PDF Version

June 9, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 28

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order,

please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will be

hearing members' statements from the members representing the Districts

of Port de Grave, Labrador West, Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, The Straits

White Bay North, St. John's East, and Bonavista North.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Ascension Astros male baseball team on

winning the provincial high school baseball championship held last week.

Baseball continues to grow in Conception Bay North through programs like

the Conception Bay North Bulldogs Minor Baseball system and this was

very evident in the Astros win.

The Astros competed against teams from Holy Heart, Queen

Elizabeth, Holy Spirit, Mount Pearl Senior High, and Holy Trinity.

They went undefeated throughout the tournament going 5-0 on the

weekend.

Mr. Speaker, winning never comes easy.

Leading 8-2 going into the final inning the Astros needed some

heroics to preserve the win and the title.

The Holy Heart team would not go away without a fight, and after

already scoring three runs with two out had the tying run to the plate

when Ben Murphy hit a ball into the gap scoring one run and probably the

second. A great throw by

outfielder Nick Parsons to Bradley Adams who then relayed to catcher

Mark Barrett just in time to apply the tag and end the Holy Heart

comeback.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Ascension Astros

Provincial Baseball Champions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Labrador West.

MR. MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate the Royal Canadian Army

Cadet Corps 2977 on their annual inspection and awards banquet.

Last Saturday afternoon the cadets performed a first-class display at

their annual inspection.

After the drill inspection and colour parade, the cadets demonstrated

many of the exercises they have been training in.

That evening I was very pleased to join them at the awards

banquet.

Lieutenant Corporal Karley Sheppard was best first year cadet, as well

as the Inspecting Officer's Choice Award; Master Corporal Makenzie Hunt

was best second year cadet; Master Corporal Alexander Carroll was best

third year cadet; and Sergeant Michael Hann was best fourth year cadet.

Master Warrant Officer Randy Pynn received several awards: Lieutenant

Stuart Williamson Award, Best Dressed Cadet Award, Royal Canadian Legion

Medal of Excellence, and the Army Cadet Service Medal.

Master Corporal Nicholas Travers received the Margaret Williamson Award;

Lieutenant Corporal Bianca Penney received the Espirit de Corps Award;

Warrant Officer Christopher Tulk Pardy received the Community Spirit

Award, as well as the Master Warrant Officer Chad Ethridge Award.

The Town of Labrador City Recreation Department was recognized with the

Ed Stanley Award.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Royal Canadian Army

Cadet Corps 2977 on a very successful year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to salute a constituent of mine

who recently received one of the highest honours Memorial University can

bestow.

Pioneer filmmaker Barbara Doran was awarded an honorary doctorate of

laws degree at the Grenfell Campus, Memorial University graduation

ceremony May 8 at the Corner Brook Arts and Culture.

Barb is best known for her impeccable work on films like 2013's

award-winning box office hit The

Grand Seduction . Her two

latest projects, which I and countless others are eagerly anticipating,

are Away from Everywhere and

Newfoundland at Armageddon , both bringing work to our thriving film

community this year.

Many of us also have a deep appreciation for Barb's work as a social

activist. She was a founder

of the Women's Centre here in St. John's, and of Transition House.

Here is something Barb said to The

Western Star , which typifies her, You are making the feature film

of your life, she said of the young graduates.

It matters to some extent what deck of cards you're handed, but

nobody tells you what game you have to play.

You take what you have and work like a dog to make the best of

it.

Congratulations, Barb.

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 The Iceberg Festival currently in

full swing on the Great Northern Peninsula.

Attending the opening ceremonies, I was delighted to speak with

locals and visitors from many Canadian provinces, the United States, and

Germany. They all joined in

by dancing, singing with the Growlers, and debuting their expertise on

ugly sticks. A major

highlight was chainsaw ice sculpting by Shawn Rumbolt.

The ten-day festival offers daily boat tours, iceberg doughnuts,

painting, interpretive tours, wine tasting, glass art, and many other

cultural activities, bringing together communities, business, and the

local talents showcasing our region.

This year's festival brings events from Bird Cove and Port aux

Choix, displaying the calibre of its growth and success extending the

tourism season.

Grenfell Historical Society opened their Grand Exhibit of Janet Cox's

hooked rug collection of the Quebec North Shore.

The Flavors of Vinland will feature a celebrity chef mastering

local cuisine, local restaurants offer daily treats, and our locals lead

it all with their smiles.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating committee members Natasha

Hynes, Glenda Noble, Thresa Burden, Cynthia Randell, Paul Alcock, Kara

Snow, Kier Knudsen, and Coordinator Ryan Pittman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago, I had the great pleasure of witnessing 107

Grade 6 students take an important pledge that will have a very positive

impact on their lives. The

Grade 6 students at Mary Queen of Peace were graduating from the DARE

program.

Mr. Speaker, the Drug Abuse Resistance program is offered by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary to all Grade 6 students in their jurisdiction.

Police officers come to the school and tell the kids in no

uncertain terms the health, legal, and social problems they could face

if they choose, later in life, to get involved with drugs.

DARE also gives the students the skills they need to take a stand

against the illegal use of drugs and the ability to make healthy and

wise choices when they come up against the inevitable peer pressure and

exposure to substances.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot name them all as I said, there were 107

graduates at Mary Queen of Peace this year but I can tell you that the

program is entertaining as well as inspiring.

Congratulations to these Grade 6 students who have completed the DARE

program, and thank you to the RNC, their teachers, parents, and

grandparents for their unmitigated support.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. CROSS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise to reflect on one of the oldest icons in Bonavista North.

The community, Pool's Island, records settlement around 1810,

with names such as Dyke, Sheppard, Starkes, Hoyles, Kean, and Spurrell.

The population increased with at least thirty marriages listed

between 1845 and 1860. The

time had come for a new church: St. James.

Master builder Stephen White of Greenspond was contracted at four

shillings eight pence per day (approximately $1.02) to lead a local

force of volunteer labour.

The timber for the foundation and the truss framing were pulled from the

woods on hand slides and every piece shaped manually.

The first service was conducted by the Reverend William J. Milner on

September 15, 1865, and St. James was consecrated on September 24, by

the Right Bishop Edward Field.

Ninety-seven years later electric lighting was first used in

On a lighter note, Mr. Speaker; our Minister of the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture was baptized at St. James Anglican Church on

Pool's Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. CROSS:

In September, the

congregation of St. James will be celebrating their 150 th

anniversary of worship and again will use the old foot pump organ to

provide the melody for the first hymn.

With a total cost of 303 pounds, St. James Church was constructed

as a building as firm as their faith.

Mr. Speaker, 150 years and still rejoicing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by

Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize National Blood Donor Week

and the valuable work of Canadian Blood Services.

This week is an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the

incredible generosity of blood donors across the country and here in

Newfoundland and Labrador for their lifesaving contributions.

National Blood Donor Week is also a time to remind everybody about the

ongoing need for new donors.

Approximately 420,000 Canadians rolled up their sleeves to donate blood

last year. To meet demand,

Canadian Blood Services regularly collects about 17,000 units of blood

per week. As demand

increases, close to 1,600 new donors are needed each week to ensure

patients can be helped now and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, all of us likely know someone who has been impacted by the

need for blood components like red blood cells, platelets, and plasma,

or blood products such as Immune Globulin for immune deficiencies, or

factor concentrates for bleeding disorders.

The theme for this year is Share More.

By donating, you are

sharing what truly matters most the gift of life.

These donations ensure that many patients are given the chance to

live and share more time with family, friends, and loved ones.

I want to applaud the hard work and efforts of Canadian Blood Services,

the organization which is responsible for the supply of blood and blood

products in all provinces and territories outside of Quebec.

The organization operates forty-one permanent collection sites

and more than 21,000 donor clinics annually.

Our government provides Canadian Blood Services with

approximately $22.5 million annually to help manage and provide blood

components and blood products to patients in Newfoundland and Labrador

hospitals and treatment programs.

To

schedule a donation, individuals can contact Canadian Blood Services

toll-free at 1-800-2-DONATE, visit the blood.ca website or download the

GiveBlood app. As

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are known for our generosity.

I call on my hon. colleagues and all residents who are able to

donate blood to do so. After

all, it's in you to give.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Canadian Blood Services is a national, not-for-profit

organization that manages the supply of blood products across the

country as well as in our own Province.

There is no other organization that provides blood products to

the people of this Province blood being most often used in

emergencies, surgeries, and in procedures involving leukemia patients.

Transfusions of blood and blood components have become an

essential part of health care today.

We all have a responsibility to increase awareness, encourage

others to give blood, and remember to give blood.

I am a blood donor. I

can assure you it is simple, it is safe, and it is painless.

I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment as a resident

of the West Coast knowing that the centre on the West Coast is closed.

I think that is a disappointment to everybody in this room.

It is not just the loss of jobs, but it is the loss of the

ability of people all along the West Coast, and especially in rural

areas, to give blood and to donate.

Hopefully, we can see a change in that someday.

