April

4, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 9

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, the Chair would like to extend a warm welcome to the Mount Pearl

Seniors Independence Group from the Districts of Mount Pearl North, Mount Pearl

South, and the District of Topsail. The group is accompanied by their co-ordinator,

Georgina Smith.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the

District of Lewisporte; and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl

South.

Does the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South,

by leave.

The hon. the Member for District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Ms Anne

Whelan, a resident of St. John's East, who has been recently awarded the RBC

Momentum Award. This was one of six RBC Canadian Women Entrepreneur Awards, the

pre-eminent national business award program recognizing leading female

entrepreneurs. The purpose of this award program is to provide national

recognition to Canada's women entrepreneurs, whose successful businesses and

achievements contribute so much to the Canadian and global economies as well as

to their own communities.

The RBC Momentum Award is given to an individual who has directed their

corporation to successfully overcome obstacles while capitalizing on

opportunities for growth in leadership and with a commitment to excellence.

Anne's company, known as CareGivers, has pursued an aggressive growth

strategy to meet the needs of home care, nursing and residential care services,

throughout the Province expanding from 120 employees in 2005 to over 5,000

today. Under Anne's direction, CareGivers is planning to expand within the

Province over the next six months, and potentially explore other opportunities

across Canada.

In her acceptance speech, Anne stated that this "award acknowledges our

commitment to integrity, safety and continuous improvement through expanded

management and dedication to empowering our team". This is a statement which is

very typical of Anne, as she routinely deflects credit for CareGivers' success

to the team that she has gathered around her.

Anne is just one of six women nationally to receive a 2010 RBC Canadian Women

Entrepreneur Award from over 2,000 nominations. It should therefore come as no

surprise that Anne also won the 2010 Visionary Award from NLOWE, or the

Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs.

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

congratulating Anne Whelan for her many successes and to wish her well in all

her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the tremendous work done by

volunteer firefighters throughout my district.

Throughout my term of office, I have attended appreciation dinners for

firemen in many communities throughout my district: Lewisporte, Stoneville,

Horwood, Birchy Bay, Baytona, Comfort Cove, Embree, Gander Bay, and Norris Arm.

It is always nice, Mr. Speaker, to see communities come out, many on an annual

basis, to express appreciation to the men and women who put themselves in harms

way for our safety.

Firefighters are people who care about their community. They not only respond

to fire emergencies, they are there to respond to emergencies at sea, traffic

accidents, and as we have seen during Hurricane Igor, they are there to help

manage the devastation caused by natural disasters. They are people we depend on

every day.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognizing and

showing our appreciation to the many volunteer firefighters throughout our

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to welcome the

Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group on behalf of myself, the Member for

Topsail, and the Member for Mount Pearl North.

Ministers do not usually make members' statements, and I thank the Opposition

and the Leader of the NDP for granting me the opportunity to recognize these

wonderful individuals.

Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group was established to

become a voice for all seniors. They advocate, plan, and promote their

independence, dignity, health and well-being. There are approximately 220 active

members, and I can personally say that I have had the liberty of meeting and

conversing with each and every one of them. They are nothing short of a joy to

know, and I am happy to be standing here today and congratulating them on their

success..

The group provides many initiatives in the community at large including a

drop-in centre where they enjoy cards, bingo, rummoli, a cup of tea and each

other's company. In addition to the many programs and services such as, free

summer odd jobs, free income tax clinics and annual flu shot clinics, to only

mention a few. There are a number of other social activities, Mr. Speaker, which

include the friendship club, creative crafts, Friday luncheons, summer

barbecues, dance bowling every Tuesday morning, and the annual parties of

Halloween, Christmas and St. Patrick's Day.

The Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group has done great things for our

community and we are very proud of each and every member.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending

congratulations to the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group for their

continued contributions.

Once again, thank you all for being here today and we wish you well in the

future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today not only as the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and MHA for Conception Bay South,

but as a proud citizen of this Province, to congratulate the Town of Conception

Bay South for winning the coveted title of Kraft Hockeyville 2011.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: The town's successful campaign paid off this past weekend

during Saturday's CBC Hockey Night in Canada broadcast, when the town was named

the grand prize winner.

I think it is safe to say that hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador is a

household commodity for many, so to see a community from this Province come out

on top and win this popular contest is simply terrific.

Mr. Speaker, the Kraft Hockeyville competition was established in 2006 as a

community-driven contest that searches for the Canadian community that embodies

the spirit of hockey and hometown pride. This is the second time a community

from the Atlantic Region has won this title; Salmon River, Nova Scotia was the

inaugural winner. Port aux Basques, Harbour Grace and Bishop's Falls have made

it to the top five in previous competitions.

The Town of Conception Bay South will now be awarded $100,000 to be used for

upgrading of the Robert French Memorial Stadium. The town will also host a

National Hockey League pre-season game and a CBC Hockey Night in Canada

broadcast.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the organizing committee for their

tireless and dedicated efforts and for providing the country with a wonderful

and fitting profile of the community. Their hard work is sincerely appreciated

and clearly paid off.

I would also like to thank those who took the time to vote for the town, the

residents of Conception Bay South, other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians both

at home and abroad, and Canadian supporters throughout the country.

I, along with the Member for Topsail and the Member for Harbour Main invite

my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Town of Conception Bay South as

they celebrate this great achievement, not only for their community but for the

Province as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

It is indeed a pleasure, an honour to congratulate the Town of CBS on this

wonderful achievement. I happened to have personal involvement back in the

inaugural year of 2006 when we did it in Port aux Basques; we did not beat CBS

but we did do better than Harbour Grace in terms of the overall numbers. It is

finally great to see that a town from Newfoundland and Labrador who hockey

runs in the blood here. It is great to see that the Province's largest town, I

do believe, right now can certainly attain this award.

It is good not only for the kids who are involved in minor hockey, of course,

because it becomes more than a minor hockey thing it involves the whole

community it energizes everybody and to see that we finally pulled this off on

the national stage is great. I certainly congratulate the people of CBS,

everybody who was involved. The organizers put their life and soul into this

thing to win. In fact I cast a few votes myself because I was hooked on it

several years ago. I am glad to see that not only Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians but people all over the world using the Internet can go in and

vote. It is great to see that that happened and again congratulations to the

Town of CBS.

I do not know about the two teams you have coming in, I hear it is Atlanta

and Ottawa but in any case hopefully there will be a ticket around.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I am happy to stand and join with the minister and the Opposition House

Leader in congratulating both the Conception Bay Regional Hockey Association,

which did the organizing and who worked so hard, and as well the whole Town of

CBS. They had everybody behind them, both in CBS and outside of that town. I did

hear the Mayor of Mount Pearl on the radio one day with the Mayor of CBS giving

all his support and giving him hints on how to get the votes and they did it.

They won by a landslide with 300,000 more votes than the second place, the

Town of Mackenzie, in BC. That is really amazing. I guess every Newfoundlander

and Labradorian around the world must have joined this and all of their

friends as well to make it happen.

One of the really good things about this one is what will happen for the

community and having the money to do the upgrade to the stadium but it shows

the tremendous town spirit and community spirit that we have, and the spirit in

the Province out there. We are one large village really in this Province. We do

not have a big population but we can certainly do a lot, and this proves it.

I am sure that the minister will not mind if I say because the town loves

hockey so much, I am sure they will join all of us too in congratulating the

Exploits Cats on their win on the weekend. I had to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform hon. members of the many accomplishments

within the Provincial Social Housing Plan and Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation. Our goal has always been to address various components of providing

affordable housing for those with the greatest need.

For at least twenty-five years, not a lot of attention was paid to affordable

housing issues, Mr. Speaker. This government changed that by becoming only the

third jurisdiction in all of Canada to produce a provincial social housing plan

with input from our many partners and stakeholders. Since its release in August

2009, we have stuck to this plan, which outlines access to adequate, affordable

housing as an essential element to preventing, reducing, and alleviating

poverty, and provides goals and objectives for our government to pursue.

The provincial government, Mr. Speaker, has now tripled the budget for

improvements and renovations to sustain our Province's 5,500-unit portfolio, a

budget that was limited for many years. For twenty-five years, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, the heat subsidy funding was $6.9 million; today it is $9.4 million.

The Rent Supplement Program remained at a level of $4 million, Mr. Speaker,

for twenty-five years. In 2009, the provincial government increased the Rent

Supplement Program by 50 per cent to $6 million. I am pleased to say as well

that seventy-eight rent supplements, for the first time ever, were provided to

assist the Canadian Mental Health Association and Stella Burry Community

Services to accommodate persons with complex needs.

The Provincial Home Repair Program, Mr. Speaker, was $4 million per year for

twenty-five years; this government actually doubled its contribution to that

program to $8 million.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, in 2009 our government introduced the first-ever

Residential Energy Efficiency Program, commonly known as REEP. That two-year

pilot program saw enormous and positive results a 35 per cent decrease in

fact, Mr. Speaker, in the energy costs which amounted to almost $800 per year

savings per household which participated.

We introduced a $1 million annual Homelessness Fund in 2009 that is enabling

non-profit organizations throughout the Province to do their

part in curbing

homelessness and poverty in their communities.

