonymous complaint may be made.

The identity of an employee making a disclosure

under the current legislation that is being proposed shall be kept

confidential to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the need to

conduct a proper investigation.

There is no absolute guarantee of anonymity.

That is the concern with what I am raising, the fact that there should be

certain cases, certain conditions clearly outlined where an anonymous complaint

can also be made.

Mr. Speaker, you look at solicitor-client privilege

here, the act authorizes the disclosure of information or documents that are

protected by solicitor-client privilege.

There is a concern here as well.

It provides a very broad protection and exemption of text reviewed by

government lawyers giving what I would call blanket protection to legal

documents covered under solicitor-client privilege.

Therefore, the same problem as Bill 29 and associated rulings where we

see under Bill 29 there are certain things protected because government consider

them to be client-solicitor protected.

Under clause 14(2) An investigation shall and this

is an important word, shall be conducted as informally and expedi