PDF Version

May 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 33

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Wiseman):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

We are very pleased today to have some special young

guests in our House. Today we have

thirty-three students from Persalvic Elementary in Victoria, and they are

accompanied by their teacher, David Barrett.

Welcome to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

I speak, walking into the galleries is another group of very special guests.

We have the same number, actually thirty-three members of the Gambo

senior citizens' group.

Welcome to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Well, we have sitting on the same side of the House today a group of individuals

who have made a major contribution to our past and created what we are today,

and then on the other side we have our future leaders of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of St.

John's North; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for

the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave;

the Member for the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi; and the Member for the

District of The Straits White Bay North.

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

MR.

KIRBY:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to pay homage to Ted Blanchard a well-known musician,

rower, labour mediator, and public servant.

Mr. Blanchard had quite a distinguished career in the provincial public

service. He was chief negotiator for

Treasury Board, and held the positions of Assistant Deputy Minister and Deputy

Minister in the Department of Labour.

After being elected MHA for the District of Bay of Islands in 1985, he

ultimately served as the Minister of Labour.

He was very involved with the Royal St. John's Regatta

as a committee member, a rower, a coxswain, and a coach.

He was also an accomplished musician, playing on radio programs such as

Saturday Night Jamboree and

Happy Valley Gang and the television

show All Around The Circle .

He played with several musical groups including The Three Strings and

Crooked Stove Pipe.

Mr. Blanchard also volunteered his fiddling talents at

seniors' residents throughout St. John's for twenty-five years.

He received a number of awards recognizing his work, including the Folk

Arts Council Lifetime Achievement Award and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Seniors of Distinction Award.

I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the

life of Ted Blanchard a true renaissance man who lived life to its fullest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I had the privilege to

participate in a wonderful initiative within my community.

At 10:00 on Saturday morning in the City of Mount Pearl, a number of

council members and city employees, service groups, community-minded businesses

and tremendous community volunteers put words to action and descended upon a

natural, regional gem which runs through our community: the Waterford River.

Fitted out in rubbers and gloves, with garbage bags in

hand, this fine group of individuals took the initiative to do their

part in

working towards a goal of seeing the Waterford River become the most pristine

urban river in the country.

This year marked the fourth annual cleanup blitz in the

City of Mount Pearl and while sadly, there was a significant amount of garbage

and debris required to be collected, the good news is that it is getting less

and less each year; bringing us closer to our goal.

This was a very upbeat experience for all those involved and was topped

off by a barbeque at Centennial Park.

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

in congratulating the council and dedicated employees of the City of Mount

Pearl, the Mount Pearl Lions Club, the Rotary Club of Waterford Valley, the

corporate sponsors, and all community-minded volunteers who participated in this

very worthwhile initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR.

LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to recognize and

congratulate the members of the Discovery Collegiate Destroyers hockey team, who

won the sixteenth annual Confederation Cup High School Hockey Invitational

Tournament tier two championship.

The tournament was held in the St. John's metro area.

There were sixteen teams that participated in this hockey tournament.

Discovery Collegiate won two games and lost one in the round robin play

and dominated the next two teams by winning 5-1 and 7-1.

The team advanced to the finals with a 5-3 victory in the semi-finals.

The Destroyers faced the Laval Cavaliers from Placentia in the

championship game and won the tournament with a 3-1 win.

This marked the second time the Discovery Collegiate has won the

Confederation Cup tier 2 championship.

Teams members of the Bonavista Discovery Collegiate are

as follows: Colin Collins-Faulkner, Matthew Fisher, Nathanial Duffett, Brad

Paul, Mark Butler, Matthew Ryan, Riley Baker, Ryley Ellis, Johnathon Pilgrim,

Ethan Street, Conal McNamara, Andrew Smith, Jonny Cooper, Blake Way, Brent

Monks, Jeremy Freake, and the coaches were Wade Mouland and Sheldon Stringer.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in

congratulating the Discovery Collegiate Destroyers on their victory, winning the

Confederation Cup.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR.

LITTLEJOHN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize a young

writer from my district, Ms Allyson Ricketts of Upper Island Cove.

Allyson participated in this year's Arts and Letters Awards where her

short story White Out, was selected in the Junior Prose Category.

Allyson is a fifteen-year-old Grade 9 student at St.

Peter's Elementary. Her teacher,

Mrs. Lynch, submits written pieces each year to the competition which is open to

youth twelve to eighteen years of age from across our Province.

She wrote the story when she was in Grade 8.

The story is about a snowmobile race where a boy and a ghost have an

encounter that goes south fairly quickly.

Her story earned her a $350 prize and was one of eight selected out of

fifty-one entries in her category.

Allyson encourages other students who like writing to

enter the competition and says: it's a really cool competition.

I ask all members to join me in applauding this

talented young writer who is inspiring others to write and create their own

story.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Friday, I had the great pleasure of attending the

2014 Excellence in Visual Arts awards.

The EVAs are presented by VANL-CARFAC, the provincial affiliate of the

national advocacy group for artists, and celebrate local visual artists and the

visual arts.

The Long Haul Award goes to a senior artist who has

made a substantial contribution to the visual culture of the Province.

This year's recipient is Pam Hall.

Pam's work is exhibited across Canada and internationally, and in

collections that include the National Gallery of Canada.

Her Houseworks exhibit, featuring miniature paper houses from all over

the world, runs until September at The Rooms.

Pam makes art, builds installations, plays with

language, and does film, video and performance art, often collaborating with

others. She is based in Signal Hill

Quidi Vidi but travels extensively to create and present her work, and to

teach graduate students.

While she has received awards and prizes in other

places, the Long Haul Award was Pam's first award in her home Province.

Her pride and joy were obvious as she accepted it.

I ask this House to join me in congratulating Pam Hall,

winner of the VANL-CARFAC Long Haul EVA award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. Anthony Basin Resources Incorporated

(SABRI) as a visionary social enterprise that advances our fishery, enhances

transportation links, tourism, preserves our history, and fosters economic

development for seventeen communities on the Great Northern Peninsula.

Friday's AGM highlighted SABRI's long-term employment

at St. Anthony Seafoods and Cold Storage and $15.9 million in infrastructure

investments which help diversify our local economy.

SABRI invested in specialized medical equipment, assisted youth

organizations, contributed to a boat lift and port improvements for cruise ship

visits. Additionally, L'Anse aux

Meadows saw the unveiling of a Leif Erikson statute.

SABRI is a model for others to follow.

It is clear, when communities partner they have greater control of their

public resources and in turn make better decisions; the profits stay in the

community to build a stronger tomorrow.

I extend gratitude to the staff Sam Elliott, Glenda

Burden, Alicia Shears, and board members Wayne Noel, Paul Dunphy, Roy Taylor,

Todd Hedderson, Dale Colbourne, Wilfred Alyward, Carl Hedderson, Sterling Dawe,

Dean Patey, Alvohn Pilgrim, Trudy Byrne, Eric Boyd, Lester Bessey, and Peter

Hughes.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating

SABRI for its continuation of outstanding accomplishments in the region.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to celebrate the completion of the

benefits agreement for the Kami Iron Ore Project in Western Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

This agreement is great news for Labrador and raises the bar for operators

looking to do business in the Province.

We have set high standards so that industrial and employment benefits

accrue directly to Labradorians and Newfoundlanders.

This is in keeping with our government's commitment to ensure natural

resource development is maximized for the people of the Province.

The Kami Iron Ore Project will create direct employment

for 800 workers at the peak of construction and approximately 400 during the

operation phase. In addition, the

project will contribute at least $18 billion to provincial GDP and $2.6 billion

in taxes and royalties

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

to the provincial government over its anticipated thirty-year life.

The agreement establishes a process to ensure

Newfoundland and Labrador's participation in the project.

Residents of Newfoundland and Labrador will be provided

first consideration for employment during all phases of the project and a

Labrador first hiring priority protocol has been established.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

Suppliers in the Province will also be provided full and fair opportunity and

first consideration for procurement opportunities during all phases of the

project. A Labrador first

procurement priority protocol has also been established.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in this Province, the

benefits agreement features firm commitments to hire a minimum number of

registered apprentices for all phases of the project as part of its

responsibility to maintain a supply of skilled tradespersons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

The

partnership commits to a minimum of 15 per cent of the skilled trades workforce

to be apprentices for the construction phase of the project, and a minimum of 25

per cent of the skilled trades workforce to be apprentices during the operations

phase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

The

gender equity and diversity plan developed for this project is the latest

example of government and industry's commitment.

We continue to be a leader in Canada with regard to gender equity and

diversity in the natural resource sector.

Qualified women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal persons and

visible minorities will have equitable access to the many employment and

business opportunities associated with the project.

One of the many initiatives includes the provision of a forty space

employee child care centre.

We are looking forward to construction of the Kami Iron

Ore Project, expected to begin this summer.

The first phase of the project will produce 8 million tons of concentrate

annually and has a potential to expand to 16 million tons.

Labrador West has a well-established mining industry

that has brought considerable economic activity to the region for many years.

This project positions the region for continued growth over the long term

and will bring economic and other benefits to businesses, residents, and the

region as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of

his statement. I, too, want to join

government and congratulate Alderon and government for completing this benefits

agreement that was announced this morning.

As we all know, this is a very important project for the residents of

Labrador West, and indeed the entire Province, especially in light of the recent

idling of Wabush Mines.

As the minister said, thirty years of the project will

contribute $18 billion into the GDP, and $2.6 billion in taxes and royalties.

I am certainly encouraged to see the inclusion of the commitment set out

in the agreement, especially around apprenticeship hiring, gender equity,

Aboriginal employment, as well as persons with disabilities, of course.