I think I echo everybody in this room when we say we would like

to see more opportunity to give blood and not less.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we encourage everyone to take an hour of your

time to give blood. It is

important and it does save lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister of the advance copy of his statement.

The management of blood products is a service our health care

system could not do without.

Canadian Blood Services has proven itself worthy of the job.

It is probably a good news story that medical advances are allowing

hospitals to reduce their demand for blood products every year, so much

so that sadly they are closing the clinic on the West Coast.

However, Canadian Blood Services loses 49 per cent of its donor

base each year. Summer is a

challenging time when donors are away and not giving blood.

Last fall the supply hit a six-year low.

I encourage people to step up and become new donors so our blood supply

will be there when people need it.

Maybe they will find out they do need the West Coast, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I

stand in this hon. House today to provide an update on the continued

maintenance, enhancements, and construction of bridges across

Newfoundland and Labrador. I

am pleased to report that through significant investments, over the past

three years alone twenty-three bridges have been replaced and repairs

have been made to forty other bridges throughout the Province.

A number of bridge projects are currently underway.

For example, construction continues on the $40.6 million

Placentia Lift Bridge which is scheduled to be completed in 2016.

The bridge represents a major investment by our government in

regional infrastructure.

Another major investment in rural infrastructure by our government is

being made in the replacement of the Sir Robert Bond Bridge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Just last week,

we awarded a tender for construction of the new Bond Bridge, which is

the only east-west highway link that crosses the Exploits.

Budget 2015 allocates $5.3 million for this construction, with

subsequent allocations over the next two years, and an anticipated total

cost of the project to be approximately $22.4 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

Other notable

bridge projects currently underway include: $530,000 contract awarded

last week for upgrades to the bridge at Coal Brook; $1 million

replacement of the Northeast Trepassey Bridge; bridge replacement at

Gull Island in Conception Bay North; and new O'Donnell's Bridge in St.

Mary's Bay, which is anticipated to be completed by the fall, and

represents a $2.9 million investment.

Also of note, Mr. Speaker, a tender for the construction of a six-lane

bridge at Topsail Road on the Team Gushue Highway will be called this

summer.

Mr. Speaker, more than $660 million is being invested this year in

roads, schools, health care facilities, and municipal infrastructure

projects an investment that supports the rural areas of our Province

and contributes to economic development.

The bridge projects underway are an important part of the

activities and we will continue to make the necessary investments to

replace and revitalize them throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Nobody can dispute that these bridges are needed; in fact, they

have been needed for some time now.

The Auditor General has determined that government has failed to

carry out the bridge repairs that they promised.

Government made a commitment to an eight-year bridge repair

strategy and they failed at that miserably.

They have made lots of promises, Mr. Speaker, that they have

backed out of.

We are dealing with a government that has become better at burning

bridges than rebuilding them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are into an election year and we can expect

to hear lots of promises and lots of announcements out of the crowd

opposite. They are

desperate, Mr. Speaker they are desperate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE:

Heck, after

government's very own we are going to make the tough decisions Budget

did not pan out for them the way they wanted, I would not be surprised

to hear announcements of bridges being built in places where there

aren't even rivers.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this.

While you cannot count on that crowd opposite, there is one thing

you can count on: People will not be bought with their own money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

The minister stands to tell us what they have done, but here is

what they have not done and the proof is in the pudding here.

When it comes to the Team Gushue Highway, I think this is year

seven. It may be not the

longest stretch of road but certainly in the running to be the longest

one to be done in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, how about $900 million worth of culvert and bridge

work in the Auditor General's report last year unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, last year we tabled a private member's motion asking for an

advanced transportation strategy for roads and ferry users in this

Province. It still has not

been done. We ask government

again: Where is the plan for roads and bridges, Minister?

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The Truth and Reconciliation report on residential schools contains

ninety-four recommendations in its Calls to Action document.

Twenty-eight of these recommendations require participation and

action from the provinces and the territories.

I ask the Premier: What is your government's official position on

addressing these recommendations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. RUSSELL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Less than one-third of the recommendations in the Calls to Action are

under the purview of the provincial government.

Several, at this particular point in time, are already underway

by various initiatives through government.

It is going to take some time to have a complete analysis of the

report. Many of those calls

to action will involve multiple departments, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Aboriginals who attended five residential schools in this Province have

a lawsuit against the federal government as a result of being excluded

from an earlier compensation package.

The lawsuit alleges that the Canadian government had

responsibility for those victims from 1949 until the schools closed in

1979. They were also

I ask the Premier: Does you r

government support the Aboriginal victims of

the residential schools in this Province in their quest for justice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Labrador

and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. RUSSELL:

Mr. Speaker, I

thank the hon. member for the question and I will talk about the

twenty-ninth call to action which specifies that the federal government

does indeed deal with those people who were excluded.

That is our message from this side of the House, very clear to

Ottawa, is that those people who were excluded have to be dealt with.

We need the liability issues to be dealt with first and foremost

in the courts, and we will stand by the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

In December 2012, Premier Kathy Dunderdale appointed Ross Reid to work

on the Population Growth Strategy.

At the time, Premier Dunderdale said our aging demographics are

scary. Two-and-a-half years

later our population is continuing to decrease and the government has

not released this long-promised plan.

I ask the Premier: Two-and-a-half years later, why is this plan still

not completed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the

department has carried out very much robust consultation over the past

two years. That now has been

compiled into a document, and I am going to tell the member get us out

of this House and he will see the rollout of our Population Growth

Strategy within a very short time after that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister or former ministers suggested and said that this report

would be released on Canada Day 2014.

This was a commitment that was made by this government in 2011.

Canada Day 2014 then they missed that date.

Then they said we will announce it at the end of the year in

2014. Now they want to wait

to get out of this House in June of 2015.

What does the exit from this House have to do with a Population Growth

Strategy for this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, we

have a date selected and I am hoping the House is going to be closed on

that particular date. If

not, there will be a rollout.

We have a plan, Mr. Speaker, that has been developed around four

components in population growth.

I expect that the people of the Province will be very impressed

with what we are going to roll out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

First of all, I am not so sure how the minister would know when the

House is going to close.

Secondly, I would like to know why doesn't he just share the date with

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, with industry leaders in our

Province who have been waiting for this document for a long, long time?

A 2011 commitment, now we are into 2015.

What is the date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, the

Population Growth Strategy has been a comprehensive piece of work that

has been underway for a long time.

It has been underway, as the member opposite has referenced.

It has been a very comprehensive piece of work, and all

departments across government have had input in it.

We have been working on it.

It has been working through all departments.

All ministers in government have been engaged in it, Mr. Speaker

a much bigger, comprehensive plan that we are going to roll out in the

very near future. It is much

bigger than I have ever anticipated, but as the minister had indicated,

our staff and officials in the department are working towards a date to

make this announcement, to wrap this up, to finalize it and to make this

announcement.

That is our target. We are

working there. When we are

in a position to confirm that date, we will certainly do that, but I

tell you it is going to be a great strategy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well in all due respect, Premier, your minister, who you have disagreed

with in the past few weeks, once again you are disagreeing with here

today. The minister says he

has a date, the Premier says he is working towards a date.

So I ask the minister: What is your date?

Will you please let the Premier know?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker,

there is no inconsistency between the minister and myself.

I know the member opposite is familiar with inconsistencies, we

see them in their party on a regular basis.

I can tell you, as I have said

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

As I have said,

Mr. Speaker, this is a very comprehensive plan.

A very complex, comprehensive plan, involves every department in

government, involves every minister in our government.

We are working together.

We are working through a process.

We are targeting a date, and I can tell you I am very excited by

the plan that we are going to roll out, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward

to the day that we can roll that out and we can announce that to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, I will go back to the minister again because he has a date.

I would like for him to invite the Premier and other people who

are very interested in this.

I ask the minister: Do you have a date, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, we

have had numerous stakeholders involved.

We have had numerous stakeholders involved in the development of

this plan, numerous. We will

be contacting them, notifying them of the date, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as the Premier said, this is quite an extensive plan across four

sectors. I feel this will be

a plan other than anything we have heard from the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, this is a plan, people will be impressed with it because of the

work that has gone into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

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

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, less than 20 per cent of people with the lowest literacy

skills are employed. It is

not a coincidence that amongst provinces we have the lowest literacy

rates, the lowest workforce participation rate, and the highest

unemployment rate.

Government promised an adult literacy plan eight years ago.

Now the minister is saying they probably will not get to it this

year either.

I ask the minister: Why is it you cannot set a deadline and stick to it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker,

unlike the party opposite, we do not feel that we are the worst in the

country. We do not.

When she speaks to unemployment rates; 2013 and 2014 had the lowest

unemployment rates in this Province since they started recording

employment rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

It speaks to

where we are. We continue to

invest in literacy skills and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I am

quoting Stats Canada, and eighteen months of year over year job losses,

you cannot make it up.

The Province is getting roughly $7.5 million annually from the federal

government for the Canada Job Fund Agreements.