For the past six years our provincial government has been signatory to three

phases of a provincial-federal affordable housing program that will see the

construction of nearly 900 new affordable housing units for seniors, persons

with disabilities, families, and persons with complex needs.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say all of these initiatives, which were put

forth by our community partners and administered by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation, have received positive results. I look forward to

more to come in 2011.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr.

Speaker, while we in the Official Opposition are encouraged by the investments

and government's report card, there are many people in this Province who

continue to find lengthy wait-lists looking for social housing.

According to Newfoundland and Labrador's own statistics, Mr. Speaker, on

March 18, 2011, there are 1,030 individuals across this Province on the current

wait-list; some 564 here on the Avalon, 158 in Corner Brook area, forty-seven in

Labrador, including Aboriginal communities in Labrador West.

The poverty activists continue to highlight affordable housing and

homelessness in this Province, right throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. The

problem seems to span all segments, whether they are seniors, students and

various families. Under the guidelines for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing,

they say that 30 per cent of a person's income they look at as being affordable

housing and being qualified.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also mentioned about the Homelessness Fund for

2009. We know full well the family of the Blanchards on the West Coast who are

on the verge of being homeless because they are unable to pay their rent. Mr.

Speaker, I know of incidents in my own area where a young person was left

homeless. He was sent to St. John's, put in a facility for three nights and he

had to find a unit on his own within three days or he was on the street again.

Mr. Speaker, much has to be done. We commend the work that has been done but

we say the minister should make sure that housing, first approach, is essential

to any poverty reduction strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, we

were pleased when the social housing plan was introduced in August of 2009. We

needed the plan and it is admirable that we are one of the few provinces with a

social housing plan. We certainly need it right now with the crisis that we are

dealing with, with the escalating housing costs, not just in St. John's but in

major centres in the Province, in Corner Brook and in Labrador West. These

escalating costs are really causing hardship to middle income as well as

low-income people. The group of people being affected is growing because of the

escalating costs. It is really important, Mr. Speaker, that the plan include

some deadlines for the creation of new affordable housing units. We do not have

timelines there and I would like the minister to look at, start to give us some

idea of timelines, and how many units will be available at a certain point in

time.

We also need to look at the issue of rent supplements. The supplements ran

out two year ago, a month before the social housing plan was even released. It

is essential that we have rent supplements for people who cannot afford housing

and are not in housing that is in itself belonging to government not part of

NLHC and not part of any of the special housing units that are going up. So, we

have to give a serious look to the rent supplements, we need them, and there are

many households who need them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we cannot overstate the importance of strong

literacy skills and lifelong learning. Today, more than ever, they are the tools

which lead to an individual's success, and to the future economic development of

our Province.

As we recognize April 2-9 as International Adult Learners' Week, we also

recognize the men and women who have worked hard - sometimes under difficult

circumstances - to further their literacy and learning during their adult years.

As a government, Mr. Speaker, we support their efforts.

Since 2004, $48 million has been invested in such initiatives as increasing

the number of sites offering Adult Basic Education, introducing an adult learner

scholarship program, and expanding College of the North Atlantic's Comprehensive

Arts and Science program. In addition, community-based literacy programming has

been enhanced through improvements in our data collection systems. As a result,

we now know more about our learners, and their needs.

All these measures are helping adult learners meet the admission requirements

for further post-secondary training or employment - which is essential to

enabling them to participate more fully in our growing economy.

We intend to build on that success, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to report

that we will release a Strategic Adult Literacy Plan this spring. It is

important that we continue to remove barriers which prevent adults from

improving their skills and education, and this plan will do just that. It is

designed to raise awareness, increase participation, and enhance access to

effective adult literacy and learning programs throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as we observe International Adult Learners' Week, I

take this opportunity to thank the many literacy leaders throughout the Province

whose commitment is making a difference to adults who want to improve their

literacy skills and continue to learn. Together, we are making a real difference

in people's lives and to their hopes for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We, in the Opposition, recognize the importance of strong literacy skills and

lifelong learning and any initiative that helps to improve that and to bring it

along certainly is a good thing. We recognize this week as the International

Adult Learners' Week and commend those who later in life recognize the need to

further their literacy skills and to improve their education. We commend those

who dropped out of high school - for whatever reason, some really not interested

and so on, or some falling on different circumstances - and yet, realizing they

need to go back and go through that process. We commend those people.

We look forward to the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan that the minister

mentioned, and removing barriers is very important. One of the strongest

indicators, I believe, of the success that we are having in terms of really

conquering the literacy challenges are the percentages of students who are

graduating with high school diplomas. We know that basically is (inaudible) we

are around 75 per cent or so in the Province. It tells us there are still 25 per

cent who are not graduating our high schools and I believe that is a challenge

for the department and that is a barrier we need to see removed. Nevertheless,

it is good to celebrate this week, the adults who are involved in this week and

we trust that improvements will continue to be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I am happy to stand and recognize International Adult Learners' Week. It is

very important to recognize the work that is going on with regard to adult

learning. Literacy is a key to economic success and it is so important that we

raise the level of literacy in this Province because it is so essential for

citizenship, for work, for lifelong learning. We still have a lot of people

whose level of literacy skills keeps some from participating fully in the

community and in the economy and in education or training.

Adults with literacy problems, Mr. Speaker, are reported to have two-thirds

the income of other Canadians and they are twice as likely to be unemployed and

much more likely to receive some form of social assistance. Bringing up literacy

levels in the Province is extremely important as part of poverty reduction

because poverty and illiteracy really do go together.

I agree with the minister that we must continue to remove any and all

barriers that prevent adults who want to improve their skills. We have had a lot

of efforts going on in the Province; one, in particular, that I have known since

it started is the Rabbittown Learners. These are the kinds of initiatives that

government needs to look at, and to continue supporting and making sure they

have the resources to do the community-based literacy programs that are so

successful in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday evening when the Premier and all of her caucus were

down making friends with Stephen Harper and she was shaking his hand, Mr.

Harper, with his other hand, was gutting the inshore shrimp quotas in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the Premier today: What representations have you and your party made to

the federal government to protect the inshore shrimp trawlers in Newfoundland

and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Understand, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador come

first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: For the Leader of the Opposition, if she wants to check back

through my correspondence in anticipating these types of cuts that were coming

last year, we started writing a letter campaign to ministers last year in April;

in May, we had another. This year, again, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with

Minister Shea on it, what we recognize at this particular point is that this is

an interim measure to get the fishery started. I am putting in a call to

Minister Shea to get the details as to when we can expect the final numbers. Mr.

Speaker, let's take a look at this. This is an interim measure and we will await

their response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We realize there is a holdback on some of the quotas here.

I ask the Premier today: Do you think that it is acceptable that Stephen

Harper, in the middle of a federal campaign, would hold back quota to use as

election bait in the middle of an election and put the lives of thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on hold who are dependent upon the inshore

shrimp fishery in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this was an interim measure to get

the fishery started.

Mr. Speaker, we have a price this year for shrimp that has not been seen in

years. Sixty-five cents a pound is something that has not been seen in years,

and we are looking forward to the start of the fishing season, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You cannot ignore the facts, and the facts are that on Thursday, when the

inshore shrimp fishery in this Province was getting one of the largest cuts we

have ever seen, you, Minister, and your Premier, was down shaking hands with the

very man who is making these cuts.

So I ask you today: In making your representation, did you have any input

into where these cuts were going to be made, how they were going to be applied,

and why is it that the people in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador have to bear the brunt of all of this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite would recognize that there

is a Shrimp Advisory Council, and on that council sit fisherpeople and our

officials. The debate goes on an on. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we are

very much aware of, and everyone in the industry is aware of, the resource is in

decline; therefore, decisions have to be made to protect those resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the Premier does not want to get her hands fishy; she will not

talk about the fishery in the House of Assembly. We know that shrimp was not on

the agenda, obviously, at the Harper event on Thursday evening, but let us see

what other critical issues may have been on at the event, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today: Now that you are best friends with Stephen Harper

and have welcomed him with open arms back into Newfoundland and Labrador, what

does this mean for the $10 billion broken promise on equalization that he made

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? Is that now off the table and no longer a

priority? Have you sold out the people of this Province, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may not know it,

but our Province no longer is on equalization. We are a have province under that

formula, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to be friends

with the only Prime Minister in fifty years of Confederation that has taken

Newfoundland and Labrador's side on a hydro dispute with the Province of Quebec.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province, I say to you, Premier, and I say to you,

Minister, are smarter than that, and they know that if Stephen Harper had kept

his promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we would be a lot wealthier

today as people of the Province. We do not want crumbs, we want what we deserve.

So let me ask you this, Premier: When you were down on Thursday with your

best friend, Stephen Harper, did you talk about 5 Wing Goose Bay and the 600

troops that he was going to bring to Happy Valley-Goose Bay that never

materialized? What is the fate of the base in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

What is your best friend, Harper, telling you about that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't. I can

offer you today example after example when the Leader of the Opposition and the

Opposition House Leader criticized us because we did not have a relationship

with the federal Conservatives.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is important when people do hear the legitimate

aspirations of the people of this Province and acknowledge them that we speak to

that. It is the right thing to do because we certainly spoke when they did not.

