November 19, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No.

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Just before we start, I want to remind members that the chirping you hear, we

are not being invaded by birds, but we have a malfunction with the alarm system.

So, you may hear that for the next little while, while the maintenance people

are going to fix it. That chirping, do not be alarmed, we do not have to leave

the building. So, just have a little bit of patience for about half an hour

while that is being fixed.

There have been a few changes since we left here in June, and I want to

welcome everybody back to the continuation of this session of the House of

Assembly. I want to use this as the first opportunity we have as a Legislature

to welcome our new Clerk, formally, sitting at the Table for the first time. Ms

Barnes, as you know, was appointed in the spring, and this is her first time

sitting at the Table and presiding over this session of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I have assured her that you will welcome her and will not be

very challenging during this pre-Christmas session.

We also want to be able to welcome to our Assembly two new Pages: Shelby

Marshall and Ryan Steeves, both Memorial University students who will be joining

us for the first time as our two new Pages. Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Marie Hogan and Caitlyn Baikie are returning from the last

session as well. You might recall them; they were here in the spring. Welcome

back to you two as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: They too are continuing their studies at Memorial

University.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we will have members' statements from: the Member for

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

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

District of The Straits White Bay North; the Member for the District of St.

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

The Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I would like to pay tribute to

History Professor Harry Paul who, along with four siblings, was raised in

Bonavista by mother, Olive Paul. He attended Memorial University in 1949,

receiving the first ever provincial Centenary Scholarship for the District of

Bonavista South. After completing his B.A. in History, Mr. Paul went to Columbia

University of New York to complete his Ph.D. in French History.

Harry spent the rest of his career teaching at the University of Florida.

Fluent in French, Mr. Paul regularly travelled to France, gathering research on

the history of science and religion to write a number of successful novels. He

is the renowned author for works such as Henri De Rothschild: Medicine and

Theater.

Harry's books are used through colleges worldwide as part of their academic

curriculum and are reviewed in a number of journals such as the France Review,

the British Society for Literature and Science, and the Chicago Journal.

Sadly, Mr. Paul passed away in October at the age of seventy-nine.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in honouring Mr. Paul for his

significant accomplishments and contributions to the academic world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this hon. House to recognize two outstanding community

leaders who I had the pleasure to present the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal

earlier this fall: Mr. Wilbur Sparkes of Bay Roberts and Mrs. Evelyn Adams of

Upper Island Cove.

Mr. Sparkes was the Mayor of the Town of Bay Roberts for twenty-four

consecutive years and served thirty years on various councils. He is a member of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Baseball Hall of Fame, the Baccalieu Trail Hall of

Fame, and has served on numerous organizations within the town. He is a retired

educator who spent the majority of his thirty-year career in administration.

Mrs. Adams, the deputy mayor, has served her community for twelve years on

council. When I inquired what else Evelyn was involved in, people said it was

easier to say what Evelyn was not. She is active with the town's recreation

committee, St. Peter's Church, and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Committee in

particular.

Both individuals have given their lives to the volunteer service of others

and the advancements of their communities within Newfoundland and Labrador. I

ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these two outstanding

individuals on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to salute a man who is a tireless advocate of better support for those

living with mental health illnesses, and who has been outspoken on the need to

include assistive supplies under our provincial pharmacare program.

Edward Sawdon takes every opportunity to educate the public about the

realities faced by people living with physical disabilities and mental illness.

He uses his own experiences to advocate for improvements to the provincial and

national health care systems.

Edward serves on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Mental Health

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Pottle Centre, as well as being

a member of several other related groups.

For his tireless advocacy work, Edward has received several Volunteer of the

Year awards.

He was most recently the winner of the 2012 Renaissance Great Comeback Award

for Atlantic Canada, ConvaTec Canada, which recognizes people who have made

significant achievements in their lives following ostomy surgery, have made a

meaningful contribution to the community or to others around them, and who have

contributed to eliminating prejudicial misconceptions relating to people with

ostomies.

I ask all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, to join me in congratulating Edward

Sawdon for receiving the Great Comeback Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Community Readiness

for People with Disabilities, an innovative organization that promotes inclusion

in my district.

Founded in 2010 by people who saw the need in our region for people with

disabilities to have the opportunity to meet, socialize, and simply have the

same opportunities and experiences as everyone else. The group started with

twelve clients; today, there are twenty-two regularly attending their sessions.