That agreement allows the Province to spend 100 per cent of that

$7.5 million on employment services and supports until 2017.

Literacy is listed in the agreement as one of these supports.

I ask the minister: What is your excuse for delaying a desperately

needed literacy strategy when you have millions in federal funding to do

so?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, we

continue to invest in adult literacy.

All you have to do is speak to the numbers that are enrolled in

those programs. There is no

doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at our investment and our continued investment

in literacy, we are doing justice to the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker,

consolidating administrative health care services is being portrayed as

a way to find savings. The

minister expects savings of between $18 million and $26 million over

five years. I assume the

minister has completed an analysis of this move.

I ask the minister: Will he table the analysis of the cost savings to

this House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, in

arriving at the decision to pursue a shared services model for our

regional health authorities in Newfoundland and Labrador, we did

considerable analysis.

Over the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker the work started in 2013

we engaged a consultant, Deloitte, who did a very extensive study, which

I would be happy to share with hon. members, that outlined projected

savings. Within the regional

health authorities and within our department we have done additional

work to make sure that we do this in the right way.

We are looking closely at what New Brunswick has done with

FacilicorpNB. We are looking

closely at what jurisdictions like Saskatchewan and British Columbia

have done, where it has saved money, and it has resulted in a more

efficient system and better focus on patient safety and patient care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister said he is prepared to table it, so I

would really like to know when.

As a follow up, government plans to consolidate shared

administrative services for four health boards and the Centre for Health

Information. Stress levels

of our dedicated workers are very high.

Government has not been clear about where the shared service

organizations will be located, or how they will function.

So I ask the minister: Why are you keeping these details from the health

care workers who are going to be impacted?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I can

tell you one thing. We are

not going to wipe out services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador like

they are prepared to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

We are also not going

to gut the public service like the Member for Virginia Waters is

prepared to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KENT:

I can assure you

there will still be people carrying out these functions in the various

regional health authorities.

Purchasing, procurement, supply chain, human resources, information

technology, finance, payroll.

There will still be people on the ground in our health care

facilities and in our regions to deliver those services.

It will be centrally coordinated to save taxpayers money, and to

find efficiencies, and make the health care system more sustainable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

We do look forward to the minister tabling that report.

Experts say that flavoured tobacco appeals to young people, encourages

experimentation, and leads to higher rates of addiction among our youth.

The candy and fruit-flavoured cigarettes are clearly aimed at

them. This is alarming,

since nearly 17 per cent of our Province's students are already smoking.

So I ask the minister: Why hasn't your government banned flavoured

tobacco products in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I

believe one day in the House here the Premier answered a question on

this, that we are reviewing and we have been considering options for

legislation. We agree with

Health Canada as to the stand they are taking on it.

There is not enough research being done into this product yet to

know what the side effects are.

We are continuing to look forward to drawing up legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, it is funny how fast this government can move on legislation to

prolong election dates but they cannot move forward with legislation

that might protect lives, especially of young people.

Again, I disagree with the minister.

There is enough research done on this.

Nova Scotia has already banned the sale of flavoured tobacco

products, and Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Alberta are already

following suite.

I ask the minister, or the Premier: Given that our Province has the

highest rates of smoking in all of the provinces, why are you not

leading the charge and protecting the health of our Province, especially

our youth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I

can tell you that we are taking this entire issue quite seriously.

We are, again, into looking at drafting legislation around

e-cigarettes and also around flavoured tobacco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker, in

April we put forth a private member's motion calling for a seniors'

advocate. Government voted

against it. The minister

responsible said seniors have access to enough.

I ask the minister: Are you aware that overall, seniors in Newfoundland

and Labrador have the lowest median income among all provinces?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker,

we are quite aware. We are

also aware of the many challenges that face seniors in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are quite aware

that we have the fastest aging population in the country, right here.

We understand there are seniors, especially in rural parts of our

Province, who have some of the most challenging circumstances in their

lives, Mr. Speaker. Because

of that, I created a new department and I created a minister responsible

for seniors. We are

establishing programs and services.

We are working with seniors, seniors groups, and organizations.

We are funding seniors groups and organizations.

We are providing better transportation for seniors, better social

activities, and better supports for seniors all over Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to improve the services for

the seniors of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker,

elderly couples, and single, elderly women in Newfoundland and Labrador

are the poorest in Canada.

Elderly men living alone ranked second poorest.

The median income for a senior living alone in this Province is

$20,000. This means that

half the seniors live on less than $20,000 per year.

I ask the Premier: Do you agree with your minister that seniors have

access to enough?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, if

we were more than satisfied with circumstances that seniors in our

Province face, I would not have made the move to create a new department

in our government. I created

a new department for seniors for a key focus on seniors throughout our

Province, all seniors throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I

can tell you that the plans we are creating are working.

We are executing our plans and we are seeing the benefits of

them. We are seeing them

broadly in government.

You will see as well that we are making improvements to seniors, the

lives of seniors, and the quality of life of seniors in Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We

are not going to rest until we do everything we can to benefit the

seniors of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, this

government's indifference to the ongoing math performance crisis was

demonstrated by the Acting Minister of Education last week.

In response to questions about the math review announced in this

year's Budget, the minister talked about funding for a math strategy

that was announced in 2008 seven years ago.

I will ask the minister again: What is the plan for this year?

Exactly how much new funding has been set aside in Budget 2015

for your so-called math performance review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, with

respect to our math review, I have acknowledged in the House that there

are lots of comments and concerns around the Province with math.

Now I did comment that we will provide the funding through the

department, through curriculum, through our Excellence in Math Strategy.

I have also indicated if we need to find money, we will find it

within the department because of the importance of the issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not say I was a little bit misquoted in some

of the media in that I am looking and acknowledging there are problems

with the curriculum. What we

need do, to be clear, is take a look at math as a whole.

It is not just curriculum.

We need to look at how it is being delivered, how teachers are learning

and how kids are learning, what is the role of parents, and what is the

role of our post-secondary institutions.

That is the conversation we want to have and I invite the member

opposite to provide some suggestions.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the

fact is government has long failed students by dismissing educators'

concerns, by blaming teachers, and by not taking declining math scores

seriously enough. In the

end, it is children who suffer along with their parents who often feel

helpless and just plain frustrated.

I ask the minister: If he serious about correcting government's failed

record on mathematics, when will the math performance review announced

well over a month ago start its work?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Acting Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, some

of the latest results are indicating that we are seeing improvements in

math performance, particularly at the academic and honours levels in the

high schools. We know the

importance of math in graduation.

We are seeing higher graduations rates, Mr. Speaker.

We are seeing our dropout rates have improved dramatically.

We are now seeing that more and more students are graduating from

high school with an academic or honours completion, Mr. Speaker, an

increase of over 10 per cent in the past ten years.

There are a lot of good things happening.

Again, to acknowledge particularly in math, there is a brand new

curriculum that has been implemented and a curriculum that is being used

across the country in many provinces.

We want to have a look at that, we want to invite people to have

the conversation about math, and let's see if we cannot even improve the

success that we have had so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. George's Stephenville East.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Last week the minister of agrifoods had no answers about a review of how

Crown lands are designated for agricultural use.

I ask the minister to clarify: Has government reviewed how Crown lands

are released for agricultural use, separate from the Lands Act Review,

as you have stated it was being done back in March?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, as

we move the agricultural industry forward the Province, as I said in

Estimates last week, we are looking at every opportunity in the Province

to open up more land that we have in the Province for future development

for agriculture. We have an

agricultural land development initiative, that this year we are

providing $750,000 to dairy farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are opening up more land for cranberry development in the

Province, and we want to take more land that we have in the Province and

be able to turn it over to agricultural development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. George's Stephenville East.

MR. REID:

Mr. Speaker, the

availability of land is very important to the future of agriculture in

this Province and this is what the minister said last week when I asked

him about that in March when I asked him about this.

He said: I understand there is a separate review taking place

with this particular issue.

I will get the details and report back to the hon. member where we are

with that review.

Can he tell us what is happening with this review?

Is there a separate review related to the agricultural use of

Crown lands?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker,

within the department, I have individuals tasked with looking at what

availability of land that we have in the Province, whether we take it

out of forestry land, whether we cut trees on that, whether we look at

land that we would use for agricultural development.

As I said, we have $750,000 this year, cranberry development also, as

the hon. member is really aware, I can list of many, many projects in

the Growing Forward 2 program, a program between the federal and

provincial government with land consolidation and land use and reusing

land and taking new land for agricultural development in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Budget 2015 allocated money to complete two projects on the Trans-Canada

Highway this year. One from

Gambo to Benton, the other from Salmonier Line to Whitbourne; however,

these two tenders call for different specifications for asphalt.

I ask the minister: Why are you demanding different specifications for

liquid asphalt on the Avalon Peninsula versus the project in Central

Newfoundland?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The simple question is asked.

The simple answer is, it is about safety.

The different specs here are about polymer mixture being put in

high traffic volume areas.

One of the big issues we have here, one of the big fears is the rutting

we have on our highways, particularly in high traffic volume areas.