With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, you are eight years too

late to this bandwagon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, it is never too late to stand up for the people of this

Province, and I am not about to sell out the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

like you have just sold out the people

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having great difficulty hearing questions asked and answers

given. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can guarantee you, Premier, we are not about to sell out the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador because we want to hobnob with Stephen Harper. Mr.

Speaker, it was the Premier himself who said that Stephen Harper could not be

trusted when he made commitments and promises to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier: You have a commitment on a loan guarantee, but what

do you have for 5 Wing Goose Bay and the future of that base in Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do have a commitment on a loan guarantee from Prime

Minister Harper. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report today that we have a

commitment from her own federal leader, Mr. Ignatieff, on a loan guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that people have to

come from abroad to inform the members opposite of the benefits of a great

project like Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing wrong to have all federal leaders supporting loan guarantees

for clean energy development in Canada, I say to you, Premier. We take no

exception to that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I once again ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it does not talk to the economic viability of the

project that you are proposing. So let us get into that, because you are not

going to answer to the commitments on 5 Wing Goose Bay, you are not going to

answer to any of the other commitments that have been made to Newfoundland and

Labrador and broken because you have sold the people out on one file.

So, Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, Dr. John Collins, who was a former PC

Finance Minister, was quoted in the paper as saying that there is no credible

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He said that there are no credible projections on energy costs, construction

costs, or even consumer demand.

I ask you, Premier: Why are you not putting that information out there for

the public of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, the Leader of the Opposition only provides part of the information.

In that

article he also stated that he did not have much information on the

project. Like her, he decides to speak and find out later.

Mr. Speaker, there have been over fifty information sessions held to date.

They continue. Mr. Speaker, we try almost on a daily basis to inform members

opposite through briefings with Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is continue to put the

information out in the public domain more information than has ever been made

public on any project in this Province. One continues to live in hope, Mr.

Speaker, that one day they will get it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my colleague says, we know what the rate payers of this Province are

getting: They are getting shafted, Mr. Speaker, by the Premier and by her

government.

Why is it that you, Premier, and your government do not want the people of

this Province to know the details of Muskrat Falls when it comes to the energy

costs, the construction costs, and the customer demand for power?

Why is it that you will not back up your numbers and Nalcor to date has not

released the information to the public, to the panel, or to us in the briefings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only has Nalcor released that information, the Department of

Natural Resources has released that information. Information has been filed with

the PUB. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of briefings with Nalcor, and

your own numbers get knocked down every time you come in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They come in excited like children, Mr. Speaker,

because they think they have something. They leave those briefings absolutely

deflated, gather together for an hour and a half so they can cook something else

up before Question Period and, Mr. Speaker, they call this an informed debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not quite as gullible as some of

the PC caucus are and they want to see the finer details I say to you Premier.

Why is it that you will not put the information out there? Even again, the panel

is coming back and saying that the information from Nalcor is not satisfactory

and they require more detailed financial projections and information. Why is it

that everything is under lock and key in a vault and no one only yourself, your

caucus and Nalcor can have privilege to see this information?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there is more information on this project in

the public domain than has ever been on any project including your own two

attempts to develop the Lower Churchill. Never so much information made

available before.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have anything to hide from any body and specifically

not from the environmental review. Mr. Speaker, all of the information that has

been requested is being provided. This will have an open, transparent debate

here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and people will come to the

conclusion that all of us have arrived at through the scrutiny of the details of

this project: that this is a good project for Newfoundland Labrador, for

Atlantic Canada and for the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I will tell you who it is not good for, the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador who will have to have their light bills doubled to pay

for your legacy project, I say to you Premier. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker,

the government last week was quoted as saying that any excess energy would be

sold into the Maritimes or into the United States and have confirmed that it

will be sold at a much lower price than it will be in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier: How is it a good deal when a company can set up in

Nova Scotia and get power for their business a lot cheaper than they could ever

do in Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try and explain something very complex as clearly

as I can.

Mr. Speaker, the cheapest energy that can be provided to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador is 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. That is as cheap as we

we cannot bring it in from Nova Scotia cheaper, we cannot bring it in from

Quebec cheaper, we cannot build it any cheaper in Newfoundland and Labrador;

14.3 cents still gives Nalcor a 9 per cent internal rate of return, so we are

still making money.

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia needs power. They need power and they can provide it

to themselves for 10 cents or 11 cents a kilowatt hour. They are not going to

buy it from us, Mr. Speaker, for 14.3, so we have to go into the market and sell

at what the market can bear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is most pathetic picture I have ever seen in

my life, a Premier in this Province trying to justify why they have to give Nova

Scotia power cheaper than they can give it to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I ask you again, Premier: Why is it that under your Muskrat Falls deal any

company who wants to develop industry can do so in Nova Scotia, get their power

cheaper from Muskrat Falls than they can in Labrador? What kind of

rationalization is that in telling people that is a good deal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Therein lies the danger of going down this road, Mr.

Speaker, because her ignorance is so vast.

Mr. Speaker, at 14.3 per cent, anybody who wants to come and do industrial

development in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly in Labrador, can get

their power for whatever we decide to sell it to them for.

Mr. Speaker, when you are trying to sell power to a market who can produce it

themselves for 10 cents per kilowatt hour, there is no good trying to sell it

for 14 cents a kilowatt hour any more than they would sell it to us for 16 cents

an hour, Mr. Speaker, when we can produce it ourselves for 14.3 cents a kilowatt

hour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, not only will the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador be paying the highest price for Muskrat Falls power of any other

consumer of that power but, Mr. Speaker, what will be the other impact on the

cost of living for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? I ask the Premier because

we know we have people living on a fixed income, we know that with the doubling

of the price of electricity there is going to be an increased cost in food and

other cost of living, Mr. Speaker, that affect people in their everyday expenses

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you: Have you done any economic analysis that shows what the effects of

the cost of living are going to be on the people in Newfoundland and Labrador

under your power regime?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at 14.3 cents, if we do not sell a kilowatt of power to anywhere

else in the country, that is still the cheapest rate that we can get in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can let the excess water spill

out over the dam and not get anything for it, but we can sell it where there is

a market and we can decrease that 14.3 cents further for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if power doubles - and it has gone up 35 per cent in the last

five years and is predicted to double, not by Newfoundland and Labrador, but by

experts across the country. Mr. Speaker, if power doubles, it will not double

because of Muskrat Falls. Power is going up over the next ten years because of

the price of oil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am still amazed by the fact that the Premier likes to stand up and defend

why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should pay more for their power than any

other consumers of Muskrat Falls Power. This is the same government, Mr.

Speaker, that does not want to give industrial customers currently in Labrador a

break on their energy prices on their new agreements, but yet, they are prepared

to give it to Nova Scotians to attract industry. It is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, even this weekend in The Telegram , Russell Wangersky, who

is an editor had a commentary or a piece that talked about how this is going to

impact the cost of living of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

I ask you Premier: Have you looked at what the impact is going to be on

businesses, on consumers, on every single person who lives in Newfoundland and

Labrador as a result of the high (inaudible) that you are going to pour on them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly have, we certainly have. We understand this

project; we understand what the alternatives are. Unlike the members opposite

who are proposing that we hook up fifty, or sixty, or seventy different hydro

sites around the Province to generate 170 megawatts of electricity not knowing

where we are going to get the rest to make up the 490. It is not that kind of

planning that goes on, on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we understand completely, and, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the major

drivers for developing Muskrat Falls. It is the cheapest way that we can provide

for the energy costs of people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is also the

cheapest way that we can induce industrial development, particularly in

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, news of the cuts to the Northern shrimp quota have many in the

Province, especially on the Northern Peninsula, quite concerned about the future

of the fishing industry. Mr. Speaker, there are four shrimp plants on the

Northern Peninsula that likely will be impacted by these latest cuts. Last year

in this House, when questioned on the 28 per cent cut in Area 6 for 2010, the

minister reassured that he was on top of the file and indeed, promised a

regional impact report for the Northern Peninsula.

I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: Has this report been completed and, if

so, can he table it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I answered previously in my response to the

Leader of the Opposition, the numbers that came out on Thursday, we recognize

that if these are the final numbers the impact will be great. Mr. Speaker, we

have to wait and find out what the final numbers are. As was released, and

everyone will acknowledge, this is an interim measure. We have to wait and see

what the final numbers are and what it comes down to, and then we will make our

decisions from there.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, as I also indicated, I have written the

minister. I am attempting to reach her by phone. If I get that information I

will relay it to the members opposite and to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose the question again because it is an

important one. If you look in Hansard, you will find on May 20, 2010 that the

minister very clearly indicated that there would be an assessment done and that

there would be an impact report in terms of how it would impact that region in

Area 6.

I ask the minister again: Was the report completed, and if so, is he willing

to table it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the numbers that we keep getting on shrimp, and

as I alluded to before, the actual resource is in decline. There is no one

disputing that. So the numbers this year, in all likelihood, are going to be

down below what they were last year.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member opposite what the impacts are going to

be on the number of plants that are going to be opened or the numbers that are

going to be closed. I have no determination yet as to what the final number will

be, Mr. Speaker. We are in the process of attempting to get that final number.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take that as a no to the report not having been done.

Mr. Speaker, the people of New Ferolle has a multi-species fish plant in

their community that has seen very little operation in the past number of years.

