PDF Version

May 6, 2013

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 15

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we are going to have members' statements from the

Member for the District of Baie Verte Springdale; the Member for the District

of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Lewisporte; the Member for the

District of Humber Valley; the Member for the District of St. Barbe; and the

Member for the District of Terra Nova.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 5, 2011 a public meeting was held at Burlington Fire Hall to form a

50 plus seniors' group. I rise in this hon. House today to commend them on their

first organizational meeting and recognize the outstanding work that the 50 Plus

Club is doing to engage and encourage seniors.

Led by President Gerald Burton and his dedicated executive, this club

promotes health and wellness, caring and sharing, and intergenerational

activities with a vision to create safe, secure, age-friendly communities. What

is so unique about this group is that it encompasses all three communities in

the area; namely, Smith's Harbour, Burlington, and Middle Arm.

I applaud Mayors George Kelly, Neville Robinson, and Local Service District

Chairperson Melvin Osmond and their communities for their overwhelming support

of this exciting initiative whereby seniors are valued and honoured for their

social and economic achievements.

I ask all hon. colleagues to join me in saluting the 50 Plus Encouragement

Club for their leadership in building a positive, proactive, and innovative

approach in remembering the past, honouring the present, and hoping for the

future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize Collin Baikie who was born and raised in North West

River.

Collin, this past December, competed in his second amateur Mixed Martial arts

bout picking up his first win in the sport. While Collin has his sights set on

training to achieve his dream of one day fighting professionally in MMA, it is

what Collin has done outside the octagon that I believe needs to be recognized.

Collin, when he is not training, returns to Labrador to promote healthy

living through sport. He teaches children in Sheshatshiu the basic skills he has

learned as a mixed martial artist, teaching them MMA in a fun environment.

While MMA is his passion, it is not the only sport that Collin has been

coaching when he is home. He can often be found coaching both ice and ball

hockey. It is this spirit of giving back to the communities of Lake Melville

that I believe makes it worthwhile to recognize Collin's work.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in applauding the great work

of Mr. Collin Baikie and wish him all the best of success in his future

endeavours. Collin is a true Labradorian.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Corporal Courtney Walsh

of Brown's Arm. From her early years, Courtney took pride in her country and

desired to be one of the Canadians who would make a difference. This desire led

to her decision in 2004 to join the Canadian Military as member of the 772

Electronic Warfare Division.

In February of 2008, Corporal Walsh received her first deployment to

Afghanistan. She was nervous and unsure what to expect; however, once she was

there, her training enabled her to do her job exceptionally well.

On November 19, 2012, Corporal Walsh received the Queen's Diamond Jubilee

Medal from Brigadier General Omer Lavoie. During the presentation it was noted

that Corporal Walsh has shown exemplary service as a tradeswoman and paramount

dedication to the Canadian Forces. She is an exceptional operator who is highly

respected and always willing to go beyond what is expected in order to get the

job done. Corporal Walsh is a dedicated soldier, an active volunteer, and a very

worthy recipient of this award.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me today in congratulating

Corporal Walsh and to also thank her for her service to our country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize

awards recipients at the recently held Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce Business

and Community Awards Gala.

I was very fortunate to have had the opportunity to attend the awards gala

and was quite impressed by the passion and enthusiasm displayed by all those in

attendance.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate those who received awards at the

gala including: the Royal K-9 Spa, Angie Parsons, Business of the Year; Manager

Perry Compton and Woodward Motors, Employer of the Year; Alison Ropson of

Scotiabank, Employee of the Year; Robbins Enterprises, Rising Star Award; Amanda

Freake received the Community Spirit Award for her involvement in the Deer Lake

Strawberry Festival; and B & S Trucking received a Special Recognition Award for

their contributions to green waste disposal.

Years of Service awards were presented to Shears Building Supplies for

sixty-one years of service, the Driftwood Inn for fifty-seven years of service,

and Williams Building Supplies for fifty-seven years of service.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the backbone of many local economies

throughout our Province, so I ask all members of this House to join me in

congratulating the Deer Lake Chamber of Commerce and all of its members on a

very successful Inaugural Business and Community Awards Gala.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to recognize the

success of the Heritage Cluster Pilot Project on the Great Northern Peninsula.

Supported through the Cultural Economic Development Program, an advisory

committee of associated departments and organizations, partners Nordic EDC and

CURRA, and project lead RED Ochre Regional Board, this three-year pilot project

has helped community heritage organizations improve their operations and

services, build their capacity, and improve their long-term sustainability.

The project involves thirteen community heritage organizations, eight from

the District of St. Barbe, including: Trout River Heritage Committee, Woody

Point Heritage Committee, Bonne Bay Cottage Hospital Heritage Committee, Dr.

Henry Payne Museum Heritage Committee, Nurse Myra Bennett Foundation, Torrent

River Heritage Committee, Port au Choix Heritage Committee, and Big Droke

Pre-Historic Cultures Foundation. Also included are L'Anse aux Meadows and Port

au Choix National Historic Sites.

This Heritage Cluster Pilot Project concludes in 2013, but the goal of

long-term sustainability will continue to be supported by a volunteer committee

derived from the participating organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing and

congratulating the Heritage Cluster Pilot Project on its success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to commend Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers on celebrating

thirty years of bringing uncontrollable laughter and unforgettable lyrics to the

people of this Province and beyond.

The group comprised of Kevin Blackmore, Wayne Chaulk, and Ray Johnson, along

with bass player Byron Pardy, hit the road every eighteen months to tour the

Arts and Culture Centres throughout our beautiful Province performing at

sold-out shows. I am extremely pleased and proud to acknowledge that both Kevin

and Wayne resident in the Terra Nova district.

Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers provide entertainment suitable for all

ages. They feel humbled that they are enjoyed by three or four generations of a

family. Not only are they enjoyed by the residents of this Province but they are

also enjoyed by a huge fan base right across this country as well as in the

States and abroad. Kevin Blackmore sums it up best by saying, "There's a certain

truth in that we all need a good belly laugh now and again." Mr. Speaker, that

is very true.

I would like to sincerely thank Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers for

helping preserve our unique musical culture.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing such a talented group of

individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize May 5

to 11 as North American Occupational Safety and Health Week.

This morning, I joined members of our local

chapter of the Canadian Society

of Safety Engineers, as well as representatives from employer and labour groups,

to raise the NAOSH Week flag.

This year's theme, Safety and Health: A Commitment for Life! Are You as Safe

as You Think? urges us no matter where we do our work to take a moment to

take a second look at our daily routines and practices. Are we being as safe as

we can be?

I thank the members of our local

chapter of the Canadian Society of Safety

Engineers who every year volunteers their time to plan and promote NAOSH Week.

This local group was the pioneer of NAOSH Week and it has now grown to include

the rest of Canada, the United States, and Mexico which is an incredible

achievement.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that I, along with my hon. colleague, the Minister

of Natural Resources, later today in this House of Assembly are moving forward

with amendments to the Atlantic Accord which streamlines the occupational health

and safety legislative framework for the offshore. This amendment tailors

occupational health and safety principles to reflect the different offshore

workplace parties and unique offshore working environment.

As employers, employees and government, we must continue to work together to

seek out and identify risks and dangers, then work to eliminate them through

prevention, protection, and sound policy-making. We must strive to enhance our

safety culture, ensuring best practices are used at all times. Our best defence

against workplace incidents is prevention. After all, accidents do not just

happen they are caused.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety and

the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, I urge everyone in

this Province to take that second look at their workplace and remember to always

keep safety at the forefront.

Building a strong safety culture today yields a safer tomorrow for the next

generation of working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I do join him in

recognizing North American Occupational Health and Safety Week.

This North American Occupational Health and Safety Week was first launched in

June 1997 and the goal of this week-long event is to focus employers, employees,

partners, and the public on the importance of preventing injury and illness in

the workplace.

This successful event is rooted in a community-based approach and I thank the

many volunteers throughout our Province for their efforts.

As the minister mentioned, this afternoon we will begin debate on amendments

to the Atlantic Accord to streamline occupational health and safety in our

offshore. Mr. Speaker, any step forward in regulations that will look out for

the safety of our offshore personnel is a positive movement, but I think this

government must look at the implementation of Recommendation 29 from the Wells

inquiry: to establish an independent offshore regulator. This is not a part of

this bill, but we do hope to see that this legislation will be implemented in

the future.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

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

pleased to join with him and everybody in the House in the recognition of North

American Occupational Health and Safety Week.

We certainly should commend the work of safety engineers. Because while it is

important for us to look closely at our workplaces and we have to take

responsibility ourselves for that, we also need a strong presence of these

professionals within government to protect the public, in general, and protect

workers.

One thing I would like to speak to, though, is the need to keep paying

attention to young people in the workplace, to make sure they know their rights

and what to expect in terms of a safe workplace, and also know their

responsibility. Although lost-time injuries among young workers have declined

somewhat, we still have close to 500 a year, so it is important to continue

educating our youth in the school system and review our legislation and

inspection regimes to ensure that young persons feel safe from reprisals for

speaking out about unsafe working conditions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a significant

event in our history the Battle of the Atlantic.

Each year on the first Sunday in May we commemorate those who were lost in

the longest single campaign of World War II.

I had the honour of representing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

and the people of the Province at events commemorating the Battle of the

Atlantic yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in St. John's. I first attended a service of

remembrance at St. Thomas' Church, after which I placed a wreath at the National

War Memorial on Water Street.