I have often wondered why even in our own contracts we have known for

quite some time now that we are going to be looking for a skilled workforce,

70,000 people, mainly due to retirement by 2020.

I have often wondered why it has taken so long see benefits like this

included, especially in our own government contracts.

We could have done this a long time ago.

I am also encouraged to see the commitment to the

protocol around businesses in Labrador, and a Labrador-first hiring policy.

So this is all important. In

particular, that stood out to me today, was the child care spaces.

On the many trips that I have made to Labrador West this is something

that has always come up, and indeed, this is an important component of all of

this. The use of power from Muskrat

to actually create economic development in Lab West is something that, as the

Opposition, we have been calling for and supported with the December

announcement of the third line.

All in all, this announcement this morning, we see this

as being encouraged and positive, and I look forward to seeing the benefits

agreement when it becomes publicly available.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. There is no doubt that

this announcement is good news, but there are concerns that I want to raise.

I am uneasy about the fact that the company has yet to

find the funding that will actually lead to the final sanctioning of the

project, and I do not think we can breathe easily until that occurs.

I certainly hope government will ensure that people get the required

training they need to be apprentices on site.

I am really delighted with the information about apprentices, in that we

have them both in the construction phase and in production phase.

That is extremely important; but government will need to ensure,

especially for the construction phase, that local and Aboriginal people who want

to get training in order to become apprentices will be able to access that

training to ensure it to happen.

Another concern, which is related in a broader way, is

government's inability to ensure that properly trained and compensated

occupational health and safety officials are living and working in Labrador

West. As industrial activity ramps

up in these regions, this is a problem government has to solve with employees

living in the region, and this is something that I put to the government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to speak about the continuing work of the Department of

Advanced Education and Skills to foster the inclusion of persons with

disabilities. This month, I had the

great pleasure of visiting the Independent Living Resource Centre to provide

details on $600,000 in provincial government funding to continue Accessible

Vehicle Funding and Inclusion Grants.

Accessible Vehicle Funding provides up to $25,000 to

eligible individuals or families to purchase or modify personal vehicles,

removing barriers and increasing transportation options for individuals with

disabilities. I am pleased to note

that this year the eligibility criteria of this program has been broadened if

you purchase a vehicle that has already been retrofitted, you are now eligible

for funding for the value of the retrofit.

Mr. Speaker, during my visit to the Independent Living

Resource Centre, I met Laura George, a young woman whose van is equipped with a

ramp that enables her to travel wherever she needs to go.

I had the opportunity to watch her demonstrate how her newly accessible

van operates, and hear first-hand how this has impacted her life, giving her the

freedom to travel an activity many of us take for granted.

Inclusion Grants of up to $25,000 for non-profit, community-based organizations.

These grants support enhancements such as the installation of ramps and

visual fire alarms within buildings, playgrounds and other facilities.

Up to $5,000 is also available to make events more accessible through

enhancements such as sign language

interpretation and assisted listening

devices.

Mr. Speaker,

Budget 2014: Shared Prosperity, Fair Society, Balanced Outlook includes

$12.6 million to advance inclusion and support employment opportunities for

persons with disabilities.

Accessible Vehicle Funding and Inclusion Grants will continue to make a real

difference in people's lives and are a part of our strategy to enhance inclusion

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to hear the vehicle

modification program is continuing this year.

The minister referenced the freedom of travel that many of us take for

granted, and funding the retrofitting of vehicles for persons with disabilities

is a positive initiative.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, we asked several times in

this House about the enforcement of Blue Zone regulations and parking lots with

insufficient parking spaces for persons with disabilities.

We feel government has been entirely too passive on the enforcement of

these regulations and part of the freedom to travel, Mr. Speaker, is accessible

parking.

Mr. Speaker, we

have so far to go in making public spaces more accessible.

I know in my district, and I would venture to guess all MHAs see the same

challenges, many government workers in buildings that are inaccessible to

persons with disabilities. There are

many examples I could give in Coastal Labrador communities.

What strikes me as

this same department eliminated the $14,000 grant for the Coalition of Persons

with Disabilities to maintain their accessible office space just one year ago.

These inconsistencies, Mr. Speaker, call into question this government's

commitment to inclusion.

I hope we can look

forward to an announcement on those organizations and projects receiving

inclusion grants this year.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am glad to see

the continuation of the inclusion grants that help places and work of non-profit

groups to be more accessible. I am

also glad that government decided to renew the Accessible Vehicle Funding

program that helps remove some of the physical barriers to employment for people

with disabilities, but I would like to see some of the non-physical barriers to

employment removed as well, Mr. Speaker.

I note that last

June in Estimates the then Finance minister said he was not satisfied with the

government agency underutilization of people through the Opening Doors Program

and promised a review. Mr. Speaker,

I have not heard of this review and I would like the minister to let us know at

some point whether or not the review has happened and that we will soon see

public agencies employing more people with disabilities and tapping into the

valuable labour resource.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The President of the Surety Association of Canada says

that government's remarks on the surety bonds on the cancelled Humber Valley

Paving contract were completely preposterous.

He went on to say that the minister clearly does not understand surety

bonds nor does he comprehend how they work.

I ask the Premier: How can you claim that your

government handled the situation properly when the National association says the

minister's comments were completely irresponsible and just plain wrong?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, I also heard coming from the opposite side of the House some

misinformation on bonds, a lack of understanding on bonds, talk about cash going

back, different things like that.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the President of the

Canadian Surety Association also indicated that there may have been other

factors that dealt with the minister's decision.

The minister, as a minister from Labrador, as the Minister Responsible

for Transportation and Works, would want to see this project continued and

completed on time and on budget.

He took advantage we had a very exceptional and

unique circumstance here with these particular fires.

If we had gone the other way, if we had gone out of the bond, the

president of the association, yes, said there would be delays.

Delays are sometimes unavoidable.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition would then be up blasting us (inaudible).

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we said as the Opposition is that the bonds have a

value of $19 million, which was something completely different.

Premier, you have to admit the first day the minister did not even get

that. The value of the bonds the

insurance was at a value of $19 million.

The project has already been delayed by one year.

You have offered that extension.

The Surety Association points out that government's decision to cancel

the contract and release the bonds will mean increased costs for taxpayers in

our Province.

He went on to say that the cost of escalation that

comes from re-tendering the project would normally be picked up by the

performance bond. The incoming Premier

has already admitted that he was a guarantor on this bond, but government chose

to release it.

I ask the Premier: Why did your government choose to

let the option and let the incoming Premier off the hook while adding more cost

to the people of the Province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was a little bit astounded by the

comments yesterday in that article.

If you read down through the

article when you got down to paragraph five, you

would notice that Mr. Ness made the comment that he said there were extenuating

circumstances that he did not know about, so he really could not comment; he was

being very cautious in his comments.

I was on the ground, Mr. Speaker, in June of last year

when the fire came through and burned 27,000 hectares.

I was on the ground when Wabush was in a state of emergency and

evacuated. I was on the ground when

12,000 people did not know where they were going to go.

I was there when those trucks were stopped on the side of the road and

did not know what was going to happen.

I saw what was happening.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all saw that.

The minister was not the only one on the ground at that time; many people

were. That is the reason why the

company asked for an extension to the contract.

That is the reason why you gave the extension to the contract.

That contract was supposed to be finished by July of

2013. You granted the extension to

be finished July of 2014, this year.

Now on May 6, Mr. Coleman said that he had no personal benefit from government

by cancelling this contract, yet last week he admitted that the government's

decision could have benefitted him personally.

I ask the Premier: Now that Mr. Coleman has admitted

that his decision could have benefitted him personally, do you still support the

minister's decision to cancel the contract and release the bonds?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continues to put information out on the

floor of this House of Assembly which is not correct.

He said there was going to be a loss.

There has been no loss incurred to date.

We do not know there is going to be a loss.

That remains to be seen.

The Auditor General has been called in to the House.

He has been called in to look he is doing his work now.

He is talking to the people who may have been involved in this.

He is getting out the facts.

I think rather than prejudge what is happening, we should have the decency to

allow him to do his work, and then the facts will be out and then the people

will be able to judge who is really telling the right thing here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, this government was very cute in the way this new

tender was released. If you

remember, this contract was indeed bundled with a larger contract so we will

never know what the completion rate for the sixty kilometres (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

BALL:

Government has said that Humber Valley Paving approached them to get out of the

contract because they were losing money on it; however, the incoming Premier has

recently said that the company had options and could have finished the work

under the contract.

I ask the Premier: If Mr. Coleman is correct and Humber

Valley Paving could have finished the work, why did you cancel the contract and

release the bonds?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when this was first brought up in the

House of Assembly during Question Period, I made it very clear that the

department had options. The options

were, when we sat and negotiated with the company, that we could have forced

them to continue with the job. That

was an option that they could have decided; they were going to or not.

As a department we had to make choices, and I had a

choice to go down a legal road or go down a road to make things happen.

I had a small window of opportunity, as you just heard the Leader of the

Opposition say, to bundle work together.

For the people who are listening out there, we do not all live in the

metro and we are dealing with an area here, a sixty kilometre piece of highway,

that is in the middle of a 650 kilometre isolated area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We recognize that; that was one of the reasons why you

granted the extension.

The government has run out of excuses for cancelling

the Humber Valley contract. At first

they said it was cancelled because of a forest fire; that was the reason for the

one-year extension. Then they said

it would protect the finances of the company, not the other subcontractors, I

may add; but Mr. Coleman has already said the company had other options.

Thirdly, they said it was to ensure the project was completed on time and

on budget. The Surety Association

clearly says that timing has nothing to do with it.