In fact, the plant has only operated for approximately fifty-five hours for the

past three years. A fish plant committee worker has long requested a meeting

with the Minister of Fisheries and while a date was set, we were told the

meeting was cancelled because he attended the Boston Seafood Show. Mr. Speaker,

the crab season opened yesterday and the plant in New Ferolle is still not

ready.

I ask the minister: Why has he not been more accountable to the people of New

Ferolle who simply want to get working to feed their families, and will you meet

with the fish plant committee?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you have to be really careful when you use a

statement such as the meeting was cancelled because he went to the Boston

Seafood Show. I will not relay to him here, Mr. Speaker, what that reason was.

Mr. Speaker, I have met with the member for that area, with the committee up

there on two occasions. Anybody who has followed the history of New Ferolle

knows that this government have done everything they possibly can to see that

operation. Just recently I have learned that Mr. Mulowney is doing some work in

that plant. He has to understand one thing that the time is running out if he

does not get that plant in operation this year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier. It is about that famous Newfoundland and

Labrador Office of Federal-Provincial Relations. It cost the people of this

Province about $250,000 a year; $100,000 of which is rent and they get newspaper

subscriptions, somebody staffing it, but we do not have a representative for the

last year.

I know you are kissing cousins now Premier and you may need the place more

than ever, but what is your position, Premier, on the continued existence of

that office? If you are going to keep it, when do you intend to appoint someone

there? It has been vacant eleven months and you undertook in this House in

December, you said it is in my radar and I will have a decision made in a couple

of weeks. Well, we have been a few months now Premier and we still do not have

any decision. Are you going to keep the Ottawa office, and if so, when can we

expect to hear an appointment?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have made a decision; made the decision some time ago. The

House Leader for the Opposition just has not asked the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue with our Ottawa office. I have had the

Deputy Minister of the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector doing some work there

over the last couple of months, particularly as we discuss the loan guarantee

with the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I hope within the next three months to

make an appointment, a permanent appointment to that office, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, government acknowledges, and the Premier has done it again

today, that electricity rates will go up over the next several years due to

rising oil costs and the Muskrat Falls development. Our electricity rates are

projected to skyrocket. Mr. Speaker, seniors and families surviving on a low or

fixed income will be dramatically affected by the rise in these rates.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is it not fair and in the best interests

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to remove now the 8 per cent

provincial portion of the HST from the cost of home heating?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, never in this House have I said that electricity rates are going

to go up because of Muskrat Falls. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have said just the

opposite. Electricity rates are going to stabilize because of Muskrat Falls.

What is driving higher energy costs over the next number of years, Mr. Speaker,

has to do with the price of oil, not with the development of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we are very cognizant of the pressures that the people of this

Province find themselves under, especially with regard to providing heat for

their homes. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have a home heat rebate program. We

always, always, are exploring ways that we can reduce costs and support

families. We will continue to do that in our new budget coming in the next few

weeks, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in 2001, when the party opposite us, now in

government, were in Opposition, they called for the removal of the provincial

sales tax on home heating, and they said, and I quote, "the necessities of life,

like food and warmth, should not be taxed." Since 2001, the price of home

heating fuel has doubled. Mr. Speaker, home heating is not a luxury; it is a

necessity of life and should not be taxed.

So I ask the Premier, almost ten years later, will her government honour its

past commitments and stop collecting sales tax on the necessity of life?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member knows, we do have a home rebate program which, in essence,

rebates to people making up to $40,000 a sum of money which is essentially a

little bit more than what the provincial HST on home heat would be. So we target

it to the people who need it, rather than giving it to wealthy people. We need

to do things that help low income and moderate income people, and we continue to

do that with low income tax reductions, with the Home Heating Rebate Program,

with the Low Income Seniors' Benefit that we have increased on three occasions.

We have an age amount tax credit in this Province which is now the highest of

any province or territory in the country. We have a heating allowance, we have a

provincial home repair program, we have a drug card, we have the sixty-five-plus

plan, and we have eliminated that hated tax on insurance. Mr. Speaker, in the

budget we will do more things to help all citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance

Act. (Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 24)

I further give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It being the Monday preceding the Private Members' Day of Wednesday, and it

being the Opposition private member's motion, I move, on behalf of the Member

for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the following motion for this Wednesday.

WHEREAS free and open communication is critical to sound, public policy,

essential to good governance and a cornerstone of an open and democratic

society; and

WHEREAS public servants have a higher loyalty to the people of the Province

than to the security and convenience of their supervisors or political masters;

and

WHEREAS whistleblower protections already exist for the House of Assembly

service and statutory offices but the same protections are denied to public

servants within government departments and related agencies such as health and

education authorities; and

WHEREAS this government promised to introduce whistleblower legislation

almost four years ago;

BE IT RESOLVED that government consider the immediate extension of

whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal public servants in

order to ensure their ability to freely disclose information about something

they believe to be harmful to the public's interest without fear of workplace

retributions or retaliation.

Mr. Speaker, that is moved by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

seconded by myself as the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the motions as being recited.

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people of my District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is one in a series of petitions being circulated

throughout communities across Labrador. It is actually from all Labrador

communities. It just so happens that the ones I have today are from my district.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition into the record:

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 Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital, important lifeline for the

Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and

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

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

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

the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

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

paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners urge the House of Assembly and ask the government

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

connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador in the last year have seen a tremendous

increase in the amount of traffic that uses Route 510. That is the highway that

extends from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to the Labrador-Quebec border in

Blanc-Sablon. It also includes, Mr. Speaker, branch roads into communities like

Charlottetown, Cartwright, Pinsent's Arm, St. Lewis, and Mary's Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, these people, with the increase in traffic, have seen continuous

trouble with their highway. It is a gravel road, and with most gravel roads,

when you get increased usage on that road or you get extreme weather conditions

both of which they have experienced obviously you get some erosion to the

road. You end up with potholes, you end up with ruts, and as a result of it

people are doing a lot of damage to their vehicles. It is taking them a long

time to travel from point A to point B. In some cases, Mr. Speaker, they have

actually stopped using and have cancelled different meetings and functions

because the road has been too bad to commute back and forth from community to

community.

While at the Combined Councils of Labrador meeting because they did form a

coalition in Labrador of people from each of the three districts that are

affected by road use mostly I am not sure if there was someone from the North

Coast who sat on the committee, because I was not part of the committee. They

did form a coalition in Labrador and I know they meet on a regular basis through

conference calls.

At the Combined Councils of Labrador, they did meet with the Minister of

Transportation and they were very disappointed to learn that the current

government has not on its radar at this stage any plan to do anything with that

particular piece of road. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they had hoped there would be

some kind of a proposal submitted to the federal government to look at the start

of paving on this

section of road, but the minister outlined that it was not on

the radar of their government and would not be for at least another three years.

That certainly met with tremendous disappointment across Labrador and that is

the reason for the petition today.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

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

to travel to and from La Poile; and

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

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

WHEREAS there is no restroom, waiting room area in the Town of Rose

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

facilities; and

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

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

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

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

regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

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

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

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

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

may be able to utilize such waiting room, washroom facilities.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth such petition I have presented in this House

on behalf of the residents of La Poile and I hope it is not falling on deaf ears

to the minister. There are few basic things that you need in life, I guess, and

you certainly need them. If you are a traveller, you need access to washroom

facilities. This has to be the only circumstance that I can think of in this

Province where people use a provincial transit system on a regular basis, every

single day of the week, month and year, and they have to wait on the wharf for

the ferry and there is absolutely nowhere to use the washroom. It is just

unacceptable.

This calls for a washroom, restroom. I am sure if the minister cannot see it

in his way to come up with the funding for the restroom or whatever, surely God

there ought to be in this day and age, and in this Budget that we have in

Transportation, to provide a washroom facility. I do not mean the porta-potties

that the Member for Lake Melville put forward for the people of Ramea when he

did it. That was absolutely insulting, disgraceful and we would not expect that

from the current Minister of Transportation and Works.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a frivolous petition. This is something that deals

with human dignity and respect. We charge these people to use the provincial

ferry service. I see absolutely nothing wrong with expecting the basic minimum

of service, such as a washroom.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get leave from my

colleagues to table some documents that I intended to table today.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to Tabling of

Documents?

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am today

tabling five Orders in Council relating to funding precommitments for the

2011-2012 to the 2015-2016 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, we will do first reading of Bill 20.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, to

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,

Bill 20, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded by the hon. the Government

House Leader to have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act, Bill 20, and that Bill 20 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", carried. (Bill 20)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 20 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 4, second reading of

Bill 10.

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

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and take an opportunity to talk a bit about Bill

10,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act - excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

I so move Bill 10, seconded by the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Relations Act. be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act".

(Bill 10)

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

Employment.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just so taken aback with the topic that I want to jump right in and get

into the debate. I apologize for my miscue.

It is indeed a pleasure to stand today to take some time to speak to this

important bill, Bill 10, which will see some amendments to the Labour Relations

Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, by way of background information, back in 2007 our government

introduced our intentions to get involved in what we call a joint effort,

working with business and labour through the Strategic Partnership Initiative

with the objective of reviewing the provincial collective bargaining

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, through the Strategic Partnership Initiative a subcommittee,

called the Employment Relations Committee was formed. I want to just take a

moment to touch on that, Mr. Speaker, because it is a true partnership. The work

we are bringing forward here today was developed in a totally collaborative

process involving business, labour, and government working together. As we get

into some of the debate today and talk about some of the changes and the nuances

that we are bringing forward, what is so good is that it is coming forward with

unanimous support and consent from all three parties. I think that speaks well

to the kind of work that has been ongoing in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and also

speaks to the parties' willingness to acknowledge that while they may not

necessarily like all the changes, that collectively we recognize changes are

needed to be made.