These events were moving ceremonies that serve to remember and honour the

sacrifices of those brave souls who gave their lives during this epic battle

between September 1939 and May 1945. The battle was courageously fought by men

and woman from the Royal Canadian Navy, the Merchant Navy, and the Royal

Canadian Air Force, as they struggled to control the shipping lanes on the North

Atlantic Ocean.

Mr. Speaker, their success came at a high price. The Royal Canadian Navy lost

twenty-four warships and suffered approximately 2,000 fatalities, the Merchant

Navy lost more than seventy ships and faced more than 1,700 fatalities, and over

900 aircrews were lost by the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, played a significant role in the

Battle of the Atlantic with St. John's serving as one of the most important

escort bases to be developed by the Royal Canadian Navy, and with many thousands

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians serving as sailors, aircrew, and merchant

mariners.

St. John's harbour also served as a port of refuge, with upwards of 6,000

survivors from torpedoed or storm-wrecked ships being cared for in St. John's

during the war.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, along with other Canadians, have a proud

military history and the Canadian Forces continue to do us proud serving

admirably at home and abroad to this very day.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in honouring all the men and women

of our armed forces, past and present, for their tremendous contribution in the

service of us all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

said, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians did play a significant role

in the Royal Canadian Navy. In fact, Mr. Speaker, many of our young soldiers

went to Nova Scotia to join the navy because they were too young to join here in

our Province, as it was before Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, many paid the ultimate sacrifice in their efforts to protect the

shipping lanes and convoys carrying supplies to our brave men and women serving

overseas. Given our association with the sea, Mr. Speaker, it comes as no

surprise that we would play an active role in the navy division. The Battle of

the Atlantic was a significant event of World War II and we should all take the

time to commemorate this event each and every year.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador have continued to make up a

significant part of our armed forces and have continued to serve in war zones

around the world. We must ensure that their commitment to peace in this world is

not forgotten and all commemorative events throughout the year, including the

Battle of the Atlantic, must be recognized and appreciated.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It was a

really poignant ceremony yesterday that I went to, to recognize those people who

fought in the Battle of the Atlantic. It is sometimes too bad that we have so

many of these memorial days because we still have not learned to get along

peacefully in the world.

We remember those who we lost at Beaumont Hamel here in the Province. We

recognize other fellow Canadians lost during July 1. Again, to have a day to

remember, while it is nice and everything, I cannot help but come back to the

sermon yesterday that the chaplain

gave at the church in wishing all these people peace in their own mind for the

strife that they went through at the time, giving us democracy. I keep coming

back to the sermon from the chaplain yesterday when he said the poignant

words that hopefully one day the roar of peace will be much louder than the roar

of guns. It is in their particular memory that we serve here in the House every

day.

With that, I would like to thank the minister again for his statement and it

was a really poignant ceremony. Thank you to the armed forces personnel who give

so much and sacrifice so much every day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning the Minister of Fire and Emergency Services met with the federal

Minister of National Defence to discuss search and rescue issues in our

Province. The Premier in the past has said that she would ask for a timeline to

implement the recommendations of the federal Auditor General's report.

I ask the minister: What commitment did you get from the Minister of National

Defence this morning to improve search and rescue for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Minister MacKay this morning at

about 7:00. We had a good discussion in regard to search and rescue, not only

here in the Province but also nationally, in Canada, and the challenges that the

federal government have in providing that important service.

It was a good meeting as such. I outlined all the concerns that Newfoundland

and Labrador has. We have been saying that now for a number of years. The

Premier has actually communicated that as well.

I went and I asked them for timelines, an action plan and timelines attached

to it, where we can have some level of confidence back into the system from the

federal side. He agreed with that. He said he was willing to work with all the

provinces and all the stakeholders, as well as myself as the Minister

Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services. I will continue to do so. I wrote

him, actually, again today to reiterate what I had said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, following this morning's meeting, the Minister of National Defence also

said that search and rescue services in the Province and, of course, nationally

is indeed a shared responsibility and that the Province should be working with

the feds on a co-ordinated effort.

I ask the minister: Did you get an agreement from the federal minister this

morning to work on a co-ordinated effort, and what are the timelines that this

action will be taking place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did address the issue in regard to the

timelines and a firm action plan on addressing the issues we feel are really

important to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, being in personnel, the

lack of personnel, and actually aging assets, along with the closure of the

marine rescue sub-centre. So we will set some timelines around that now over the

next few days or so.

Like I just said, I wrote the federal minister after I got back outlining the

issues again. So I am hoping for a response from Minister MacKay within the next

couple of days or so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has said it is action that is required. We now know the national

minister, Minister MacKay, says that it is a shared responsibility. So now that

we have this shared responsibility and we have a commitment to improve services,

we need to figure out where the gaps are.

I ask the minister: Given that the federal government has committed to work

with the Province, will you now commit this Province to a provincial inquiry

into search and rescue in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry really deflects away from the issues

surrounding the Province. We do want action, and that is what I expressed to the

federal minister this morning.

I also have to correct the hon. member when he says shared services. It is

shared in the fact that the federal government is responsible for one component,

and that is marine search and rescue, and the Province is responsible for ground

search and rescue. They are two different components, Mr. Speaker, but we feed

off each other.

What we need as a Province in regard to ground search and rescue is that if

we phone the federal government JRCC in Halifax, we want to know they have

assets and we want to know they have personnel in order to respond to that

request. Certainly, the Auditor General's report has outlined deficiencies in

regard to personnel and assets, and we want those addressed as soon as we

possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is okay when you stand up and answer a question in this House to talk

about two components but if you are someone who needs search and rescue, if you

are putting in the call they really do not care. What they want to know is that

there is communication, there is collaboration and the system will work. Mr.

Speaker, the federal minister this morning announced a $1 million investment for

ground search and rescue, which we all know is a provincial responsibility.

I ask the minister: What issues are there around ground search and rescue,

the provincial responsibility that requires this $1 million investment from the

federal minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, the same is reflected in regard to our fire

services. We have about 300 fire halls across the Province that require various

pieces of equipment and various pieces of apparatus to provide the service that

they are trying to provide to the residents who live in their community. The

same applies in regard to your ground search and rescue. We invested over

$500,000 in infrared imaging, not in this Budget past but the year before that.

I welcome the investment in regard to the federal government in making that

kind of announcement and hopefully they will come with more, which he has

outlined and talked to as well, more in the pipeline. I welcome that. We will

keep working with the federal minister and make sure that we have the proper and

adequate service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome that investment. Any time we can get federal money into this

Province we should go after it.

I would like to ask the minister: Who made the request for the investment

into ground search and rescue in our Province, and what other requests are in to

the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, every chance I have in regard to my position as

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister Responsible for Fire and

Emergency Services I am making requests and asking for money, always. Whatever

minister I am talking to in the federal government I am asking for dollars

because we need it, we deserve it, we have aging infrastructure and we want to

continue to invest in that infrastructure right across this Province, be it in

ground search and rescue or be it in our fire halls, wherever I might get it.

I welcome the amount. We will take it and it will be wisely invested into our

ground search and rescue teams. They will continue to provide the service,

twenty-five of them, I think, across the Province. The service that they try to

provide, they are well-trained, well-equipped and they do a great job for the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance told media last month that there would be 120 to 150

managers eliminated from Health Authorities across the Province.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: How many managerial

positions will be cut from health authorities in this Province in 2013-2014?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we announced during the Budget process, we have undertaken to

do a number of reviews within our health authorities. We have just finished up

an operational review, we are headed forward now with a clinical efficiency

review, and a management review.

To put a precise number on the managerial positions that may be determined to

be serviced to us in other ways would be premature at this point in time. We

will continue forward to look through our operational numbers as to what will be

the best number to provide to our regional health authorities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was the CEO of the Eastern Health Authority who suggested that there would

be sixty-five to seventy managers who would be cut as a result of the $7 million

Budget cut by the Province in 2013-2014.

I ask the minister again: How many managers do you expect? Is it true that

the CEO of Eastern Health is it true that you anticipate sixty-five to seventy

managers being cut from Eastern Health?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we know from commentary that we have had in this House

before, Eastern Health is ahead of the game because they have committed and

finished their operational review. They are in a much better position to be able

to put a number around the number of management positions they are looking to

eliminate, or at least the FTEs that they are looking to eliminate through their

process.

The other three regional health authorities, however, have not yet finished

that process, which is why I say it is premature yet to put a total number. We

can extrapolate what it may be, but until they are finished with that particular

review, the operational review which I expect to be some time this summer,

perhaps toward the end of June than I really do not have a firm number.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The CEO of Eastern Health again last month said that one of the risks of

cutting management positions is that there is a lack of monitoring. We all know,

and we have learned lessons from the Cameron Inquiry what lack of monitoring can

lead to.

I ask the Premier, you said last year that health care would be ring fenced:

How can you ensure the people of the Province that these cuts would not trickle

down to front line services?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a commitment that was made right throughout this Budget process

is that we would not impact front line service. We have been very clear about

ensuring that.

As we look at all of these reviews that we have in place and that is why we

are doing all of them as opposed to just looking at one operational review, that

benchmark. We are also looking at the clinical efficiency piece which will

certainly look at the front line piece and how we can find efficiencies there.

Mr. Speaker, our overall commitment on all of these reviews is to ensure that

what we are doing is providing the best care, the best quality care as well to

all of our patients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, despite government's bragging of investments into

municipal infrastructure we continue to have water woes in many of our

communities. River Head, St. Mary's Bay, issued a state of emergency last week

due to a lack of water because of aging infrastructure.

