April

6, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 11

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

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

statements: the hon. Member for the District of Terra Nova, the hon. the Member

for the District of Exploits, and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber

Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a tremendous

individual from my district, Mr. Samuel Saunders of Glovertown.

Mr. Saunders has dedicated almost his entire adult life to the service of

others. He has been involved in a variety of organizations over the years. This

includes officer positions in the St. Edward's Anglican Church, the Alexander

Bay Lion's Club, Glovertown Fire Department, Glovertown Recreation Committee,

the local 50+ Club, Crime Stoppers, a local senior's complex, the Canadian

Institute for the Blind and the Glovertown Academy Breakfast Program. Mr.

Saunders also served three terms as councillor in Glovertown.

The first significant recognition of his volunteerism occurred when he was

selected as Citizen of the Year in 1977. Mr. Speaker, this certainly puts things

in perspective for me, considering that he was already being honoured for his

dedication and noble work even before I was born.

Arguably Sam's greatest involvement over the years is his work with the

Lion's Club which spans forty-plus years. As a result of his devotion he rose to

the position of district governor and impressively received the Humanitarian

Award from Lion's International.

I am glad to hear that recently he has been nominated for the Seniors of

Distinction Award, a nomination that he certainly deserves.

Sam remains highly active in a number of groups. His energy and enthusiasm is

something to behold and even envy.

As a resident of Glovertown, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly attest to the fact

that both Sam and his wife, Marie, continue to play an essential role in our

community and surrounding area. People such as this are crucial in the creation

of a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community.

It is my absolute pleasure to recognize and congratulate my good friend, Sam

Saunders, on a lifetime of service to his community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the Bishop's Falls

Junior Boys Broomball Team on winning the provincial championships.

Mr. Speaker, on February 11 and 12 of this year, St. Anthony hosted the

provincial broomball tournament. During the round robin play, the Bishop's Falls

squad had a record of two wins and two losses; however, in the semi-final play

Bishop's Falls downed Stephenville with a 3-0 shutout.

Mr. Speaker, in the championship game against St. Anthony, Bishop's Falls

Juniors opened the score six minutes into the first period with a shot by Dave

Thoms. With twenty-eight seconds left in the first period, James Hynes scored to

make it 2-0, which ended up being the final score of the game.

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

Bishop's Falls Junior Broomball Team on winning the provincial championships and

making this their third consecutive win.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations to the Howley

Volunteer Fire Department upon celebrating its thirty years of service to the

community. On February 19, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I had the

marvellous privilege to witness the outstanding support and appreciation that

the Town of Howley demonstrated to their dedicated fire fighters. Many residents

of my home town packed the town hall to recognize the extraordinary dedication

of Fire Chief Derek Murphy and the twenty-four members of the volunteer fire

department in a community of approximately 200 people.

Mr. Speaker, the Howley Fire Department spend countless hours raising funds

for personal firefighting equipment, engaging in training and unselfishly serve

their community with passion and with pride. With the support of the fire-ettes

and community groups they have raised over $20,000 that paid the town's share of

their new fire truck.

At their thirtieth fireman's ball, it was gratifying to see fire fighters,

Shawn Piercey, Terry Stead, Arch Barrett and Ken Barrett honoured for their

thirty years of service. David Kelly was honoured for twenty-five years of

service and Charlie McClean received the twenty-year long service award. The

firefighter of the year was captured by Terry Stead. As part of this event nine

deceased fire fighters were honoured with special plaques that are now hung in

the foyer of the town office.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all colleagues to join me in congratulating the award

winners and to applaud the Howley Volunteer Fire Department upon reaching the

thirty-year milestone of dedicated service to their town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier drew the line in the sand when she said

that any revenues from excess power sales will not go to pay for Muskrat Falls

and give the people in this Province a break on their power rates.

I ask the Premier today: Why is it that you are so insistent on developing

this project on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, while every

outside user of Muskrat Falls power will get a break on their power bill and

only have to pay half the cost of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will

pay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is disingenuous to say to the very

least.

I did not say in this House yesterday that any income earned from Muskrat

Falls would not be used to reduce power rates. What I did say, Mr. Speaker, was

that that is a policy decision that will be made further into the project.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday she stood in this House and inferred, in fact, that

the president and CEO of Nalcor had made the same statement. Absolutely

incorrect, Mr. Speaker. This is a policy decision that will have to be made by

the government of the day as we get nearer to the completion and bringing online

of electricity generated at Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, the record speaks for itself. It is the way you always talk. You

talk out of both sides of your face from one day to the next day, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: The Premier said, and she said it very clearly

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to repeat her question and to be sensitive to some of

her language.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has said, Mr. Speaker, that she will not commit to use any

revenue from excess power sales to subsidize the ratepayers in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier, how is it fair that the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador should have to pay more for Muskrat Falls power than customers outside

of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's get down to the facts. Mr. Speaker, to meet the power

demand of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2016, 2017, Muskrat Falls

is the cheapest option to do that at 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour without a loan

guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and without selling one kilowatt of power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not need to do any more than that. We can let

whatever extra power we have run away down the Churchill River. Mr. Speaker, we

will still have to pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour for the cheapest power that we

can generate. Unlike what is being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition,

hooking up fifty or sixty ponds around this Province and costing us tens and

tens and tens of millions

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier may not want to take this issue

seriously, but I tell you the people in the Province take it seriously. The

people in this Province who will have to dig deep into their pockets, I say to

you Premier, to pay for your particular project.

I ask you today: Why you will not give the ratepayers in Newfoundland and

Labrador a break? Why will you not use revenues from the sale of excess power to

subsidize the Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayer? Why are you refusing to do

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, they are going to have a dig a lot deeper if the Leader of the

Opposition has anything to do planning for - or her lack of planning for meeting

our power needs here in the Province in 2016, 2017 and beyond. Mr. Speaker,

Muskrat Falls is the cheapest way to supply power to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we can let the excess water flow down the Churchill River

and not get any value for it. That is not our plan, Mr. Speaker. Our plan is to

use that power in the best way we can to help the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, either to defray the cost of electricity, Mr. Speaker, or to build

necessary infrastructure, or to induce industrial development in Labrador

particularly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, for the person out there today who is going to see

their light bill go from $150 a month to $300 a month, I say to you Premier,

they do not see that as the cheapest power that they can access.

Mr. Speaker, we want to see excess power used for industrial development and

usage in Labrador. A glaring omission, I say to you Premier, a glaring omission

in your term sheet on Muskrat Falls, but we are dragging the government there,

Mr. Speaker, to start recognizing that there is a need in Labrador for

industrial power.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that her new preferred option for

excess power is Labrador. If this is really the case, I ask you today, Premier:

What rate can Labrador users expect to pay for this power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at least with the development of Muskrat Falls there will be

power for use in industrial Labrador beyond the recall power we currently have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to finally see her

warming up to the development of Muskrat Falls. She was dead against it a few

weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I suppose one must be grateful for small measures,

Mr. Speaker, and slowly but surely we are moving her along.

I guess it does not feel comfortable to be at odds with just about every

other person who has some kind of commentary on this piece, such as the Board of

Trade, such as the independent business community, such as the Federation of

Labour, and such as her own national leader, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will not hoodwink me like she has

hoodwinked a lot of people in this Province. I can you tell you that, Mr.

Speaker. She will not hoodwink me into thinking there is not a way to provide

cheaper power to the people of this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: and she will not hoodwink me into thinking that there should

not be cheaper industrial power for the customers in Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier, to put your money where your mouth is. If you are

committed to seeing power used for industrial purposes in Labrador, what kind of

rates can we see being offered to these customers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have too much confidence and respect for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador to ever suggest to anyone that they could be

hoodwinked by me or anyone else.

Now, Mr. Speaker, industries in Labrador at the moment enjoy the cheapest

industrial rate for power than anywhere else in the country. She was talking

erroneously about that the other day, about the fact that we were not already

renegotiating contracts. Mr. Speaker, contracts that do not have to be

negotiated for at least another three years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have recall power from the Upper Churchill that is now

available for industrial use in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we will have another 1.2

terawatts of power. We will have available in Labrador over 500 megawatts of

power for industrial use.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we all know about the extra industrial power in

Labrador that the government opposite is selling to Emera and losing money on, I

say to the Premier; losing money on for the last two years on behalf of the

people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they will not answer the question and they will not outline what

the rates for industrial customers would be in Labrador. We know that today

under the interconnected grid, customers in Labrador pay anywhere from 2.1 cents

to five cents for industrial power. We know that IOC has one of the cheapest

power agreements in place since the Twin Falls project.

I ask the Premier today: What are you proposing in terms of new industrial

rates for Labrador? Will there be a fixed rate or will it vary with industrial

development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, when we are trying to induce investment

in this Province we do a negotiation with the businesses that are coming in, in

the same way that we negotiated with ExxonMobil, with Chevron, with the other

oil companies, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that they had a rate of return here that

was very good for the companies but, at the same time, saw benefits coming to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, any power that we develop here in this Province has to do the

same thing for the people of the Province. We are not going to give it all away

for free. The whole point of developing the power is to service, first of all,

the needs of the people of this Province. Secondary to that, Mr. Speaker, is to

induce the industrial development at a fair rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as I suspected, the commitment is only past the lips from this

government. That is all we see, no details, nothing thought out and nothing

concrete.