Today, I am very pleased to be able to table amendments to the Labour

Relations Act, Mr. Speaker, that are coming forward from that Employment

Relations Committee unanimously. Representing the first changes, I might say,

Mr. Speaker, as well, the first changes to the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, when we established the committee some time ago, it was agreed

upon by all parties to the committee that we would focus on improving policy and

legislation with respect to collective bargaining in the Province. We

recognized, more than anything else, that in order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we

had to work together. We had to form some common ground and we had to try and

develop a consensus-based approach. We recognized that unless we were able to

take that kind of a process, it would be very, very unlikely that we would be

able to move anything substantive forward. As I said before, I am very pleased

we were able to achieve consensus on this bill, very much appreciative of the

efforts of all members of the committee who took

part in this particular

process.

We also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that not all changes that are often required

in the Labour Relations Act can be legislated. We recognize that parties have to

have the necessary skills to work together in a give-and-take process to make

sure that we continue to develop positive working relationships and a positive

labour management environment in the Province. Mr. Speaker, as I said, you

cannot always legislate those kinds of things, it requires sometimes a spirit of

give-and-take and a willingness to want to work together for the betterment of

the labour relations environment and climate in the Province.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, has developed and agreed to a number of

educational initiatives as well that are not being brought forward today because

they do not represent legislative changes. They have agreed to a number of

education initiatives that they feel would be of tremendous benefit to the

Province as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased as the Minister

Responsible for Labour Relations to be able to talk to you about that today.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment before we get into the heart of

this particular bill to talk a bit about labour relations in the Province. For

the benefit of those people who may be listening at home, the Department of

Human Resources, Labour and Employment have a fairly broad mandate, Mr. Speaker.

Not only are we responsible for the Labour Relations Agency and the Labour

Relations Board in the Province, Mr. Speaker, but we also have the Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing Corporation as part of our portfolio.

We also have a broad range of services related to labour and employment, Mr.

Speaker. I speak, for example, about career services, supports that we offer to

youth in the Province, employment and wage supports. Those benefits, they cover

a full spectrum, anywhere from providing career advice and career guidance

through our many Career Work Centres throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. I had

the great opportunity to be in Marystown not long ago to open the Career Work

Centre there. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is a fabulous facility.

We provide a full range of services related to employment and labour to

support not only individuals, Mr. Speaker, who need assistance whether that be

specific advice and questions answered or advice on resum writing and preparing

applications for particular jobs, but we also offer supports to employers. That

could be anything from posting job advertisements to fill positions to providing

employers with advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the labour market trends,

for example. Assisting them in trying to identify how they may want to grow

their business by providing them with information on what the labour market

outlook for the future of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is.

Mr. Speaker, I might say on that note that we are very pleased that

Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest full-time job increase in all of

Canada for the past year. It certainly speaks to the kind of labour climate that

we have here in the Province and the kinds of trends that we are seeing.

Mr. Speaker, we also in the Department of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment have responsibility for the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission. That organization, as well, plays a very vital role in our line of

business. A different role, Mr. Speaker, they do a lot of work, for example,

with employers on looking at safe work practices in the workplace, for example,

on educating employers on how they can improve the working conditions for

employees. That includes, of course, a focus on prevention.

We also look at claims management, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, when we talk

about claims management we are talking about instances where individuals have,

no doubt, had workplace accidents or injuries of some sort and they are in a

situation sometimes where they are off work for a short period of time, other

times, unfortunately, they may be permanently unable to work any longer.

The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, of course, is there

to adjudicate claims and they go through thousands, literally thousands, of

claims down there and they do a super job. As a matter of fact, I had the

tremendous pleasure to attend the sixtieth anniversary, Mr. Speaker, of the

Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission this past Friday. It was a

great opportunity to meet with some of the many employees who are down there,

highly professional and very qualified employees. They play an important role,

Mr. Speaker, in supporting the whole labour relations climate in this Province

because while we have legislation in the Labour Relations Act that guides what

happens in the workplace, we also need organizations like the Workers'

Compensation division to make sure that we offer supports and protection to

employees.

Mr. Speaker, last week we had an opportunity in the House to chat a little

bit about a piece of work that they have done recently. I would not mind making

a comment on that because sometimes, unfortunately, people do not always have a

great understanding, particularly here in the House of Assembly, when it comes

to what Workers' Compensation has been doing. What I want to speak to for a

moment is that last week we had a little discussion around the audits that have

been performed. The Commission performs audits on occasion and sometimes people

mistakenly think that the audit is actually a review of whether or not an

organization or a department is compliant with the regulations and the rules.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what it is at all.

In fact, last week when we talked a bit about the Department of Government

Services, for example, the audit that was completed there, it is an opportunity

to use a tool from WHSCC. It is a tool where they will go in and they will look

at workers' knowledge of safe work practices, they will look at the working

conditions in a particular organization, and they will do an assessment noting,

first of all, areas of strength and they will offer some recommendations on how

the safety environment can be improved.

It is very important to be able to draw the distinction there because last

week, at one point, one of the hon. members here tended to suggest that a

department was breaking the rules. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case.

It is not a matter of whether you are following the rules or you are breaking

the rules. The safety audit is intended to look at how we are doing and in a

particular area and whether or not we can improve upon that, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate sometimes when there is miscommunication because one of the

things about the audit is that it is a self-select process, Mr. Speaker.

Employees and employers volunteer to invite the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission to come in to their place of business, to have a look at

what they are doing, and to provide them with an objective view of how they are

doing and how they might improve.

I offer that explanation, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes, unfortunately,

after what transpired last week in the House of Assembly, some employers and

employees tend to say: Well, I do not know if I want to take

part in that

because it sounds to me like it is a public issue and we are going to be

chastised. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to offer that observation because there is some

great work happening at the workplace commission. We have some great employees

there who play a significant role in supporting the whole labour relations

climate here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, back to the specific changes that we are talking about today, I

am delighted to implement a couple of amendments to the Labour Relations Act

here today. Specifically, we are going to focus on two particular areas. There

are two particular categories, if you will. The first, we are going to propose

changes to what we are calling the new collective bargaining relationship in the

Province; and the second, Mr. Speaker, will be some changes that deal with

existing collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the bill entitled

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act will

focus on these two broad categories. Under each, there are a number of points

that we want to talk about. I want to touch on those just for a couple of

moments, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, under the new collective bargaining relationships, we are

proposing in this act today, these amendments today, that once the Labour

Relations Board accepts and imposes a collective agreement, the right to strike

or the right for an employer to lock out employees will cease.

To give you some context to that, Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in the

Labour Relations Act where parties can make a request to the Labour Relations

Board to have a collective agreement imposed. Typically, obviously, that would

happen in cases where there appears to be no resolution in sight whatsoever;

therefore, the assistance of the Labour Relations Agency and Board are being

sought.

What the parties are asking us to do is: In cases where they have asked for

the imposition of a collective agreement, that we remove the

section so that it

no longer provides employees with the right to strike or with the employer to

lock them out of their place of business.

So that is the first amendment under the new collective bargaining

relationships, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about when we are entering into a new

collective agreement for the very first time, between employers and employees in

the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, the second change I want to touch on under this

section deals

with the term of a collective agreement, should we have a new collective

agreement imposed. Currently, Mr. Speaker, in the legislation, we have

stipulated that it will be for a twelve month period. What the committee is

saying to us in these proposed changes today, is that is just not long enough,

Mr. Speaker. It is just not a long enough time to let things settle out and to

move forward in a positive way. So, what we are proposing is that there will be

a range of times. The collective agreement can start with a minimum of eighteen

months, Mr. Speaker. The authority will be granted to have a collective

agreement, instead of a twelve month period now, you can have a range from a

bottom of eighteen months, Mr. Speaker, to a maximum of thirty-six months or

three years. We are talking about moving the defined term, Mr. Speaker, of a one

year, twelve month period to a flexible range of between a year and a half or

eighteen months up to a three year period or thirty-six months.

Mr. Speaker, the second amendments that we are proposing to bring forward

here today, and I will touch a little bit more detail in a few moments on some

specific changes to the language that is provided, but the second changes we

want to make deal with existing collective agreements, Mr. Speaker. So the first

ones that I talked about very briefly had to do with instances where we are

bringing in new collective agreements for the very first time, and specifically

looking at instances where employers and employees are just unable to come to a

resolution, and therefore are seeking the assistance of the Labour Relations Act

to help them move forward.

The second three changes that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, deal with

existing collective agreements. The first change that we are making is that we

are proposing to provide in our labour relations language now, access to

expedited arbitration and grievance mediation. Mr. Speaker, we are providing

that change because all parties who are part of the committee that brought this

piece of work forward recognize that if we are going to make any substantive

gains in settling grievances and outstanding collective agreements, we have to

expedite the process to get things moving as quickly as we possibly can.