I ask the minister: What is being done to address this serious issue in the

community of River Head?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue to brag in regard to

our investments in infrastructure right across Newfoundland and Labrador; as a

matter of fact, $650 million of it since 2008.

My officials have been in contact with the Town of River Head, along with

their consultants, and they are working their way through it. Another reason why

we changed the Municipal Operating Grants, Mr. Speaker, was to put more money

into small communities such as River Head to enable them to operate their

communities much more efficiently than they did in the past.

If we did not have to be left with such aging infrastructure back in 2003,

maybe they would still be working today, Mr. Speaker, but it has taken us ten

years now to address a lot of issues in this Province and we will continue to do

so under the Municipal Capital Works and under Municipal Operating Grants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I find it very sad that the minister could stand

up and brag in this House of Assembly when there are 160 communities as of

today, including River Head, that has a boil advisory in their water system.

I ask the minister, instead of standing up and bragging, instead of standing

up and trying to make hay for the government: Can we please ask for some

concrete proposals that is going to help these communities with their water woes

which is creating a major problem in a lot of communities like River Head

because those people are suffering every day? Besides bragging, can we see some

concrete action from the minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, concrete action is $650 million since 2008 in

various projects right across the Province, mainly in water and sewer.

Chlorination systems right across this Province that are reducing the number of

boil orders in the Province.

The other reason why we developed the Municipal Operating Grant was to give

smaller communities more money in order to operate their chlorination systems,

which is an issue right across this Province with the smaller communities. When

we get those up and running, and get the money where it should be in regard to

small communities, you will see less and less boil orders right across this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I asked this question on Thursday but no

answer, so I will try again.

In 2006, this government committed to a comprehensive review of public

prosecutions. The minister at the time said an independent review would be done

immediately, and retired Justice William Marshall was named; however, seven

years later nothing has been completed.

I ask the minister: Why have you not completed this long promised review, and

since it was never done, what compelling evidence did you have to justify the

cuts in Budget 2013?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of opportunities over the

last few years where we have taken a review of the Public Prosecutions Office,

both the policies of the office, the procedures, and the way it was resourced.

The Lamer Inquiry happened to speak to that in particular. Since that time,

there has been a significant amount of investment made in the Public

Prosecutions Office, both in terms of the number of people working there, the

policies that we follow, the procedures that they follow, and professional

development opportunities for them to gain training and opportunities to enhance

their qualifications.

We make no apologies for what we have done in Public Prosecutions. We have

continued to invest in that division. As I announced about two weeks ago or so

with the Attorney General, we will continue to do a further review, and if need

be, we will make the changes that are recommended from that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this government has now promised another

review in the justice system, this time with legal aid. Even though the minister

announced a review last month, we learned in Estimates that there is absolutely

no plan in place.

I ask the minister: Why did you promise a review but then do nothing to get

ready for it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, what I had said in Estimates I was asked if I

had a plan in place at that point in time, and I did not have a plan in place at

that point in time. I did not say, and I would not say today, that we did not

plan for it.

We are planning for a review. We have developed a shortlist of potential

firms or individuals who may be able to carry out that review, and the mandate

of the review is very simple. As the Attorney General and I have both said on

many occasions in this House, and as we said before the media when we did the

press conference, that it will be an opportunity to look at how the legal aid is

staffed, number one; and number two, how cases are received and whether they

ought to be carried out by legal aid or whether there is another system that we

can put in place to expedite the process of clients receiving the service, and

that is what we will do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the source of the oil slick around Fogo and

Change Islands has now been identified as the shipwrecked vessel the Manolis

L . Residents of the area have great concern for the effects of the spill and

what it will have on the area. Last week, the minister again passed

responsibility off to the federal government.

I ask the minister: What role will the Province play in the efforts to both

contain and remove the potential for a drastic oil spill in this area?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We accept the responsibilities as accorded to the provincial government, but

in this case it is federal jurisdiction, under federal law and legislation. The

federal government certainly have reacted and searched and found the source of

the contamination, the leak. There is a plan in place to take care of that

particular leak. As well, they have done some work onshore to make sure that any

spills going in that area they have established a non-fishing zone. Everything

is put in place in order to deal with this situation, and if the waste water or

whatever comes ashore, then we will look at our responsibility and take care of

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the shipwrecked vessel still has a considerable

amount of fuel in its hull, which is in danger of rupturing. This would have a

drastic effect on the shell fishery in the region, the same fishery that makes

up 83 per cent of the provincial revenue from the fishing industry. The FFAW and

local fish harvesters now have voiced their concern saying that there needs to

be a plan.

I ask the minister: Why is the Province shirking its responsibility on this

issue and putting the livelihood of the residents in jeopardy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, there is no shirking of

responsibility. We are accepting the responsibilities that are associated with

this particular spill.

As well, the investigation is complete, the leak has been found, and it is

going to be addressed. Of course, we await word from our federal counterparts as

to exactly what it is going to do, not only for the leak but for the future, to

make sure that the resources offshore, our fishing in particular, are well

protected, as well, the livelihoods of our people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, time for a very quick

question without

preamble.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, over five months ago the Safe and Caring

Schools policy was admitted not to be working.

MR. SPEAKER: A quick question, please.

MR. BENNETT: I ask the minister: Did he shelve this report in the

interest of saving money, or are we going to hear about Safe and Caring Schools

soon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, time for a quick

response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, our Safe and Caring Schools policy is working

quite well; I will inform the member opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

A May 3

article in Upstream online talks about Husky Energy as being

in the very early stages of assessing the potential for building a liquefied

natural gas plant in Eastern Canada, underpinned by the gas resources in our

offshore. The market for the liquefied gas would be Europe.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Does he know if Husky's

plans for a gas plant in Eastern Canada mean in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I along with my officials had an opportunity

to meet with officials of Husky. I believe their focus right now is on the new

field that they are dealing with offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not

believe that this liquefied natural gas is a priority for the Province at this

time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that according to what has

been written in Upstream online, it looks like it is a priority for Husky

and they hope to have things in market by 2025.

If it is a priority for Husky and they are already starting to look at it,

why is it not for this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I get to read many things. I have not had the

opportunity to read the particular

article that which she is referring to, but I

would also be happy to have a discussion with the company. They come in from

time to time and they brief us as to their plans.

I will certainly be happy to meet with them and hear what they have to say

about liquefied natural gas, which could be an exciting addition to the economy

of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Based on what the minister just said then, I ask him: Will he commit to

ensuring that if Husky moves in this direction which they say publicly they

are interested in doing that this Province will profit from the value-added

benefits of a liquefying plant on our shores, which would bring jobs as well as

cash revenues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the position of this government on economic

development is very clear. We support economic development subject to

conditions. Number one is that the people of the Province have to be the prime

beneficiaries of those things. There have to be benefits to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They have to make sure that whatever development they

do takes place within the framework of public health and worker health safety

and of protection of our environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I could not agree more with the minister and I hope that he is going to

pursue this motion with Husky.

Mr. Speaker, a government backbencher in the media recently said

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: that this government has made $50 million in the past four

years from the former Abitibi hydro assets. This government's numbers have been

notoriously inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will he table the

evidence to back the claim that they have made $50 million in the past four

years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in 1904 the then government of this Province

gave to Abitibi rights to our resources in Central Newfoundland: fibre, land,

water rights. Mr. Speaker, it was all conditional upon them operating those

resources and running a paper mill in Grand Falls-Windsor. When they stopped

operating that pulp and paper mill, then those assets should come back to the

people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government made sure that exactly that happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I suggest to the minister that he correct then the figure of $50 million

because it does not seem like that is a correct figure.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier stated that there were hundreds of

millions of dollars of assets expropriated from Abitibi which would take care of

any liabilities that came with the deal.

We are aware of hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental cleanup

liabilities. We know of the expropriated forest resources this government cannot

find anyone to develop. Last week, we learned we paid a lot more for

expropriated hydro assets.

I ask the minister: What are the huge hundreds of millions of dollars of

assets to which the Premier refers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know where the Leader of the Third Party, the Leader of the NDP,

gets her information. I do know where the people who were on On Point get

their information because they were certainly off point on Friday when they

taped that show.

I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, they said there is no interest in the

forest resources of Newfoundland and Labrador, 280,000 cubic meters of fibre. We

have fourteen people interested in the fibre in Newfoundland and Labrador, from

Europe, from the United States of America, from Canada, and, Mr. Speaker, even

people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2008 taxpayers learned they were on the hook for $72 million

for expropriated Abitibi hydro assets. Last week we learned of another $76.4

million government has added to the tab. The Premier said power from these hydro

assets would be used to drive industry and create revenue and in the long term

pay for itself.

So I ask the minister: Considering the hundreds of millions of dollars in

cleanup costs yet to be paid for, how many decades can we expect to pass before

this burden on the taxpayers is paid off?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have acquired for the people of

Newfoundland assets that are worth more in value than we will ever pay out,

assets that will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of

Central Newfoundland and Labrador for generations to come. Those assets belong

they stopped doing that. We took the assets back. We paid fair value for the

hydro assets. We were not going to steal them. Those assets are there. They are

the people's assets. The people now have them back, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we are headed into the construction season, we have yet to hear of a

majority of tenders that have yet to be announced for road construction work.

There are about a handful on the government Web site.