These sessions can be almost anything: from making a craft, to a cooking

session, to a field trip, or to an employment awareness day. It may be hard to

imagine the level of social isolation a person with a disability might have to

live with, in a district of small communities with no public transit, but I can

assure you that Community Readiness has made an incredible difference.

Just a few weeks ago, Community Readiness was honoured by the Coalition for

People with Disabilities with their Organization Inclusion Award. I was very

pleased to present them with their award on behalf of the coalition, and to

celebrate with the group and their clients after the presentation. I am even

more pleased that Community Readiness continues to thrive in my district.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a long-time volunteer

in my district who I was able to surprise with a Diamond Jubilee Medal in

September.

Ron Day has been volunteering with the Community Sector Council, formerly,

the Community Services Council, since 1997. He has been a one-man red tape

cutter ever since.

Ron is a social worker with a master's degree from Dalhousie University. He

spent his career working for the provincial government and through those decades

he developed an incredible knowledge about support programs and government

policies. On retirement, wanting to ensure the people who are eligible for

Income Support programs and services had access to complete information and

understood their entitlements, he brought his skills to the CSC to develop and

deliver the Public Access program.

Through his own selfish dedication Mr. Day has helped thousands of

individuals and families navigate through income and social support services. He

responds to more than 1,000 calls a year, and that is just about 15,000 calls

since he started volunteering.

I ask all hon. members to join me in thanking Ron Day for his almost fifteen

years of volunteer service with the Community Services Council and

congratulations on his Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of the House and the general public to keep

Anthony Maher in their thoughts and prayers as he recovers from an accident in

Montreal. Anthony is from Shea Heights and is studying law at McGill University

and has served as a Page in the House of Commons.

There is a fundraiser to help Anthony's family with their unexpected expenses

so they can focus on being with Anthony during the coming weeks and months.

Anyone interested can visit the VOCM Web site for more information.

What he needs now, and his family I spoke to his mother, Georgina they

are asking that people at home pray for Anthony. I am asking all members of the

House to keep him in their thoughts and prayers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, today I announced the provincial consultations

around bullying, harassment, and intimidation of students will begin later this

week, with our first focus group session to be held with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of School Councils.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House earlier this year and

committed to consulting with groups and individuals who have insight, expertise,

and front-line experience with issues around bullying before making any major

changes to policy or legislation. At that time, we were awaiting an independent

consultant's evaluation of our existing Safe and Caring Schools Policy. We had

also established a provincial committee to draft a definition of bullying, a

template for the Code of Conduct, and a Bullying Prevention and Intervention

Protocol which outlines a clear, consistent way in which bullying incidents are

documented I think you are going to try to get that word in, Mr. Speaker

investigated, and handled at the school level. We are now ready to bring those

documents to our focus groups, and to the public at large, for input and

feedback.

Mr. Speaker, one aspect of these consultations will involve focus group

sessions with target audiences such as the Federation of School Councils, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, school district personnel,

principals, teachers, school chairs, and parent representatives, as well as

intermediate and high school students, among others.

The second is designed to encourage input and feedback from any and all

interested groups or individuals. With an issue like this, with such widespread

implications, we are determined to hear from as many people as possible,

especially students and parents who are most affected by bullying behaviours.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are posting consultation materials on-line and

encouraging all interested groups, agencies, and individuals to offer their

commitment, comments, and suggestions. I can assure you all responses will be

considered in determining what changes will be made.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the investments that the provincial government has

made in supporting Safe and Caring Schools initiatives, professional development

for school personnel, and the many resources provided for teachers, students,

and parents to promote safe and caring environments in our schools, in our

homes, and in our society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, nearly seven years ago this government

introduced the Safe and Caring Schools Policy and almost a year ago they asked a

consultant to look at it. They waited six years to see how it was doing.

Mr. Speaker, if you planted a tree you would not wait six years to see how it

was doing; it is an absolute, unmitigated failure. The school administrator is

generally aware of the policy and understood its general intent, although not

all teachers have read the document. There was little reference to the

importance of the policy in relation to enabling safe and caring environments

for teachers and students. It was not seen as a foundation of basic schooling.

The SCS policy implementation and initiatives should be a core responsibility of

an identified staff person at each district level, not simply an add-on.

This is the government's own consultant. The consultant went on to say

districts do not have a specific Safe and Caring Schools action plan, although

one stated it has a draft action plan in progress six years later. It would seem

prudent the recommendation was for districts to have a defined Safe and

Caring Schools action plan outlining their key areas of focus and projected

activities for the year. This will allow district administrators and all other

staff to more easily see opportunities for a collaborative activity.