I ask the Premier: What is the real reason that this

contract was cancelled?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the Leader of the Opposition needs to decide

which one it is. We have stated that

the fires were a very significant reason for the delay in this job.

We looked at the circumstances and that was the reason we gave an

extension. That was not the reason

that we agreed to mutually terminate the contract.

After the fires were over and they continued with the

work, they realized they had lost too much money and it was not fiscally

responsible for them to continue with the project.

Then they asked to go into a mutual termination agreement, which we

entered into.

Mr. Speaker, what we have done here is we will still

get the job done. For the gentleman,

Mr. Ness, who sits in a tower in Mississauga, he does not realize the geography.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just ask the minister: What other options did

Humber Valley Paving and what other options was Mr. Coleman referring to?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for Mr. Coleman, I will

speak for the Department of Transportation and Works.

We sat down, as I have stated here many times, we had a legal option and

we had an option to get the job done.

We are still hoping to have this project finished in the summer.

We may be a month late, but we are hoping to have this project finished

in the summer of 2014.

When I talked to the people in Labrador, their major

concern is to get this sixty kilometres finished.

Spread in the middle of a 650 kilometre area, and that is there in the

middle, I have to try and get that contract finished.

I think the best option was to bundle it with this other piece of work

and that way we will see it done on time and on budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I talk to a lot of people in Labrador too, and

their major concern is to get paid for the work they have done.

This government has taken the option of the mechanics' lien off the table

for many of those subcontractors.

Yesterday, I asked the minister about the second

contract with Humber Valley Paving on the West Coast of the Province.

The minister said that the contract will be finished on time and on

schedule. Those were his works, but

the tender document says that the work will be completed by October 31, last

year.

I ask the minister: Has there been an extension granted

for this work? If so, when is the

new deadline?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Quite often in tenders, as we have all witnessed

especially in the transportation department, we run into carry-overs.

It is something the department does not like and it is something that we

have addressed. It was the reason I

started putting tenders out this year in January, rather than waiting until

April or May.

This job on the West Coast is a carry-over.

It was affected by other jobs that were being done by that company and it

has slowed down the process. Again,

it goes back to some of the stuff that happened in Labrador.

It slowed that down. Now they

are into a carry-over position.

This is what we are trying to avoid, but we are hoping

that work will be done. The contract

is still in place. We are hoping

that contract will be finished this season.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a quick question: Have you given the extension and

did they ask for an extension?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said it is called a carry-over.

Quite often with a lot of our contracts the work does not get finished.

As I have said many times in this House, we look at every contract case

by case and if there are legitimate reasons they can use it as a carry-over,

then we consider that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a question now: Is it Humber Valley Paving that

will be doing this contract that you are talking about?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Humber Valley Paving does have that contract, yes.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the minister said that the new oil royalty

auditing positions that two new positions were added last year.

That is the same thing the department told the AG in his January 2014

report. You said you added two new

people but you underspent the salary budget by almost $400,000.

to resource effectively for completion of timely audits.

I ask the minister: Can he explain to the people of the

Province the auditing work plan that ensures that every single cent that is

supposed to be collected through royalties is in fact collected?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite is referring to the royalty process of auditing

where the commitment on government's part to audit agreements between oil

companies and the Province to ensure that we maximize the royalty returns.

I think the Auditor General did a review and I think it is clearly stated

that we were meeting our scheduled targets, some of them were tight.

It clearly indicated that we have not lost any money.

It clearly indicated that the process is working.

However, there are some challenges in terms of resources for auditing.

We had used external consultants to do some of that

work, Mr. Speaker. We have

recognized and respected the Auditor General's recommendations.

We have gone ahead and hired more auditors in-house and we are in the

process of hiring more. It is

obviously a process that is working for government.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

C. BENNETT:

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday in the media the Premier said the Province has a poor

reputation for retaining immigrants and it is an area where the Province needs

to improve. The Premier is not the

only one to recognize the provinces need to do a better job of attracting and

retaining immigrants. The need for

improved retention of immigrants has repeatedly been recognized by members of

this government for the last decade.

I ask the Premier: How can you expect to improve upon

attracting and retaining immigrants when you have cut the budget for the Office

of Immigration and Multiculturalism by 45 per cent since 2012?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

Mr.

Speaker, this government's immigration strategy is really important to the

Province. As a matter of fact, it is

important for a number of reasons.

One of the reasons is because of the great economy this government has created

since 2003.

I am proud to stand in my place today to be able to say

to the people of the Province, yes, we would like to see our own population grow

but we too are very proud that now we can attract very skilled labour from all

over the world, Mr. Speaker. We

work, and I have been working with Minister Kenney and working with Minister

Alexander in regard to our strategy and to increasing our numbers, increasing

our quotas in the PMP category, and also in the job growth category as well, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

DEMPSTER:

Mr.

Speaker, the former Minister of Advanced Education and Skills avoided our

questions last month around Ross Reid's role in the Population Growth Strategy

after he was whisked off to the Premier's Office to grow the population of the

PC Party.

Now that the Premier's Office has been gutted and Mr.

Reid a casualty of that process, I ask the Premier: Who is now responsible for

overseeing the Population Growth Strategy?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

Mr.

Speaker, I will tell you one thing before I start.

I will tell you who gutted the population of this Province, it is the

past Liberals. From 1992 to 1993 we

saw a decrease in our population by approximately 60,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, shame on them!

They let them leave our Province, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly what they did.

As a matter of fact, we have four people in my

department

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

who are working on the Population Growth Strategy, and only recently I appointed

an executive director to lead that.

As well, my deputy minister is involved, and various other departments involved

in that strategy going forward. It

is important to this government. The

population is important to this government, not unlike the past, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

DEMPSTER:

Mr.

Speaker, the member across the way loves to get up and talk about the low

numbers of Income Support but they do not talk about the increased numbers of

out-migration.

Now that he has had his little rant, I will ask the

question again: Who is responsible for growing the Population Growth Strategy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MR.

O'BRIEN:

Mr.

Speaker, I am glad she brought up Income Support.

I am proud to stand in my place in this House and say that we increased

basic rates by 5 per cent this year in our Budget going forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

O'BRIEN:

are all about supporting the most vulnerable in our population through the

Population Growth Strategy. To

answer her question I am.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

DEMPSTER:

Mr.

Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

DEMPSTER:

am glad we got that clarified after a few questions.

Mr. Speaker, in Estimates last month the Minister of

the Department of Advanced Education and Skills said the Population Growth

Strategy should be finalized in early fall.

It has been eighteen months since you assigned Ross Reid to this

portfolio and held consultations with the public.

Now that we know who is responsible, I ask you,

Minister: What is taking so long?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER MARSHALL:

Mr.

Speaker, given the number of jobs that are going to be available because of

retirements and because of the new projects we are creating projects in this

Province that are driving our economy.

We have more people working than ever before.

The unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in over forty years.

Mr. Speaker, our employees are now getting paid a lot

more. The average weekly wages were

second to Alberta. That is what is

going to drive population. People

are going to come here for the many opportunities that are going to be here.

In addition to that, we are taking initiatives that are

going to help people who are on Income Support form a more permanent attachment

to the labour force. We are going to

help people with disabilities. We

are going to help parents by making increased investments in child care and

full-day Kindergarten. That is going

to put more people in the workforce.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

can see the Oscar now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are 192 kilometres of gravel road in

this Province that poses a significant health hazard due to the abundance of

dust, all because government cancelled its dust suppressant program as a

cost-cutting measure. The minister's

excuse; he is primarily concerned with the small particles of dust you cannot

see. The larger particles of dust

are also a major health concern.

I ask the minister: Don't you feel that the relatively

small investment to continue this program would be in the best interest of

people's health?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been talking since this was brought

up last week and actually I have met with many of my Cabinet colleagues.

I have been talking with an awful lot of the municipal people throughout

the Province who have some of that 192 kilometres.

I have been dealing with the Department of Health on it getting

information. I will continue to do

that. Once I decide what way we are

going to go, then I will certainly let you know what we are going to do with

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

Mr.

Speaker, the national lung association has clearly stated that the dust problem,

whether it is small particles of dust or large particles of dust, is a

significant health hazard.

I will ask the minister again: Why has he discontinued

the dust suppressant program, knowing that the large particles of dust pose a

significant health risk? Last year

it was because it was a cost-cutting measure.

Will you reinstate the program to protect people's health, until you come

up with something new?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many different reasons for

dust throughout the Province. I know

in my region alone I have the tailings from the mines, and we have to deal with

that. So this is a problem that is

throughout the whole Province.

There is 192 kilometres that we, as a government, are

responsible for; but I look at communities such as Cartwright in the north coast

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. We

own the main road going through the community, but all of the other roads are

gravel, and we only deal with that one road.

So this is an issue that is not going to solve bringing back the

calcium chloride project is not going to solve the problem.

As I said to the hon. Member for St. John's South, we

are looking at it, the department is getting information, and if we feel it is

necessary, we may (inaudible)

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR.

SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we learned last week that government

signed a deal with Icewater in 2004 that allowed a Newfoundland and Labrador

halibut quota to be farmed out to Nova Scotia.

In other words, government failed to even support its own adjacency

principle. The fish quotas

government repatriated in 2004 included halibut, turbot, cod, haddock, flounder,

and yellowtail.

I ask the minister: Who is fishing the rest of these

quotas, and is any of it going out of the Province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Mr.

Speaker, in 2004 we intervened when High Liner left the Province.

It was our intention to make sure that Icewater could operate and the

intent of that, in regard to some of those allocations which allows them to

raise royalties and revenues, so that we would have a state-of-the-art cod

facility here in the Province, which we have now.