Mr. Speaker, construction of roads needs more notice than what we have now,

and what companies have as well. Why doesn't government announce tenders earlier

so that these companies can prepare for the upcoming road construction season?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to get up and talk about some of

the great roadwork that is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would just

like to point out to him that there is significant road construction ongoing in

Newfoundland and Labrador today.

The Trans-Labrador Highway is a great example. We have two significant

with the Trans-Labrador Highway. We have $300 million invested in Phase I, Mr.

Speaker. The paving should be substantially completed this year in Phase I from

Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

As well, we are doing great projects here on the Northeast Avalon such as the

Team Gushue Highway which will have significant work done again this year, and

the continuation of the project in Conception Bay South, the Bypass Road, just

to name a few. Mr. Speaker, all of these projects are underway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it has been four years now since they announced the Conception Bay

South Bypass; it is still not done yet. If government had a plan for roads, they

could plan tendering ahead of the season, people would have transparency in road

construction, and companies would map out their own bidding strategy, saving

taxpayers millions of dollars in costs.

I ask the minister: Why doesn't this government have a road construction

strategy in place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member once again for pointing out how

significant a project such as the CBS Bypass Road is. It takes a long time to

construct such a major project as the Conception Bay South Bypass Road.

He says four years; that is right, that is how long it takes. Look how long

we have been working on the Trans-Labrador Highway, Mr. Speaker. We have been

working on that for a decade, and we are committed to continue to work on it and

complete that project for the people of Labrador.

The Team Gushue Highway going right through the centre of St. John's is going

to move traffic from Kenmount Road, all the way through to Mount Pearl, and to

connect into the Robert E. Howlett Memorial Highway for the people of the

Southern Shore, as well the people in Trepassey district, Mr. Speaker. These are

significant assets for the people of the Province and going to do significant

improvements to the roads in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, an Ireland forestry association study

indicates that if just 25 per cent of their public buildings were converted to

wood pellet boilers, the savings annually would be $137 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Wood pellets are cheaper than electricity or heating

oil. They reduce greenhouse gases, create sustainable local jobs, and save

taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister of Natural Resources adopt such a

progressive energy policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say that we have

interest from all over the world with potential proposals for wood pellets, use

of our fibre to make wood pellets. We recognize that wood pellets are of

relatively low value.

We want to make sure that the people of the Province get maximum value from

the resource, and get maximum value from the trees. We want to make sure we get

the lumber; we want to make sure the newsprint industry is protected. We also

know there are opportunities in Central Newfoundland for a project such as this,

and there are also opportunities for investment in the largest wood pellet plant

in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is in Roddickton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no confidence that the Minister of Natural Resources is going to

convert any of our public buildings into pellets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, fossil fuel projects send the majority of

the wealth created out of the Province,

whereas pellet

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you.

Pellet production keeps money local. Wood pellet production maintains

sawmills, jobs for harvesters and foresters, and if public buildings were

converted, would reduce government operations, saving millions of our tax

dollars. These savings could be used for jobs and for programs.

Mr. Speaker, why is the Minister of Natural Resources not interested in

creating long-term sustainable forestry jobs and saving our tax dollars?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the political life of

this country for over ten years and I was involved also before that. There are

two types of politicians in this Province: there are ones who are trying to do

something for the people of the Province; and there are others who do nothing

but play politics and do not really care about the things that are really

important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: The Member for The Straits White Bay North,

unfortunately, is becoming one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits White Bay North, for a quick question without

preamble, please.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, why would the Premier take unnecessary risk

with our tax dollars when a Halifax Global report clearly stated that the pellet

export market would not be feasible without year-round pellet port shipping

facilities?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, for a quick

response.

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have been to Roddickton and I have seen the

plant there. I have met with the owner of that plant in Corner Brook, in

Roddickton, and again in St. John's. Mr. Speaker, this government will do the

right (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

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

MR. FORSEY: The Government Services Committee have considered the matters

to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed without

amendment the Estimates of the Department of Finance, the Department of

Transportation and Works, the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador,

the Office of the Chief Information Officer, and the Public Service Commission.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26.(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling one Order-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the

2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 fiscal years.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2013.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2013.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act No. 3,

Bill 7.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on our next Private Members' Day, seconded by the Member

for Torngat Mountains and I will read in the motion:

WHEREAS we have seen many tragedies and many lives lost due to distress on

land and at sea, including the Ryan's Commander , Melina and Keith II ,

Check-Mate III , Cougar 491, and Burton Winters; and

WHEREAS the federal government has closed the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre for

search and rescue services in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS many questions have been raised about procedures and practices of the

provincial government and the Department of National Defence in relation to

these tragedies; and

WHEREAS the federal Auditor General has determined that search and rescue

services in Canada are operating at a bare minimum and need significant

improvements;

WHEREAS the federal Auditor General has identified that a common set of

principles co-ordinating with other levels of government on national matters

does not exist; and

WHEREAS the federal Auditor General did not audit or investigate provincial,

territorial, or municipal search and rescue activities, including those of

volunteer organizations, or the activities of other federal organizations such

as the RCMP, who are involved in many search and rescue activities; and

WHEREAS the federal government has announced that it would co-operate with

the Province on an inquiry into search and rescue issues;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urges the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to conduct a full investigation into search and rescue services in

Newfoundland and Labrador using a public inquiry under subsection 3.(1) of the

Public Inquiries Act, 2006, which states, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council

may by order establish a commission of inquiry to inquire and report on a matter

that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers to be of public concern."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63, the motion

just read into the House by the Leader of the Official Opposition shall be the

motion debated on Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: 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 students of the Adult Basic Education program at the College of the

North Atlantic do not wish to attend privatized educational facilities; and

WHEREAS the College of the North Atlantic has the most accredited Adult Basic

Education program in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS students are concerned as to the availability of private institutions

and whether or not they can accommodate additional students;

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

House of Assembly to urge Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reverse

this damaging decision to the students and reinstate the Adult Basic Education

programming at the College of the North Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that I have submitted. They have

come from all over Labrador and there is more coming from all around the

Province. The concern that I am hearing in talking with Adult Basic Education

instructors and with many, many, many students in my district, as well as in

Lake Melville district, is that they have been accepted into ABE programs, but

there is no sponsorship and sponsorship cannot come until this whole issue of

where the future of ABE is going.

In terms of privatization, Mr. Speaker, the concern coming from the students

is the size of Labrador as compared to Newfoundland. My district alone, Torngat

Mountains is bigger than the Northern Peninsula and we have basically 6 per cent

of the population in our Province who live there.

Mr. Speaker, the concern is if you are going to go into privatization of

Adult Basic Education, what is going to bring these private institutions to

remote areas? That is the biggest concern that our students have, plus the fact

that the College of the North Atlantic is slated to have more cuts, more

impacts, into delivery of programs. Certainly, they want to see this Adult Basic

Education program and the satellite learning centres still maintained by the

College of the North Atlantic.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

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

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS recently it was announced that the West Coast Training Centre in

Stephenville will lose its annual funding from the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, and will close at the end of June; and

WHEREAS the West Coast Training Centre is a training centre for the region,

not just the immediate area, and has regularly hosted provincial training

programs; and

WHEREAS closing the centre will affect the training of hundreds of young

people in Western Newfoundland and beyond who will have nowhere to train but St.

John's, reducing the number of elite athletes coming from outside the St. John's

area; and

WHEREAS closure of this facility will mean lost opportunities for young

people to obtain skilled coaching and for the public to enjoy regular sporting

events and activities;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to maintain funding to the West Coast

Training facility in Stephenville and work with user groups to develop a

sustainability plan.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time up now with this petition that has been

sent to our offices. This one contains 406 names. I have to notice the dichotomy

of names here, anywhere from the Port au Port Peninsula. There are also names

here from the City of St. John's, and from other centres, Stephenville, St.

George's, and Boswarlos. We know the impact of what this centre means to the

people of the Port au Port Peninsula.

I have to put it forth to the hon. members on the government side, Mr.

Speaker, and to the ministers as well dealing with this issue, dealing with the

closure, that this is a very small $200,000 item that comes out of something in

the order of a $7.8 billion Budget. This is very important to the people of the

Port au Port Peninsula and other people of the Province.

We are fortunate here in the City of St. John's that we have facilities, for

example, like the Aquarena. I can point to the Aquarena which of course has

fallen under the auspices of Memorial University over the years. We are

fortunate that we have another governmental organization that some of our

facilities can fall under when it comes to jurisdictions. We have other groups

that can bounce forward and preserve the integrity of some of these other

institutions that are, for example, within our own city.

This one here is no less important to the people of Stephenville and the Port

au Port Peninsula. This is a cornerstone, this is a building block. It is an

essential meeting place for some of the young people of our Province. It is also

an area where people can go and they can get exercise if they want to at a

relatively cheap cost. I see no reason why government cannot come forth, for

example, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to jump in here with

a little bit of funding to keep this centre open, Mr. Speaker.

I present this petition to the House for the benefit of the residents of the

Port au Port Peninsula.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have not been provided with

detailed evidence providing justification for government's decision to remove

Adult Basic Education from the College of the North Atlantic; and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that

government's decision to remove Adult Basic Education from the College of the

North Atlantic will lead to a decline in already low provincial literacy rates;

and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that

government's decision will limit access to ABE services in remote regions; and

WHEREAS residents of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned that

government's decision will result in a decline in the availability of supports

to assist ABE learners; and

WHEREAS government's research shows that educational attainment is the most

important determinant of earnings and sustained attachment to the labour market.