I ask you today, Premier: Will industrial customers in Labrador be able to

get their power at a fair rate from Muskrat Falls or will they be able to go to

Nova Scotia and buy it cheaper, just like the other customers in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know exactly where the power is going in Nova Scotia and it

is going to residential customers because they need to take out their coal fired

generation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the Opposition is saying is that they want us to pay the

14.3 cents a kilowatt hour and they want the rest of the excess energy to run

away down the Churchill River because they do not want us to go to market and

get the best price that we can get for that excess power and bring that money

home for use here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all industries that

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - operate within this Province have a preferred rate

for industrial power, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the benefits of having power,

Mr. Speaker, and we will continue that practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we go again, more spin from the government on where the Opposition is,

but answer the questions I say to you, Premier. We know that, today,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will have to pay twice as much for Muskrat

Falls power as customers in the Maritime provinces. The industrial power that

becomes available in Labrador, we want to know if they are going to get that

power cheaper in the Maritimes as well, cheaper than they are going to get it in

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in 2016- 2017, we are going to have a power deficit in this

Province. We are not going to be able to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders' and

Labradorians' electricity needs unless we build new generation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot bring it in from Quebec and get it to the Island

at 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. We cannot get it from Nova Scotia and back to us

in Newfoundland and Labrador for less than 14.3 cents an hour. Mr. Speaker, I am

having an analysis done of their proposal of the development of fifty or sixty

ponds that will give us 172 megawatts of power, and where we are supposed to

come up with the other 300, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, this is the cheapest option for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: See, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. The Premier stands up today

and tells us that she has not even looked at all these options, but every day

she stands in her place and says that it is the cheapest cost of power that they

can provide to the people of the Province, and she has not even done the

analysis.

Mr. Speaker, if she wants to talk about new transmission, let's talk about

the North Coast and the South Coast of Labrador, two areas of this Province that

rely heavily on diesel power, that even have industrial customers who have to

use diesel power to run mines on the North Coast of Labrador.

I ask the Premier today if her government is prepared to commit to the

construction of transmission lines to the North and South Coast of Labrador to

ensure that they have available, affordable power for future development.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to commit that outright here today because,

first of all, it is not affordable power. This is a $6.2 billion project that

has to be paid for by ratepayers. You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem,

that is the problem we have here in the House of Assembly. They do not even have

the fundamentals of hydro or electricity generation down. They do not understand

what they are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot develop if

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is like expecting us to develop the

offshore, and because it is right off our coast, everyone in Newfoundland and

Labrador should get free gas. Now, that is a wonderful thing if you can make it

happen. It just does not make any kind of sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier likes to spin her gas analogy, but she

knows that when it comes to power development in this Province, the government

is totally in control. The government has all the say, where the power goes,

where it is transmitted, how much people pay for it, and all the rest of it. So,

Mr. Speaker, it is not comparing apples and apples.

I ask the Premier this: The people on the North Coast and South Coast of

Labrador who have been dependent upon diesel power ever since they have been in

existence, I say to you, Premier, there is recall power on the Upper Churchill

that they cannot access because there is no transmission capacity, so whether it

is Muskrat Falls, whether it is the Upper Churchill, whether it is another

development, are you committed to putting transmission lines to the North and

South Coast communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, other than our isolated communities, ratepayers in this Province

pay for the cost of the generation and transmission of electricity. That is the

way that the system works. So, any electricity generated from Muskrat Falls will

have to be paid for by the people who use that electricity. That is why it will

not affect people who live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It will not affect people

who live in Lab West because they will not be using that power.

Mr. Speaker, we hope to be able to bring a power line to the North Coast,

because of the development at Voisey's Bay, and the fact that we will be able to

square costs, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, we will be able to do

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we are trying to get somewhere. Now we are finally trying to get

somewhere.

The government opposite is starting to open their eyes and realizing that

they are reaping power benefits in Labrador and giving nothing back. I say you,

today, Premier, you should be committing to do transmission lines to both the

North and South Coast of Labrador. In the immediate future, commercial customers

on the North and South Coast of Labrador pay the highest rates of commercial

power in this Province, nearly twenty cents a kilowatt hour.

I ask you today, Premier: Will you stand in your place and commit to bring

down the cost of electricity to these commercial users in the North and South

Coast of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not waiting for the development of Muskrat Falls to help

people in our isolated communities in Labrador. We already subsidize

significantly power rates in those communities under the Northern Strategic

Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have committed to review commercial

rates on the Coast of Labrador once the project is sanctioned. We have a pilot

project where we are looking at small hydro sites along the coast that might be

a more economical way to develop electricity for the people on the Coast. Mr.

Speaker, we have a project in Ramea that is developing a wind-hydrogen-diesel

mechanism for generating electricity that will have great beneficial effect to

our isolated communities in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people on the North and South Coast are paying exorbitant rates for

energy when it comes to commercial businesses. It is reflected in the cost of

living in these communities, what they have to pay for food, and what they have

to pay for all of their services, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the government today: In light of the fact that you are proposing to

reap another resource on the doorsteps of Labradorians, are you prepared to at

least give something back immediately and start bringing down the rates of

commercial users in those communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is true that Labrador was ignored for far too long, mainly under their

Administration fourteen years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, since we have come to government,

hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: have been invested in Labrador in hospitals, in the

Trans-Labrador Highway, in the College of the North Atlantic, in long-term care,

and in subsidies to electricity under the Northern Strategic Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Labrador is important to this Province. It is

integral to who we are as a people, Mr. Speaker, and we will never treat them

with the same disrespect that has been shown by members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish they did not send out the memo to applaud every time the Premier

speaks in the House of Assembly because it is using up all of our time in

Question Period, Mr. Speaker. I will remind the Premier of this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the Premier of this, she never needs to stand and question my

loyalty or my commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Labrador; I can

guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where she cut her eye tooth but I

cut mine on the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. Question Period is a half an hour;

there are important questions being asked and important answers given.

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never would have sold out the people of Labrador on 5 Wing Goose Bay like

you did Premier and your government, I can guarantee you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to Gilbert Bennett, Nalcor's Vice-President

responsible for Muskrat Falls, he said once a transmission line is connected

between Muskrat Falls in Labrador and Soldiers Pond on the Avalon Peninsula,

Newfoundland and Labrador will be on one interconnected provincial grid.

I ask you Premier: If this is the case, what will it mean to ratepayers in

Labrador's grid? Will it be regulated at the same rates as the interconnected

Island grid customers or will they be exempt?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is back to fundamentals again, Mr. Speaker. She obviously did not hear

what I said to her a few minutes ago.

Where you get your electricity; Mr. Speaker, if you get your electricity from

the Upper Churchill all of the expenses, capital, operations, maintenance, all

of those kinds of things that are associated with that project are charged off

to ratepayers. That is what goes in, in determining what your rate is. All of

the people who will be receiving power from Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, are on a

different source of generation. The cost associated with Muskrat Falls will be

signed off to those ratepayers.

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, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries. As we know, the

lobster fishery is about to get underway here in this Province, at the same time

the FFAW has presented a proposal calling for matching funds from the government

and the Province. Our understanding is that the federal government is prepared

to invest approximately $9.5 million in this proposal, but the FFAW is still

waiting to hear from the Province on what its commitment will be.

I ask the Minister: Can he update the House and the people of the Province as

to the status of this request?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have not heard officially that the federal government has

supported the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: The member opposite is right, that the FFAW have a proposal

before us and we have it under review, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits

& White Bay North. I ask other members if they would be kind enough to allow the

member to ask his question.

The hon. member.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the proposal that FFAW has put forward is

to increase the incomes of those remaining in the fishing industry. The minister

has often stated that is the vision of the fishery by his government, a viable

industry.

I ask the minister again: Is he prepared to invest in this proposal, and if

so, will it be reflected in this year's budget?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell him what is in the

budget at this particular point, but I will, Mr. Speaker, say one thing. When we

have something before us, and it is the right thing to do, we will do it, 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.

Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, from the minister, that there is no proposal

in from the FFAW?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was the one wearing hearing aids.

I said, in my first response, that we had received a proposal from the FFAW.

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, the C-NLOPB Web site reports that since January of this year

over 500 litres of Thruster Seal Oil has been spilled from the aft starboard

thruster on the Terra Nova FPSO . The first spill of 184 litres occurred

between December 22 and January 8.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. member.

MS MICHAEL : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister heard what I have said already. What I said

seems to suggest that the thruster was leaking hydrocarbons into the ocean

undetected for over two weeks.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm that this is the

case and tell the House whether or not he was aware of this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not able to confirm the information that the hon.

member has brought to my attention, but I will certainly look into it and report

back.

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 say to the minister, that I have a printout of the Web site here on my desk

with all that information. So it is not going to be hard for him to get the

information. I would like more detail though about how C-NLOPB dealt with this

issue when they found out about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it has also come to our attention that the

turret of the Terra Nova FPSO is constantly in need of repair and has basically

been jerry-rigged to keep producing oil. It was supposed to have been

permanently repaired in 2008 and to date has not been.

Mr. Speaker, since we know the C-NLOPB did not inform the minister of the

toxic mud spill last week, and now we know he does not know anything about the

thruster spill either, I ask the minister: Is he aware of the mechanical

problems with the turret on the Terra Nova FPSO?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the highest standards of safety are employed in

the offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. The operators submit safety plans

that are reviewed by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. There are

regularly scheduled maintenance checks that occur; there are regularly scheduled

retrofits that occur on the rigs and on the equipment on the rigs. Those are all

done according to industry standards and all of those are done to ensure the

safety of the people and the environment working offshore. There is no

jerry-rigging going on, Mr. Speaker, in the offshore in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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 am going to take the minister's answer to mean that he does not know about

the mechanical problems with the turret on the Terra Nova FPSO. Mr. Speaker, the

turret is the integral piece of machinery for the production of oil on an FPSO.