We have seen the success of that, certainly with cod coming back, it is

even more important that facility is there, and it is state of the art, as I

said.

In regard to quotas being caught, some of those quotas

are leased out for the royalties to return to Icewater; others are being caught

by Icewater. The

Cape Dorset , which unfortunately went down, she was fishing some of

those actual quotes, but I can certainly make that information available to the

hon. gentleman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR.

SLADE:

thank the minister for that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, not only is the halibut harvested and

landed elsewhere, we understood OCI caught cod is also landed in Nova Scotia,

despite the minister assuring us that in April that Flemish Cap cod shipped to

Nova Scotia was a one-half deal.

I ask the minister: How much of OCI cod quota is being

processed in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a

number of quotas and allocations are held by particular companies.

The hon. gentleman, I can certainly get him a list of what has been

landed here, what has been processed here.

Certainly, in terms

of Fortune that is a good news story.

What we have in Fortune, we have reached an agreement and certainly had

that operation reopened. When the

critics said it would not happen, certainly it is a good news story.

I was down there for the reopening with my colleague.

As well, there is a

hook and line vessel that OCI has leased that is landing cod in Fortune as well

and sending it into the Eastern Seaboard.

They are starting to explore that market of fresh quality product coming

to Newfoundland and Labrador to be put into the market, which is a good news

story.

In regard to the

numbers, I will certainly be happy to get the numbers for the hon. gentleman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The government has

been silent since last week about the contract negotiations with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association; however, some actions have been

happening behind the scenes.

I ask the Minister

of Finance: Did you speak to the Minister Responsible for Labrador and

Aboriginal Affairs about his attempt last Friday to hold a meeting with the

local NLTA branch in his jurisdiction without the presence of the NLTA

president?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Transportation

and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to clarify for the Member of the Third Party there exactly what

happened last Friday. I was in the

primary school in my district reading to the Kindergarten children something

that I do every year and I present them with a graduation certificate.

I think that is a great gesture; perhaps you should try it.

While I was doing

that, as the MHA, some of the teachers approached me like I am sure many MHAs

in this House of Assembly have received letters from their constituents.

They brought a concern to me and they said we were not allowed to

approach you because of the duties that you are doing here in the school.

I made it very

clear to the teachers that as your MHA, I will meet with my constituents

whenever and wherever to listen to your concerns, and that is how the meeting

started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

It is my understanding from the teachers

that it was very clear to them

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS MICHAEL:

that once they wanted their president

present, there was no meeting.

I ask the minister:

Why won't the government go back to the bargaining table rather than trying to

hold private meetings with NLTA members?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the

member just answered the question.

It is really unfortunate and unfair that she continues with misrepresenting what

happened. As he said, as any MHA we

are approached by our constituents and we are more than happy to meet; but,

negotiations need to happen at the negotiating table and we are open any time of

the day, twenty-four seven, to have those discussions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we value our teachers.

We have a deal with many organizations and we want a deal with teachers

as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the minister then that she agree to the

conciliation board that has been recommended by the NLTA.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Finance Minister said that

addiction gambling is only 1.5 per cent.

I presume she meant of the Province's population, but the Province's 2009

gambling study found that 6.4 per cent of VLT users are problem gamblers and

that 72 per cent of problem gamblers use VLTs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister once again: When we

will have a new VLT strategy?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been very progressive with our strategy around

VLTs. We have reduced the number of

VLTs in the Province by 26.9 per cent and we have capped that amount.

Yes, when I did reference 1.5 per cent yesterday, that

was of the population. The prevalent

study in 2009 also showed that 92 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

either do not gamble or are not problem gamblers.

This was in response to a question that I was asked.

It is factual and it is there for anybody to read, Mr. Speaker.

Most provinces do a prevalence study every five to

seven years. We did one five years

ago and we are in discussions with the Department of Health as to where we go

with that in the future again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Finance: How much of the nearly

$80 million in gambling revenue from this Province comes from problem gamblers?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important to point out and to be very

realistic about this, gambling is going to take place, Mr. Speaker, and we need

not shy away from that. Online

gambling happens now and that is not done in a regulated environment.

As Legislatures and as policymakers we need to ensure

it is done in a responsible manner.

We need to ensure there are programs and policies in place for people who do

have addictions. Mr. Speaker,

retailers are trained. Retailers

apply 1 per cent of their revenue to programs for people with addictions.

This is top priority for us, Mr. Speaker.

While gambling is going to exist, we need to ensure it is done in a

responsible manner.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

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

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

West Coast residents are fearful of the fate of their

environment in the face of short-sighted oil companies interested in fracking

for a fast buck. Already we see poor

corporate behaviour in abandoned drill sites.

I ask the minister, I ask this government: What is

their plan regarding the abandoned drill sites on the Port at Port Peninsula?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, I really do not know how to respond to such a strong statement.

Again, just to reiterate, the position of the government I mean it is

unbelievable the comments that come from the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been firm in the

protection of health and safety and environment with respect to oil and gas,

with respect to economic development.

Mr. Speaker, there are priorities.

All of us have those priorities.

It has not changed. Maybe the

NDP has the same priority.

Mr. Speaker, there is a responsibility here as well,

incumbent on government to recognize economic opportunities, to evaluate all

those opportunities and find that balance.

That is exactly what we are trying to do.

Within that, companies make significant investments.

They employ Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but, Mr. Speaker, let it be

known, our priority is still health, safety and environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

MURPHY:

it is health, safety and environment, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly like to

see the plan.

Mr. Speaker, the only way to protect water integrity

because that is the real danger here to this government, the people's water.

The only way to protect water integrity is to not put it in any danger of

any contamination in the first place.

I ask the minister: Will government act to protect all

water sources in the Province with source water protection legislation?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

FRENCH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government, this party I should say,

in 1984 I believe it was, installed the Environmental Protection Act.

It is heralded nationally across the country as one of the best

environmental protection acts in North America.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would remember a little

bit of history of what this party and what this government has done for the

environment. I will just refer to my

friend who represents Hopedale right now, a three-year commitment of $6 million.

We are already after spending $6 million to $7 million there.

I refer the hon. member to Buchans, where we have invested $7 million to

$8 million in environmental protection.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 11, I give notice I shall move

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2014.

I further give notice, under Standing Order 11 I shall

move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 2014.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Are

members standing for Notices of Motion or just looking around?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

remind members once again; until I call petitions, I would ask members to remain

seated.

I acknowledge the hon. the Member for St. John's

Centre.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided

a comprehensive approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully

understood and dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and

WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the

most serious issues facing our Province today and the cost of the impact of

domestic violence is great, both economically and in human suffering; and

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was

welcomed and endorsed by all aspects of the justice system including the police,

the courts, prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as

well as victims, offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and

WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through

the court was 10 per cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and

WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent

of the entire budget of the Department of Justice;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

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

Family Violence Intervention Court.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I have stood

and presented this petition on behalf of very many people from all across the

Province and anti-violence groups, non-government organizations that deal with

the issue of violence against women.

I keep trying to find, what is the upside?

What was the benefit either economically, socially, or in justice terms?

What was the benefit of cancelling the Family Violence Intervention

Court?

We know it was a court that did exactly what it was

supposed to do. I cannot find and

I speak to the anti-violence groups.

I have asked the government a number of times, why was the court closed?

What is the benefit? It

certainly cannot be to have saved $500,000, Mr. Speaker, because we know the

economic impact of not dealing with the root causes of domestic violence far

outweigh the meagre $500,000 a year that this court cost.

It costs more to have it closed than it costs to have

it open. The social benefits, Mr.

Speaker, far outweigh the losses are incredible considering what it has done.

To just read this petition again clause by clause clearly states how

effective the court was. I was

speaking to a member of the RNC the other day and I said: What do you think of

the family violence court being closed?

He said: I do not understand; it was so important.

Mr. Speaker, again, I offer this petition on behalf of

the people and I ask the government to reconsider.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind members again when the Speaker stands, no one

else should be standing. I

appreciate the race to be the first to get up on your feet, but recognize it is

not the first on the feet; it is the first that the Speaker recognizes.

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS government has the responsibility to ensure

that Internet access is broadly available so people have the right to be able to

access the Internet in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of

expression and opinion and other fundamental human rights; and

WHEREAS Bide Arm was bypassed under the Broadband and

Rural and Northern Development initiative, which saw high-speed Internet added

to thirty-six communities on the Great Northern Peninsula in 2004; and

WHEREAS nearly a decade later, Bide Arm still remains

without broadband service despite being amalgamated town with Roddickton; and

WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for

education, business, communication and social activity; and

WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to

provide broadband service to rural communities to replace slower dial-up

service.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to

urge government to assist providers to ensure Bide Arm is in receipt of

broadband Internet services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

This petition is entered by constituents of mine from

Conche, Englee, and Roddickton.

Given the fact that you have a school that services Englee and Bide Arm and

Roddickton, these three communities, and the Town of Roddickton-Bide Arm that

has been amalgamated, you can imagine how difficult it is when you are looking

at passing legislation around creating a level of fairness when we are looking

at technology and how we share information. Councillors

that would be representing Bide Arm are at a great disadvantage when they are

trying to get information out to the residents who live there.

Also, people who are doing online courses, they really

are faced with a difficult challenge, and students.

I think with the Rural Broadband Initiative that is put forward with

close to $5 million in this year's Budget, it would be a great opportunity to

look at adding a community, a municipality like Roddickton-Bide Arm, to see that

type of service.

The technologies exist, the solutions are there, it is

a matter of creating a level playing field for people who live in rural

communities so that we can grow and further prosper.