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

House of Assembly to urge government to provide the full details of the

enrolment, graduation, and funding analyses that were carried out to justify the

decision to cut the Adult Basic Education program at College of the North

Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more to be said about this, as we are moving out

of the Budget Debate. Although, I have spoken for all of the time that I am

permitted to speak, there is certainly a lot more to say about Adult Basic

Education.

I just received an e-mail from somebody while I was sitting here during

Question Period, an instructor at the Burin campus who talked again to me about

the moving targets of funding associated with Adult Basic Education. The

argument government makes and the sort of continuous train of different figures

that get trotted out to justify the decision.

It is interesting, on the weekend I met a person who works at the Placentia

campus of the College of the North Atlantic and that person carpools with three

ABE instructors. That will tell you the sort of unintended consequences of

making decisions such as this.

Somebody else got in touch with me at the end of last week and said that

people in coastal communities in Labrador have had the advantage of staying in

the College of the North Atlantic residence in Happy Valley Goose Bay because

the ABE program is offered at the public college that has a residence. What is

going to happen to those students who have had the advantage of staying in

residence at the North Atlantic?

What is going to happen to those people now when this is all privatized, and

who knows who will be offering these programs? I somehow doubt they will not be

hotels or motels that have accommodations that they can provide. So those are

some more of the issues, and we will hear more about that as we go on.

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 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 of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS students of the Adult Basic Education program at the College of the

North Atlantic do not wish to attend privatized educational facilities; and

WHEREAS College of the North Atlantic has the most accredited Adult Basic

Education program in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS students are concerned as to the availability of private institutions

and whether or not they can accommodate additional students;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reverse this damaging decision to

students and reinstate the Adult Basic Education programming at the College of

the North Atlantic.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that is getting significant play in this

House of Assembly and being entered by a number of members. It is certainly not

the first one or the last one I will enter until government reconsiders this

decision.

Now, it is interesting. I actually received an e-mail from an individual

today who has a number of questions as to the criteria that government used to

come up with this decision. I am not sure if this person will get any answers,

so I figure I will put it at least here in the House. I will ask some questions

and see.

One of them talks about the circumstances in which students are entering and

leaving ABE. The government is putting out certain numbers and we have put out

reasons why maybe the numbers are not exactly accurate. The question is: Are

these students factored into government's figures? Are they any less of a

success? These are the people who come in and start ABE, maybe not finish it,

but are moving on to other post-secondary and getting employment.

The next question was saying that the per-student cost is higher at the

College of the North Atlantic. Again, we would like to know how this figure was

calculated. We have heard a number of figures from people all over the place and

we still have not figured out how it was calculated. So we would like to see

that and would like to see the working papers that were put together.

Mr. Speaker, I am waiting to see. We are into May month now and I am waiting

to see how this is going to transition into the next stage. I know our fees are

supposed to go out. We would like to see what is going to happen there. We have

significant concerns, the students have concerns, and certainly the people who

just received their layoff notices on Friday have concerns.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue again.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as per Order 32, Orders of the Day, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, we move to Orders of

the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that we now move to the

Orders of the Day.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Second Reading of a Bill,

An Act to Amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act, Bill 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labrador, who is the provincial minister responsible for offshore health and

safety, that Bill 1,

An Act to Amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act, be now read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1,

an act entitled, An

Act to Amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation

Newfoundland and Labrador Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland

And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act".

(Bill 1)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are here today to debate second reading of Bill 1, which is

an act to

amend one of the Atlantic Accord Acts. We all know what an important document

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, means to the people and to the

wealth of this Province.

I think it is important to also note, that the Atlantic Accord Agreement has

been implemented into law and regulations made and promulgated under that law by

the Legislature of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and also the

Parliament of Canada.

This is a pretty lengthy piece of legislation. In a nutshell, I can tell you

that the intent of the legislation is to place in the Atlantic Accord a modern,

comprehensive occupational health and safety regime based on modern principles

and policies of occupational health and safety regulation, to put it into the

Atlantic Accord, tailor it so it applies to the Newfoundland offshore area; and

with the authority to promulgate, in other words to proclaim and to make known,

regulations relating to occupational health and safety.

These amendments are very significant for those who work in our offshore oil

and gas industry. It is a culmination of over a decade of work by officials from

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the Canada-Newfoundland and

Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum

Board. The development of this legislation included input from industry and from

labour stakeholders.

Over the course of our discussions on this important piece of legislation, we

are going to cover all aspects of health and safety of workers in our offshore

oil industry. As I said earlier during Question Period, the health and the

safety of people who work in the offshore must be paramount in any economic

development that takes in this country, and in this Province. As we get into

this, I want to provide some background information first of all, as to how it

grew to become the single, greatest contributor to our provincial Gross Domestic

Product, the oil and gas industry.

People in this Province, Mr. Speaker, have been looking at the oil industry

or looking at our offshore industry since the seventeenth century. The marine

geology of Eastern Canada has been the focus of attention since that time when

seamen measured the water depth and collected bottom samples off the seafloor.

Exploration of the offshore for Newfoundland and Labrador began in the late

1950s. In the early 1960s there were early seismic studies, and oil companies

were quick to determine the area was a promising habitat for the accumulation of

oil and gas. The first federal offshore permits to explore for hydrocarbons were

issued on the Newfoundland Continental Shelf in 1964. The first wildcat offshore

well was spudded in 1966 by PanCanadian and by Imperial Oil.

Mr. Speaker, the oil industry has provided us with a lot of wealth. When we

started off people came to this Province for the fish. They went from there to

the woods and the newsprint, and the mining companies in Bell Island and then in

Labrador. Then the newsprint came about in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Corner Brook,

and in Stephenville. We have always been a Province that exports commodities

into the world market. As a result of that, we are at the whim of the global

economy.

Then the oil came, and the offshore oil came. We knew, and I think those who

were in office at the time certainly knew, that there was now an opportunity

with this new industry and with this new commodity to provide wealth for the

people of the Province. To enable us to do what other places in the world could

do for their citizens. To provide progressive social programs that we could not

afford here and the oil would give us a chance to do that. To provide

infrastructure, to build infrastructure, and to build things that are important,

like hospitals and long-term care facilities.

The oil has given us a chance to do that. It has given us the opportunity to

pay down our debt. It has given us the opportunity to lower our taxes so our

taxes are competitive. I have said many times in this House, we do not have to

have the lowest taxes in the country or the lowest taxes in the world, but we

want a competitive tax system where government takes its hand out of the pockets

of people and allows people to spend their income on things that are important

to them, rather than things that government tells them it should be spent on

through taxes.

Mr. Speaker, when the oil was discovered and we all know the benefits we

have. We have the Hibernia field out there, which I think when it was first

discovered they talked about 93 million barrels. Every few years new forecasts

are doing and they have been at it now for many years. There is more oil

estimated in that field than they thought was there when they first started.

We have the White Rose field and the Terra Nova field, and now the Hebron

field is about to go. This is tremendous benefits and tremendous employment to

the people of the Province. People are working onshore, of course, as well as

offshore. Offshore takes place in a very hazardous, a very difficult climate,

and a very difficult environment. We know about the tragedy of the Ocean Ranger

and we know about the tragedy of the Cougar helicopter crash. We have to,

therefore, ensure that the workers who work there, that their safety is, of

course, paramount.

Mr. Speaker, I could talk for the longest time about the benefits and the

wealth that oil has given this Province, but it might be good to remember that

when the oil was first discovered that we thought, and the people of

Newfoundland thought at the time, that since we had brought that in to Canada,

that we had brought these resources into Canada, Newfoundland being in 1949 an

independent country, that those resources would still belong to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. As was the case of oil and gas that existed out in

Western Canada and was providing benefit to particular provinces, such as

Alberta.

What happened at the time was that the federal government of the day

disagreed with that. Their position was that the ownership of those resources

was not in the hands of the people of Newfoundland, but, in fact, should be

owned by all Canadians. That led to many battles and that led to many political

campaigns in trying to get a change in that point of view.

Mr. Speaker, tremendous political battles were taken on by Premier Peckford

and the people in his government: Premier Peckford, his Energy Minister who was

William Marshall at the time, and the political staff that they had with them,

the civil servants of Newfoundland who ultimately negotiated the Atlantic

Accord. I think people like Cyril Abery and people like Ron Penney, and many

others who worked there and fought for Newfoundland and Labrador. It even went

to court. It even went to the Supreme Court of Appeal in Newfoundland and

Labrador and we lost. We lost in our own Court of Appeal. We lost the battle

over whether those resources were owned by the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Unfortunately, the court did not agree because we did not have the

Atlantic Accord.

signed the Atlantic Accord with the federal government February 11, 1985, but

the road to the Atlantic Accord, as I said, was not a smooth one. The Accord

ended decades of negotiations that had gone on between the two governments on

the issues of ownership and management of the area offshore Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Successive federal governments had fought the Province of the issue of

ownership for resources that we had brought into Confederation. In March, 1984

the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that offshore subsea resources belonged to the

federal government.

In June 1984, Brian Mulroney wrote to Premier Peckford stating that his

government would recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the

principal beneficiaries of the wealth of the oil and gas off its shore. It was

this letter that formed the basis of the Atlantic Accord.

The Atlantic Accord laid the groundwork for joint management of our offshore

and it gave the Province the authority to charge royalties to companies as if

they were existing on land. Without the Accord, this Province would not likely

have benefitted to the degree it has from the development to the resources.