To repair it, production must stop.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is profitability trumping safety in the

offshore oil industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member is trying to go in terms of

trying to inflame people in terms of the safety of the offshore.

Again, I will repeat for the record, there are safety plans in place, there

is regularly scheduled maintenance work that is being done, and there is

regularly scheduled retrofit work that is being done. Rigs do get taken out of

production. There are shutdowns that occur from time to time as are required

according to the operators, according to the manufacturers of this equipment,

and according to the regulations that we have employed in the offshore of

Newfoundland and Labrador. All of that is being done, Mr. Speaker. All of that

is being done to ensure the safety of the environment and the safety of the

people working offshore.

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.

Mr. Speaker, public trust in government's oversight of offshore safety has

recently been shaken. An independent offshore safety authority like Norway's

would be quick to report a situation like a malfunctioning thruster or problems

with an FPSO turret, ensuring both public and government were fully informed of

a situation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will she give the public a timeline on

the creation of an independent safety authority which she says she is going to

back?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I call on members in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition if they would be kind

enough to allow the hon. member to ask her question and pay attention to the

answer that has been given.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to and adopted all of Justice Wells'

recommendations. We have, in particular, agreed with recommendation 29. We have

indicated that we have asked the federal government to join with us in support

of that recommendation.

As the member opposite is aware, it is an accord between ourselves and the

federal government and we have to get the concurrence of the federal government

to make any changes to that accord. We are engaged with the federal government

hoping that they, as well, will concur with Justice Wells' recommendation 29 and

help establish a separate and independent safety regulatory agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

This being Private Members' Day, and usually Question Period starts no later

than 2:30 o'clock, and Private Members' Day starts no later than 3:00 o'clock,

it is my understanding that I may have waltzed through Statements by Ministers

very quickly and that there is a statement by a minister, the hon. Minister of

Transportation and Works.

By leave of fellow members, we will hear the statement if the hon. member has

leave to present.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador has not only met but has exceeded the target for the

purchase of energy-efficient vehicles as outlined in our 2007 Energy Plan,

Focusing our Energy.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Energy Plan, the provincial government set out to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take a lead role in environmental

sustainability. This Energy Plan was an opportunity to set a positive example in

the use of greener vehicles within the Province.

In 2007, our government committed that 25 per cent of new car and sport

utility vehicles (SUV) purchases for the provincial fleet between 2007 and 2011

would be energy-efficient or hybrid vehicles. This target would cut down on

greenhouse gas emissions and help set the tone for this Province's commitment to

green energy.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform the hon. House today that we have

exceeded that target.

Since April 2008, 48 per cent of our government's new car and SUV purchases

have been hybrid vehicles. In the last three years we have purchased 125 cars

and SUVs. Sixty of these are hybrids. These vehicles are spread over eight

government departments in all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, our ability to reduce our carbon footprint depends on the

choices we make, and our government's choice to utilize more energy-efficient

vehicles is helping us to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions and save energy.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to enhance our fleet as the local

market adapts to the demand of the hybrid vehicles. As the market adjusts, we

hope to introduce hybrid pickup trucks to our fleet, and to continue down this

road of fuel efficiency and sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, by introducing hybrid vehicles to the government fleet, we are

showing that energy efficient vehicles are a viable option for those wishing to

curtail energy consumption and leave a smaller carbon footprint. We are also

helping to showcase the technology of hybrid vehicles, and we are showing our

commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions by enhancing the fuel efficiency of

the vehicles that government employees drive everyday.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing more hybrid and energy efficient

vehicles being introduced to our fleet as we continue to lead by example.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say

I am somewhat surprised that he went with this statement. Maybe that is an

understatement, I should say I am extremely surprised, because all we have to do

is think back to the AG's report not too long ago. In 2002, this government had

156 four-wheel drives, 405 two-wheel drive pickups, and in 2010, we have 367

four-wheel drives, 314 two-wheel drives, Mr. Speaker; an increase of 135 per

cent of four-wheel drives, which are the real gas guzzlers, I must say, Mr.

Speaker. The Auditor General went on to say that 219 21.2 per cent of highway

vehicles operated below the 20,000 km annual usage rate to justify even the

purchase.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is fine to say that we are trying to make this

environment better, but then again, when you look at the numbers that the

Auditor General refers to, I would say the hybrids are probably costing more. At

least we should try to use them to their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that government has met and exceeded the green

vehicle targets, however, if you are buying more vehicles to add to the problem,

if that is leading by example, Mr. Speaker, I would say God help us.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

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

It is good to see that government is embracing green initiatives and good to

see that the target was exceeded. I look forward to maybe next year being told

that 100 per cent of our vehicles are hybrid vehicles because I would like to

reach that 100 per cent much more quickly than the government has set as a goal

for themselves.

I agree with the statement about the ability to reduce carbon footprint being

based on choice. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to individuals in our Province, many

people do not have the financial ability to make a choice about things like

hybrid vehicles nor about things like whether or not their homes are energy

efficient. I ask: Is government going to choose to allow for more grants and tax

breaks for people to retrofit their homes and businesses? Will government allow

for more grants and benefits for people to buy their own hybrid vehicles? Will

government choose to invest more in public transportation, which would reduce

the need for the use of personal vehicles? That is the choice I would like to

see government making, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador and

it is regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway, Route 510; the fact that government,

Mr. Speaker, has no radar vision at all, no vision and nothing on their radar to

deal with paving this particular

section of road.

You talk about commitment to the people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, today they

are one of the few people left in the Province paying not only the highest rates

for energy but also driving over the worst roads, those that are fortunate

enough to have roads, because many of the communities still do not have them.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Labrador today who wants to get out of Labrador by

road has to use Route 510 and they are asking the government to consider making

a proposal and making allocations of funds to be able to deal with this

particular

section and to have it paved. Mr. Speaker, just to read the petition

into the record, it says:

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

Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and

allowing residents to obtain health care and public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 connecting

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - 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 to ask the government to

provide additional funding for much needed improvements to Route 510 and

connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador have a deplorable transportation network,

I say to the government opposite. It is one thing to say that we are going to

construct roads, but to construct roads and then neglect them to the point that

you cannot drive over them

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - they are so bad; they are so poorly maintained in many cases.

To look the people in the face and say to them that we are not going to address

your issue for at least another three years before it is even going to end up on

our radar.

Mr. Speaker, today, everyone in Labrador has to drive that Trans-Labrador

Highway and they should have the ability to drive over paved roads like other

people in this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They should have the ability, Mr. Speaker, to have a ferry

service that is going to be modern and designed to meet their needs, something

the government has neglected to address, I say to members opposite. Something

government has neglected to address on behalf of the people in this area. At

some point they have to stop and realize that the people of Labrador are part of

this Province as well and they deserve to have the same kind of transportation

networks, Mr. Speaker. They deserve to have paved roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member present her petition.

I ask members for their co-operation.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not even hear my own self speak, so I appreciate the intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now the people in Labrador deserve better.

They deserve to see some vision for their highway, some vision for their ferry

service so that their ferry service could be modernized. There should be a new

vessel built, it should be long-term contracts that gives them access between

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, in conclusion.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am presenting this petition today on behalf of the people of Labrador. It

is one of many that I will be bringing forward to the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present this petition. 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 humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS we the students of French Shore Academy in Port Saunders from the

Towns of River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay, Port Saunders, Port aux Choix and Eddies

Cove West appreciate the facility we currently learn in; and

WHEREAS unfortunately the sense of fairness and equality existing at school

is absent on the outside due to essential services not equally available in all

our towns; and

WHEREAS the lack of high-speed Internet in River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay and

Eddies Cove West puts some students of our school, or our school, in an

unacceptable disadvantage at learning today in the twenty-first century;

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

urge government to direct funding to ensure high-speed Internet services are

provided in these towns to allow equality and fairness for all members of our

student body.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

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

petition on behalf of those students. I believe they are presenting, not only on

behalf of themselves as students of the schools, particularly in the Tri-town

area of the Northern Peninsula, but their representation of many in the rural

parts of Newfoundland, where, today, we still do not have high-speed Internet

access.

Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the urban centres, or the

larger rural communities, we are fortunate to have high-speed and we have come

to take it for granted. Yet, when you have an opportunity, for example, as I did

not very long ago, to stay in the Maynard Inn in Hawke's Bay, and just as she

was actually processing my credit card and the time that I had to wait for that

procedure to go through, you recognize just how disadvantaged people are when

they do not have the high-speed Internet. Obviously, this is a major setback for

students who are involved in distance education, those who are trying to

download programs, schedules, and other things from the schools and from their

teachers.

If you go into the community, as I said, into a hotel somewhere and you have

to hook into the dial-up system, you realize that community is years behind in

in other communities have taken for granted.