Mr. Speaker, the intention may be good, and the government has put $1.25

million for the last six years $7.5 million into this program for no

results. It is time that the government took this issue seriously instead of

making press releases and RFPs and announcements and feel-good statements,

everything from baby blankets onward. This is just not good enough. The minister

should look into this and actually do something instead of just talking.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am happy to hear that these consultations are finally going to get underway

after a fairly lengthy delay. I agree with the minister, consultations in this

regard are indeed very important. We all want to ensure that our children get

the best education possible in the safest possible environment. If we need to

change the Schools Act to do that, then let us do that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to highlight the

many ongoing positive developments in our Province's aquaculture industry.

Since 2006, aquaculture has grown in value from just over $52 million to $120

million in 2011. The industry is on course to again experience growth in 2012.

The tremendous success we have seen can be attributed to many things, but

primarily to the commitment of our people and the companies they work for.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Coast of Bays region for the

first time as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. What I experienced was

astounding: almost 100 per cent employment and communities that have been given

a new lease on life.

During my visit, I had the privilege of announcing $5 million for Gray Aqua

Group Limited. The funding will support the company in growing its farming

operation from 4,000 metric tonnes to 16,000 metric tonnes annually. This is

extremely positive news for the industry.

In addition, through the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development, our government provided a $125,000 term loan to Silk Stevens, an

aquaculture service company that will be establishing an office in Grand

Falls-Windsor.

Finally, we recently announced $1 million for an expansion to a biosecurity

wharf in Pool's Cove, where larger boats would dock to deliver the growing

amounts of feed that are required for the industry.

The impact of this industry is not only being felt on our South Coast and the

Coast of Bays region, but it is also expanding to other areas of our Province at

a rapid pace. This is directly associated with the industry's confidence, the

quality of fish it is producing, global demand for farmed salmon, and

undoubtedly our commitment as a government to foster growth and development.

Mr. Speaker, what we have learned over the years is that in order for this

industry to be sustainable, it needs to be fostered and managed properly. For

this reason, our government began to invest heavily and establish strong

policies and procedures right from the beginning. Today, we have five companies

that are doing very well. We have over 1,000 people who are working full time.

We have the most stringent and effective biosecurity protocols in place of any

jurisdiction in the world, all augmented by a world-class Centre for Aquaculture

Heath and Development which is run by the most qualified of staff.

This is a great success story for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and,

indeed, a success story for our government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy,

something I neglected to do with the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, three years ago the federal government commissioned Justice

Cohen to do a report on aquaculture in British Columbia. That report, after

three years, was issued last month 1,100 pages long and it says: Stop

open-net aquaculture in the ocean, before you destroy all of your fish.

Mr. Speaker, Norway has had to disinfect all of its rivers, kill everything

in its rivers, and reintroduce its wild salmon because of a parasite. Scotland

has lost most of its wild salmon. Closer to home and more recently, Loblaws has

committed to work with the World Wildlife Federation to sell only sustainably

growing seafood.

This is not open-net aquaculture. It is not sustainable. It is not

sustainable because it destroys the environment. It destroys the pristine waters

that we have around our Province. We are one of the last locations with the

largest amount of wild salmon in the world, yet this government will go to an

operator who, later this year, had to destroy nearly 500,000 salmon and now will

pay them to increase their production from 4,000 tons to 16,000 tons a 400 per

cent increase in output.

We are not going bravely into the future. We are going stupidly into the

past, subsidized by taxpayers' dollars.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

time this summer on the South Coast talking to people in the industry, and the

industry is certainly growing and improving the local economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: I caution the minister, though, to watch for growing

pains; it is a pity the biosecure wharf for Pool's Cove was not built earlier,

because biosecurity still plagues the industry.

It is time for the aquaculture plan to be reviewed. It was done in 2000. It

is twelve years later. We have seen a lot of growth in the industry since then.

I am also concerned that the department is not focusing on the wild capture

fishery.

Where is the infrastructure for this vital sustainable resource?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South, by leave.

Does the member have leave?

No leave.

Ministers' Statements.

The hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Normally the Speaker gets advance notice of ministers'

statements.

MS JOHNSON: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 16, I had the pleasure of launching a new

multimedia campaign called Foster a Future Foster a Child Today. This new

campaign has been developed to address the critical shortage of foster homes

throughout our Province.

The launch was attended by board members and foster parents with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association, which was so fitting

given the integral role they play in the lives of our most vulnerable children

and youth. I am delighted to say that we worked closely with the association to

develop this campaign as well as our continuum of care strategy that was

announced earlier this year. Republic of Doyle 's Allan Hawco, who is

featured in both our television and radio advertisements, also joined us for the

campaign launch.