Credit is fully due to Prime Minister Mulroney; credit is due to the man who

was his Minister of Justice and Attorney General at the time, John Crosbie;

credit is due to Pat Carney, who was the Federal Minister of Energy in that they

recognized and I think the words of Brian Mulroney probably say it best when

he said that he is not afraid to inflict prosperity on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed it did.

I know members opposite like to say that the wealth we have is from the oil

which came about from deals that they had negotiated. Sometimes I feel that one

day they are going to say that they even would go out in rowboats at night under

the cover of darkness and pumped the oil into the ground. The reality is that

without this Atlantic Accord agreement, and without the people who negotiated

that, out of fairness to the people of this Province, we would not be

experiencing the wealth that we have experienced over the last of ten years.

It is appropriate to look at what are the main provisions in the Atlantic

Accord, because that is the foundation of what we are talking about here today.

The Atlantic Accord, when you look at clause 1, "The Accord will be implemented,

to the extent possible, through mutual and parallel legislation to be introduced

by both governments into the Parliament of Canada and in the Legislature of

Newfoundland and Labrador." That means you have the principle of joint

management. The management of the offshore is going to be shared jointly, joint

management of the offshore through parallel legislation.

Clause 2 of the Accord sets out its purpose. There are a number of purposes,

and I will just highlight a few. In clause (

d) the purpose of the Accord is "to

recognize the equality of both governments in the management of the resource".

In other words, this Province does not manage the resource alone, neither does

the federal government. We manage the resource jointly and with equality.

In clause (

g) it says for the sake of "a stable and permanent arrangement for

the management of the offshore by enacting the relevant provisions of this

Accord in legislation in the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of

Newfoundland and Labrador by providing that the Accord may only be amended by

the mutual consent of both" parties. The consent to the amendment of the

legislation is required by both parties. Neither party can operate on its own.

If we want to do something and the federal government does not want to do

something, it is not going to happen because the consent of both parties is

required. Yet, some people do not seem to understand that.

In clause (h), "to promote within the system of joint management consistency

with the management regimes established for other offshore areas in Canada." In

talking about joint management, how do you accomplish that? How do two

governments jointly manage the offshore?

They do it through an agency called the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Offshore Petroleum Board. It has a board of seven members, three of whom are

appointed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and three of whom are

appointed by both governments; there has to be agreement. If one does not agree,

that person is not going to be appointed. The appointments have to be joint

appointments.

Mr. Speaker, I will also look at clause 60 of the Accord. Clause 60 says,

"Except by mutual consent, neither government will introduce amendments to the

legislation or regulations implementing the Accord." Except by mutual consent,

so both sides have to agree or nothing is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB which regulates the offshore for the Government of

sections. It is responsible, for example, for land tenure. It is responsible for

safety. It is responsible for environmental protection. It is responsible for

resource management.

The Department of Natural Resources of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador is responsible for promotion and development of the industry, but it is

the C-NLOPB which will regulate the oil and gas industry offshore of

Newfoundland and Labrador and has four key mandates: offshore safety,

environmental protection, resources management and conservation, and the last

one is industrial benefits.

I said safety, and that is why we are here today. The impact of the petroleum

industry is substantial and it would not have been possible if it was not for

the tireless efforts of our offshore workers. We need to ensure that those who

have helped to grow our Province are protected when they work offshore. There

has been a long history to get us here today, a very long history.

The C-NLOPB was established in 1986 and has the responsibility to ensure that

all offshore work, activities, and decisions under its regulatory mandate are

carried out in a manner that is paramount to the health and safety of the

workers. The Accord Acts are both federal and provincial legislation, which were

necessary to implement in both federal and provincial law the Atlantic Accord

agreement in the Parliament of Canada and in this very Legislature.

The C-NLOPB was thus established as the primary regulator responsible for the

management of petroleum resources in the Newfoundland offshore area. The

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador retained responsibility for industry

promotion, the royalty regime, and other provincial-type revenues.

Under the Accord Act the C-NLOPB issued work authorizations, prior to

commencing operations, regarding any work activity that relates to exploration

or relates to drilling, or relates to production, conservation, processing, and

transportation. There has to be a work authorization, and the C-NLOPB may

suspend or may revoke an authorization after it has been first issued.

The authorization of the work or activity is flexible, and the board has the

ability to amend or require additional conditions related to the work or

activity. This particular power provides the board with a mechanism to ensure

additional health and safety measures are taken if required. The Accord Act sets

out provisions which ensure that the board safety officers and the Chief Safety

Officer are fully empowered to make safety-based decisions.

The safety officers ensure compliance with health and safety requirements.

They have the power to order a company to cease operations, if, in their

opinion, the operations being conducted are likely to result in a serious safety

hazard for workers. This authority is very similar to the authority that

provincial onshore safety officers have with respect to requiring the suspension

of work where there is an immediate safety or health concern.

The Accord Acts make safety a paramount consideration. For example, where

there are reasonable grounds to believe an operation, in relation to either

exploration or drilling, or production, or conservation, or processing, or

transportation of petroleum is likely to result in bodily injury, then the Chief

Safety Officer is empowered to order that the operation cease. An order by a

safety officer or the Chief Safety Officer prevails over an order made by a

conservation officer or the Chief Conservation Officer to the extent that there

is any inconsistency between the orders.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on February 15, 1982, the Ocean Ranger capsized on the

Grand Banks. Eighty-four people were on board, and there were no survivors. I

think everyone here remembers where they were when that tragic event happened.

Mr. Speaker, there were few families in this Province who were not touched by

that tragedy. A Royal Commission was set up on March 17, 1982, and it was

chaired by Chief Commissioner T. Alex Hickman, then the Chief Justice of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's report recommended ways to improve safety in

the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore industry. The Ocean Ranger commission

undertook a detailed analysis of offshore safety issues by commissioning

studies, meetings with the professional experts in the field of safety from

academia and industry. They held public hearings. They visited offshore rigs,

training facilities, and emergency facilities, and they participated in safety

meetings with people who worked on the rigs.

The Ocean Ranger commission concluded, "the single window approach would

appear to be the best institutional arrangement for regulating offshore oil

operations", as long as appropriate steps, such as "the establishment of a

Safety Branch within the single regulatory agency" were taken. I think that is

very interesting to note, because we subsequently had another report after the

Cougar helicopter crash, the Wells commission, the Wells inquiry, and he has

recommended something different.

He has recommended that there be a solely independent safety regulator

separate and independent from the C-NLOPB. It was interesting that the Hickman

inquiry, the Ocean Ranger commission, concluded that a single window approach

would be the best arrangement for regulating offshore oil operations, but they

did recommend that there would be the establishment of a safety branch within

the C-NLOPB.

The commission noted, and I am talking about the Hickman commission, that

with a single regulatory agency, "competing jurisdictions, administrative

overlaps and lack of co-ordinated, consistent policy are diminished." The

C-NLOPB follows this particular model, as recommended then. This was

recommendation 86 of the 133 recommendations of Chief Justice Hickman, and the

recommendation, "That Canada maintain the approach of a single regulatory

agency, in concept and in practice"

Following the recommendations of the Hickman commission in 1985, Rowland

Harrison, who was a prominent lawyer and a former Director General of the

Hickman commission and to review other safety aspects in the offshore

environment. His task force recommended a number of changes to the Accord

legislation related again to safety that led to the amendments of 1992.

I will just briefly quote from the Harrison Task Force. The Harrison Task

Force was not only concerned with duplication and with regulatory overlaps. The

task force report also noted that, "In addition to overlaps and duplication

among multiple authorities, a division of jurisdiction also raises a serious

risk of gaps in the regulatory system."

I think this is very important for us to note. "These may appear as gaps in

the conferral of the jurisdictions of the respective authorities. They may also

appear as a consequence of confusion about the extent of the jurisdiction

conferred or even about the exercise of a conferred jurisdiction. For example,

each of two regulatory authorities may believe that a particular matter is

within the jurisdiction of the other or is being regulated by the other

whereas

in fact neither is regulating, notwithstanding a clear need. Such gaps may be

outright dangerous."

So at that point the recommendations were that there would be a single

regulator. There were concerns that if regulatory authority was dispersed over

more than one agency, there was a possibility, not only of overlaps of

duplication, but a dangerous potential for gaps in the system.

The Accord amendments in 1992 related to the Ocean Ranger commission and the

Harrison Task Force and they had the unintended consequence of separating the

concepts of occupational health and operational safety. As a result, the current

wording of the Accord Acts has frustrated attempts by the Province and by the

federal government to promulgate regulations dealing with it, or which would

result in a comprehensive occupational health and safety regime for the

offshore.

The Accord Acts only grant regulation powers with respect to safety. Safety

in this context refers to operational safety,

whereas the concept of

occupational health and safety refers particularly and specifically to worker

health and safety. There is no regulation making powers respecting occupational

health.

The concepts of occupational health and safety are two closely intertwined to

be separated in this matter. It is difficult to determine which aspects of

provincial occupational health and safety relate to health, as opposed to

relating to safety. It is equally difficult to draft regulations under the

Accord Acts that relate solely to safety as opposed to health.

This separation issue was discovered when officials attempted to promulgate

petroleum occupational safety and health regulations in the 1990s under the

Accord Acts, but were unable to do so due to the lack of the regulation powers

related to occupational health. This prompted the governments to embark on a

process that amazingly took fourteen years to not only provide the appropriate

regulation making authority, but also to amend the Accord Implementation Acts to

ensure for a more modern, comprehensive, legislative occupational health and

safety regime for the offshore area.