We need to have the advanced technology in order to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS current government regulations deny busing

services to students who live closer than 1.6 kilometres from school; and

WHEREAS parents have expressed concerns that children

living within 1.6 kilometres of school face dangers in walking to school, such

as congested streets, busy intersections and no sidewalks, especially during

winter weather conditions; and

WHEREAS the $75,000 review of the school transportation

system completed by Deloitte recommended that the Department of Education

consider reducing the 1.6 kilometre eligibility zone for Kindergarten and

elementary students; and

WHEREAS the $75,000 Deloitte report also noted that

only 10 per cent of those surveyed for the school transportation system review

agree that the current 1.6 kilometre policy is reasonable for students and

families; and

WHEREAS parents are continuing to demand more flexible

policies to meet the current needs of school children;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to change the

outdated 1.6 kilometre school busing eligibility policy in order to ensure safe

travel to school for primary and elementary school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented this petition a number of

times. I know my colleague from the

District of St. John's North has likewise presented this petition.

This is an important petition for many students and many families

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly, in the metro area for sure, in Mount Pearl and St. John's, it

is a very big issue, particularly given the fact that we have a population that

is growing.

There are a lot more cars on the road now than there

ever was before. Perhaps years ago,

there may have been one car per family; now there are three or four cars.

The streets are very busy; certainly they are in my district.

We have a lot of four-lane roads and we have small children who have to

get to school. In many cases,

perhaps their family may not have a vehicle.

This is made even worse in the winter time if sidewalks are not cleared.

We know that certainly happens.

This is a real safety issues.

It is a real concern.

Again, I could speak to the Mount Pearl school

reorganization. One of the impacts

that is going to be felt there is that fact that students who were going to

their neighbourhood school, for example, in Newtown, are now going to be forced

to go to St. Peter's and vice versa.

We are going to have families impacted there because they are no longer going to

be in their neighbourhood, but they are still going to have to require a new

school.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

LANE:

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the lack of services and supports in the school

system is a serious obstacle to learning for children and youth with autism

spectrum disorder; and

WHEREAS long wait-lists for pediatric assessment and

diagnostic services are preventing many children with autism spectrum disorder

from receiving needed early diagnosis; and

WHEREAS the Intensive Applied Behavioural Analysis

Program is currently not available for children after Grade 3; and

WHEREAS applied behavioural analysis has been shown to

be effective for many individuals beyond Grade 3; and

WHEREAS there is a lack of supports and services for

children and youth with autism spectrum disorder after they age out of the

Intensive Applied Behaviour Analysis Program; and

WHEREAS it is unacceptable to expect parents in

Newfoundland and Labrador to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets

to cover the costs of privately-delivered applied behavioural analysis after

Grade 3;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to extend

eligibility for the Intensive Applied Behavioural Analysis Program beyond Grade

3 in consultation with parents, advocates, educators, health care providers, and

experts in the autism community.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of pages again on this

petition today. I presented this a

number of times before. We have

people from Flatrock, Southern Harbour, Harbour Main, Paradise, St. Mary's,

Hopeall, Bryant's Cove, Blaketown, Outer Cove, CBS, Long Cove, Port Blandford,

Burin, Kelligrews, Fermeuse, Aquaforte, Harbour Grace, Garnish, Gander,

Spaniard's Bay and on and on and on.

People from all over this Province have signed this particular petition.

Every time I talk to parents who have small children

with autism, who have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and talk to

them about this particular petition, extending the Intensive Applied Behavioural

Analysis Program beyond Grade 3, they always say good idea.

One of the things that I have constantly harped on here is that many

children do not receive the necessary early diagnosis because of problems we

have with not just the length of wait-lists, but because of the nature of autism

spectrum disorder, the way the disorder is, many times children do not get an

early diagnosis. What happens is

they do not receive the level of early intervention they need and that causes

problems later in life. Sometimes

they age out of the program because they do not get the diagnosis

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS private and community ambulance operators

provide ambulatory and paramedic services to the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador and are compensated for these services by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the contract for ambulance operators expired in

March of 2012; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

completed a review of ambulatory services in the Province, which review was

completed in August of 2013, and released to the public in October, 2013; and

WHEREAS ambulance operators agreed to hold off from

negotiations with government until the ambulance review was complete and a show

of good faith; and

WHEREAS government's current position in negotiations

has been heavy-handed and will see cuts in ambulance services across the

Province;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House to urge the government to negotiate a fair deal

with ambulance operators that ensures the safety of our ambulance professionals

as well as the patients in our Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I have entered on

numerous occasions in this House, and I am going to continue doing so.

We now know this group has been without a contract for over two years,

and it does not look to be going anywhere fast.

I know government has been employing divide and conquer tactics as they

deal with the operators, and the group they seem to forget about in all of this

is the patients the patients. All

those individuals out there, all of us who are sitting out there relying on this

service who want to know that emergency service is there, but in many cases that

emergency service is going to be cut.

Again, they talk about making a better service.

That is not what they are looking for.

They are just simply looking to reduce costs.

That is going to compromise the service that is available to the people

all over this Province, not only people right over on that side, people on this

side.

I speak for all members of this House when I say let's

get this government back on track and have a fair deal.

One that does improve the service.

One that does get a better job to not only our operators but the actual

paramedics, and make sure that we have the emergency service there that is

necessary.

They talk about getting a new model.

They do not even have the numbers they need to base a new model on.

They do not even have those collected.

Again, they are trying to strike a deal without having the information in

which to strike that deal.

They talk about: Well, we are trying to make things

better. Right now we have red alerts

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that are not minutes long, we have red alerts

that are hours long. Those are

periods of time when there is no ambulance ready to come and get you.

It is simply unacceptable.

I ask the minister to get on with it, get his

negotiating team back out there, and let's concentrate on a better service, not

one that is just cutting dollars and risking the lives of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS consumers and businesses of Newfoundland and

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

WHEREAS part of the recent increases in automobile

insurance is due to uninsured automobile coverage which could increase by 329.3

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

and

WHEREAS consumers may see an increase in taxi fares and

limousine rates as a result; and

WHEREAS consumers insured by the Facility Association

can see their own auto insurance rates increase partly due to uninsured drivers.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

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

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

enforcement officers and the Motor Vehicle Registration Division to remove

unlicensed and uninsured vehicles from our Province's highways.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I received this petition, I think it was

yesterday or the day before, and the concerns expressed are true for all the

taxi drivers and commercial vehicles that are out there.

Already some have seen some exorbitant increases, particularly last year

when Facility Association increased the rates.

Again this year, I am starting to hear from consumers

out there who are starting to get dinged with having the likes of motorcycles,

for example, just putting their motorcycles back on the road now and finding

their facility insurance rates they have been lumped into Facility Association

merely by the type of motorcycle they have.

One gentleman I talked to the other day ended up with

an extra $600 in insurance rates because he was lumped into Facility Association

because of the motorcycle he had. It

was not a Harley or anything. He was

a careful driver, a very good driver.

He has been driving for the last I think he said for thirteen or

fourteen years. Still, to see his

insurance rates go up was abysmal to him.

It is beginning to become a cost factor.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the public out there

too at the same time, that we are all being victimized here by drivers who have

uninsured vehicles out there. There

should be a way mandated on the part of insurance companies to make sure they

get in contact with Motor Vehicle Registration.

It should be easy. It should

be an easy fix here so that we can at least tackle the end of it where they are

deeming the insurance rates for an uninsured automobile increasing by 329.3 per

cent. For some consumers that is

unmanageable. I think we can do a

little bit better by this and help the police actually do their work.

We keep hearing it in the news every day, Mr. Speaker,

as regards the number of vehicles that are out there and the number of drivers

out there, dangerous drivers at that, who think they have a right not to have

insurance. I think there is

something we can do about it. It

should be an easy fix. I ask

government to look into it.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled:

WHEREAS Saint Luke's Cottages has been using the

continuum of care model since it opened.

It entails priority access to long-term care beds, as clearly stated in

the Saint Luke's handbook which was given to all tenants.

Further commitment was confirmed in 1995 under the Single Entry System

established by Eastern Health. This

allowed cottage tenants to join Saint Luke's if they were no longer able to

function independently regardless of their level of care; and

WHEREAS Eastern Health has arbitrarily changed this

practice in recent months, level 2 cottage tenants are being forced to leave and

live in personal care homes when placement is needed.

This breaks the commitment to the continuum of care model; and

WHEREAS we became aware of this change in practice when

a ninety-three-year-old tenant, who lived at Saint Luke's Cottages for thirteen

years, was forced to find other living arrangements after returning from

hospital. This incident has caused

other tenants to worry about their future.

Saint Luke's Home is committed to the continuum of care model; however,

it is being abolished by the decisions made by Placement Services.

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to request that

Eastern Health and the provincial government direct the staff at Placement

Services to continue to honour the existing agreement and past practice to have

the tenants of Saint Luke's Cottages move over to Saint Luke's Home when they

can no long manage to live in their cottages.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this petition is coming about,

Saint Luke's has always had very much an aging and place sort of care for their

residents, where they go into Bishop John Meaden Manner, from there they would

go to Saint Luke's Cottages, and from Saint Luke's Cottages they would go to

Saint Luke's Home. The tenants were

promised under the Saint Luke's handbook that the tenants of the cottages would

be given first priority to go into Saint Luke's Home.

That has changed in recent months, Mr. Speaker.

This is a situation where people who have lived at

Bishop Meaden and moved to Saint Luke's Cottages together, or lived at Saint

Luke's Cottages for a number of years could count on going to Saint Luke's Home

with their friends and people they know.