Today, the Foster a Future Foster a Child Today campaign will roll out

across the Province through a variety of media outlets. This a truly outstanding

initiative that not only reinforces our government's commitment to safeguarding

children and youth, but also delivers an urgent message that will resonate with

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are well known for their generous and

caring qualities.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services strongly

believes this foster parent recruitment campaign will encourage Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians to open their homes and their hearts to children and youth who

need a safe and nurturing place to live for a week, a month, a year, or longer.

To date, there are 584 foster families serving our Province and we hope through

this campaign to attract many more.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that within one hour of our launch on

Friday, the department received five inquiries into becoming a foster parent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: In Budget 2012: People and Prosperity, the provincial

government introduced the new continuum of care strategy to enhance the care

options for children and youth in need of out-of-home placement. This strategy

will strengthen foster care by increasing funding for kinship arrangements and

foster homes, and enhancing supports and training for foster parents.

Improvements like the new four-level system will recognize the skills and

training of foster parents, and children and youth will be matched to a foster

home that best meets their needs.

I encourage all members of this hon. House to visit www.fosterafuture.ca and

view the campaign materials as well as information about becoming a foster

parent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

There are many times as an Opposition that it is our job to stand up and

question the government on how they are progressing. Many times we are not happy

with that, but this is one of the cases where I am very much in agreement with

the government's plan and what they are doing here. I commend what the

government is doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, we simply do not have enough

foster families in this Province. There is a problem and we need to meet that

demand. Anything we can do to increase that again, by hearing this good news

about five calls just in the first hour, this is a step in the right direction.

In my area of the Province on the West Coast, there is a demand. People are

forced to travel away from their residence to go to these foster homes. There is

simply not enough there. Again, I commend the government for this. I hope it

continues to move forward with this plan and we deliver the end goal, which are

more foster families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from the District of

Burgeo La Poile. I would like to say thanks to the minister and her

department, especially the public servants who carry out this important work;

also, a big thanks to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association

for continuing their important work.

Every child in Newfoundland and Labrador should be loved and cared for, and

treated with fairness. I am happy to see the department is continuing work in

that regard.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Question Period. Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the last few weeks, government has issued many public reports and

marketing materials that they have prepared on Muskrat Falls; however, one

report missing from the PR exercise was one from the Public Utilities Board.

National groups, such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Democracy Watch,

political science professors, critics and supporters are all calling for a

regulatory review of Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Why are you denying the people of our Province a

regulatory review that they are so desperately requesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as most people in this House would be aware, within the last two

weeks a number of reports have been released, specifically the Decision Gate 3

numbers as well as MHI's report, as other reports on important questions that

have been raised over the last two years to which answers have been provided,

not only by Nalcor but by the government, particularly the Department of Natural

Resources. Members of Opposition parties in particular have called for other

verification of the information that has been provided. Mr. Speaker, we were

happy to do that, not only for Opposition parties but for the people of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, the PUB had an opportunity to review the information around

Muskrat Falls. Over $2 million and nine months later, they were unable to

provide 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.

What the PUB did not have was a look at the complete package. We all know

that. That was Decision Gate 2 numbers, and they were not convinced on a number

of fronts.

Before the price tag on Muskrat Falls increased by $7.4 billion, there were

two reviews of the project that were not controlled by government. These were

the original but limited PUB review and the report of the Joint Review Panel.

Neither of these reviews endorsed the government's project, yet the Premier and

her caucus are pushing ahead without this regulatory oversight.

I ask the Premier: Why are you so afraid of an independent regulatory

oversight on this Muskrat Falls Project? What is it that this government is

trying to hide?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a project in the history of Newfoundland and

Labrador that has undergone the scrutiny that the development of Muskrat Falls

has undergone. We are not trying to keep any secrets, Mr. Speaker. We are

letting everybody know, far and wide, that this is a great project, great for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, great for Atlantic Canada, and great

for the country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we put the question to the PUB. Mr.

Speaker, their own expert was able to come back with a recommendation. The

Consumer Advocate was able to come back with a recommendation, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor's own oversight through Navigant was able to come back with a

recommendation. Dr. Wade Locke has given an endorsement to the project, Mr.