It is an issue, and while we appreciate what has been done, and this petition

is not on behalf of those who have high-speed, it is on behalf of those who do

not. They feel very disadvantaged, they feel disenfranchised, and obviously, as

a student body they are not able to participate in certain programming, in

certain activities, to the same degree as those in other communities throughout

our Province who have the high-speed Internet capability.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand to bring it to the attention

of the House of Assembly once again, to present it to government and say that

sooner rather than later we need to have a plan that allows the implementation

of high-speed Internet throughout the whole Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It gives me great pleasure today, on behalf of the residents of La Poile, and

anyone who happens to travel on our provincial ferry system in that particular

area, whether you be tourists, or whether you be anyone from inside of this

Province, for any given reason. The petition reads:

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

to travel to and from La Poile; and

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

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

WHEREAS there is no restroom-waiting room area at 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.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the fifth such petition that I have entered

into this House. I have had no indication from the Minister of Transportation

and Works that he is going to be doing this any time soon. I think they have

waited long enough. The citizens of La Poile are not second-class citizens, they

do not need to be treated nor deserve to be treated like second-class citizens.

I believe this is probably the only remaining provincially serviced ferry

route in this Province which has no washroom facilities whatsoever. Absolutely,

not acceptable, inappropriate, inhumane, and besides being unhealthy, it is

contrary to the very own laws that this government would insist upon from any

other public provider of services. You expect people to use the service, you

have to go to the wharf to catch the boat, yet you have no facilities available

for them, for the basic of human needs, which is a washroom. I have seen cases

from this government where they put porta-potties out on the head of the wharf,

and expect that people who live in rural Newfoundland in these isolated

communities should accept that, keep your mouth shut and this is good enough.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for anybody who lives in this

Province, whether you live in St. John's or you live in rural Newfoundland. The

have had enough of it. They are quite fed up, and this government needs to look

at this seriously, do something about it and stop this degradation of residents,

and anybody who travels to these particular areas.

I shall continue, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents to bring forth this

petition I do not care if it is another ten years until we see something

done by this government. It is just embarrassing to the government and makes

them look bad. They deserve to be embarrassed because of it. The sooner they

remove this, improve the situation, and eliminate it, the better for all

concerned.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and the time being now 2:54

o'clock, the Chair calls on the hon. the Member for the District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to deliver her private member's resolution.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand to present the following private member's bill in

the House of Assembly. It reads, for the record, Mr. Speaker:

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 the 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

retribution or retaliation.

That is the motion I am proposing today, Mr. Speaker, and it is seconded by

my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

I am presenting that motion because we feel that the public service in this

Province should fall under the same protection as do the Officers of the House

of Assembly and the statutory offices of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. So

we feel that right now to deny these protections to public servants we are in

fact stifling any particular legitimate complaints that could come forward for

investigation. Mr. Speaker, whistleblower legislation would allow a government

employee or a senior staff member to talk about critical problems within

government without facing disciplinary action.

If we had it in place, for example, a lab worker may have promptly reported

problems with testing of tissue samples and hormone receptors at Eastern Health

long before we ever came to the conclusion that there was a problem there.

Because there was no protection for health care providers and people who worked

in the health care system, I am not surprised that the issue around hormone

receptor testing went on for as long as it did in this Province unreported. Even

if there was and I am not suggesting that there were people who knew the

difference, I am not suggesting that at all what I am saying is that if was a

problem and someone was aware of it and they had to have come forward they were

certainly at a risk of losing their job. They were at a risk of being

disciplined in their workplace. Maybe suspended without pay or some other kind

of retribution.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that we should ensure that protections are

there. Maybe in the case of Eastern Health and the faulty hormone testing that

occurred in the laboratories for several years may have been detected much

earlier if the workers were protected and had the ability to be able to come

forward and to make complaints without fear of losing their jobs or being

disciplined in some other manner.

Another good example, Mr. Speaker, is the spending scandal that occurred

within the House of Assembly; the spending scandal and the abuses of allowances

by MHAs that went on for a period of time, without being detected. I am not

saying, Mr. Speaker, that there were people in the staff of the House of

Assembly at the time who knew what was happening but I am saying that if there

was and the legislation was in place they would have been protected. Mr.

Speaker, maybe we would not have had the spending scandal and the

misappropriation of allowances by MHAs that we had that went on for such an

extended period of time if there had to have been people employed within the

House of Assembly that were protected if they were reporting anything that they

saw to be suspicious or divulging information that they thought should be shared

with higher authorities or people in positions of authority. If they thought

that they could do that without risking their terms of employment maybe we would

have detected that much earlier.

Mr. Speaker, what happened was this, after these particular incidents that

had occurred there was a report that was done by Chief Justice Derek Green. In

his report he recommended that there be protection put in place for the staff in

the statutory offices of the House of Assembly so that if there were reports

coming forward, then these employees could be protected. That was built into our

new legislation when we passed it in the House of Assembly.

With the exception of some of the members who were recently elected in

by-elections, everyone else who is in this House would have voted on that

legislation. Mr. Speaker, they obviously voted to uphold the fact that there

should be whistleblower legislation in place for statutory offices of the House

of Assembly and for employees of the House of Assembly.

Why did government not take that a step further and make it binding on all

government departments and agencies of government such as school boards, health

boards and so on? Why did that not happen? I guess that is the reason we are

bringing this motion to the floor of the House of Assembly today because if it

is good for one group of people within the public service, why is it not good

for all groups of people? Why is it not good for all departments?

I think it goes back, and I think we have to go back a little further. We

will go back to 2006. You will all remember the incident that happened with

teachers in the Province going back to that particular date. At that particular

time, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Bank was actually, I think, the CEO of

the Eastern School District. It was the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, who

suspended teachers from that school board simply because they spoke out at a

forum. The forum was talking about stress that teachers are facing within the

education system. It was about stress that they were dealing with in the

classroom; very legitimate issues I would say to hon. members very legitimate

issues in terms of respecting what people out there working on behalf of

citizens in the Province often have to go through.

In the case where these two teachers spoke out, they were disciplined. They

were disciplined by then the CEO, who happens to be the Member for Grand Bank

today, who was the CEO of the school board at that time very proudly, Mr.

Speaker, was out in the media speaking about this issue, talking about

suspending teachers who were outlining very publicly the fact that there was

stress in their jobs, stress in their schools, issues that were confronting them

as professionals who were working in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, these two teachers were suspended for a week, they were

suspended without pay, and they were suspended for what? Voicing their opinion

regarding workload and stress issues in the workplace; that is what they were

suspended for. It is not like they uncovered, Mr. Speaker, a big scandal of some

kind. It was nothing of the sort. It was employees who were frustrated, who had

issues with workload that had some stress and they were speaking out. They were

suspended by the CEO of the Eastern School District, who happened to be the

Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker.

What we are saying is that we need to do something to protect these

particular workers. The government opposite felt the need to do that as well,

because if they did not they would not have made the commitment in their Blue

Book in 2007. In 2007, Mr. Speaker, at that time their leader, who was the

Leader of the government, who was the Premier, was out saying that he pledged

that a new Tory government will implement whistleblower laws in the next session

of the House of Assembly. That they would at the earliest opportunity - this was

in 2007, in the middle of an election. You talk about Stephen Harper making

commitments and breaking promises.

In 2007 the Tory government, Mr. Speaker, was out knocking on doors in this

Province telling the people of the Province that we are going to bring in

whistleblower legislation at our earliest opportunity so that public servants,

so that teachers, so that health care workers who see things that are going on

in their workplace are able to speak out without being suspended like those

teachers were by the Member for Grand Bank; without being sent home from their

jobs and their paycheques held back. This is what the Conservative government

was telling people. It is no wonder they are standing shoulder to shoulder with

Stephen Harper today, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder they think it is okay for the

federal government to make commitments boldly in the face of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and then retract on those commitments, because they did the very

same thing. They did the very same thing in 2007 when they went to the people of

this Province and said, we will promise and commit to bring in whistleblower

legislation at the earlier convenience in the Legislature, and it never

happened.

A year later, Mr. Speaker, when they were bringing in their Throne Speech

that spring, when the new session of Parliament was opening, right before the

Budget came down - and this will tell you how much you can read into a Throne

Speech by a Conservative government in this Province, absolutely nothing, I say

to government members, nothing. Let me tell you what you said. You had the

Lieutenant-Governor come in here, sit in the Speaker's Chair in this very House

of Assembly, and you had the Lieutenant-Governor read from the Throne Speech

your words as a government, where you talked about Chief Justice Derek Green's

report and the fact that he had recommended there be whistleblower legislation

implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In your Throne Speech you said, "Among his recommendations was a call for

whistleblower' legislation establishing procedures for the disclosure of

wrongdoings and for protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoings.

"My Government will introduce whistleblower legislation this year after

appropriate consultation has taken place."

That was the commitment in the Throne Speech in 2008. Since then, Mr.

Speaker, we have had a Throne Speech in 2009, we have had one in 2010, we have

had one in 2011, and they have yet to act on that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, there are others out there who are calling for this legislation,

including NAPE itself. Public servants themselves want to see this legislation.

We had a report of the Legislature and, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the

Chief Justice at the time was that the legislation should be implemented and put

in place. We had commitments from the government themselves saying that they

would do it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they withdrew their support and they did not do

it.

Why did they not do it? Let me tell you. Let me tell you what they said as a

government. This is after promising it, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a campaign

when they were knocking on doors. This was after having the Lieutenant-Governor

come into this House, sit in that Chair where you sit today hon. Speaker, and

read to the people of the Province that we are committed to bringing in

whistleblower legislation, and to date they have not done it.

This is their explanation. They said it is just a law that would be used by

people who may have a personal vendetta against the government for the wrong

reasons. Now, how paranoid can one government get, I say? I say, be men and

women; be responsible parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker. We cannot bring this in

because there might be someone out there with a vendetta against the government,

and they may use this for the wrong reasons? What kind of an excuse is that, Mr.