They could have some sense of comfort and dignity knowing they were going

to Saint Luke's Home with people they know and they would continue to be cared

for by that administration.

Mr. Speaker, Saint Luke's Homes is certainly one of the

finest homes in the city; there is absolutely no doubt about that.

I am familiar with the home; I am familiar with the staff and the

administration at the home. I

understand the service they give. I

understand the reason for this.

On the same token, I understand why government, because

of a shortage of beds I know I have to wrap up.

I will have it done in about ten seconds, I say to the Speaker, if I

could.

MR.

SPEAKER:

No,

your time is up, I am sorry.

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Moved by me, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, Standing Order 32, I move to Orders of the Day.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved that we now go to Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House

not adjourn today, May 27, at 5:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Tuesday, May 27, 2014.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I move Motion 8, pursuant to Standing Order

11, that the House not adjourn today, Tuesday, May 27, at 10:00 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER:

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

Tuesday, May 27, 2014.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I move, seconded by the Member for

Harbour Main, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to

consider Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.

MR.

SPEAKER:

has been moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into Committee of the

Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge):

Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will resume debate on Bill

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly a pleasure to have another opportunity

to speak to Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure, otherwise

known as whistleblower legislation.

Again, Mr. Chair, this is something that I think we all support in principle,

but we do have some concerns. I

suspect there will be a few amendments coming forward fairly soon.

Before we would move on to that, I just wanted to have

a couple of more comments on the bill here at this stage.

When I spoke last night there were a couple of points I spoke to, but one

of the last points I wanted to make I never really had an opportunity to get

into it because I ran out of time.

So, I just wanted to make sure that I made it clear for the record.

Just to reiterate that point.

Currently, as I see this piece of legislation written and again if the

minister can correct me, that would be great I am not seeing anything here

whistleblower is put in place to protect a public employee, if they should

disclose to the Citizens' Representative, give them protection from reprisal

from their supervisor or their manager or director in their department that they

happen to work, should they come forward with concerns and information around

the functioning and the operations of the department or division or wherever

they happen to be working. I do not

see anything in here to say that, even though they are supposed to be protected

here, something to say that should a manager, director or so on take

discriminatory action against this person, that there would be some sanction

against that manager for doing so.

Again, as I tried to compare, I think, last night and

again, I was kind of rushed for time.

Under the Health and Safety Act, as an example, if an employee refuses to

do what they consider to be dangerous work, they have the right to make that

refusal. A supervisor, manager, or

director cannot take discriminatory action against that employee because they

refused to do dangerous work.

The act goes further to say that should a supervisor or

a director take discriminatory action, then that particular supervisor or

director can actually be charged under the Health and Safety Act for doing so.

There is a penalty against a supervisory person who does take

discriminatory action against an employee for refusing unsafe work.

I do not see anything here in this piece of legislation

which is similar to say that there would be some sanction there against a

manager, supervisor, or director who did discriminate against an employee who

utilized the whistleblower legislation, which they have the absolute right to

do.

When we talk about discriminatory action, it is easy to

say we are not going to be obvious.

They can say: I did not discriminate.

I did not fire the person.

Because obviously, that would be one way that you could discriminate against any

employee. You blew the whistle on

me, so now I am going to fire you.

There are opportunities there where a supervisor could

say: Well, I will be cuter than that.

I will not fire you this week, but I will let you stay on for six months

and I will wait I will give it a period of time and then I will find some

other excuse to let you go; or maybe we are working the shift work situation, so

now I am doing the scheduling and I am going to give this person all the less

desirable shifts; or there are overtime opportunities and I am going to try to

work it so that you do not get as much as this other person because I am trying

to get back at you; or there are work assignments to be done and there are

certain jobs or whatever that are, perhaps, more desirable and then there are

other jobs that people do not really like to do, well, I am going to give all

the jobs that others do not want to do, I am going to dump that all on this one

person because I want to get back at them.

We do not want to see that kind of thing happen.

If there is something in here that says that a supervisor or a manager

would be held accountable for such conduct, if it is there, then I would ask the

minister, if he could, to point it out; and if it is not there, then I think

that is something that should be there to again enhance what we have here and

protect the employee from any kind of reprisals from supervisors.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is to speak to the fact of

the July 1 piece, and I know others have talked about this coming into effect

July 1. For the record, I want to at

least get my comments in on that as well.

I share the same concerns others have raised around this that it does not

apply until July 1, but it is interesting so in six months, let's say December

of this year when it is in force, if somebody can say there was some wrongdoing

that occurred that could have some devastating impact on an individual or so on,

as it could, it could be a health care issue, it could be whatever, and if it

happened on July 2, that incident, then I can report and it is fine.

If it happened on June 28, then even though it could have been a serious

incident and so on, then I cannot report it.

There is nothing can be done about it.

I just do not understand why that would be the case.

Already in this legislation, I think, it is contemplated here and I do

not have the section, but I recall reading it here somewhere that the

Citizens' Representative has the ability, if somebody is reporting something in

the past, that the Citizens' Representative now even under this new legislation,

I believe, can say because we do not necessarily want someone: Oh, I am going

to report some incident that happened with a supervisor or whatever ten years

ago. It might be something that may

not be that serious or may not be relevant anymore; the person could be retired.

There could be all kinds of things of why the Citizens' Rep might look at

it and say: Well, we are not going back there.

We are not going to go back twenty years ago.

That discretion is already there.

I do not know why in July 1, when this comes into effect, if somebody

said here is something that happened in 2013, that is very relevant, I do not

know why the Citizens' Rep cannot go back to 2013 and look at that, especially

if it is something serious and something that would have had a negative or

potentially negative impact on an individual.

Again, for me at least, it is not about an opportunity for employees who

want to witch hunt against their supervisor; that is not what this is meant to

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR.

LANE:

is not meant to replace labour relations issues.

It is not meant to replace that.

It is not meant to replace safety issues.

I will go to the example of something that affects us

all: health care. We have seen it.

We have seen it here in Newfoundland and Labrador unfortunately in the

past, whether it be ER-PR or other things.

There have been other things where diagnostic tests perhaps were not done

properly for whatever reason, whether it be lack of training, lack of

supervision, maintenance not done on the diagnostic equipment or whatever the

case might be.

This could have resulted in false diagnosis.

It could have resulted in treatment plans that were inappropriate.

It could result in medication being given to people, like the wrong

medication that they should not have even received, having serious impacts on

somebody's health. It is important

that those things be reported so that it can be dealt with and hopefully get

that person on track on the right treatment regime, if they were not already

there, heaven forbid.

If that had happened today and on July 1 this came into

effect, and even though whether the legislation came in on July 1 or any day,

that does not impact the fact that I was not properly diagnosed; I am getting

the wrong treatment. That should be

able to be reported. I do not think

that timeline should be put there.

I do have a concern with that as well.

As I said, Mr. Chair, I will probably have more commentary when we get

into the amendments, but that is it for now.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR.

KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It feels like we never left.

It is good to be back. I

thank the hon. member opposite for his points.

I spoke to the last point he raised, the retroactivity

issue, at length yesterday and on a previous day in the House as well.

I will touch on it again. I

want to answer his specific question that he started with around what happens to

that person who has committed the reprisal.

The Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial entity.

What that means is that the board can hear evidence and make binding

decisions. The purpose of having an

independent arm's-length board is to allow oversight and also to allow

independent decision making. It sets

its own rules, it sets its own procedures, according to the mandate that the

Labour Relations Board has been given.

With respect to anti-reprisal protection in this act,

it states that a person shall not take a reprisal against an employee with

respect to an action under the act.

If a reprisal does occur, the person who takes the reprisal which is to the

member's question is subject to discipline, including termination of

employment, in addition to and apart from any other penalty under our law that

may apply.

This is a really, really strong statement of

prohibition against reprisal. There

are consequences for that manager, supervisor, or director who takes a reprisal

against an employee. So, the powers

that are vested in the Labour Relations Board already are very powerful, and

that is one of the reasons why it makes it the ideal entity to deal with cases

of reprisal. Any employee who feels

that they have been a victim of reprisal has the ability to make their case to

the Labour Relations Board, and the Labour Relations Board has the ability to

respond considerably, and it is binding.

So, that should provide some comfort to the member.

I will not talk at length about retroactivity, Mr.

Chair, because again it is a point that I have discussed at length already, and

there is a presumption in our society and in our democratic system that

legislation should not be given retroactive effect.

In fact, retroactive legislation can overturn the expectations that

people have of the law and how it affects them as people, and how they govern

themselves and their behaviour.

Retroactive legislation can sometimes even be perceived

as unjust. Retroactive legislation

is primarily found when it comes to financial and tax provisions, as I have said

previously. The challenge is, even

if it were appropriate to enact retroactive legislation, no matter what date you

choose, there will always be some matters that fall outside that timeline.

No other jurisdiction in the country provided for retroactivity when

their acts were brought it, and that was done for a good reason, I would

suggest, Mr. Chair.

I thank the member for his questions and comments.

CHAIR:

The

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

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to take a few minutes to speak to Bill 1, An

Act Respecting Public Interest Disclosure.

It has been said here a number of times that we have been waiting for

seven years, so we are really happy to see this bill moving forward.

It is good to hear the debate on both sides of the House and to hear the

questions being answered, and I look forward to more as this continues.

I think, Mr. Chair, the main point that you need to

recognize with whistleblower is that people who report a wrongdoing will be

protected. I think we are going to

realize many, many benefits from that as we go forward.

It is very important.

Everyone will understand that we make the workplace as safe and as rewarding a

place as it can be. Many of us that

is where we spend most of our time, Mr. Chair.