Speaker. The federal government has given an endorsement to the project. There

is nothing to hide here, much to celebrate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: So if there is nothing to hide, then we have one board in this

Province; why not give it to the Public Utilities Board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: In the absence of the (inaudible) oversight on Muskrat Falls,

the Opposition requested that government's so-called expert witnesses be

prepared to address the House, either through committees or through the House of

Assembly, and take questions from all MHAs as part of a special debate on

Muskrat Falls.

The Premier flat-out rejected this call, so I ask the Premier: Why won't you

let the authors of your reports that formed the basis of your justification for

the Muskrat Falls project present to this House or to a committee of this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Opposition to take a position and defend

their position, to support their positions with facts.

Mr. Speaker, the experts in Muskrat Falls are Nalcor. The people of this

Province, as well as the Opposition parties, have had full access to Nalcor for

over two years. Nalcor's expertise has been validated by MHI, by Ziff, by

Navigant, by Dr. Wade Locke, by our bond rating agencies, by the financiers, and

by the federal government, just to name a few, Mr. Speaker. It is now time for a

policy discussion, which is what you asked for over twenty times. We are here.

We are ready. We are able.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BALL: Well, Premier, we are here. We are ready. Bring on your

witnesses. Bring them in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Just this morning in the media, Professor Chris Dunn called

government's handling of Muskrat Falls an affront to democracy. He stated that

we have an undeveloped Legislature that is dominated by executive control.

I ask the Premier: Given the idea of calling witnesses on Muskrat Falls is

aimed at further developing our Legislature, is there any basis at all on which

you call witnesses to this House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this project has undergone more scrutiny than

any project in the history of this Province. The people opposite are the ones

who exempted the projects that they developed from any kind of a regulatory

review. At least we tried to get it to the PUB, Mr. Speaker; we tried to get the

PUB to review it.

The experts have spoken. Their views have been validated by experts across

this country and from other parts in the world, Mr. Speaker. It is now time for

a policy debate. It is time for members opposite to fish or cut bait. If you do

not agree with this project with all of the information you have at your

disposal, you stand and critique the project and have some expertise to back up

what you are saying. We are here, we are ready; we are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Like I said, Premier, just bring in the motion. Let us access

your experts that you have already had access to, at the cost of taxpayers in

this Province. Let us speak to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: Back in September, the Premier said that the loan guarantee was

just millimetres away. She also said all they were doing was just dotting the Is

and crossing the Ts.

So I ask the Premier: When are we going to hear about the loan guarantee that

we have been listening to and hearing about for over two years? When will it be

finalized, or is there another excuse today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what I have promised the people of this Province and what I have

reiterated time and time again in this House is that everything that should be

done, ought to be done, and be done in a proper fashion, will be done before we

take the sanction decision.

I know that you are all concerned about the loan guarantee, and that is a

good thing. Mr. Speaker, it will take whatever time it takes so that the

interests of the people of the Province are protected. We will have the loan

guarantee in hand, and you will be aware of the detail before we take a sanction

decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The new cost estimates for the Muskrat Falls project are not accurate, as the

Premier continues to only present some selected information. Even the

government's Dr. Wade Locke has said that if the project went over $8 billion

then it should be revisited.

So, I ask the Premier: Is not the new cost now closer to $9 billion, once you

have factored in the interest during construction and the increased costs of the

Maritime Link?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Decision Gate 3 numbers deal with the capital costs of the project; and

the capital costs of the project are indicated to be $5 billion for the Muskrat

Falls generating plant and the Labrador transmission; the Maritime Link is

currently at $1.2 billion.

In the briefing that was provided to the Opposition by Nalcor, Mr. Speaker,

they outlined the cost. They outlined, for example, how the transmission costs

had increased by $481 million. They outlined, Mr. Speaker, how the engineering

and project management had increased by $166 million.

What we have here is a situation where, at the estimate we now have, it is

plus or minus 10 per cent. Unlike the Decision Gate 2 process where there was a

very wide range, the figures are accurate. The interest during this construction

is a different issue altogether, Mr. Speaker. What Decision Gate 3 deals with

are the capital costs of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Decision Gate 3 numbers also deal with the loan guarantee which was not

part of Decision Gate 2 numbers. I do not know anywhere you can get free money,

so this $1 billion I think is an appropriate cost to be included in this.

Mr. Speaker, back in April government committed, in this year's Budget, $655

million to Nalcor for Muskrat Falls. At the time, the Premier repeatedly stated

that the money would not be spent unless the project was sanctioned.

I ask the Premier: The project has not been sanctioned, so has there been any

money spent by Nalcor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite is well aware of the monies that have been spent to date.