This polymer mixture is a new technology being used and a new mixture

that will ensure better quality of pavement in that area.

High volume areas are where we have our rutting.

We want to make sure that works.

Traditional pavement has shown to work very diligently in areas

where we have lesser volumes of traffic, Mr. Speaker.

While it is an investment for the people of the Province, it is an

investment around safety.

That is what my department is all about and this Administration is all

about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the

industry does not mind trying out new technologies if it means a safer

highway. The problem is

there was no notification given to industry until this tender was put

out. The suppliers of this

new technology, this new liquid asphalt, are not able to supply it.

There is only one contractor who can product their own liquid

asphalt, can supply their own.

Other contractors cannot bid on this tender, Mr. Speaker, because

they cannot get access to the liquid asphalt, either in this Province or

abroad.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask the member to quickly get to his question.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I

ask the minister, why he is setting up a monopoly for one contractor in

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I am going to clarify. That

is not accurate what the hon. member there is sharing, the information.

Let me explain why, Mr. Speaker.

Polymer mixture, we have been using that for five years in a multitude

of contracts. Only two years

ago, we used 1,123 tons in a mixture in a contract there.

This year, we are going up to 1,700 tons.

Not a big stretch, but because we are doing a bigger part of the

Trans-Canada Highway, because we are investing more in safety for the

people of this Province, because there are higher volumes of traffic, we

want to ensure the job that is being done is a job that is done right

and will be safe for the people travelling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

I might note

also, Mr. Speaker. We used

9,000 tons on the Trans-Labrador Highway last year to ensure safety, and

the quality of that road is second to none.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS MICHAEL:

The report of the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an historical document with

ninety-four interrelated recommendations, neither one more important

than another.

I ask the Premier, if he will unequivocally support these

recommendations and work with the federal and Aboriginal governments to

ensure implementation of all of the recommendations as asked for by

Aboriginal people?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It is a very important report recently released, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is right; there are actually ninety-four

calls to action that have resulted from this.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to advise the member opposite, and all

Members of the House of Assembly, that in July I will be hosting

meetings of Canadian Premiers here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We will start first to have our meetings in Labrador.

That will include national Aboriginal leaders.

I can tell you that the authors of the report have been invited to come

and meet with Canadian Premiers and Canadian Aboriginal leaders so we

can have a full discussion on the contents of the report, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you we very much look forward to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad the Premier was not there today to hear the past

Lieutenant Governor say: too much time has been wasted and he is

continuing wasting time.

I ask the Premier, if he will do the right thing without any delay and

call for a settlement of the class-action lawsuit of the men and women

who were forced to attend the residential schools in this Province

through mediation, not trial?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

In just slightly over a month from now the Canadian Premiers and

national Aboriginal leaders will be convening here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Hardly a delay,

Mr. Speaker. I can tell you,

we look very much forward and I had a conference call this week with

provincial leaders from across the country, just earlier this week, and

we had a discussion about this very matter.

We are all in agreement that it is very important for us to have

an engaged and full, frank discussion on this very, very important

matter. There is certainly

no delay here. In a matter

of a few weeks we will be meeting to have a comprehensive discussion at

that time as well, face to face.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Mr. Speaker, the

Port au Port Fishery Committee approached the Department of Environment

in early 2014 to investigate an alarming increase in oil in the Shoal

Point and Port au Port Bay region.

Again in April, the Committee wrote the Minister of Environment

requesting that the spill sites be included in the national inventory of

contaminated sites. The

department clearly knew about the spills back then.

I ask the minister: Why the inaction on the part of the department in

this case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is correct.

We were contacted by individuals on the West Coast, the Committee

that you are talking about.

We did respond to that request to go out and have a look and see what is

going on.

Our officials were onsite.

We did examine what was happening there.

There was no significant oil seepage at the time, or any leaks at

the time, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I said yesterday in the House that oil has been seeping through

the ground there for over 100 years at recorded history, and that is why

they drilled for oil there 100 years ago as well.

We are looking into the situation today.

We are hoping to get more information.

We were there yesterday on site, we are on site again today, and

we are going to find out exactly what is going on.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. MURPHY:

Mr. Speaker,

despite what the minister said yesterday, these wellheads that are out

there in the area are not a natural occurring phenomenon.

They are done by man.

They are leaking oil into the environment.

Fishermen in the area are concerned that they are losing a fishery a

very valid fishery out there in the area.

How long do they have to wait before government acts to clean up

these leaking wells?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker,

again, we need to find out exactly what is going on.

Our analysis has shown in past studies out there that there is

about two barrels of oil leaking a year naturally in the area.

A little tiny bit of oil in the water will spread a sheen right

across as big as this House of Assembly, and that is what we see

sometimes when we are out there.

Mr. Speaker, there is naturally occurring oil out there; but, I will

tell you what, if there are wells that are leaking, we will find them

and we will fix them.

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

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. WISEMAN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

An Act

To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act, Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices

of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Trinity Bay de Verde.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS the community of Northern Bay is a significant tourist

attraction in the District of Trinity Bay de Verde; and

WHEREAS the site of a commercial building was destroyed by fire several

years ago; and

WHEREAS the remains of this fire still exist along Route 70 in Northern

Bay;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to ensure the necessary cleanup occurs.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is my third time, I think, entering this petition on

behalf of the residents of the North Shore of Conception Bay, and I am a

little disappointed in the department and the reaction they have taken

to this petition. The

minister tells me that they have looked at the situation.

I brought this issue to the House about two-and-a-half weeks ago

and we have seen no concrete action.

I wrote the minister about a week ago as well, with no response

whatsoever, not even an acknowledgment of my letter.

This is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and I call upon the minister and I

call upon the Department of Environment to ensure the necessary cleanup

happens in Northern Bay along Route 70.

This is a very important tourism attraction in the Conception Bay

North area, and it is time the government take responsibility for this

situation and ensure the necessary cleanup.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which

is an enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000

annually, expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park;

and

WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday

living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and

residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage

throughout Gros Morne National Park, and the enclave community of Trout

River.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by all residents of the Town of

Trout River. Trout River is

approximately 650 people on the southern end of the district that is

currently St. Barbe district.

I was absolutely shocked yesterday to hear the Premier criticize

members for presenting petitions.

This is a petition of the people who signed the petition, not a

petition of the member. Mr.

Speaker, it is a petition of the people who signed the petition.

The Premier went on to say in his response to the Budget how the

Opposition is always asking for money and money and more money.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the oldest forms of a plea for help,

one of the oldest forms of a request for a benefit, is in a petition.

In the old days, it used to be a boon requested from the lord of

the manor not unlike the Premier will be after September 25 when he is

no longer legitimately the Premier, unless he changes the law to make

him hang on to power as the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, to say that you cannot present petitions in the House of

Assembly because it might cost some money, when the people are pleading

with this government and this is a government that says it is open, it

is accountable, and that it listens and they do not even want to hear a

petition from people pleading for a partnering of government with the

private sector to advance cellphone service that so many people consider

a norm in everyday life today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER

(Littlejohn):

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 a 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 the Town of Goose Cove still remains without broadband services;

and

WHEREAS residents rely on Internet service 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 the Town of Goose Cove is in receipt of

broadband Internet services in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by all residents of Goose Cove,

Goose Cove East on the Northern Peninsula, and like my colleague, the

Member for St. Barbe had highlighted a petition around cellphone

coverage. Advancing

telecommunications is one of the critical aspects that will help foster

economic development and growth, along with advanced transportation

networks. We have not seen

that in the Budget document.

We have not even seen any reference to broadband Internet in terms of

new investments and how the gaps will be filled for more than 100

communities that exist in Newfoundland and Labrador that do not have

access to broadband internet, and many more areas and public highways

that do not have access to cell coverage.

A true strategy must be developed.

There are other jurisdictions that are capitalizing and making

sure that people are well-connected, because we do need to have a

connected society in Newfoundland and Labrador so we can capitalize on

business, education, and social opportunities that exist to build

vibrant communities.

I think when you look at municipalities like Goose Cove and Bide Arm in

my particular District of The Straits White Bay North, they are quite

upset. They are an organized

entity, and they are not able to provide their services to the full

potential because they do not have access to broadband Internet.

So I urge the House to support my petitioners.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

The hon.

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay is in deplorable

condition and requires immediate upgrading; and

WHEREAS the condition of the highway is causing undue damage to vehicles

using the highway and is a safety hazard for the travelling public; and

WHEREAS both residential and commercial traffic has increased

dramatically with the opening of the Trans-Labrador Highway and

increased development in Labrador; and

WHEREAS cold patching is no longer adequate as a means of repair;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to immediately allocate resources to Route 510 from L'Anse au

Clair to Red Bay that allows for permanent resurfacing of the highway.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a minute or so before I got up on that petition I had

an email pop in. I get the

advisories on the ferry in the Strait of Belle Isle.

Luckily, now most days we are not getting them saying she is not

going because of ice.