Speaker, for not giving public servants in this Province the ability to free

speech, the ability to report wrongdoings within government departments and

agencies without being disciplined, without being punished, and without having

to lose their jobs? The government is so fickle, they are so paranoid, and they

are so scared that they cannot do this because there might be a vendetta against

the government by one of these public servants and then they would use it for

the wrong reasons.

Mr. Speaker, they also cited the fact that they could not do this because

things like the access to information legislation are already creating a burden

for their Administration. Because people have the ability to have access to

information, it is taking up too much of their time to inform the public. Too

much of our time is being used giving out information, so we do not want to add

to that. We do not want to be burdened by people in this Province who really

want to know what is going on. No, we are the government, Mr. Speaker, we do not

want to be burdened by people. I say to government, honour the commitment that

you made. Support whistleblower legislation and stand in your place today and

tell the people of this Province that there should be freedom of speech -

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

MS JONES: - and they should be able to do it without being punished.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today that the hon. members of the Opposition

have brought this motion to the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, we have been

questioned from time to time, in Question Period mostly, with respect to why we

have not brought in stand-alone whistleblower legislation during our tenure as

government of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds we have in Question Period we do not have an

opportunity to do the answer justice. Instead, what it does is offers the

Opposition the opportunity to make negative innuendos and allegations and

question government's motives and whatnot about whistleblower legislation, and

failure to keep up with our commitments and whatnot. There is very little

opportunity in a few seconds to respond to their questions to get the

government's position right, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Mr. Speaker, by bringing this resolution to the floor of the House, it

gives us the opportunity to make full response and explain to the people of this

Province where we are on whistleblower legislation and our rationale for our

position. Mr. Speaker, this debate today should be very helpful to the public in

understanding the position of this government about this rather sensitive and

very complicated issue.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution part of the motion put forward today is that the

government consider the immediate extension 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 the fear of

workplace retribution or retaliation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader is then, in making this motion, asking

the House of Assembly to call upon government to immediately, and I emphasize

the word immediately, consider extending the whistleblower protections that are

currently afforded to the public service employees under

part 6 of the House Of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity, And Administration Act; to extend that

whistleblower protection to include all provincial and public servants. That is

what the motion asks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, let me say that we will not be supporting

this motion; for a very simple reason: that the motion calls for the immediate

consideration and extension of whistleblower legislation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did, in 2007, promise in our blueprint - we promised in

our 2007 blueprint - that we said we would: a Progressive Conservative

government will develop whistleblower legislation. We deliberately said develop,

Mr. Speaker, because that indicates that it will be an unfolding process, an

unfolding process.

To do so immediately, Mr. Speaker, as suggested by the hon. Opposition, would

be irresponsible, and not in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. It

would not be in the best interest to bring in legislation simply because other

jurisdictions have it, or bring in legislation that would be mired in

bureaucracy, with pitfalls, mired in secrecy, misguided, and unaccountable.

So, Mr. Speaker, for that reason, we will not support this motion. Not

because we do not support whistleblower legislation. We have been considering

and continue to consider whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, for a number of

years and we continue to do so but we will be voting against the motion,

because the motion directs us to proceed immediately, when good government

planning and prudence dictates otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions one might ask when trying to strike

a right balance with whistleblower legislation, and none of these questions, Mr.

Speaker, are easily answered.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need to call upon government to

consider immediately such an initiative, because, as I mentioned earlier, this

government has been considering, and continues to consider whistleblower

protections for public service employees. Mr. Speaker, to do so immediately, as

I mentioned, would not be responsible.

Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, explain to the hon. members and members of

the public, exactly what whistleblower protection means. Whistleblowers are

usually defined as those who disclose information about something they believe

to be harmful to the public interest occurring in business or in government. For

example, if you report something like an employee falsifying travel claims or

some mechanic or engineer who is making shortcuts in maintenance all which might

risk public safety. These would be the sorts of things that whistleblowers would

inform on. The whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, establishes a framework

for the disclosure of these wrongdoings by the public servants. It enables

public servants to disclose a serious wrongdoing without fear or threat of

reprisal.

Mr. Speaker, generally a wrongdoing is defined broadly in Canadian

whistleblower legislation. It includes, Mr. Speaker,

an act or omission

constituting an offence under provincial or federal laws or

an act or omission

that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life or health or safety

of persons or to the environment. Other than the danger, of course, that is

inherent in the performance of the duties or the functions of an employee. It is

also defined to include gross mismanagement including in public funds or a

public asset. A wrongdoing would be knowingly directing or counselling a person

to commit a wrongdoing. That is how wrongdoing is defined broadly in

whistleblower legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2007 this government introduced new legislation

entitled, the House Of Assembly Accountability Integrity And Administration Act,

which legislation governs the effective administration of the House of Assembly,

the standards of conduct of elected members and their ethical and accountable

behaviour.

Mr. Speaker,

part 6 of the House of Assembly Accountability Integrity and

Administration Act contains whistleblower protection for employees of the public

services of the Province who disclose information relating to a wrongdoing

committed by the Speaker, by a member or an officer of the House of Assembly, or

a person employed in the House of Assembly in statutory offices. Mr. Speaker, my

colleagues in a later presentation this afternoon will refer to other pieces of

legislation that includes whistleblower protection.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, if a public servant reasonably believes that he or

she has information that could show that a wrongdoing has been committed by the

Speaker, or by members or by an officer of the House of Assembly, or a person

employed by the House of Assembly is about to or commit or may make a disclosure

to his supervisor that something untoward is going to happen, he can do it, Mr.

Speaker, without fear or threat of a reprisal.

Mr. Speaker, reprisal, what does reprisal mean? What do we mean a fear of

reprisal? What can happen to you for disclosing a wrongdoing? What are some of

the fears or concerns people might have? A reprisal might be a disciplinary

measure taken against a person for making a report. It might be a demotion. It

might be termination of employment. It might be a measure that adversely affects

his or her employment in some way. Or it might be a threat to take a measure to

affect his employment in some way.

Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware that there are jurisdictions in

Canada that have enacted whistleblower legislation for wrongdoings committed by

members of the public service; a number of them across Canada. We have examined

them all, talked to the officials in these jurisdictions and reviewed them all,

Mr. Speaker, because we have actually been silent or inactive on this in the

last few years.

In Ontario, Mr. Speaker,

part 6 of the Public Service of Ontario Statute Law

Amendment Act, 2006 is whistleblower legislation for Ontario. Manitoba has a

Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, 2006. New Brunswick

has the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which received Royal Assent in 2007.

Nova Scotia has civil service disclosure of wrong doing regulations made under

section 45 of the Civil Service Act, 1989. Mr. Speaker, there are jurisdictions,

four as a matter of fact, in this country that have whistleblower legislation.

We are also aware that Prince Edward Island Opposition Leader tried to

introduce whistleblower legislation into his Legislative Assembly in 2010, but

the bill was voted down by the current Liberal Government due to its many flaws.

We are also aware, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia has been looking into

comprehensive whistleblower legislation but has yet to enact any legislation;

neither has Alberta, neither has the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, the Yukon

or Quebec.

That tells us something, Mr. Speaker. This tells us that Newfoundland and

Labrador is not unique in exercising due diligence to ensure that any

whistleblower legislation that we do enact best serves the needs of the people

of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out so often in question period, officials in my

department have attended a national conference on public interest disclosure

legislation to discuss the experiences of other jurisdictions; they have formed

working relationships with their counterparts and continue the dialogue with

them. We continue to monitor these jurisdictions with whistleblower legislation

and have discussions with them.

Mr. Speaker, we are considering whistleblower legislation and we continue to

do so. Mr. Speaker, that flurry of provincial legislation protecting

whistleblowers follows a move by the federal government to beef up its own

whistleblower legislation.

In 2010, Mr. Speaker, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was

passed by the Parliament in November 2005 and came into force in April, 2007.

That act contains procedures for disclosures of wrongdoings and provides for an

integrity commissioner with powers of investigation. Mr. Speaker, she fell out

of grace with that government, for obvious reasons. I think, if I may, she left

the post in early retirement on October 18, 2010, four years before her term was

up because the Auditor General found out that during her tenure of the 228

complaints that were filed, only five investigations were launched and not one

investigation of wrongdoing was discovered. She fell from grace, Mr. Speaker,

very early into her term.

Watchdog groups, Mr. Speaker, such as the Federal Accountability Initiative

for Reform and Canadians for Accountability have called the federal act a

toothless law. They claim it is mired in bureaucracy, it is misguided, creates a

secretive, unaccountable regime. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this

government is not interested in mirroring any whistle-blowing legislation that

is mired in bureaucracy, is misguided, and is secretive and unaccountable. This

government has considered and continues to consider whistleblower legislation

and will bring forward appropriate legislation which will facilitate public

servants' ability to freely disclose information, Mr. Speaker, about a

wrongdoing without fear of workplace reprisal. We will do this when we are

satisfied we have conducted our due diligence.

Mr. Speaker, we still have questions about the effectiveness of stand-alone

whistleblower legislation and the establishment of independent offices to

administer this legislation. For example, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the

following statistics which demonstrate a number of inquiries received pursuant

to provincial and federal whistleblower legislation in 2009. Mr. Speaker, the

ombudsman in Nova Scotia in 2009 received twenty inquiries, investigated two.