In the meantime, there has been regulation. There has been a patchwork quilt

of different things that have been put together in order to provide the

protection for health and safety. The board has used contractual terms and

conditions of the work authorization as a means to ensure an enforceable and

comprehensive OHS scheme.

This includes the 1989 draft OHS regulations, namely the Petroleum

Occupational Health and Safety Regulations Newfoundland, and also provisions

of the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act, specially the right to

refuse unsafe work and the requirement for the operator to establish joint

occupational health and safety committees.

An MOU was developed of different governments and the board to give the

safety officers of the board authority to administer provisions and to

facilitate co-operation between the board and the relevant provincial

departments. The framework of the existing Accord has provisions for operational

safety, but does not have the modern, comprehensive, legislative occupational

health and safety regime. Therefore, we are having these new amendments which

are doing second reading on today.

As I said, the need for these amendments does not suggest that the worker has

been at risk. The protection and safety of our offshore workers has always been

will never be compromised for the sake of development. Safety of our workers in

the offshore oil and gas industry must always be paramount.

Ultimately, the proposed amendments to the provincial Accord Act will create

a single, comprehensive occupational health and safety legislative regime

tailored for the Province's offshore oil and gas, with the authority to

promulgate regulations under the Accord Act in each jurisdiction.

There have been many consultations before we arrived at this point. There has

of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Nova Scotia by both

boards, both in Newfoundland and Labrador and also in Nova Scotia. Stakeholder

information sessions were held with representatives of the industry and with

organized labour, with participation sought from industry suppliers and service

providers in 2002. In addition to that round of consultation in 2002, there was

additional consultations held in Halifax and St. John's in April 2010 with

industry and with organized labour.

Supply and service providers were provided with opportunity to provide their

written comments on the discussion document, and government officials met with

the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour and the Canadian Association

of Petroleum Producers in May of 2010. Nine information sessions were held with

joint OHS committees for offshore operators. Government officials considered the

comments and, where appropriate, changes were made to the proposed legislation.

A notable change was made regarding the right to refuse language at the

request of organized labour. The right to refuse language was previously based

on Nova Scotia's and the federal government's OHS regime and incorporated the

concept of inherent nature of the work or normal conditions of employment as

tests for which no right to refuse existed. As a result of the consultations,

this language has since been changed to reflect Newfoundland and Labrador's

right to refuse unsafe work language.

The process of legal drafting and working with multiple parties on the

necessary amendments, as well as incorporating the principles of a comprehensive

occupational health and safety regime for the offshore has been complex and it

has been resource intensive. This comprehensive regime will provide for a level

of protection for offshore workers that is equivalent to that that is available

to workers onshore but enshrines into the Accord legislation, this legislation

tailored for the offshore area.

The proposed amendments, Mr. Speaker, will seek to implement an offshore

occupational health and safety regime under

part 3.1 of the Canada-Newfoundland

and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and Labrador Act, and

that is the act which implemented the Atlantic Accord into this Legislature.

That is good, as a provincial onshore regime, with respect to the employees'

rights to health and safety information, with respect to employees' rights to

joint participation in occupational health and safety committees, the right to

refuse unsafe work, the right to raise health and safety concerns, and the right

to protection from reprisals. As well, a culture that recognizes individual and

shared responsibilities with regard to health and the safety of persons.

My colleague, the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, who is the

Minister Responsible for occupational health and safety legislation in this

Province will provide more detailed information on the amendments, so I am going

to try (inaudible) only on some of the key amendments.

The comprehensive legislation regime will provide for a level of protection

for offshore workers equivalent to that which is in effect for onshore workers,

but enshrining it in the offshore legislation tailored to the offshore area. A

significant achievement of the proposed legislative amendments will be the

ability to strengthen occupational health and safety legislation for offshore

oil and gas industry in the Province. They are tailored to the offshore working

environment, and as I said, include the workers right of refusal, the workers

right to know, the workers right to refuse to participate, and a workers right

to raise issues with protection from reprisal, as well as a joint allocation of

responsibility among operators, among employers, workers, suppliers on matters

relating to health and safety.

The new occupational health and safety regime proposed by the amendments

clearly also applies to workers who are in transit to and from offshore

platforms or to and from or between platforms in the offshore. The federal

Minister of Transport will be now be required to sign off on regulations for the

application of occupational health and safety regime to workers who are in

transit. The operator will continue to be responsible for the passengers.

This will help resolve any jurisdictional uncertainty for all parties

involved in the offshore oil and gas industry, as well as to provide government

with the necessary mechanism to act on matters related to occupational health

and safety. These mechanisms will include the initiation of audits and

inquiries, and the creation of a provincial advisory council to speak on

occupational health and safety issues.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB has a responsibility to ensure that all offshore

work, activities, and decisions under its regulatory mandate are carried out in

a manner that is paramount to the health and safety of our workers. The safety

officers of the board have been granted the authority to administer and enforce

key provisions of the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act, including

the right to refuse unsafe work, and the formation of occupational health and

safety committees.

Mr. Speaker, the bill contains provisions that are related to the disclosure

of information. Both federal and provincial ministers are entitled to

information or documentation relating to occupational health and safety under

control of the board upon request. The offshore boards have discretionary powers

and responsibilities to release health and safety information that is in the

public interest. The chief safety officer may also disclose information with

respect to occupational health and safety to government officials, agencies, and

foreign governments if it is in the interest of public health and safety.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is fully committed to openness

and transparency, especially when it comes to matters related to offshore health

and safety which are important to the people of the Province. Both provincial

and federal ministers are entitled to information or documentation related to

occupational health and safety under control of the boards upon request.

The bill also provides the board with the ability to disclose information

relating to

Part III.1 on a discretionary basis. This discretion, Mr. Speaker, I

know the Leader of the Opposition has or members of the media I should say

asked some questions about why the use of the word "shall" was not there. Why

wasn't the release of information, the disclosure of the information, mandatory

as opposed to discretionary?

The discretion is limited in a number of ways to protect prescribed

information. For example, the board cannot release personal information or

medical information relating to an identifiable individual without the

permission of that person. Further, the board cannot release information that

might involve trade secrets. The board must also evaluate in each case and

there could be a number of different types of requests that come in whether

the public interest in releasing the information outweighs any potential harm.

The board will have to take the time to give consideration to that. These

considerations will require that the board evaluate each case on a case by case

basis, or each release I should say on a case by case basis.

The complexities of this process do not lend themselves to a requirement to

release all the information. Rather, the board must evaluate in each instance

whether the public interest in releasing the information outweighs the harm. In

particular, the board must ensure that no information is released which would in

fact cause harm.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to discuss the Wells inquiry, which I mentioned

briefly previously. As everyone in this House is aware, on March 12, 2009,

Cougar Flight 491 crashed into the North Atlantic. Eighteen people were onboard,

and there was only one survivor. On April 8, 2009, the C-NLOPB established the

Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, led by Commissioner Robert Wells, formerly

of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the primary objective of the inquiry was to recommend

improvements to the safety regime in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area

to ensure that the risks of offshore helicopter transportation remain as low as

reasonably practical. The terms did not include an investigation into the cause

of the crash, as this was the responsibility of the Transportation Safety Board,

nor did they include an examination of the Department of National Defence search

and rescue capability.

Commissioner Wells as all members, I am sure, are interested to know

released his report on Phase I of the inquiry on November 17, 2010, and there

were twenty-nine recommendations in his report. They covered a range of issues

including risk management, helicopter operations, helicopter operator protocol,

personal accountability, protective equipment and training, risk management

procedures, safety cultural evaluations, safety education, guideline reviews,

and standards and regulations. The last recommendation, number twenty-nine, was

the recommendation of a standalone independent safety agency. To date, Mr.

Speaker, twenty-eight of the twenty-nine recommendations have been actioned.

On December 13, 2010, Premier Dunderdale confirmed her support, on behalf of

this government, for all twenty-nine recommendations, including Recommendation

29. The Premier noted that this recommendation requires changes to the Atlantic

Accord Act and the Province would immediately commence discussions with the

other party whose consent is required in order to do this, to make the change

and to amend the legislation. The proposed bill will provide a comprehensive

occupational health and safety regime.

I should say, Mr. Speaker, before I go on, that I, upon my appointment as

Minister of Natural Resources, did what my predecessors have done, which is to

write our federal counterpart in Ottawa and ask that they join with us in

agreeing to amend the legislation, to amend the Atlantic Accord to allow this

Recommendation 29 to go forward. The federal government has not indicated any

desire at this point to join with us in moving that recommendation forward.

There was another part to Recommendation 29 with respect to the safety division

and the C-NLOPB, the board, has moved with respect to where they have

jurisdiction, they have done so.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill will provide a comprehensive occupational

health and safety regime that incorporates the principles that are fundamental

to offshore health and safety legislation. The establishment of an independent

safety regulator will require considerable dialogue with the federal government,

and ultimately an amendment to the Accord Acts. While discussions have been

ongoing with the federal government on the implementation of Recommendation 29,

the federal government have not indicated any interest in establishing this

separate safety agency.

When I first heard this, my first reaction was, why not? I did not understand

it, but when you read the recommendations of the Hickman inquiry and the

recommendations of the Harrison Task Force, there are arguments against an

independent safety agency; arguments which I read out earlier which recommend

that you have all authority in one regulatory board.

I have looked at what other countries have been doing. I know that the

Premier, and I know that my predecessor, the present Minister of Finance who was

formerly Minister of Natural Resources, they were in England, and they were in

Norway, and they met with the regulators there and talked to them. I understand

while there is nothing official, regulators who do have an independent safety

board and an independent civil air aviation authority are looking into the idea

of maybe bringing everything together in one place.