The advisory that came out today said: note there will be two additional

crossings due to extra heavy commercial traffic extra crossings.

So that is good, they are accommodating the extra crossings.

Like I hear many, many times when I am in the district, this was just

confirmation that with a heavy, mega industrial project, Muskrat Falls,

we are seeing a big ramp-up of traffic, a convoy of commercial traffic.

It is making a bad, dilapidated, almost forty-year-old stretch of

road much, much worse, Mr. Speaker.

If the life of pavement is about twenty, twenty-five years old,

we have gone a decade; we have gone almost two decades past the

expiration date of that. It

is very, very concerning around the whole safety.

I talked last night at length around the tourism piece, Mr. Speaker, and

how we are coming into tourism season.

Those of us who drive the road every day, we know how to

manoeuver. We know how to

pull into the parking lots of businesses.

The bus stops that the children are on know how to do that.

The ambulances know how to do that.

Mr. Speaker, we have visitors who are coming down visiting the region

and they do not know about that.

It will be a sad, sad reality if someone is killed on that

stretch of highway, Route 510, from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay.

We have been putting cold patch, cold patch seven-and-a-half

tractor-trailer loads this year.

I do not know what the cost of that was.

We will find out how much again this year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Where is the plan?

Where is Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay on this

government's list of priorities?

It absolutely has to be one of the worst stretches of road in

this Province.

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 of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Tordon 101 contains the chemicals 2, 4-D and Picloram; and

WHEREAS the chemical Picloram is a known cancer-causing carcinogen; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has banned the cosmetic use of the

pesticide 2, 4-D; and

WHEREAS safer alternatives are available to the provincial government

for brush clearing such as manual labour, alternative competitive

seeding methods, and/or the mechanical removal of brush; and

WHEREAS the provincial government is responsible for ensuring the safety

and well-being of its citizens;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to cease the use of chemicals

covered under its own cosmetic pesticide ban and begin using safer

methods of brush clearance that will not place its citizens in harm's

way; and

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is June, the glorious month of June.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MURPHY:

I am pretty sure

the government must be getting ready to consider some of its tenders out

there for roadside brush clearing, and amongst the things they will be

considering, of course, is the use of which chemical they are going to

be using.

We do know, Mr. Speaker, we have had a partial victory on this.

Just a very small victory in that government is going to be using

Garlon now as one of the chief chemicals they will be using in roadside

brush clearing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation, please.

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I know some of the government members are quite excited whenever they

hear me talk about these chemicals, so I appreciate their attention on

this.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I wanted to reiterate is while this is June

month and while government is making the consideration for roadside

brush clearing, we still have not had an answer from the Muskrat Falls

Project as regards to the chemicals they are going to be using there.

Mr. Speaker, one of the chemicals they are going to be using is Sylgard;

the other is going to be Agent White, which is also a mixture of Tordon

101. We have a grave

concern, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about 1,200 or 1,300

kilometres of right-of-way for a set of wires that are going to be

coming in from Churchill Falls all the ways to the Avalon Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, we have concerns as regards to the amount of chemicals that

are going to be dumped into our own environment.

We already know, of course, some of these chemicals are banned

and some of these chemicals, like I said, are carcinogens.

We know that if this is going to be a long-term project, of

course there is going to be long-term use of this chemical as well, so

it is going to be building up in the environment.

It is going to be going downstream from where it is sprayed and

it is going to be causing damage.

I ask the government to consider and to implement the facts behind its

own banning of chemicals and make sure that this chemical is also not

going to be part of the environment in the future here in Newfoundland

and Labrador. Keep its

health care costs low too, because we know some of these chemicals are

cancer causing. There are a

lot better alternatives out there, and we are asking government to

consider those.

We also know the Province of Ontario has banned upwards of eighty-eight

chemicals. This Province has

only banned four. It should

be looking at more chemicals to place on the list.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a petition for brush clearing on Manuels Access Road.

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 Route 2 on the Conception Bay South Bypass is the second busiest

highway in the Province; and

WHEREAS we must ensure the safety of the residents who use the access

road especially when driving at night; and

WHEREAS brush clearing can reduce the risks to drivers from the local

moose population;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the

government to allocate funding to include brush clearing for the Manuels

Access Road.

Mr. Speaker, this is a group of times, I guess, that I have brought this

particular petition forward, and really we are talking about moose

management on the Manuels Bypass Road, particularly between Fowlers Road

and Weir's Pit. This highway

we are looking at 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a day on peak days.

It is the second busiest highway in the Province.

Yesterday the Premier talked about the cost of all of the petitions that

we have brought forward. I

see no extra cost in this petition.

We know that the money has been budgeted for moose management in

this Province. It is just a

matter of priority. Last

time I spoke to this, I talked about Pitts Memorial Drive having been

cleared east of the Trans-Canada.

We talked about clearance in front of the Galway development.

We talked about clearance in front of Southlands.

We talked about clearance at Admiralty Wood.

We talked about clearance at Donovan's Industrial Park, and in

the median at Ruth Avenue.

In the past, I have talked about the fact that the last tender for this

brush cutting went to nine specific Tory districts.

Mr. Speaker, it is not about new money; it is about setting the

priorities for this work. I

am asking that the next priority be for this District of Conception Bay

South.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the community of Bristol's Hope is expressing ongoing concern

regarding the need to make repairs to the Beach Road which has been

severely damaged by storm waves, and this has caused major concerns to

the community of Bristol's Hope as it pertains to fire protection and

safety; and

WHEREAS this lack of repair by government constitutes a fire and safety

hazard to the community since the residents will be trapped in if a fire

ever took place; and

WHEREAS this damaged roadway is also creating an environmental concern

as the Atlantic Ocean has washed in over the roadway and out into the

freshwater pond where the fish are in the pond; and

WHEREAS this area serves as a capelin run each year, which attracts a

great many local residents and tourists to the site; and

WHEREAS the federal government refuses to assist with this repair, as

they deem there is no associated fishing activity to justify investment;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to respond to pleas from the

community residents to have this road repaired to previous condition and

urge government to repair the road.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I have brought here,

basically, since I came into the House.

I have presented many of those on behalf of the Town of Bristol's

Hope, and also the Town of Freshwater.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you, we on this side that road

down there, it was always a roadway and for whatever reason the

Department of Transportation gave up on keeping the road open.

I do not know what went on there.

Mr. Speaker, this has been done a few years back and anyway government

has just given up on it altogether.

I have some grave concerns for the people in Bristol's Hope

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible) Class 4 road?

MR. SLADE:

It is a road.

It was a road. I do

not know what you mean by Class 4 road.

MR. WISEMAN:

(Inaudible) your

Administration gave those up actually.

MR. SLADE:

No, actually it

was your Administration, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to go on there because the Minister of

Finance is over there and he may think it is funny but I can assure the

minister to the people in Freshwater this is not funny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SLADE:

The minister

might get over there and make fun of it, but this is not funny.

I will you something, Mr. Speaker, if anything ever takes place

in the community of Bristol's Hope where people get caught in there in a

fire situation, I will keep this government responsible for what takes

place there, because it is what I say here all the time

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SLADE:

when do it become

about the people of this great Province of ours, Mr. Speaker.

When do the people get their say?

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. George's Stephenville East.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I have a petition related to a dangerous intersection in Black Duck

Siding, Mr. Speaker.

The petition reads: To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the entrance to the Community of Black Duck Siding is on a

dangerous turn along White's Road; and

WHEREAS the school bus has to take this dangerous intersection; and

WHEREAS despite the reduction in the speed limit on the turn and the

cutting down of the brush in the area, this is still a dangerous

intersection, especially in winter; and

WHEREAS there is another entrance to this side road which has been

closed that could be reopened to make it a safer intersection;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to consult with the residents of the community of Black Duck

Siding and take action to rectify this dangerous situation.

Mr. Speaker, that is the petition.

It has been signed by most people in Black Duck Siding.

Black Duck Siding is a community on White's highway which is the

route from Stephenville to the Trans-Canada Highway on your way to

Corner Brook. It is a very

busy road and the people of Black Duck Siding are saying that this turn

into Farm Road, especially coming out of there in winter, is a very

dangerous intersection. They

are asking government to look at what can be done to rectify this

dangerous situation.

As I said in the petition, the school bus has to take this intersection

to take the children to the school, so it is a dangerous situation for

them, especially in the winter.

I have been to Black Duck Siding many times to visit constituents

and since people have brought this issue up with me I have noticed as

well especially in winter, especially this winter where we have had a

lot of snow, the banks of snow are piled up along this road and it is

a very dangerous intersection to get out of.

I think there are ways that government could rectify this if they

were so willing.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to officials in the department.

They are aware of this situation.

They are aware that it is a dangerous intersection.

They want some guidance on whether or not government sees this as

a priority.