The integrity commissioner of New Brunswick received thirteen inquiries, none of

which proceeded through full investigation. The ombudsman in Manitoba received

three, investigated three. The integrity commissioner in Ontario received

thirty-five and only investigated seven. The federal integrity commissioner,

before her fall from grace, received 151 inquiries and investigated none.

Mr. Speaker, before we embark upon legislation, before we expend significant

funds and create more bureaucracy, we will continue to learn from the growing

pains of other jurisdictions until we are satisfied that we will bring to this

House a bill that is well thought out, thorough and effective to meet the needs

of this Province. We need the time to do it right. To proceed immediately, Mr.

Speaker, does not give us that time. That is the reason we will be voting

against this motion.

This government will not hide wrongdoing. That is why we brought in the

Auditor General in this House. That is why we brought in the whistleblower

legislation for the House. We will continue, Mr. Speaker, because it is our

responsibility to do so and we will protect our public servants.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank the hon. Opposition for bringing

this matter to our attention. This government is not interested in bringing in

legislation for political reasons. We will only bring it in when we get

an act

that is appropriate to protect our public servants.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime let me say that we are very proud of our public

servants. We value them. They are the engines that drive this government. We

depend on them every day to pull strongly and enthusiastically on the oars of

their departments, agencies, or boards. I can assure them that even without

whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, they can have every confidence that this

government will support them if they feel compelled to report wrongdoing in the

workplace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We just heard fifteen minutes of sound, words, and very little substance. I

am absolutely shocked and amazed at what the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General of this Province just uttered as a justification for voting against this

resolution.

Not only Joe Chesterfield, but the people of this Province are not so

gullible and are not so naive that they just could not plainly and clearly see

through a case of spin. I am absolutely shocked from the minister of this

government who said: We need time to do due diligence. We will do it when it is

right. We do not want to do it right now because we have not studied it enough.

This is from a government who five years ago said: Yes, we are prepared to do

it. Yes, we will do it in the first session of the House of Assembly. That came

from the former leader of this government, Mr. Williams, on October 7, 2007,

reported in The Telegram . His comment was: Yes, we will do it. Yes, we

will do it in the first session of government.

For this minister to stand up here today and suggest that we need more time,

what about the time that it took to bring in the House of Assembly whistleblower

provisions? Did that take five years? Mr. Speaker, that did not take five

months. Justice Green came in here and did his investigation during the MHA

scandal, proposed the legislation for the whistleblower which only applies to

Members of the House of Assembly by the way and to staff of the House of

Assembly and its agencies, not - as the minister forgot to tell in his speech -

that it does not apply to departments and agencies of government. It was cute

that it was left out, too cute by half.

We do not already have whistleblower legislation when it comes to this

Province. It only applies to the House of Assembly. Justice Green did that in

five months. This House of Assembly passed that legislation in five months, yet

we have a minister here who has been five years into the game and says we need

more time. We need more time. Well, Mr. Speaker, governments who claim they need

more time usually are governments who are secret, which we absolutely know that

this government is. It is a government that does not want to fulfill its

commitments. It is a government that wants to maintain absolute control so that

nothing can ever come out to reveal the things that are improperly and sometimes

illegally happening. That is the whole point of whistleblower legislation.

If someone works in a government department and they are aware of some

wrongdoing and they reveal it right now, they do not have the protections for

their jobs. They can be flicked out the door immediately no matter how bad the

activity is in a given department of this government. If someone were to come

out today, their job is on the line. That is what whistleblowers, principally,

is all about. It is not about trying to show governments up, it is about

protecting the people who know there is a wrongdoing.

Now, if there is one thing the Minister of Justice did say, it was that is

what it is about. It is about people who are doing wrongdoing. I liked the way

he also says: Some jurisdictions do not have it. Quebec does not have it. Maybe

there is a reason they do not have it. I say to the minister there are a lot of

jurisdictions in this country that do have it. Our neighbours in Nova Scotia

have it, New Brunswick has it, Ontario has it, Manitoba has it, and Saskatchewan

has it. Are we inventing a wheel here? This is not inventing a wheel; this has

been created and done. We have even done our own in the case of the House of

Assembly.

So, when the minister stands up today and tries to be so cute and says we are

going to vote against this resolution because it calls for immediate. That is

why it calls for immediate, Mr. Speaker, because immediate was supposed to be in

2007. They have had five years to study this. They have studied it to death, or

the other alternative is they have not studied it at all. I think that is the

alternative that is most likely, Mr. Speaker. They have not studied it at all

because if they study it, then, of course, they have to do something with it.

There is only one conclusion you can draw, they do not want to do anything with

it.

This is about a government, we talk about keeping commitments. It was in

their Blue Book of 2007. It was uttered from the lips of the Premier of the day,

their leader, and yet, not followed through. Which can only leave the people of

this Province wondering: Why won't they follow through on that? If we would have

had whistleblower years ago, for example, you might never have had the MHA

piece. You might never, ever, have had Mount Cashel; which as the investigation

inquiry revealed, bureaucrats were into it up to their ears and people in

authority, when it came to cover ups. We might never have had those catastrophic

events in our history.

That is what this minister is trying to do now, deflect again. This is the

same person who took the remand centre off the radar up in Goose Bay and did not

tell the people about it last year; slipped it out of the budget. This is the

same minister who is not doing anything about HMP and blames it on the feds.

This is the same minister who does not respect the reports that are filed by our

Citizens' Representative. This all happened in the last week with the Citizens'

Rep, Mr. Speaker.

It is about protecting people. We have an Auditor General in this Province,

he looks at the financial details. If you do something wrong he comes into the

departments, he picks it out, and he tells us. The Auditor General is limited in

what he can do. He is restricted in what he can do from a financial point of

view. Money was involved, money was expended. Was it expended within the program

guidelines? Was it wasted? Is it not being properly utilized? He reports back to

the government, which report becomes public, and everybody knows about it. We do

not have that when it comes to a lot of other things that are going on in

government.

This is the same government that says when it comes to freedom of information

requests under the access to information act - the most delaying, deflective

government in the history of this Province, bar none. The timelines, forgetting

answers to freedom of information requests, are routinely, routinely,

disregarded when it comes to the departments of this government; absolutely,

routinely disregarded.

I noticed the minister also said he is not going to support it because it is

sensitive and complicated matters, was the phrase he used. We are dealing with

some sensitive and complicated matters as governments so therefore, we have to

be careful on what we bring in.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the serious, complicated matters that this

government supposedly deals in. This is about a wrongdoing. This is not about

innuendo that somebody thinks I did not like what this minister, or deputy

minister, or some director in government did. This is not about this kind of

stuff. This is not about the policy decisions that the government is dealing

with. This is when somebody boldfacedly' does something wrong. We are talking

crime here. We are talking criminal, possible illegal activities here, Mr.

Speaker. That is what whistleblower is designed for. It is not about protecting

governments. It is not about protecting ministers or protecting MHAs.

The principal end result of whistleblower legislation is to protect the

person who reveals the illegal activity from any retributive action that might

be taken against them or punishment. Therefore, one can only conclude, if this

government is not prepared to bring in whistleblower legislation, they want to

leave that hammer, or more like a maul, on the table so that regardless if there

are illegal activities going on in some department of this government today,

whatever it is, it might even embarrass government because it went on. If it is

illegal the government should be the first one to come out and say that is

illegal; that is improper, we cannot condone that. Instead of that, and saying

we need to protect the person who brings out that illegal activity and thank the

employee.

I agree, we have a good crop of public servants in this Province but if they

are so good, as the minister claims, why is he not affording them, and his

government affording them, the opportunity to be protected when it comes to

things like whistleblower legislation? If you really admire your workers, if you

appreciate the work and the skills that these people bring to their jobs, why

would you not want to protect them? Yet, this government is saying no, we are

not prepared to do that. We already know - they do not have to invent the wheel

- it exists in numerous jurisdictions in this country, it exists in numerous

jurisdictions in this Commonwealth. We even have it within our own House of

Assembly and everybody who works for the House of Assembly, yet this government

will say we cannot go there; we need some more time to study this. They have not

one, but a dozen templates.

They claim we have a great public service that they respect. They agree that

it is necessary and yet, they are not agreeing to come forth with it. It has

nothing to do with complicated and serious and sensitive matters of government

policy. It has to do with exposing, without the fear of reprisal, illegal,

improper activities that are going on within government departments and

agencies.

Now, the alternative, Mr. Speaker, is what we live with today, and that is

called the brown envelope syndrome. That is what we have. We have seen it, in

fact, because this government rules with an iron fist. This government deflects

information. This government tries to deflect issues, and this government has

ruled, for the past number of years, with an iron fist to the point where there

is a fear in our public servants and in our bureaucracy. A fear that if I open

my mouth, no matter how bad or how terrible something is and how contrary it is

to the public interest, I will lose my job if I reveal that. That is not a

fiction of anyone's imagination.

I have had people approach me, the first question is: Can I ask you something

in confidence? Sure. Once you give your commitment to confidentiality of course

that is what it is, you stick with it. Then they tell you a story, and you say:

well, how come you have not revealed this in some manner? This is absolutely

inappropriate, improper and possibly illegal. Why will you not come forth with

this? It is because I will lose my job. If it ever was traced as to where it

came from, I could lose my job. Now, you have to respect that person. As

concerned as he or she is about the public interest and wanting that information

out there, they have to look after their jobs and their families first. That is

why they ought to be afforded the protection that would come with whistleblower

legislation.