Also, I think by implementing Bill 1 and bringing in

this whistleblower legislation, Mr. Chair, we are going to be protecting the

public purse. That is very important

as well, because people who see incidents of wrongdoing will now have that

comfort level. They will know their

job is protected and they will hopefully speak out against wrongdoings that they

do see, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, hopefully, with this legislation coming down

we will see a removal or less of an abuse of power for personal gain and revenge

to fellow workers and supervisors.

It is all very important aspects of things we look forward to with this

whistleblower legislation. I believe

the fact that it is not retro, certainly in my mind, sees the bill as flawed

right now. Aspects of the bill are

good, and we support it in principle, but as it stands right now somebody who

commits a wrongdoing on June 30, there will be no implications from that, Mr.

Chair.

I want to speak for a couple of minutes to rural areas

and as it relates to my district.

The single reporting versus the dual system.

I am just wondering, in rural areas sometimes there might be issues of

lesser importance, I am going to say but very important to the person who is

involved that could be resolved with the manager but still necessary to be

brought forward for that person in order to feel safe.

By doing the single reporting system, I am just

wondering right now, especially if you are very far removed from the OCR, how

that process with unveil. Sometimes

it is information that is sensitive in nature.

Will that be done over a telephone?

That would certainly put someone at a disadvantage, Mr. Chair.

I definitely feel, especially when you are looking at

small communities far removed from here, Mr. Chair, there would be benefits of a

dual system. Because as it stands

right now, somebody might see a wrongdoing within their workplace and they

cannot go to their chief of staff with the way the bill is being implemented for

fear of repercussions, or not necessarily just being fired but having a heavier

workload placed on them or things like that, Mr. Chair.

I looked at a number of other jurisdictions we know,

Mr. Chair, that do have a dual system in place.

It certainly seems to be more beneficial having that option, especially

given the dynamics of our Province here with more than half of the Province

being rural. I am just wondering,

too, Mr. Chair, what the cost is going to be and how things are going to unfold.

What the cost will be with the OCR dealing with many of these inquires

that will now come forward.

I was thinking about this scenario just before I came

in, a former government employee, maybe who has moved on with a different

company, and they may have observed many wrongdoings, but as the bill stands,

once they have moved on there will be no provision for them to report back and

be protected. That is sad, because

they may have information that could be cost savings and could certainly make

people feel safer and have a more rewarding workplace.

Those are a couple of questions I had.

How will you be consulting with the OCR, for example, from Coastal

Labrador? Maybe the minister is

going to answer some of that when he does get up.

I think it was in March when we had first reading on this bill, so it has

been ongoing a number of weeks and there are a number of groups that have

weighed in on it. One of the papers

I was sifting through last night, and I just want to share some of that

information, a very reputable group, the Centre for Law and Democracy, have made

a number of very good points weighing in on this piece of legislation that

everybody agrees is certainly long overdue.

I hope the minister has read the document as well and has taken some

notes on that.

We know there is clear public interest, Mr. Chair, in

allowing voices to be heard and ensuring they do not suffer retribution; yet,

there are lots of very good things here that we could follow.

Because while the principle of Bill 1, as I said earlier, is welcomed,

even this group, the Centre for Law, have identified a number of shortcomings

when considering in the context of the International Human Rights Standards, as

well as better practice in Canadian and other jurisdictions.

The most serious shortcoming they identified in this

document was the failure of Bill 1 to protect employees who report wrongdoing in

the private sector. I was thinking,

Mr. Chair, just to use the example of Eastern Health.

You might have a small company that supplies linens to Eastern Health and

they see wrongdoings every day, yet there is no protection for them to speak out

against. That is very unfortunate.

These things will continue because the person would

feel no reason even though every day they go in and see wrong things, people

being shortchanged and shafted, but there is no protection for them.

At the end of the day, everybody needs to be able to bring home a

paycheque. That is where they will

be very careful in the information they share.

There are often instances where private sector

employees are confronted with extremely harmful behaviour, Mr. Chair, and where

there is an equally powerful moral and social imperative to protect those who

report wrongdoing. That is a very

key piece that is missing from this Bill 1, the protection for private sector

employees who are confronted with extremely harmful behaviour.

That is something that was identified by the Centre for

Law and Democracy. They referenced a

number of rules. Within Canada there

is some patchwork of rules at the federal level that protect private employees

in some instances. The laws do not

apply broadly enough to adequately protect private sector employees seeking to

expose wrongdoing such as for example, unsanitary food preparation conditions.

Mr. Chair, that is something that if these people were

covered under whistleblower, that would certainly protect the population as a

whole when you are talking about unsanitary food preparations, the benefits that

could come, the risk of people eating unsanitary food, and the people who can be

sick. We all know probably stories,

very sad stories of retail chains like this where there might be issues.

Right now there is no provision for these people to speak up and report

any wrongdoing.

Mr. Chair, Bill 1 also employs a narrow definition of

public bodies, further exasperating this problem.

This group identified some concern in that area.

I am running out of time so I am not going to go into some of the other

information I had here.

I do want to say I think it is a very positive thing in

rural communities where I live where you have transportation workers, teachers,

and nurses. They work hundreds of

kilometres away from their supervisors and their bosses, and may see wrongdoing,

and may see where money is being spent needlessly, people wrongfully taking

things. I hope now that they will

have the courage to come forward if they know that they are going to be

protected, their job is going to be protected, that they will under this Bill 1.

So, Mr. Chair, I look forward to continuing to hear the

debate. I hope, at the end of the

day, the bill that we vote on is a bill with some revisions to what is on the

table right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR.

KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to take a few minutes to respond to some

of the points that the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair made.

The first issue she raised related to if some significant wrongdoing

happens on June 30, it is not eligible to be dealt with through our

whistleblower legislation. If it

happened on June 30 and was definitively concluded on June 30, then that would

be correct; however, if there is wrongdoing ongoing on June 30, there is good

chance that it will still be ongoing, to some degree, in the first week of July.

The point I would like to make is that if a matter is

ongoing, if there is a wrongdoing that is ongoing on July 1 or beyond, then the

Citizens' Representative will have a mandate to receive that complaint and

investigate that disclosure of wrongdoing, and that is clear.

So, there will probably be a number of matters that are ongoing, that

will still be ongoing as of July 1 and, therefore, would still be subject to our

legislation.

The member also raises a good question around single

versus dual disclosure process. I

have already talked at length about the advantages of single versus dual

disclosure, so I will not repeat all of that.

I would say that I believe it is one of the unique features of our

legislation. That is based on

consulting with the other jurisdictions in the country that have had experience

with dual disclosure processes. What

it has taught us is that the single disclosure process to the independent entity

is absolutely the most effective process for employees and for upholding the

integrity of our public service.

I would like to point out that an employee can do both.

There is nothing that would stop an employee in a small rural community

to use the members example from disclosing a matter of wrongdoing to their

supervisor, to a director, or to a manager; however, the anti-reprisal

protections which are the key piece of this legislation, I acknowledge, they are

only triggered when a disclosure is made pursuant to the act.

The employee can also seek advice from the Citizens' Representative with

respect to the disclosure process.

I would suspect, Mr. Chair, based on what has happened

in other jurisdictions, that there will be lots of cases where an employee will

suspect that something is not quite right, they will consult with the Citizens'

Representative and the team that is there in the Office of the Citizens'

Representative and then make a determination as to whether it warrants a formal

disclosure of wrongdoing in accordance with the act through the Office of the

Citizens' Representative; or the Citizens' Representative may say you should

consult with the HR person in such and such a department or agency, or you

should speak with your supervisor, or you should speak with another office of

government based on the kind of matter that you are bringing forward.

All of those options exist. I

would suspect that various options will be utilized through the course of this

legislation being enacted.

We do feel that the Citizens' Representative, that

independent office, based on the work that the Citizens' Representative already

does for the people all over the Province is going to be fully equipped; the

team is going to have the skills and the experience and the training and the

expertise to be able to effectively receive disclosures of wrongdoing, and do

the investigations effectively and consistently and in an efficient manner as

well, which I know is going to be really important to the people of the

Province.

The member raises a valid question around how this will

work in our remote, rural communities.

Well, the Office of the Citizens' Representative today serves all of

Newfoundland and Labrador. While the

office may be based in St. John's, in the capital, the Citizens'

Representative's team is quite used to travelling the Province to investigate

matters that are brought to his attention.

That will continue to be the case.

We will certainly, through our Management Commission of this House of

Assembly, ensure that the Citizens' Representative's office has the resources

necessary to carry out the work under this legislation.

The Citizens' Representative has advised that he is

going to take a close look at the performance of his functions and duties under

this act and let us know if he needs more resources.

He will report back through the Management Commission to this hon. House

if there is a need for more resources; but because of what the Citizens'

Representative is mandated to do today, because of what the Citizens'

Representative is required to be set up to handle today, he believes, and he has

assured me and our officials at the Office of Public Engagement, that he is

equipped to deal with this legislation right away without additional resources;

but we are all open to the possibility that more resources will be necessary if

there is a high number of disclosures that require investigation and follow-up,

then we need to make sure that the Citizens' Representative has the resources to

do that work because it is important work and it is a commitment that we are

making through this legislation, through Bill 1.

The member used the example of food safety and what if

somebody in the private sector has a concern around some mishandling of food

that raises health concerns, for instance, in some kind of commercial

establishment. I would just remind

members there are other pieces of legislation that would kick in at that point.

I am not an expert on food inspection, food safety

legislation and regulations, but there are pieces of legislation and regulations

that would kick in. There are

Occupational Health and Safety regulations that kick in.

As I said on a couple of occasions yesterday, there are numerous other

pieces of legislation that have to be considered here when we talk about matters

of wrongdoing.