The people who signed this petition are asking government to see this as

a priority, to do something about it, and to make their intersection to

their community safer. I am

calling on government to have a look at this as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS 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 2012; and

WHEREAS the government completed a review of ambulatory services in the

Province, which the review was completed August 2013 and released to the

public in October 2013; and

WHEREAS ambulance operators agreed to hold off from negotiations with

government until the review is complete and showed good faith; and

WHEREAS government's current position in negotiations has been heavy

handed and will see cuts in ambulance service across the Province;

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

the House of Assembly to urge the government to negotiate a fair deal

with ambulance operators that ensures the safety of our ambulance

professionals as well as patients in our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have presented petitions on this situation on a

number of occasions. I have

asked questions in the House.

I have spoken during debate.

I have spoken in the Budget.

Because this is an issue that affects just about every single

person in this Province, whether you are rural, whether you are urban,

and that is a fact. The

first line health and safety provider are paramedics.

The fact is, when we have to make that first phone call when

there is a situation that is the people we are calling.

Unfortunately, this is a group that has not been able to get anywhere.

For the last, almost three years, they have been operating

without a contract. Now,

they did so at first in co-operation with government.

They said you are doing a review.

In good faith, we will hold off and see what that review shows.

They have the review.

There were announcements made in last year's Budget, and now this year

there has been nothing.

I understand there have been negotiations ongoing.

I look across at the Minister of Finance who holds the money, and

I hope there is something going to happen soon with these people.

I would like to see that happen just as much as anybody in this

House.

Again, I am hoping it gets done.

It needs to get done.

Hopefully, sometime soon.

Unfortunately, we do not want to wait like some other announcements,

they say we will let you know when the House closes.

I hope this House is still open so that the minister can stand up

and make a pronouncement about how they took care of this issue.

I would love that more than anybody else because these are the

people we rely on and they deserve to be treated fairly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the

Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

From Orders of the Day, we will go to Motion 11 and Motion 12.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

Motion 11, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House does not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, June 9, 2015.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, Motion 12, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, June 9, 2015.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The motion is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, and

further to that, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. tonight.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Again from the Order Paper, I go to Motion 4.

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

Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Revenue Administration Act, Bill 7, and I further move that the said

bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration

Act, Bill 7, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 7 be now

read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

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

to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act,

carried. (Bill 7)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend The Revenue Administration Act.

(Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been a read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 7 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I

move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act,

Bill 8, and I further move that the bill now be read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act,

Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 8 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

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

to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Services Charges Act,

carried. (Bill 8)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend The Services Charges Act.

(Bill 8)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has not

been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 8 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I

move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, Bill 9,

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

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to

introduce Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, and that the said

bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 9 be now

read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety to introduce

a bill,

An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act, carried.

(Bill 9)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend The Legal Aid Act.

(Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 9 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I

move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Health And Community

Services Act, Bill 11, and I further move that the said bill be now read

the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services

shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Health And Community Services Act, Bill 11, and that the said bill be

now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 11 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to

introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Health And Community Services

Act, carried. (Bill 11)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend The Health And Community Services Act.

(Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Aquaculture, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Income Tax Act No. 2, Bill 12, and I further move that the said bill be

now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. the Minister of Finance shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act No. 2,

Bill 12, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 12 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

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

to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act No. 2,

carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend the Income Tax Act No. 2.

(Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Aquaculture, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the

House of Assembly Act, Bill 13, and I further move that the said bill be

now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act,

Bill 13, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Government House

Leader shall have leave to introduce Bill 13 and that the bill be now

read a first time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, An

Act To Amend The House of Assembly Act, carried.

(Bill 13)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act to

Amend the House of Assembly Act.

(Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, from

the Order Paper, Order 2,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And

Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act,

Bill 2.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider Bill 2, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those

against, 'nay.'

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn):

Order, please!

We are now considering

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And

Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act,

Bill 2.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic

Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act.

(Bill 2)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you,

Mr. Chair.

This is my first opportunity to speak to Bill 2,

An Act to Amend the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation

Newfoundland and Labrador Act.

I listened intently to the debate that occurred, especially with

the member, the colleague for Mount Pearl South.

He highlighted quite extensively about this particular bill and

what it is doing in terms of being a mirror form of legislation with the

federal government and the provincial governments when it comes to

increasing the no-fault spill liability for companies operating in the

Atlantic offshore.

That is about increasing that liability, the no-fault, from $30 million

to $1 billion. That is

certainly something that is a very positive step forward, I believe.

In 2013, in June actually, this is something that the Leader of

the Official Opposition had been calling for the change since the

release of the federal environment commissioner's report that happened

in February 2012. It was

brought to the floor of the House of Assembly three months after that.

In March of 2013, of a news release that was issued, it stated

that the existing liability of $30 million is pathetically low and that

it is a good thing that the federal and provincial governments have

announced their intention.

It is certainly, in my view, a piece of legislation that the Official

Opposition will be supporting.

I will have some questions as we move forward in this particular

piece of legislation.

I wanted to note, particularly, that the polluter pay is fundamental.

This type of legislation that we see at-fault liability of

offshore operators for damages will remain unlimited.

So if it is at fault, it is unlimited.

That is something that must be very clear.

We have seen in the past where the concept of polluter pay has been

stated, and in other aspects where the provincial government thought

that they would have security, that it would be the polluter pay.

I just think of the AbitibiBowater expropriation where it ended

up that the taxpayers were on the hook.

Seeing this form of framework in legislation and clearly

identifying what polluter pay means is an important step.

The federal environment commissioner in that report highlighted that the

Province was really unprepared for a major oil spill offshore.

What we saw in the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of

Mexico really led everybody, the industry and government, to look at

improving the safety and making sure that the environment is being

protected, and that we have very stringent legislation to make sure that

those guidelines are in place, and that the financial impact is also

there in case there is something that would happen.

We must do what we can to prevent disaster and crisis from

happening that impacts people's livelihoods and the provincial economy.

This is something that was noted.

It requires the amendments to the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic

Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act.

This is where we are today, basically two years after this press

release that was put forward by the Official Opposition leader saying

that this is an important piece of legislation, and looking forward to

it being debated, and seeing the full impact and what it means to the

people of the Province.

My colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl South, outlined extensively

what the legislation would do in terms of a no-fault liability cap,

highlighting as well that the minister I believe it is further.

It states that there is ministerial discretion though.

This may be something that the minister could highlight or

answer. The minister is able

to reduce the liability from $1 billion.

There are questions about how and why this would be done.

Maybe the minister could provide an example or further clarity around

where the minister would have that type of particular discretion as to

why it would be scaled down in some cases or instance.

It does state the direct access deposit required for drilling

production from the $30 million to $100 million for a single operator or

pooled to $250 million if jointly there are multiple operators, and in

our offshore environment we see where the companies that are operating

in that environment have taken shared risk and many of the operations do

have multiple operators.

I would have some question around Nalcor and how the Nalcor Energy

corporation the financial impact that it will have because it is

connected to equity stakes and taking an equity stake in like Hebron and

other developments that have taken place or proposed to take place, what

will this mean to their financial statements.

If the minister could further explain that around the impact of

Nalcor and being able to produce, whether it be about the particular

bond through the insurer, or if they already have secured this in place,

that is something that is of concern.

The minister states multiple times in the House of Assembly how

Nalcor is the people's company, and just clarity on that would be an

important aspect for me.

There is another point that I wanted to raise around the spill-treating

agents, the STAs that are there, because the board will be allowed to

approve the use of STAs, the spill-treating agents, which are chemical

dispersants in conditions where it is deemed that they will result in a

net environmental benefit and approvals will be made on a case-by-case

basis.

I would like the minister to further explain what would qualify, or in

other jurisdictions where STAs have been used where a net environmental

benefit would be gained.

Because you are talking about placing chemicals in our ocean environment

and there is a sensitive ecosystem that would be there in terms of

marine and mammal life. We

see where in many cases there are certain risk of spills and disaster

where we have seen things happen all across the Province, when we look

at making sure that we contain and we do things appropriately with our

environment and protecting it, like the

Manolis L situation,

containing a leak or an environment and removing oils before chemical

dispersions get placed. The

same thing where we see on the West Coast in the Port au Port area with

shale being dispersed and the oil that is there.

Maybe one of my colleagues has been making commentary on that.

I think we do need some clarity around the net environmental

benefit. That is something I

want to feel comfortable with.

I want a more clear answer from the minister, and highlighting

that it is a case-by-case basis.

What type of proposal, or information, or documentation would

have to be supplied by the company?

Would there be an assessment given?

If there is a spill and things are happening very quickly, is

there a timeline or a protocol?

Are all these scenarios pre-submitted?

This is something obviously that the minister would have to act on

rather expeditiously. If we

look at the cause and the reason why we are here debating this

particular legislation, when we look at the Gulf blowout that happened,

and the significant cost of upwards of $20 billion, I believe, the

environmental damage and what it meant to the commercial fishery in the

Gulf of Mexico, how it impacted warm water shrimp species and all of

these types of things. It is

significant. We do need

further answers, I think, when we are debating such an important bill

that is being mirrored and already been debated, I believe, in Nova

Scotia and at the federal level.