What I call the brown envelope syndrome, there has been more brown envelopes

exchanged since former Premier Williams left, three or four months ago, then

have been seen in the last four years. The fear is still there but now people,

for some reason or other, they do not care as much; not that they do not care

about the incident. Absolutely, they care about the incidents but the brown

envelopes - and that is the case where people, without having to expose who they

are, remain absolutely anonymous. They are putting the information in envelopes

and slipping it to people in the media, slipping it to people in the Opposition

because they want it brought out but they do not want it brought out in their

name for fear of being fired.

Now, I would think a government, rather than try to hide from the truth,

rather than try to deflect from what is absolutely necessary i.e. the

revelation of the truth that you would be all in favour of this and say: We

want to know if there is something going wrong. Tell us about it. We decided as

MHAs that that was appropriate for us and everybody who works at the House of

Assembly. Why would we not accord the same courtesy and respect to the people

who work in our public service? Yet, this government says no.

So I say to the people of the Province who are listening: Ask yourself why.

Why would a government commit to something that protects its public servants,

yet for five years refused to implement it on the nebulous, frivolous grounds

that they have not had time enough to study it yet. Who is trying to protect

whom, I say, Mr. Speaker?

This certainly does not appear to be a government that respects or is

prepared to respect and protect its public servants when it comes to revelation

of information that is harmful to the public interest. It ought to be done and

it ought to be done immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to stand today if I could and make a few comments about the private

member's resolution that calls on government to take an immediate action and to

immediately extend the whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal

public servants.

In the last eight years, our government has been committed to transparency,

accountability, and ethical conduct. One of the things we need to recognize is

that whistleblower protection is not, in and of itself, a policy in isolation. I

think we need to look at whistleblower legislation and the policies around it in

context, Mr. Speaker, not just in isolation.

For example, this government introduced the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act in 2005. The cornerstone of this access to information

and protection of privacy is openness, transparency, and accountability. In

fact, Mr. Speaker,

section 3 of that act provides that the purpose of the act is

to make public bodies more open and accountable to the public.

Let me just share with you three of those mechanisms with which it does that,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I stand to be corrected, but the member said the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was brought in 2005. My

understanding, actually, Mr. Speaker, is that was introduced and passed in this

House in 2002 after vigorous debate between the government and the Opposition.

It was in 2002 that it was actually brought in and passed in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. WISEMAN: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of

order. If there is a statement of misfact' then let it be corrected, but trying

to interject and to take some of my time, Mr. Speaker, is a normal practice

consistent with the strategies by members opposite, but let me continue.

I was about to, Mr. Speaker, share with you, and share with the House some of

the provisions in which these public bodies are left to be accountable. Firstly,

by giving individuals the right to access of records; secondly, specifying very

limited exceptions to the right of that access to the information; and thirdly,

Mr. Speaker, providing for an independent review of decisions made by the public

bodies under the act, very clearly, Mr. Speaker, providing that openness and

accountability

We have more than 400-and-some-odd public bodies across the Province that are

covered by that access to information and protection of privacy; the government

departments, agencies, boards, and others. The act was proclaimed in 2005, and

during that proclamation period there is a requirement that there be a

comprehensive review every five years after that act came into force.

I say, Mr. Speaker, last year, in January, or this past January actually,

that five-year period was up and we did the first access to information; the

review was done and completed. That, Mr. Speaker, very clearly showed that our

government is committed to the effectiveness of this important piece of

legislation. The mere fact that we put in place a review mechanism the

consultations, again, broad consultations were conducted around the Province

further demonstrates by way of example the kind of commitment that we have made

as a government to openness and transparency. The results of that government

effort, Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular piece of legislation, the

access to information and privacy policy, I think, points very clearly an

independent review, an independent assessment.

The National Freedom of Information Audit released in May, 2010 by the

Canadian Newspaper Association; this year it said Newfoundland and Labrador

placed fifth among the Provinces and Territories, receiving a B grade; placed

fifth, Mr. Speaker. With respect to response times, again, the same assessment,

Newfoundland and Labrador placed second among the provinces, with only 7 per

cent of the responses beyond the statutory deadline. When you consider the large

number of requests that we get, only within 7 per cent did we not meet the

deadline, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me read you some statistics; in 2009-2010 there were some 550

requests under that particular piece of legislation for access to information;

in 2008-2009 there were some 535 requests; in 2007-2008 some 470 requests, Mr.

Speaker. With those numbers of requests to be compliant within that kind of

range I say, Mr. Speaker, is again a reflection of our desire to be open and

transparent.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, our Province enacted the Lobbyist Registration Act.

Transparency around lobbying is good government policy I say, Mr. Speaker. It is

a good policy objective. Information should be publicly available on individuals

or groups, who seek to influence government spending, seek to influence how

government raises money, and seek to influence how government may make laws and

regulations pass legislation in this House that becomes the law of the land.

Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of us, that we know what lobbying is, who

is doing it, that they be registered, when it is done, and it is done

appropriately to ensure that we have the legislation that governs it.

Lobbying can be a very legitimate part of the democratic process. It provides

an opportunity for individuals, groups or organizations to inform government, to

provide information, lend insight to help form policy decisions and legislation

that we may introduce in this House. Open and transparency, and registering and

making sure that the paid lobbyists are registered to ensure that they are in

fact and the activities that they are engaged in with public office holders are

actually documented and recorded.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador's openness and

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I think expect all of us to be open,

transparent and accountable as we make decisions. The Lobbyist Registration Act

is yet another example of where this government is committed to good governance,

good openness and providing a democratic process to influence decisions.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the members opposite that it was this

government's clear commitment to greater openness and accountability for all

government departments and public bodies. That is why we have demonstrated in

the Transparency and Accountability Act that we proclaimed in 2006, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just share some of the items under this act that reflect our government's

commitment to openness and transparency. Under this act, each government entity

must develop a three-year plan, Mr. Speaker, that includes clearly the

definitions of performance expectations, exactly what the department is doing

and what those performance expectations are. Annual reports I say, Mr. Speaker,

for each of those are provided. All of the necessary information that is

recorded in those plans needs to reflect the direction provided under the

legislation.

To help that process, Mr. Speaker, we resourced it. We provided an office to

help develop those plans to ensure that they have the support necessary to

provide consistency, open information, factual information, and clear

information about what the future should look like, and to ensure that all of

these entities throughout government are complying with the legislation. There

are some 140 government departments and agencies now that are covered by this

particular legislation.

In addition to the planning and reporting, the Transparency and

Accountability Act also stipulates a number of very significant points. I just

want to share with the House some of those particular stipulations. Each entity

must prepare their annual budgets using accrual accounting information, Mr.

Speaker, and that entities report required financial information in a manner

consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. We want to make sure

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a clear understanding of the

true financial position of the government, of the department, or of the agency

involved.

Prior Cabinet approval is required to set up a new corporation under the

Corporations Act so that agencies and departments cannot go out and conduct

business by incorporating a company under the Corporations Act that would take

them outside of the regulations and the act itself.

Any unauthorized borrowing will not be allowed. Borrowing must be approved by

the minister of the department responsible, together with the Minister of

Finance. Capital borrowings, again, require the approval of the Minister of

Finance.

The Minister of Finance will publish a three-year fiscal forecast and

semi-annually report on the economic and fiscal position of the Province.

Fortunately, in the last five or six years as the Minister of Finance has stood,

it has been a very positive message, Mr. Speaker. The forecast has been

reflective of a Province that is on the move. The Minister of Finance on the day

of his Budget presents a three-year forecast about the impact of the policies

and the decisions that will have significant financial impact on the Province. I

say, Mr. Speaker, these are all requirements under this particular piece of

legislation.

I think if you look at government's record of openness, accountability, and

ethical conduct, those three pieces of legislation are clearly reflective of our

government's intention to ensure that we are open, transparent, and conduct

ourselves in a very ethical fashion. That goes back to my introductory comment.

When you start talking about whistleblower legislation, it is impossible to talk

about it as a policy decision in isolation. You need to give it consideration in

the context of other things that we are doing.

There was a reference earlier made to Justice Green and his report and

bringing legislation to the House to cover Members of the House of Assembly and

employees of the offices of the House. I think what is really important, Mr.

Speaker, and if the members opposite want to cite Justice Green and his

activity, what becomes really important is that Justice Green also said that

whistleblower legislation is very complex. It is extremely complicated, very

complex, and it is important in bringing in the legislation to strike a balance.

It becomes, as my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has already pointed out,

it is really important that before we start jumping in whole-heartedly, wanting

to quickly move to bring legislation in, we need to ensure that we understand

what it is we are doing. We need to understand the implications of that, Mr.

Speaker.

So, we need to be careful as we continue to monitor, to continue to become

informed, to continue to do the analysis of what is happening in other

jurisdictions. When we have done the appropriate due diligence, when we are

comfortable that we have the necessary insights, the necessary understandings,

can speak clearly to the experiences of other jurisdictions, and we have struck

the balance, as referenced by Justice Green, and we understand the implications

of that balance, then we will be in a much better position to do as the members

opposite are asking to do immediately. Sometimes, taking immediate action and

doing it prematurely can do more damage than having no legislation in place in

the first place, I say, Mr. Speaker.