The whistleblower protection legislation is only one

component. We also have the Criminal

Code; we also have multiple other pieces of provincial legislation that come

into play. I would remind the hon.

member of that as well.

I thank her for her questions and comments.

I look forward to further debate.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 30, inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 30 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am happy to stand again here today in the House of

Assembly and speak to this very important piece of legislation.

I appreciate all the commentary from not only the minister, but the

members on our side. It is our job

to ask these questions.

I appreciate the fact that the minister is standing and

answering them. I may not always

like the answers, but I appreciate an answer.

In some cases you do not always get that, so I do appreciate that.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Just by way of direction to the member, we just passed

clause 1 in which we allow wide-ranging debate on the bill.

From here on now we will be asking members to speak specifically to a

clause on the bill.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes.

CHAIR:

you would identify the clause you will be speaking to, you will speak to the

clause.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

I am speaking to clause 4.

CHAIR:

No,

that is fine.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

am speaking to clause 4, Mr. Chair.

Clause 4 is wrongdoings to which this act applies.

Just to put it out there for everybody so everybody is aware of this

specific

section and what we are dealing with here, This Act applies to the

following wrongdoings in or relating to the public service.

MR.

KING:

point of order.

CHAIR:

The

hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR.

KING:

Yes, just maybe clarification with leave from my colleague, are we going to do

them sequentially? Is that your

plan?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes.

MR.

KING:

Okay.

CHAIR:

Further to that point of clarification, typically when we do this in Committee,

if there are going to be amendments proposed, for example, then we could vote

the clauses leading up to. If it is

okay with the members of the Committee, we can vote clauses 2 and 3 if there is

going to be no further discussion on those and then go to clause 4.

Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All

those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

CLERK:

Clause 4.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 4 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak to clause 4.

Just to go back, clause 4 is relating to the public service.

This is what is covered when it comes to whistleblowing under this

proposed piece of legislation,

an act or omission constituting an offence under

an Act of the Legislature or the Parliament of Canada, or a regulation made

under

an Act; (

b) an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific

danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other

than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the duties or functions of

an employee.

I will just speak to that one very quickly.

That is a very, very important

section when it comes to this piece of

legislation. When you think about

some of the famous cases of whistleblowing in this country and in the world, a

lot of it comes to injury to the environment, or injury to the health and safety

of people. I think that one is really important and I am glad to see that

covered.

4(1)(

c) states, gross mismanagement, including of

public funds or a public asset.

That one is also extremely, extremely important because we are all charged with,

in the government's case, of the usage of public funds, and in our case, our job

in many cases is to question government on the expenditure of public funds.

We are there to protect the taxpayers' dollars.

When we talk about the possible gross mismanagement, it is important that

be noted.

Obviously (

d) is, knowingly directing or counselling a

person to commit a wrongdoing described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c).

That would involve somebody telling somebody else to go out and do

something that is wrong, whether it be a criminal act, whether it be to take an

action that may harm the wellbeing of somebody, or to take action that basically

is in the gross mismanagement of the public funds.

These are the acts of wrongdoing which are wide-ranging

and very important. This is one of

the reasons why I just go back to the history of this piece of legislation.

When we talk about whistleblowing and what whistleblowing is for and why

we have it here, this specific

section lays out why we are trying to cover it.

One of the things that we have mentioned to the

minister in this debate is the fact that and I have heard what he has had to

say about the coming into force.

That is

section 4(2)This Act applies only in respect of wrongdoings that occur

after the coming into force of this Act.

Our point is that we see no reason why we could not

have this amended. What I am going

to do at this point is I am going to just discuss what is should be and then we

will move an amendment to this section.

We are suggesting that you take out the coming into force of' and put in

the words October 9, 2007'. We see

no reason why this important piece of legislation should not cover possible

serious acts of wrongdoing going back.

The only ones who should fear this are those

individuals who have committed wrongdoing.

Those are the only individual who should worry.

Nobody should worry about this or have any issue with this if they have

not done any wrongdoing.

I believe this will not harm the well-being of this

act. I do not believe it is going to

harm the well-being of this Province.

I do not believe it is going to harm the well-being of anyone expect

those who may have committed one of these four types of acts from October 9,

I am going to put this out there and I am going to move

an amendment at this point, Mr. Chair.

We would move that subclause 4(2) of the bill is amended by deleting the

words the coming into force of this act' and substituting the words October 9,

2007'.

CHAIR:

Does the member have a copy of the amendment?

The Committee will now take a brief recess to consider

whether the amendment is in order.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will resume.

We have considered the amendment to clause 4 put

forward by the Member for Burgeo La Poile and have ruled that the amendment is

in order.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile to speak to

the amendment.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to be speaking to this bill, very happy

to be speaking to this section, and very happy to be speaking to this amendment.

I am glad it has been ruled in order.

For those who had not tuned in until now, what we are

asking is that

section 4(2) be changed so when the whistleblowing legislation

comes into effect, that the wrongdoings covered not start from that point

forward, that the wrongdoings go back.

I guess alleged or possible wrongdoings, because we hope it is not out

there. We hope there is not one

thing to have the whistle blown on.

We are going back to October 9, 2007.

One of the reasons for possibly doing that would be

this is, as we have discussed, legislation that has been promised for some time.

We are saying why not cover off that period of time from which the

promise was made? I am sure the

minister to the minister's credit, because he will rise and speak to this.

He has spoken to just about any question we had and to that I give

credit, and I am sure he is going to speak to this amendment.

What I am suggesting is I do not think in any way that

this amendment harms the legislation in one way, shape or form.

I think this amendment strengthens the legislation and the intended

purpose of the legislation.

Section

4 covers off what wrongdoings this act applies to.

Section 2 says from what period are they covered?

We are saying the period of time should be October 9, 2007 and moving

forward.

There is the possibility that there is absolutely

nothing comes out. Do you know what?

One would hope that is indeed the case.

However, I feel if we are going to put this legislation in, and it is a

good piece of legislation in the sense it is something that is needed and we

want it, I think this suggestion is going to make it better.

I may have an opportunity to speak to this again after

the minister makes his points because that is the whole point of this debate,

that we have it out there. We have

spoken to the main motion. The

motion is there. Again, we have

proposed amendments. The minister

will get an opportunity to speak to that and tell us whether he likes it or does

not like it, and in those cases what his issues may be with that.

I may do a better job once I hear if he has any questions as to the

purpose of our amendment. I may do a

better job of answering those after I hear that.

I think our reason for putting it out there is if you

are going to put out a piece of legislation, let's cover off the period of time

for which it was promised. Let's

cover off the period of time since going back.

Wouldn't we want to know of any gross mismanagement that may have

happened from 2007 onwards? Wouldn't

we want to know of any acts that were harmful to people or the environment since

2007? Would we not want to provide

protection to those who may know of these acts if they indeed happened?

Would we not want those individuals to come out and speak?

To me, it is my opinion, if we do not vote in favour of

this then we are implying that we do not want to provide protection to those

individuals who may know a wrongdoing during that period of time.

To that, I would ask a simple question, why?

Why would you not want to provide protection to those individuals?

Why would you not want someone to come forward and blow the whistle,

provide information that is going to protect the people of this Province and

provide protection to those who want to protect the Treasury?

Why would we not want to provide protection to those people who may know

of a wrongdoing?

Again, you look at the wrongdoings here, 4(1)(

b) an

act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life,

health or safety of persons.

Wouldn't we want that covered? Why

would we not want that covered?

One of the points that might be used in rebuttal would

be again, I do not think this is the case.

Well, that is an arbitrary time.

Why did you pick that time?

The main reason I am picking that time just one of the reasons is that is

when it was promised. In this way

you can go back and fulfill the promise that was made and allow that protection

from the time you promised it.

Maybe I was wrong.

If the promise was made in 2003, maybe I should have gone back to 2003,

but that is a substantial period of time.

We can still go back and do an adequate job of providing protection to

October 9, 2007. I do not think the

timeline should have any issue there.

The second part, is there any work or expense that is

created by allowing this? I say no.

I do not think we should do anything to prevent our Citizens'

Representative from having an opportunity to investigate these matters or

providing protection to these individuals.

Hopefully this is a piece of legislation that is never used.

That is the whole purpose of it.

We do not want to see this used.

I put this out there.

I will likely have another opportunity to speak to this amendment once we

move forward in this debate. At this

point, I am glad to have brought it forward.

I look forward to continuing on with this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The

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

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand up in the House here today and

talk about this amendment. I am

quite disturbed that we are actually putting a date on this.

Since when do we put an expiry date on any crime, any wrongdoing?

The amendment says, This Act applies only in respect

of wrongdoings that occur and then it substitutes the words after the

coming into force of this Act. with October 9, 2007.

What happens, Mr. Chair, if something happened on October 8?

I cannot support this amendment I cannot.

My conscious does not let me as a legislator go ahead, come into this

House and try to speak to something, for example.

My responsibility as a legislator is to look after every constituent who

is out there and probably to correct an inequity that probably happened in the

past. Am I right, I say to the

Members of this House of Assembly right now?

I have no other choice but to speak passionately about

this because putting a deadline on a wrongdoing is wrong.

It does not do any justice to anybody who wants to report a criminal

matter that happened on October 8.

That is what is wrong with this amendment right off the bat.

That is one thing that stands out to me.

I have to ask in all good conscious whenever we bring

in a piece of legislation, Mr. Chair, into the House of Assembly here, sometimes

we reflect on the past in order to pass a piece of legislation and we date

legislation accordingly to that.

Sometimes we come in and we correct a piece of past legislation to correct the

wrongdoings of the past or to