The bill allows as well for non-financial damages, environmental to be

included, so that the provincial and federal governments can seek

compensation for losses and damages, cost and expenses incurred by a

board, Canada, or Newfoundland and Labrador, and loss of non-use value

related to any public resources that are affected.

So the C-NLOPB authority under CEAA 2012: the board will continue

to be responsible for environmental assessments for offshore activities.

As a result of an oversight, CEAA 2012 did not list the board as

a responsible authority for environmental assessments.

Maybe the minister would like to make some commentary on that.

I do have some other points I want to make, but since I did raise a few

issues, Mr. Chair, around the bill and around this piece, I would like

to give the minister an opportunity to maybe respond to those specific

questions. I will take my

seat.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister

of Natural Resources.

MR. DALLEY:

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate the comment and the questions, I guess.

I will endeavour to provide some answers, Mr. Chair, and

certainly do the best I can.

One of the first issues the member raised was around the discretion of

the minister to reduce the liability.

As we know, this bill is about protecting the environment and

increasing the absolute liability from $100 million to $1 billion.

It is very positive legislation.

I remind people that this is mirror legislation.

It has already been accepted by the federal government.

It has already been accepted by the Offshore Petroleum Board and

the Nova Scotia government, Mr. Chair, and we are endeavouring to do the

same here. So collectively,

the three groups have worked on this legislation.

It has taken some time, but as a result of what we are seeing

happening around the world, it is very positive legislation.

I think it is a good piece of legislation.

Within that, Mr. Chair, there are a number of amendments and changes.

With respect to the ministerial discretion to reduce liability,

the minister alone does not have that discretion.

The board can make a recommendation to reduce the liability or

increase the liability. In

order to do that, it has to have signoff by the provincial Minister of

Natural Resources, as well as the federal minister.

It is not just a board arbitrarily making a decision, the

recommendation comes forward.

So there is some protection there.

In the event, for example, in an onshore to offshore drilling situation

where the risks would be deemed to be much minimal compared to

significant development in the offshore, the discretion will rest with

the board to make the recommendation to consider that.

Given the risk is much lower, given the likelihood of an event of

something happening is much lower and the cost is much lower, than they

may consider making a recommendation to reduce the liability.

With that, we would have to make those approvals.

Mr. Chair, that is the situation where the flexibility within the act,

particularly around giving maybe some of the smaller companies an

opportunity that may be engaged in a smaller project in onshore to

offshore where there is a lower risk.

That is the provision provided there, and it is not at the

discretion of the minister.

It does involve the board making a recommendation on their due

diligence, but, as well, it has to be signed off by the provincial and

federal ministers.

With respect to Nalcor, Mr. Chair, I will say Nalcor is a partner in

developing the offshore.

They are not a partner in the exploration; however, once the development

starts we have an equity share.

With an equity share, we assume those responsibilities.

Then we also have insurance in the event of some and I say we,

Nalcor would have that insurance in the event of a spill.

As partners, when you sign up, Mr. Chair, then you accept some of

the responsibilities that go with that.

That is what your equity share does.

Again, the insurance is there in the event that there would be a

spill.

Mr. Chair, with respect to spill-treating agents, it is relatively new,

obviously, for our offshore.

Again, this came about as a result of what took place in the Gulf of

Mexico. The use of

spill-treating agents, first and foremost, the dispersants that can be

used had to be identified on a list by the federal government.

The federal government will determine what the spill-treating

agents are. Then in the

event of a spill, there is a process.

There is a tier one, tier two, and tier three response protocols,

whether you utilize local response equipment, or Atlantic or global.

Within that process obviously, if there is a spill, there is a

responsibility here that we have to get it cleaned up.

Being able to use spill-treating agents, as it was in the Gulf of

Mexico, is something that has been considered.

The protections have to be put in place so that the federal

government puts the spill-treating agent on the list.

The board through their due diligence, Mr. Chair, in the event

that an operator wants to use a spill-treating agent, they would have to

approach the board and have to provide proof of what is needed.

The board will make the selection as to what spill-treating agent

could be used. Then, Mr.

Chair, it will be required that the operator use the spill-treating

agent on a small-scale test to determine its effectiveness.

That evaluation is done.

Then following the test, approval can be given for the use of the

spill-treating agent.

There is oversight. There

are mechanisms here, Mr. Chair, that protects the use of the

spill-treating agent. The

federal government is directly involved.

The C-NLOPB would be directly involved, as well as the provincial

government, but there is a test that has to occur.

The determination of whether to use a spill-treating agent; in the act

it is determined that it will be based on net environmental benefit,

where through the due diligence, the process, and the identification of,

not only of the spill and the magnitude of the spill, but the use of the

spill-treating agent as a net environmental benefit.

Essentially, Mr. Chair, what it means is that: Is the environment

better served and better protected with the use of the agents, or to

allow the oil to disperse itself or to continue?

So finding that balance is what the process will determine.

Again, the C-NLOPB is the lead on that.

The operating officer there will make that determination through

a process; but, again, the net benefit, you have to weigh out if all

other measures have been taken in Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 in terms of

your response protocols, and you still have a situation that you need to

deal with as was the case, I understand, in the Gulf of Mexico.

If you use some spill-treating agent, do you effectively then

address the issue with the spill and minimize or reduce the

environmental risk? So

weighing the balance, the net benefit of using the spill-treating agent,

that is an important inclusion in this act, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of things there that the members asked.

Hopefully, I have answered those questions.

I am sure there will be some more.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member

for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to get up and address some of the concerns, I guess, in

some cases when it comes to this piece of legislation, especially

knowing that we have a situation on the go now over on the Port au Port

Peninsula where we really do not know who is responsible.

We have a situation where wells were drilled on land and now,

because of erosion, they have gone into the water and they are

pre-C-NLOPB. So it is kind

of interesting to note that while we have this situation on the go and

we do not know who has jurisdiction, it has been at least a

year-and-a-quarter now that government has known about it and we still

do not have it cleaned up.

So, Mr. Chair, I wanted to get into talking about

section 134(5) just

for second, along with

section 156(1).

They are both items of concern.

I think the minister agrees there has been some consternation, as

of late, especially since the advent of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Besides the fact of losing people down there, we had an

unmitigated environmental disaster that some people would argue that the

Gulf of Mexico is going to be a long time recovering from.

In that particular spill, Mr. Chair, of note, we were first experienced,

especially on live TV, with the simple fact of the use of dispersants in

such a spill scenario. I

think there is not a member in this House there is probably not a

member of the viewing public out there that would understand the roll of

Corexit in this case. It is

a particular brand name of a dispersant that is out there that was used

in that particular spill.

Some people still argue over the amount of damage that was particularly

done in this particular case, and that the damage still exists and still

persists in the Gulf of Mexico.

So the questions to the minister surround the use of Corexit, number

one, as a fallback, if you will, to the cleanup of any spill.

It concerns me because if we are talking about the dumping of

chemicals in the environment, Mr. Chair, Corexit from the evidence that

I have read and from the hearsay evidence that we hear coming

particularly from the Gulf of Mexico is not an option.

It is simply not an option here.

It concerns me when I read

section 134.5(1) here and let me read the

section into the record, The board shall not permit the use of a

spill-treating agent in an authorization issued under paragraph

134(1)(

b) unless the board determines, taking into account any

prescribed factors and any factors the board considers appropriate, that

the use of the spill-treating agent is likely to achieve a net

environmental benefit. Mr.

Chair, that concerns me.

Like I said, when you are talking about a net environmental benefit, who

defines net environmental benefit?

That is the first question to the minister as regards to that.

As far as I am concerned, there is no way to clean up a spill using a

chemical dispersant. I do

not think so anyway. That is

what I would argue with the minister.

The only way is to have a proper spill response.

I would like to know from the minister at the same time how we

can respond to a spill, for example, if a spill happens, or if we have

an accident unlike the Deepwater Horizon, the 2,800 metres in depth.

Some of the companies are going to fairly deepwater here off

Newfoundland and Labrador so we have a case here where we have to ask

questions on this.

We have to have a question answered around the proof of net

environmental benefit, like I said which concerns me.

Then I flip over to

section 156.1(1) of the act, The provisions

referred to in

Schedule 1 of the federal Act do not apply to the deposit

of a spill-treating agent and those referred to in

Schedule 2 of the

federal Act do not apply in respect of any harm that is caused by the

spill-treating agent or by the interaction between the spill-treating

agent and the spilled oil .

It goes on, of course, to various sections.

Again I will ask the minister to me it looks like there is an

interpretation here that there is a possibility that the spill-treating

agent itself can cause environmental damage.

I am asking the question and perhaps he can interpret that.

It is obvious to me that according to the Gulf of Mexico example

that we are dealing with here, it is obvious that we can see some form

of ongoing environmental damage as a result.

Who is going to be monitoring that?

Who is going to be responsible for it?

Like I said, Mr. Chair, we have a case right now, prima facia example of

what is happening over in the Port au Port Bay area, where nobody wants

to take responsibility; but, as far as I am concerned, Corexit should

not be an option. We should

have a proper clean-up strategy behind this.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister

of Natural Resources.