The second change, Mr. Speaker, is we are asking for the removal in the

language of the requirement that currently exists that an arbitrator must be

agreed upon by the employer and the employee representatives, Mr. Speaker. I say

to those who are listening to the debate, if you think about it for a moment,

how frustrating that can be when you have two groups, an employer and employee,

who cannot agree possibly, at odds for long periods of time, cannot possibly

agree on a collective agreement, whether that is one particular item outstanding

or a multitude of items, Mr. Speaker. We are asking these two parties, who are

at loggerheads and cannot agree on a collective agreement, we are saying in

order to move the process forward, though, you must agree on an arbitrator.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: What is the likelihood that the two groups are going

to agree on an arbitrator when they cannot even agree on language that affects

them directly in the collective agreement?

Mr. Speaker, for the first time, both of those parties represented by the

Business Coalition and the Federation of Labour agree. They agree, Mr. Speaker,

in the changes being proposed here today and acknowledge that if we are going to

change the Labour Relations Act to improve the relations between employer and

employee, then we need to change that process. So now the Labour Relations Act

will provide that an arbitrator may be appointed and it does not have to be with

the consent of both parties.

The third piece under the category of existing collective agreements has to

do with tightening up some language around the presentation of personal

grievances in the Labour Relations Act, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with

tightening up some of the language. There are some redundancies there that the

committee felt we needed to make some changes to tighten up the way the act

reads and to make it easier and more practical and functional when we are

following the Labour Relations Act to ensure that employees have the kind of

support and access they require when they are engaged in situations where they

need to in fact avail of the language in the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of minor household changes as well

throughout. I believe we provided the briefing to members opposite on some of

the small nuances contained. For example, in the first collective agreement,

section 81. (1), we are going to see some changes where parties are required to

send a request to the minister. One of the proposals we are making, Mr. Speaker,

is that the request does not need to come to the minister responsible for labour

relations in the Province. They can go straight to the Labour Relations Board.

There are also a number of other redundancies: 81. (2) for example, Mr.

Speaker, talks about a matter being referred to the minister as well. We are

trying to tighten the language up because, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with very

sensitive issues when you are talking about employment relations and in

particular when you are talking about situations where we have employers and

employees who are at odds with each other. Mr. Speaker, the key thing we want to

achieve here is to make changes that will improve our ability to settle

grievances and to settle outstanding issues between employers and employees in

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, one of the things that I am

extremely pleased with today is that the changes and amendments that I am

tabling here today for debate and for consideration by hon. members on all sides

of the House, it is a partnership document that was arrived at with unanimous

support from the federation of labour and the Newfoundland and Labrador Business

Coalition.

Mr. Speaker, that is a first in the Province but it certainly, I think as I

said before, recognizes and highlights the importance that these groups place on

having good working relationships, good labour relations in the Province. I

think it also identifies, Mr. Speaker, that both parties, along with government,

recognize that it is only by working together and focusing on the issues that we

need to focus on, that we are going to be able to improve the labour relations

climate in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, with that number of comments I am going to close out my comments

and reserve any further discussion maybe to when we get to Committee stage if

members opposite have any particular questions they want to pose. In asking, Mr.

Speaker, the House and members here today to endorse these changes I want to as

well ask for your support here in congratulating the Employment Relations

Committee.

As I have said on a number of occasions, and I will repeat it again, the

changes being brought forward here today, while perhaps government played a role

through our officials in chairing and directing some dialogue around the issues,

it is very much a collaborative approach between the business coalition and the

federation of labour in the Province. I cannot say strongly enough, Mr. Speaker,

how important that is for me as the minister to be able to table that document

and the proposed changes here today, and to be able to say to members in this

House that in effect these changes are being brought forward by me but they have

been developed and put together by a collaborative approach between business and

labour in the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and close debate for now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for the District of Port de

Grave.

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

First of all let me say it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to be able to

stand today and make a few comments with regard to Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Relations Act. Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say from the outset

any comments that I make here today, I do not want for people who are listening

or anyone in the hon. House of Assembly to think that I am anti-union, because

that is the furthest thing from the truth. I was a member of a union a few years

ago and I understand the situation that the businesses themselves, the unions

and employees find themselves in from time to time. However, I believe that much

can be done to carry out the situation, to alleviate many of the problems and

the rights of the people can be heard.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Act is the statute that regulates labour

relations and collective bargaining here in the private sector in our Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. As the minister stated, government has been, since

2007, working regularly on amendments to the act. I commend them for that and

the partnership they have formed with government, labour and the employers.

The Labour Relations Act also provides for settlement of workplace disputes

when a collective agreement is already in place. Bill 10, Mr. Speaker, also

introduces two new expedited procedures which set time limits to facilitate

resolutions of grievances, voluntary expedited arbitration and voluntary

grievance mediation. The rationale behind all of the amendments, and I think

there are five probably in Bill 10, is to facilitate the process and resolution

and to avoid any disputes or arguments between the parties that are involved.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments were proposed and went through Cabinet with a

full consensus of the Committee, and that is good, which includes labour and the

employer representatives. The first two amendments, sections 81 and 83 relate to

concluding the first collective agreement which can often be the most

contentious phase of a process when a trade union is first certified and a union

and employers are engaged in collective bargaining.

I am sure some of my hon. colleagues, maybe the minister himself, as well as

the Member for Harbour Main, can remember back quite a few years ago now, the

first collective agreement with the Avalon North Integrated School Board. That

followed a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker. It was their first collective

agreement and it involved the schools and the offices belonging to that school

board.

Mr. Speaker, after the first week or week-and-a-half we know what happened.

The processes that we are talking about here today probably were not in place at

that time. Principals and students went in to clean the schools, cross the

picket lines, and we know what happened. I remember one evening when the school

board officials went into the high school in Bay Roberts to clean the school.

Back in those days they did not have those beautiful plastic signs that we have

now when they are on strike, they had probably three-quarter-inch plywood. When

they started out it was a square picket sign they had. When they were finished

damaging the cars belonging to the officials, the corners on the signs were

round. Those are situations we do not want to see happen again. I think the

process we are talking about here today can take care of some of that, Mr.

Speaker.

To facilitate and expedite the collective agreement process,

section 81 in

the bill removes the administrative steps of going first through the minister.

As the goal behind the change is to get the first collective agreement in place,

the bill provides that either party can apply now directly to the Labour

Relations Board to settle the term of the first collective agreement. I think,

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful thing that can happen and it eliminates some of

the issues which I just related to.

The major change in

section 81 comes in subsection 3, once the Labour

Relations Board impose a first collective agreement - and I think the minister

explained this very well - you can no longer strike or be locked out. Why

continue with the dispute when there is a collective agreement in place? Mr.

Speaker, the timelines that were used, the first collective agreement for a

minimum period of eighteen months is now up to a maximum of thirty-six months. I

think in the present act the term is set for one year.

The remaining changes to the bill relate to arbitration or grievances under

an existing collective agreement. This will deal with firings or disagreements

or an

interpretation of a collective agreement and introduces two new expedited

procedures under sections 86.1 and 86.2. Again, the goal behind these clauses is

to facilitate the process. These new opinions are voluntary. The parties can

still go through the traditional arbitration route, through

section 86 of the

existing legislation which specifies no time requirements or limits.

It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, under 86.1, either party with the agreement

of the other can choose mediation to assist in a settlement before the

arbitration hearing. Again, there is a time requirement. Within ten days from

the appointment the mediator will inquire into the differences and if mediation

should fail an arbitration hearing will take place.

Also, the minister mentioned - and I think this is a bit of a cleaning up of

the act, I guess. Bill 10 also removes

section 105 of the act where an employee

may present a personal grievance to his or her employer. This is not taking away

the rights of the employee because this is already covered under

section 130 of

the act.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a lot to complain about here as the changes to the

act are largely mechanical and were agreed upon by the committee, labour and the

employers at the table. I guess the two innovative features, expedited

arbitration and grievance mediation relate to workplace disputes where a

collective agreement is already in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, these changes do not relate to labour disputes

when parties are trying to renew a collective agreement or if they are having a

dispute with salaries, like two incidents we saw here in the Province, the one

that went on for quite some while at Vale, or the Marystown trawlermen strike.

In labour relations, expedited arbitration and grievance mediation have

become hot topics, Mr. Speaker. I know in 1992, British Columbia introduced

expedited arbitration, as well as New Brunswick, Ontario, and Saskatchewan.

However, the federal government's task force, Seeking a Balance: Canada

Labour Code

Part I Review considered, but rejected any expedited arbitration

system for the Code. They agreed that it was felt to be feasible and necessary

on a provincial scale, but, Mr. Speaker, that is one of things I think, maybe

the feds should have come onside then at least the governing body for our

country would be on the same scale as all the other provincial jurisdictions

that are coming onside with those changes to the legislation.

One other thing I want to mention to the minister, not that it is directly in

relation to the bill any more than the few comments he made with regard to the

workers compensation. It has very little to do with a first collective agreement

or an existing one. It is probably under labour standards, and I think that is

under the minister's department as well. There are many individuals out there

who go and take a vote for the first time to try and get their first collective

agreement. The vote might fail, or sometimes it would proceed but they find

themselves in a very difficult position, the employees, because all too often,

and I know it happened in my area on a couple of occasions, where the employers

hold that against their employees because they tried to bring in a union; some

of them to the point where they cannot stand the pressure anymore, they just

quit their jobs, but there are others who have to live through it. They have a

job, they have to support their families. I am just saying to the minister,

maybe somewhere down the road, not in this piece of legislation, maybe something

can be done to help those people.