So, I thank you for the opportunity, and I thank members opposite for giving

me the opportunity to have a few comments with respect to the bill that they

have introduced, and ask them to recognize that sometimes being hasty, moving

immediately, can sometimes do more damage than making sure that we have done the

appropriate due diligence, and we understand the implications of the decisions

we are about to make. When we have done that, we will be in a much better

position to move forward, 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.

I am very happy to stand today and to speak to this private member's motion

with regard to whistleblower legislation. I am pleased that the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair brought this in, because I think it is something that

is more than well overdue.

The former speaker just talked about we cannot do things as a knee-jerk

movement or a knee-jerk reaction. Well, I would say the government right now

must have an arthritic knee, because this is not a very fast knee-jerk that we

are talking about here. In 2007, these people sitting in government right now

promised that they would deal with whistleblower legislation during the first

session of the House. Then in 2008, in the Throne Speech the government promised

to introduce whistleblower legislation that year after appropriate consultation

had taken place. Well, that appropriate consultation has been going on for three

years, Mr. Speaker, and it is not acceptable.

This is not something that is brand new; this is not an idea that has not

happened in other jurisdictions, an idea that has not happened even here in our

own Province. We, here in this House of Assembly, and the people who work with

us, all fall under a piece of legislation that has whistleblower legislation in

it. Even after the Cameron report when Madam Cameron was studying the whole

issue with regard to the ER-PR testing and did her report, even in that there

was some built-in protection for members in the health care. It is not a general

whistleblower but protection in one particular aspect of the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken the steps, major steps, to make whistleblower

happen. Surely to goodness if we have been able to put a process in place to

make sure that whistleblower is operative under the House of Assembly and all of

the statutory offices, surely if we have been able to put that in place, we

should be ready to start putting it in place for the whole of our government.

The lame excuses from the other side of the House, from the government side of

the House, are really boring. It is all I can call them is lame excuses because

there is some reason why they are not putting this in.

It is really interesting that when it was put in here in the House of

Assembly, it was as a result, as has been said already, of Chief Justice Green's

recommendation. The House of Assembly at that time was compelled and felt

compelled, and rightly so, to make sure that his recommendations were put in

place. It is really interesting that in the report that Chief Justice Green did,

Chief Justice Green documents that in a survey that was done of Members of the

House of Assembly at that time, in that survey over 50 per cent of the MHAs of

the day did not think that we should have whistleblower legislation. Knowing

that the majority of the people in that survey were people who were members of

this government, one can say that they only put it in for the House of Assembly

because they were forced to put it in and that there really is not an openness

over there to having it in our full government and that is why we do not have

it. When they were forced to do it, they did it. Now that they can take their

dead time in getting it put in place for our whole governmental system, we are

never going to see it under this government, Mr. Speaker. I have been calling

for it since I was elected; representatives of the NDP were calling for it

before I sat in the House. On a federal level, our party has recently put in a

reform agenda that includes legislative protection for whistleblowers, and that

comes from recommendations by the federal Public Service Commission in a recent

report to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, they do not have it in Ottawa, and it is a shame. The Public

Service Commission has acknowledged that they should have it and have made a

strong recommendation. We know it was deemed extremely important by Chief

Justice Green, and that is why we have it here in the House of Assembly, in our

statutory offices. I am really tired of the rhetoric that I am getting from the

government side of the House. One gets the feeling that they really do not want

it, yet we know from people who come to us and speak to us, people who send

information to us, that out there in our government we do have people who are

not happy because we do not have whistleblower legislation. They are asking if

you can have it in the House of Assembly, in the statutory offices: Why don't we

have it? They want the protection. There are many things they observe that they

are not happy about. They are not protected, so they are not going to say

anything. The delays are unacceptable. When are we going to get a timeline from

this government? I would suggest it is just like the anti-scab legislation when

the promise was made during an election time, that that was going to happen. The

lip service that they give to some things is one thing but the actions are

another, and we are not getting actions.

I am really glad the Official Opposition brought forward this private

member's bill today so that the issue can be raised here in the House and we can

have an opportunity to point out to people that this government is just dragging

its feet with regard to making sure that workers inside of the whole government

system are protected. It leads to a spirit of openness, Mr. Speaker. It leads to

a spirit also of responsibility. If people know they can identify things that

are going wrong and identify those things safely and without having to fear for

their jobs, if they can do that, Mr. Speaker, then that leads to a whole culture

of a sense of responsibility. Because people are going to say, not only do I

think I should report this but I have protection which is telling me that I

should report it; that this is my responsibility to report something if I see it

going wrong; that I have a responsibility to report it, and I am protected

because I have that responsibility.

By not putting in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, this government is

continuing to allow the bureaucracy of government to be operating in a spirit of

fear and a spirit of hiding, and that is not good. This is a government that

says it is open and transparent. Well, it should be open and transparent on

every level. One of those levels is how this government governs the bureaucracy

inside of the whole government and public system.

On the federal level there is a non-governmental organization called the

Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform. The acronym is FAIR, which is a

very nice acronym; I am sure they liked that, when they came up with it. This

group FAIR says that although drafting of whistleblower legislation does take

time - and it does, but I would say four years is a lot of time, Mr. Speaker.

They point out there are powerful vested interests that favour the status quo.

FAIR calls the history of whistleblower legislation in Canada, they are using

my words, one of foot-dragging by politicians and bureaucrats alike and it is

not acceptable. It is really good to know there is an organization like FAIR

that is studying and researching the issue. Proponents of whistleblower

legislation point out that it ensures that public servants are not afraid to

speak out for fear of retaliation and it ensures that wrongdoing is quickly

revealed. That is the point I was making. Because people are not afraid and

because they know they do have a responsibility to speak out, if they see

wrongdoing happening, then they are going to speak out.

Chief Justice Green does point out in his report, in the

section where he

talks about whistle-blowing, that while having whistleblower legislation here in

the House of Assembly prior to 2006, while it may not have stopped what was

going on, he felt confident in saying there had to be people who were handling

things along the line at the time of the spending scandal, who knew there was

something wrong and they just did not have the process, or an apparatus, or

legislation to allow them to come forward. He does not say it would not have

happened, but he does indicate he did believe that whistleblower legislation

would have helped if it had been in place. That was one of the reasons why he

made the recommendation. It does ensure that people feel free and will come

forward, and that things get revealed quickly. That means that something which

is not operating well in the system will not go on for years.

The other thing that Chief Justice Green recommended, he recommended that a

law to protect public servants or anyone else who speaks up with evidence of

financial abuse or other impropriety should happen in the legislative branch. It

was extremely important to him, and he said that such legislation might have

gotten someone to come forward sooner. It might have, he could not say for sure,

but when we had the financial wrongdoing back in 2006 it might have been

identified sooner if we would have had it. Certainly, such legislation might

have meant that ER-PR testing mistakes in Eastern Health and the ensuing

cover-ups, because there were cover-ups, would have come to light earlier as

well. Surely to goodness, with the experience we have had here in this Province

just with those two incidents alone, the financial wrongdoing and the ER-PR

mess; surely with just those two alone we should be one of the Legislatures that

are rushing to put whistleblower legislation in place.

Like I said earlier, it is not like it is a new idea. It is not like it has

not been done elsewhere in the general governments, like in Nova Scotia, and we

already have it here in our House of Assembly. We need it for all sectors, not

just in Eastern Health and the House of Assembly. We need it for all workers.

All of the workers in our bureaucracy should know that they have this protection

and it will lead to good governance and to good order, Mr. Speaker, which is

extremely important. We need a law that will stipulate mechanisms and guidelines

for both internal disclosure and protection and for external disclosure and

protection, because there might be times when internal disclosure will not work;

therefore, there has to be protection if a person has to go outside the system

to disclose, because that is a possibility. We have to have legislation that

allows both for internal and external when the internal does not work.

This government has to start taking this seriously, has to stop the

foot-dragging, and has to let us know when they see that this legislation can be

put in place. It is not something this government is good at, Mr. Speaker,

giving timelines; they are not good. Every time you ask them for a plan they

give you a strategy. They never give you a plan that has actual timelines and

tells you what their goal is and when they are going to get there, and I would

like to see it. They can do it sometimes.

It is interesting today that we had a Ministerial Statement where there was a

goal set with regard to buying more fuel-efficient vehicles for government, and

they set a bar of 25 per cent. Lo and behold, they actually when up to 46 per

cent of the vehicles now in use are fuel-efficient. So, they can do it when they

have the will to do it. So the question is: Why don't they have the will to do

it in this case?

This is a quote from FAIR, "Speaking up in the workplace about public

interest concerns is considered a natural, expected and honourable course of

action." We should want people to identify when things are going wrong. We

should want people to be able to stand up and say: This has to change. That is

what openness and transparency is all about. If this government wants to show

some way in which it is open and transparent, then put in a system that will

allow the whole of our bureaucracy to be open and transparent because people

will be free and will be safe in doing the honourable thing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair is pleased to recognize the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to be able to have a few words on this private member's

motion, and to give a little bit of background, Mr. Speaker, and to address some

of the ways that we are currently dealing with whistleblowers in other forms of

legislation. It is not simply a matter of bringing a specific whistleblower act.

It is something that we deal with as a government, and it is something that

other governments throughout the country, and the federal government, have also

dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, whistleblower protection became, as many people are aware, a

prominent topic in corporate governance in the wake of the numerous high-profile

corporate fraud scandals a number of years ago. Whistleblower legislation,

federally, was brought in, in 2004, in response to the sponsorship scandal,

which many people will remember. Then, as a result, provincial legislation

protecting whistleblowers came into vogue across Canada. Currentl