It is important that we continue the momentum for introducing this bill

without delay since the occupational health and safety legislative framework

would be a key aspect of the mandate of the offshore regulator. Regardless of

what the ultimate outcome of our discussions with the federal government on the

independent safety regulator, we are committed to an independent safety

regulator. We will continue to engage with the federal government. We will

continue to encourage them to join with us. We are having discussions with the

federal government on other areas which involve amendments or potential

amendments to the Atlantic Accord. We will continue these discussions going, but

we should not hold up this legislation while we wait for the outcome of those

discussions.

I note that this process with respect to occupational health and safety, as I

said, I think it started in 1999. That is fourteen years ago. I understand the

reason for the delay, there were changes in government. There were three

elections over that period. I indicated previously, I think at the news

conference, that there are officials in this government, and I am sure in the

federal government, who have spent their careers working on this particular

legislation. They have worked very hard and they are to be commended.

This process with respect to occupational health and safety was well underway

before the commencement of the Wells inquiry. It is important to note that

Commissioner Wells said in his Phase I report, and I am referring to pages 284

and 285 of his Phase I report. That he had been made aware by the Governments of

occupational health and safety legislation, of our intention to amend the

Atlantic Accords to pass legislation. He, in his words, indicated that this was

a welcome initiative and an important step forward. It is important that we

remember, that this legislation, in his words, in the commissioner's words

themselves: That this is a welcome initiative and an important step forward.

Mr. Speaker, since I have some time left, I am going to look at the

recommendation of the C-NLOPB's response to the recommendation for an

independent safety regulator. It is important to note that that was outside the

terms of reference of the Wells inquiry, but the commissioner obviously felt

that it was important to be made. He emphasized that recommendation in Phase II,

his second report, his Phase II report.

In Recommendation 29(b), the commissioner said that if 29(a), which was the

standalone independent safety regulator, was not implemented that consideration

be given to the creation of a separate and autonomous safety division within the

board. The board has acted on this recommendation by separating the safety and

the operations functions into two separate departments.

The Operations Department is headed by Mr. Howard Pike and the Safety

Department is headed by the new Chief Safety Officer, Colonel Dan Chicoyne.

Colonel Chicoyne was hired by the board and has taken on the responsibility of

Chief Safety Officer. He has extensive experience in safety and was the Chief

Accident Investigator for the Canadian Forces, as well as Director of Flight

Safety for the Canadian Forces. He is also a former fixed-wing and helicopter

pilot in the Canadian Armed Forces and held the rank as Colonel. So,

Recommendation (

b) has been followed by the C-NLOPB insofar as they have the

ability to do so.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we now proceed to incorporate the relevant

occupational health and safety components within a single framework under the

Atlantic Accord.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is

committed to ensuring the health and safety of the Province's offshore workers

and the protection of the environment. This bill, Bill 1, will strengthen our

Province's offshore oil and gas regime with a focus on occupational health and

safety by amending the Atlantic Accord and placing that under the C-NLOPB, with

the oversight of the C-NLOPB being provided by the federal Minister of Natural

Resources with the assistance of Transport Canada. The difference here is that

the oversight over the C-NLOPB from the Province's point of view has always been

within the purview of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Now what we are doing is we are taking that occupational health and safety

piece and that will now come within the purview of the Newfoundland Minister of

Service Newfoundland and Labrador who is the Newfoundland minister responsible

for occupational health and safety. That will ensure there is no conflict or no

appearance of conflict within our government.

The bill and the amendment will align our offshore health and safety regime

with that of Nova Scotia and will ensure that both areas will be consistent with

other federal petroleum occupational health and safety regimes. We have to

remember that the federal government is involved in offshore petroleum boards in

Nova Scotia, in Quebec, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence with Quebec, in the North,

as well as, I believe, British Columbia. I am not sure of that last point.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, Service Newfoundland and Labrador will be given

insight or oversight to administer the occupational health and safety regime. My

colleague, the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador, will now speak to

the proposed legislation in more detail.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today on Bill 1, and I

ask the support of all hon. members in this House on the passing of this very

important piece of legislation. I look forward to the participation of members

on both sides of the House in the debate on what is indeed, in the words of

Commissioner Wells, a very welcome initiative and an important step forward for

the protection of our offshore workers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly accept the invite from the Minister of Natural Resources and

appreciate the opportunity to stand in this House today to respond to Bill 1, An

Act to Amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation

Newfoundland and Labrador Act. So it is a privilege for me to stand here today

on this very initiative. As the minister said, when you deal with occupational

health and safety, it is important, indeed, that we should participate in the

debate so we make sure we can protect the safety of our offshore workers.

Mr. Speaker, we see this piece of legislation as a progressive piece of

legislation, something that actually enhances and makes it a safer place to work

when you consider the offshore environment we have off our Province. This piece

of legislation, as the minister clearly pointed out, has been in the works with

a negotiation between Nova Scotia and the federal government for a number of

years, almost fourteen years, in fact. That is a long time.

So it talks about how difficult it is when you think about trying to get

another province and the federal government at the table to successfully

negotiate a piece of legislation. As the minister said, we have seen many

governments that really have taken

part in this negotiation. I am sure many

individuals have sat at the negotiating table.

When you look at Bill 1 that has been read in today, we did have a briefing

session on May 2. I really want to thank the staff both at Service NL and at the

Department of Natural Resources for the job that they did. We had quite a number

of questions that were answered during that briefing session.

These are changes that we have seen to occupational health and safety that we

see now has been in a number of Blue Books, for instance, and election

campaigns. It has been around for a long time. As the minister said, when you

look at how we got here, the reason why we are here, is because the Accord Acts

were amended back in 1992. That is a long time when you think about it.

As a result of that, and this goes back to as the minister mentioned, the

Ocean Ranger commission and the Harrison Task Force. These amendments

inadvertently separated the concepts of occupational health and occupational

safety. The purpose there was to try to bring occupational health and

occupational safety under one piece of legislation and that could enhance the

legislative requirements that our workers work offshore.

Mr. Speaker, in doing so, it was required for the Province of Nova Scotia and

the Province as well to have mirror legislation in place. They have successfully

done that now and this is what got us to Bill 1. That is not to say there are

not some questions that we would have as Opposition members and people as we

look through the details in this act. It is a fairly extensive document, I would

say, Mr. Speaker. It is quite a lengthy piece of legislation.

We also know that now we have the C-NLOPB that will now report on OHS issues

not only to the Department of Natural Resources, but to the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador as well. The Minister of Natural Resources will

maintain the responsibility of all other issues around the Atlantic Accord.

As the minister mentioned as he spoke today, the Atlantic Accord and I have

mentioned this many times as I stood in this House of Assembly and talked about

how important that document was in 1985. It has actually laid the framework and

the foundation for much of the economic benefits that we enjoy today because of

the offshore development.

The Atlantic Accord itself is a piece of legislation or it is an agreement

that has brought significant benefits to the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Even today we enjoy the benefits. In 2005, we did see an amendment to

the Atlantic Accord and I will get into that a little bit later.

I want to touch on the C-NLOPB for a few minutes. This stands for the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. This is a board that

is appointed by two levels of government, the federal government and the

provincial government. Currently, we have two vacancies on that board as a

result of a senate appointment and as a result of a resignation by one of its

board members, Mr. Reg Bowers.

What do they do at C-NLOPB? I have, over the last number of months, spoken to

individuals who have worked there and some board members, too, Mr. Speaker. We

are trying to get a better sense because we have made statements publicly that

we would like to see the C-NLOPB become a little more technical so that the

appointees on that board will have a better understanding of the technical

aspects of our offshore developments.

We have been assured in recent meetings that there is quite a number of

staff. We have been told there are between eighty and ninety staff who currently

works at the C-NLOPB. What happens then, you have the appointees of this board

who then carry out the governance of C-NLOPB.

Their particular areas of concern would be that of safety, environmental

protection, resource management and industrial benefits, both for Canada and

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not just the benefit that we would see here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, but this board also oversees the benefits that we get

to Canada. From what we understand and we believe this to be, is that it really

does not put a priority on any of the areas that they provide oversight in, and

certainly safety has never been compromised. They do monitor offshore activity.

We have asked the question in this House, when you monitor offshore activity,

one would be the resource management and the industrial benefits: How did we get

ourselves into a situation in January where we kind of just missed 8 million

barrels of oil? If the monitoring is happening offshore, how would we miss this

amount of oil? We have asked that question in the House because it has

significant financial implications, for instance, to our Budget, and indeed

monitoring in general.

The response we were given is that as a result of the improvements at the

FPSO that were done in Marystown over the summer, that the flow rate, for

instance, on the FPSO which is operating offshore, indeed, what they were doing

was actually extracting more oil. As part of the resource management and the

industrial benefits, what they did is reported it earlier than they would have,

which would have been in June; therefore, we would have had the benefit of

having those extra 8 million barrels of oil.

So that is what happened there. It just gives us a sense and a flavour for

what happens with the monitoring offshore. They have been very clear to point

out to us that in no way do they compromise offshore safety for industrial

benefits.

What I did after that, I said, okay, let's go and take a look at the C-NLOPB

to see what is there, what information is available to us as the public, what

information is out there in the public realm as it relates to safety. If you go

in to their Web site, there is an area there that relates directly to safety.

As an example, they use what they call a Reportable Injury Frequency Rate. If

you look at their table it is identifi