I can give you another instance of a company in my area that offered their

employees a little raise; they were non-union and apparently when they worked

there for ten or fifteen years they get a few little benefits, and they looked

forward to that. In this particular case, when the time came for them to get the

benefits the doors were locked on them, they were locked out. I know I had to go

to an EI appeal with seventeen of them to try to get their unemployment because

their ROE said they quit their jobs. It is too bad something cannot be done

because that same business is still in operation, and rightly so, and there are

people there now who were I guess it was when government, in their wisdom,

increased the minimum wage up another fifty cents. Those people are still

fighting for that fifty-cent increase over the past year and a half. They have

called in, and there is very little that can be done, but I just wanted to bring

this up, where it is a labour relations bill, that maybe the minister, in his

wisdom, can have a look at something like that.

Under the Explanatory Notes, Mr. Speaker, it says, "This Bill would amend the

Labour Relations Act to provide for operational improvements and modernization

of the Act." I say, Mr. Speaker, any improvement that would benefit employees is

very important; however, I do not think any changes should be made to eliminate

their rights. I know every piece of legislation that we bring before the House,

after it is passed and gazetted or what have you, there are regulations that go

along with any piece of legislation.

I agree with this, by the way, this piece of legislation, but all too often

we do not see the regulations that go with it. Hopefully, there will be nothing

there to take away from the rights of the individuals with the changes to the

act that we are putting forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would say, hopefully, this is a new beginning. I think it is a

wonderful thing. The Administration has not been the most co-operative, I will

say, over the last eight years when it comes to labour relations in the

Province. All too often we know disputes go on and on and on. I know that has to

happen, but when government seems to come under pressure, they buckle to the

pressure and the disputes are finally settled.

I cannot help but go back to the first years of this Administration when Mr.

Puddister was head of the NAPE union. We used to hear about the talks that they

had on the parking lot, trying to settle the disputes and so on. I also remember

that when this Administration took over they stated that never again would any

employee in this Province be legislated back to work. I remember here late one

evening in this hon. House, or early one morning, I am not quite sure now, but

it was a long debate, there was a piece of legislation put through this House

that the civil servants of this Province would be legislated back to work.

We look at the recent doctors' strike which went on and on. That is the right

of the individual, to put their issues forward. I know they requested that it

would go to arbitration but that was denied; however, in government's wisdom, I

guess they saw fit to end that dispute.

We look at the one that was on the Burin Peninsula, a strike that went on for

they say it is the longest one in our Province's history. I remember the

Minister of Finance standing in his place saying that we could not get involved

to settle this. Every member on the government's side applauded, even the two

hon. members from the Burin Peninsula. When the time came, we found a way that

we could settle that dispute. Mr. Speaker, all too often when the pressure is

put on, governments, in their wisdom, draw their horns in and do what has to be

done.

So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I believe that Bill 10 is a good step forward,

but we just cannot forget the relationship that we have seen between this

government and the labour unions throughout this Province over the past eight

years.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the minister that I will be supporting Bill 10.

I think it is a good step forward, good changes that can see to it that the

residents of our Province will be given that right and to do what has to be done

to get their first collective agreement. Timelines will be put in place so that

it will not just pushed by the wayside.

I hope, in closing, that once the regulations come out what we see here in

this bill is actually what will be put forward without too many amendments to it

or too many changes in the legislation that might take away the rights of the

people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak to Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Relations Act. Bill 10, of course, deals with only a small part of the

Labour Relations Act, but what we have in front of us today, I think, are

important amendments because these amendments are the result of the ongoing

labour relations review process. What we see here is an ability of union

employers and government together to come to agreements on how to have better

labour relations in our Province, and especially when we are talking about what

goes on when unions and employers are trying to reach new collective agreements

or first collective agreements.

The collective agreement, of course, is extremely important because it is the

blueprint for the relationship between unions and employers. It contains

everything with regard to the relationship between unions and employers,

everything with regard to the relationship between workers and employers, and it

deals with all of the various issues that affect that relationship.

Having a smooth process for collective agreements, or the creation of

collective agreements, having a smooth process for being able to deal with

difficult moments when they are trying to reach collective agreements, having a

smooth process for dealing with grievances, all of that is extremely important

for the climate of labour relations in the Province.

What we are dealing with today is not merely housekeeping, what we are

dealing with today is the actual process itself of reaching a conclusion to a

collective agreement, whether it is a new one or one that is being redone

because it has been an ongoing process.

It is very important that the process is smooth so that the workers

themselves are not too badly affected. Of course, the ultimate goal of

negotiations is to come to an agreement at the table, while negotiating, without

having to have labour disputes such as strikes take place. The more that we can

do to have negotiations and arbitrations happen in a way that avoids work

stoppages while at the same time recognizing the right of workers, obviously,

that is everybody's goal. Nobody wants work stoppages. So, anything that we can

do to try to look at standoffs and to look at moments where people cannot come

to any agreement to find a way in which to reach agreement without having to

have work stoppage would be everybody's goal.

From that perspective, it is a real sign of hope that we have a good process

going on here in the Province, I recognize that, a good process where union,

employers, and government sit together in a tripartite committee and work out

issues which are important. I understand that the issues that we are dealing

with today were not really contentious, and there was fairly quick agreement

reached when the committee was dealing with these issues. The adding of

expedited arbitration and extending the period of the first collective agreement

were things that were logical and were part of modernizing the act.

The review, I understand, is now dealing with the more difficult issues to

finding agreement on. One of those issues is something that I have raised in the

House a number of times, and that is the issue of replacement worker legislation

or anti-scab legislation. This is an ongoing issue. I know that the committee is

dealing with it, or certainly the past Minister for Human Resources, Labour and

Employment made reference a number of times over the past couple of years to the

fact that the committee was dealing with it.

I understand the committee is also dealing with how to deal with long

disputes. Nobody in the Province wants long disputes. The long dispute we had

last year, and did not end until this year, in Voisey's Bay with Vale and the

steelworkers is not something we ever want repeated again. I am glad to know

that the Committee is looking at how to deal with long disputes. One of the ways

to get at long disputes is to allow for anti-scab legislation or replacement

worker legislation.

The act is extremely important. Modernizing the act is extremely important,

but making sure that the act works for everybody is also important. While we see

a bill that right now is the result of a lot of cooperation and I am glad to see

it, we also see a bill that was easily reached because the issues that had to be

dealt with were not contentious.

One of the interesting ones, for example, was

section 91 which says that

where a single arbitrator can be appointed under

section 86, the phrase

satisfactory to the parties is now omitted. In the current

section 86 it says

that a single arbitrator can be appointed and will be appointed by government

but the arbitrator has to be satisfactory to both parties. I was really

interested in the explanation that the minister gave, I think it was important

information that both unions and employers realized that the possibility of

government coming up with an arbitrator that both sides would agree to is rather

difficult when you are needing the arbitrator because both sides cannot come to

any agreements or have massive disagreements.

It is interesting to see that both the federation of labour and the employers

represented on the tripartite review committee recognized the need to trust

government to come up with an impartial arbitrator who would be open to both

sides. That

section 91 certainly shows the way in which labour and employers are

working together.

Obviously, this bill is a necessary bill and I am very happy to support the

bill. I do want to speak a bit to the issues that this bill does not address and

that the review committee is still working on. I hope someday that we are going

to get these issues brought to the floor of this House, one of them being the

anti-scab legislation or the worker replacement legislation.

Right now in Canada both Quebec and BC have anti-scab legislation. Ontario

did have it briefly in the early 1990s and it was gotten rid of rather quickly

by a new government coming in, though I understand that province is now

reassessing the whole issue. The importance of anti-scab legislation is that it

prohibits employers from using workers to do the work of striking employees.

What is important about that is when you cannot replace workers who are doing

the work of striking employees it puts pressure on employers to resolve the

dispute more quickly. If they can replace workers who are striking and we are

not talking about essential workers here now, we are talking about workers that

are not designated as essential if an employer can replace the workers then a

strike can drag on as happened with the strike between Vale or the strike by

steelworkers against Vale. That stretched over two whole years.

It has been proven that in the two provinces where we have anti-scab

legislation, we have fewer strikes happening and when there are strikes, the

strikes are shorter. What is really interesting is that very often employers

would get their backs up, where anti-scab legislation does not exist, will get

their backs up about anti-scab legislation. They do not look at, or it does not

seem to me anyway, that they look at provinces like Quebec and BC and see how it

is working there and say: Well if it is working there, why don't we have it

here?

This is one of the places, and I find it interesting that the minister did

speak about how there are times when employers and workers, the unions just

cannot come together on something, they will never get agreement. You have to

allow the government to name an arbitrator. Well, it seems to me that in the

issue of anti-scab legislation, this is where government is going to have to

give leadership at the table, that it could very well be, this is going to be a

situation where government has to say we really see the benefits of anti-scab

legislation both for the workers and for the employers because we will have

fewer strikes and shorter strikes. Therefore, we are saying to the committee we

really do think as a government we should put anti-scab legislation in place.