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Chair, let's

make a few points so that as the questions continue, I think it is

important to understand here that, one, the C-NLOPB, Newfoundland and

Labrador, the Nova Scotia Petroleum Board, the Nova Scotia government,

and the federal government are all involved with this.

This is not a piece of work that we are doing over here in

isolation. They are all

involved, and their experts are all involved.

The industry experts rest in our Province primarily with the C-NLOPB.

We have the Department of Environment, the Department of Natural

Resources, we all have input, but the industry experts are not on the

floor of this House. The

industry experts are with the C-NLOPB.

They are the ones who, for a number of years, have been providing

oversight, providing the regulatory environment that manages our

offshore.

The C-NLOPB has the industry experts.

We are all working through this together so that we can harmonize

the act, the regulations, and the guidelines, Mr. Chair.

That is the goal here.

The act outlines things that we will talk about today, but beyond

that through consultation process, the regulations have to be developed.

From there, the C-NLOPB can develop the guidelines and

interpretations so that there is a flow of information and everybody is

involved and it is being driven by industry experts.

So we clarify that point.

As for Corexit, the member opposite is referencing that.

Well, to my knowledge, the list is not done.

It is one of many but whether it gets on the list at the federal

government level, it will be determined by the people at the federal

government level. There is a

science table where they will come together and they will do the due

diligence. The experts will

take a look at what STAs will go on the list.

From there, when there is a situation and the response protocols

have been followed and there is still a concern with a spill and there

is a proposal put forward to the C-NLOPB that an operator wants to go

out and use an STA, well there is a process.

For one, the STA has to be on the list that is provided by the

federal government.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, the concern about net environmental benefit fair

question, because we do not want to be adding to any environmental

negative impact that is out there.

I am no expert, but there may be some chemicals used in isolation

and put out into the environment and could have a negative impact, but

that is where the issue of a net environmental benefit comes.

Because after you have tried all other avenues, if there is a

spill and there is a major negative impact on the environment, do you

allow that to continue or do you use something that has less of an

environmental impact than allowing the spill to continue and the impact

of the oil?

So do you allow the C-NLOPB to make their decision, the experts to make

the decision to do a test with the STA to see if the net benefit is more

positive for the environment?

Do we see that by using a spill-treating agent approved by the

federal government does that help and improve the impact?

Does it dissolve?

Maybe it does; maybe it does not.

There are other issues around the regulations, the guidelines,

and where that will take you; but that decision to use the agent is

after protocols have been followed, and the experts will determine if by

using it, it is much more positive for the environment than if we

allowed the spill to continue, their event to continue to occur.

As we saw down in the Gulf of Mexico, many, many efforts came forward to

try to resolve the issue and the spill, and then to try and clean it up.

It was a disaster, without question.

As we debate today and we talk about these things today, all the

more reason that we bring in

an act, that we strengthen our offshore

environmental regulations, that we put a price tag on this that will

give us some reassurance that these companies, when you come in here and

you develop our offshore, we expect you to follow the act, the

regulations. We expect you

to respect our environment and protect our environment, and this is what

the act has been able to do.

Again, to reiterate the fact that the industry experts will drive this,

but it is the federal government, the provincial governments, and the

C-NLOPB and the petroleum board in Nova Scotia that have adopted this

act and from within that now collectively, with other consultations,

will develop the regulations and eventually the guidelines.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member

for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you,

Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

I thank the minister and I could not agree with him more, that we

certainly need a strong regulatory framework and the environment and

protection certainly must be protected.

It must be paramount

When we look at what was stated in some of my questions earlier, I asked

about the minister's discretion.

He had stated that provincial and federal ministers both need to

sign off on the matter, and further stated that there is flexibility

within the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Basically

what I had asked, Mr. Chair, was around the financial capacity of the $1

billion up from the $30 million.

What the act states is that there has to be direct access deposit

required for drilling or production to $100 million for a single

operator or $250 million pooled and provided jointly by multiple

operators. I would like to

know are there any circumstances where that direct access deposit would

be less than $100 million for a single operator or less than $250

million for pooled or provided jointly by multiple operators, so that it

does not go lower than that amount when it comes to direct access, and

what he actually means by small players in the industry.

Is there a risk profile assessment done in terms of looking at the

financial statements of companies?

Because obviously, a company that would have a weaker balance

sheet would pose as a high risk to having the financial capacity and

having the ability, and looking at what implications would happen with

other regulatory laws like filing for bankruptcy and what that could

mean in terms of what the limitations would be in terms of how much

return would come back.

The minister had talked about Nalcor in the offshore as a partner and

when we take on equity, Nalcor has insurance.

I guess with this legislation we are seeing some of the greater

risk that Nalcor is taking on behalf of the taxpayers of Newfoundland

and Labrador. That is where

I would like to see the minister further explain Nalcor in terms of the

equity investments and what is the financial price tag for Nalcor.

Will it be $100 million?

Will it be a share of this $250 million?

Are there multiple dollar values that Nalcor will have to

provide? Has Nalcor done a

risk assessment? Are there

information and documentation that can be provided to this House that

Nalcor has done identifying that they have truly done their due

diligence and that as partners in the offshore, as active equity players

in energy and oil and gas and development, what type of risk assessments

are in place?

The minister had talked about when I had asked about and you know we

are talking about chemical dispersions into the environment and talking

about a small-scale test, an evaluation, and appropriate oversight.

I think that if at all possible we certainly need to look at the

more natural agents that can be used, the natural aspects, whether it be

looking at heat, or looking at other aspects that absorb oil, and other

aspects that are there.

I think that there may be certain circumstances where you would have no

alternative but to look at using some sort of chemical to prevent

something that would be much more catastrophic.

We must make sure that the regulation, the regulatory

environment, and the regime that is in place is strengthened to the

point that and that the restrictions, financially, are high.

The risk is very high for the companies so that they are

accountable. Even more so to

ensure that safety and environmental protection is absolute paramount in

operating when it comes to our natural resources, the public resource,

the people's resource that is there and that is used to benefit the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I really would like further clarification on the minister if there are

any circumstances where a company or multiple companies would be paying

less than the $100 million or $250 million in terms of a deposit and

that insurance that would have the direct access.

How low could it go beyond $1 billion for the no-fault liability?

Is the minimum $100 million?

Is it $200 million?

Is there any type of calculation that the C-NLOPB that the

federal-provincial counterparts have talked about or assessed because it

does make a difference.

When you are saying that it is a billion dollars in the legislation

and this is what it is being said, that it is increasing the caps to $1

billion. Well is it only

going to be a billion for certain players based on financial records,

based on how big they are or what their profits are, or is it for

everyone? I think the

minister really needs to be more accountable to the House in that level.

If you could answer those questions, Minister, I would appreciate

it.

So I will take my chair and give you that opportunity, because the

minister has provided answers to my questions that I have asked

previously. I look forward

to getting further clarification because not all of it is clearly stated

in the bill.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister

of Natural Resources.

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Chair, I

thank the member opposite for the questions.

The issue around liability is not the company, it is the environment.

The issue that this bill is addressing here is protecting the

environment, not protecting the company.

This is about protecting our offshore, and any implications or

any impact that could result as a result of a spill.

That is what this act does.

It strengthens our ability to protect the environmental impact of

a spill in the offshore.

The billion dollars absolute liability, Mr. Chair, is not a number we

just picked. There was work

done in looking at global practices around absolute liability.

Again, recognizing it is not just the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador that is doing this.

The federal government have been fully engaged, the Nova Scotia

government as well.

The absolute liability is a billion dollars.

Originally, I guess in the original act the cap was $100 million

for absolute liability. It

is moved to a billion, but in the original one you had to provide

financial security for $30 million and then some sort of credit, in

various forms, but some sort of credit for the $70 million.

Now, Mr. Chair, you had to provide upfront access to $100

million. That has not

changed. For a billion

dollar liability, it is $100 million.

There is no provision for the C-NLOPB or the ministers to change

the $100 million on a billion dollar absolute liability.

The pool fund is the other option.

Again, this will get developed through the regulations and the

guidelines because we do not see as the member opposite referenced,

all the details are not in the act.

They have to be worked out between the governments, the C-NLOPB,

and the petroleum board in Nova Scotia.

So those details will come through the regulations, but the $250 million

pool fund is another option for a company, or a group of companies, to

pool their money in a fund because they could have two, three, or four

developments on. That is

$100 million they are tying up all over, but they could come together

again, to be developed through the regulations to pool their money so

that there is a $250 million pool in which the C-NLOPB could draw on

immediately in the event of a spill and in absolute liability.

There is no provision to change that number on a billion dollar

liability. What the

provision is in there, it allows the C-NLOPB and their experts in

determining the project not the company, the project whether the

risk warrants the billion dollar liability.

Now, we know in the offshore it does.

In the extreme offshore, there is no question.

In fact, there is a provision where the board could come and

recommend more, but it would still need approval of the federal and

provincial ministers.

In an event where there may be some let's take the West Coast