So, it is one thing to say you have a committee that is working together, but

just as when you are negotiating a collective agreement, you might reach a point

where there is something that committee will never agree on and somebody has to

step in and say, here is what is going to happen. I think, at that table, that

process may have to be used. I put that out to the minister to think about,

because my concern is, if we just say both sides have to agree, we will never

see anti-scab legislation come to the floor of this House. I think that would be

very sad, both for workers in particular, but also for the economy of the

Province, because extended strikes are not good for anybody; frequent strikes

are not good either.

Another issue, which I understand the review committee is looking at, and I

look forward to this coming to the House, is the issue around certification.

Here in this Province, we have one of the most stringent provisions in the

country with regard to certification. It came in, in 1994, and what we now have

in this Province, which everybody I am sure knows, that when you are trying to

unionize a workplace, workers sign cards. Generally speaking, the way it used to

be and the way it is in the rest of the country, you sign a card, enough people

sign cards, you get a union. What happens here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we

have two steps. First of all, the workers have to vote by signing their card.

Then, even if 90 per cent or 100 per cent of the workers sign the cards, they

then also have to carry out a vote. What happens there is that you get a delay

between workers signing the cards, and then the vote. Unfortunately, it has

happened that companies then have time to undermine what happened when the

workers signed the vote. Pressure can be put on workers, even though they signed

their cards, to now not vote for the union, even though they signed their cards

saying that they would.

This does not exist anywhere else in the country; it only exists here, this

two-step. In most other provinces, and federally, either 50 per cent plus one,

or 60 per cent to 65 per cent of the workers have to sign cards. If that amount

of workers sign cards, then that is it, the union gets established, there is no

extra vote needed. I think this is something that we really have to look at, and

I understand the review committee is looking at. What happens is that that

provision, the two-step approach, provides another major barrier to workers

exercising their collective bargaining rights.

So, I hope that both of these issues at the table are going to be dealt with.

I think both of these issues, we need to see a government giving leadership with

both of these issues and supporting the rights of workers.

This certification process, we know that unionized workplaces are good

workplaces and not always, but very often, better workplaces. I impress what I

am saying: not always, but very often, better workplaces. I am not saying that

you do not have good workplaces where you do not have unionized labour. There

are many good workplaces where there is not unionized labour. However, we also

know there are some very, very basic things that happen in unionized workplaces

- especially when it comes to benefits - that are better than non-unionized

workplaces.

I really look to this government to give leadership at that tripartite table,

not to just be silent; and I am not saying they are. I do not sit at the table.

I do not know how the meetings go; not just to be a silent partner, but to

express opinions that show they are there for the rights, yes, of employers for

sure, but also for the rights of workers. Both of these issues that I have

talked about are issues for the workers, the issue of certification and the

issue of anti-scab legislation.

These are bigger issues that I want to see come to the floor here. They are

bigger issues that are being dealt with by the committee. I put these out to the

minister and say that I look forward to a day when these issues are going to

come back to us as amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this act as it stands, with

the issues it is dealing with, and will be supporting it. As I said, I look

forward to when we have these larger issues coming here to the floor.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this

House this afternoon to speak for just a few moments on Bill 10,

An Act To Amend

The Labour Relations Act. It is good to see as well that support for this act

extends from across the other side of the House as well. It is good to see that.

Mr. Speaker, positive labour relations is critical if we are to move this

Province forward. With hundreds of millions of dollars in developments that have

taken place in this Province over the last number of years, in particular in the

last decade, Mr. Speaker, labour relations will be the hallmark to a great

future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is in that vein, Mr. Speaker,

that the amendments to this act, Bill 10, are brought forward by this

government.

This act is supported by the business and labour community, as was stated

earlier by a number of speakers; by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Labour, by the Newfoundland Business Coalition, the Newfoundland Employers'

Council were all involved, Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning and that is good

to see.

The bringing forward of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, speaks highly of the

partners involved from all sides. It speaks highly to our government's

commitment and efforts to work with the people of this great Province of ours

and is a collective approach between business, unions, and individuals from the

very beginning and it continues to this very day.

It is always great, Mr. Speaker, when we can achieve consensus. This is what

the amendments to this act do; it removes, for example, red tape. It reduces red

tape and expedites the process in labour relations in many ways, Mr. Speaker.

Common sense solutions, equal common ground is what labour relations in this

Province is all about, and whenever we, as a government, can enhance probability

for this to occur then we are moving towards making it a better place in

Newfoundland and Labrador for employees and employers. Whenever this occurs we

are establishing a better Province for current and future generations of workers

and businesses and a great future, Mr. Speaker, we have for all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

Genuine labour management partnerships, Mr. Speaker, are what this

legislation speaks to. Partnership is not easy. It is a constant challenge to

find the right mix of leadership, commitment, trust, desire to change and honest

communications that make partnerships work. Partnership means real change in

attitude, real change in roles and real change in behaviours from all sides, Mr.

Speaker. We have seen these kinds of attitudes and attitude changes on this

committee over the last two to three years. This is why business and labour

organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador have worked together for these

changes. Our role as a government is to facilitate these changes and we are

doing just that, Mr. Speaker.

The Employment Relations Committee under the Strategic Partnership Initiative

have reviewed, in actual fact, they have lived with this legislation and have

made the recommendations which we are bringing forth, Mr. Speaker. Submissions

were sought and received over the past months from business, labour and

government. This was and is a great approach, as discussed this afternoon, from

all sides. Again, a testament to the support afforded by this government to the

organizations in the Province.

The amendments in this act, Mr. Speaker, solidify a positive working

relationship and reduce often cumbersome procedures that currently exist in the

current legislation. The new amendments, Mr. Speaker, as the minister alluded

to, talk about two items: An improvement to the collective bargaining process

when employees and employers are seeking their first collective agreement;

improvements to the labour relations throughout the collective agreement

lifespan. They fall under two categories, new collective bargaining relations

and existing collective agreements. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that labour and

business have agreed to this and as a government, we have facilitated the

process. This is positive for all involved, including government.

Getting first collective agreements, Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, is often

a very difficult, timely, costly and often a very long and drawn out process.

These amendments, Mr. Speaker, as spoken to today, will streamline the process

and expedite the getting of first collective agreements and that is good. For

example, proposed measures removes the requirement that a party must first send

a request to the minister for the Labour Relations Board to become involved in

first settling the first collective agreement. This gives the parties direct

access to the Labour Relations Board, and this can only be positive.

Under proposed measures, Mr. Speaker, once the Labour Relations Board advises

the parties involved that it has determined it "advisable to proceed to impose

a first collective agreement, an employee shall not strike or continue to

strike, and the employer shall not lock out or continue to lock out the

employees." That is common sense, Mr. Speaker. This is positive because it

ensures that relationships do not deteriorate while the board is conducting its

first collective agreement, to determine the first collective agreement, Mr.

Speaker.

Under the current legislation, first collective agreements will be effective

for a one-year period from the date of settlement by the Labour Relations Board.

In the revised legislation it can extend up to eighteen to thirty-six months.

What this does, Mr. Speaker, is to allow time for all parties involved to be

able to work together in a more positive environment. No one wants to go after

receiving their first collective agreement and have to sit down and negotiate,

renegotiate collective agreements just a year out. This is why the current

amendments talk about eighteen to thirty-six months. That is growing and

positive.

Expedited arbitration, Mr. Speaker, does not currently exist. In the new

amendments it will exist. There is a provision for voluntary use of expedited

arbitration. It would promote an expedient resolution to grievances and it will

ensure that arbitrations begin within a set time frame and reduce delays. By

reducing the delays, it will often reduce the cost. As well, Mr. Speaker a

verbal decision by the arbitrator may be given within one day if agreed to by

both parties. That is often and will be very positive.

The new grievance mediation, Mr. Speaker, is very positive as well. There is

no voluntary grievance mediation procedure existing in the current Labour

Relations Act. Under the proposed legislation it would encourage parties to

consider mediation as an option to resolve a grievance. Mutual agreement would

ensure meaningful participation in the mediation procedure. These are all

positive in the act, Mr. Speaker.

Voluntary grievance, mediation, and expedited grievance arbitration will

provide for the expedient resolution of grievances under the Labour Relations

Act and would encourage parties to consider both as an option to resolve a

grievance. Mutual agreement always, Mr. Speaker, equals meaningful participation

in both procedures. As well, a further benefit of having this reflected in the

legislation ensures the parties involved have a heightened awareness and

utilization of the service.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the Labour Relations Act will

result in a more effective and efficient labour relations climate in

Newfoundland and Labrador, with positive impacts on at least 20,000 employees in

513 collective agreements. They have been prepared in a manner, Mr. Speaker,

consistent with jurisdictions across the country and the legislative changes

were determined after extensive consultations with all stakeholders across this

great Province of ours, Mr. Speaker.

These amendments will encourage a positive climate, positive relations and

are conducive to economic growth and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, this can only be

good for all sectors of the entire economy for Newfoundland and Labrador. Many

of these amendments bring our legislation in line with sister jurisdictions

across the country, Mr. Speaker.

I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments to this act are in

relation to the Labour Relations Act only and do not impact the other four

statutes regulating collective b