They are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that certain parts of the project have to

continue in order to get to a decision on sanction.

Mr. Speaker, for example in August of this year there was $13 million that

was spent. The major expenditure since then has been the building of the road.

Nalcor's justification, as outlined by Mr. Martin on numerous occasions, is that

you spend a certain amount of money at the Decision Gate 3 process. If you do

not do it now, Mr. Speaker, then it will cost an extra $250 million to the

ratepayers of this Province as a result of having to run Holyrood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just look for some clarification: Does that mean that there was money

taken from this year's Budget? Is that what is being spent now before sanction?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: As the Minister of Natural Resources indicated in terms of

the total cost, we are looking at $6.2 billion to the Province for this project.

That will be divided into debt and equity. Nalcor will take out the debt; there

will be a guarantee from the federal government. It is non-recourse debt. Nalcor

will not have to pay anything else; their other assets will not be put in

jeopardy.

The Province of Newfoundland does not have to come up with any of that debt

because they are not responsible for that debt. The Province will make an equity

contribution to the project. Part of that will come out of cash flow and part of

it will come out of our borrowing. So far, there has been $300 million equity

investment from cash put into Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All MHA offices right now are being inundated with calls about the Home

Heating Rebate. Residents are waiting on government to make the announcement.

Seniors on fixed incomes and lots of people who are on low incomes, in general,

are depending on this money. The program was originally announced over ten years

ago.

I ask the Premier: Why do you not have a fixed date for this rebate, and when

will it be announced for this year?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have a Home Heating Rebate Program, and

this government also eliminated the provincial portion of the HST from all

electricity and heating in the Province. That is a combination of $57 million

this year for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: The Home Heating Rebate Program is usually announced in the

October to December time period. There is nothing unusual about the timing of

the rebate this year, and we expect to make the announcement on the rebate

program in the very, very near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the 2003 election, while trying to gain the

confidence of voters, the PC Party Blue Book pledged to reduce the age of our

Province's school buses so that no buses over ten years old would be used. Just

four weeks ago, the minister admitted that over 300 buses more than ten years

old are in use, and he does not even know where they are being used.

After nine years, will the minister invest the funds to keep this promise, or

will he continue to force thousands of our children onto the highways in old

buses?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is bothersome to hear a statement like that,

that someone would suggest that we would put our students on highways in unsafe

buses. Mr. Speaker, we invest $48 million a year in busing. About five or six

years ago there were about 7,000 students less and we spent $34 million.

Mr. Speaker, our investment now is $48 million in busing. It is all about

being the safest bus system that we can provide for the students of this

Province. We have done so and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker, for the

safety of those students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, at the rate this government is closing schools,

they are going to need a lot more buses.

One glaring problem with school busing is the discrimination of funding

between board-owned buses versus privately-owned buses. Privately-owned bus

operators receive far less funding per bus than boards spend per bus.

Consequently, 48 per cent of private contractor buses are over ten years old.

Will the minister immediately commit funds to allow private school bus

operators to catch up with the board bus fleets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member knows it or not,

but we go through a tender process. I heard an individual speak this morning

about us putting small busing businesses out of business. Absolutely not, Mr.

Speaker, we put in a tender. It is a five-year tender with the option to go five

years beyond.

Myself and the former Minister of Service NL, I am sure the present Minister

of Service NL, met with the private contractors on numerous occasions trying to

find resolutions to some of the issues they had put forward. Mr. Speaker, we

will continue to do that. Again, we go back to providing the best service that

we can and we want to treat everybody fairly, Mr. Speaker, that being the

private contractors as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last year this government ran on the

election promise that they would pay family caregivers. On June 20, 2012, the

minister stated she would make an announcement on paying family caregivers very,

very soon. That was five months ago.

I ask the minister: How soon is very, very soon? When will your government

make good on this commitment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in all of the commitments that we make to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, we deliver, and we will deliver on this commitment as

well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a process, as I have outlined before,

where there is absolutely no template that we can follow. We have been working

diligently. We have been working forward, Mr. Speaker, and we will be making an

announcement. I will reiterate, it will be very soon, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: I am glad to hear, Mr. Speaker, that it is only very soon

now as opposed to very, very soon back in June.

Mr. Speaker, a Stephenville family is struggling to afford care for their

daughter whose condition is the only documented case in the world. While

government lags on paying family caregivers, the mother gets a full-time job

only to have government claw back 72 per cent of her income to pay for home

care. If she were to quit, government would pay the full cost.

I ask the minister: Why does this government stand behind policies that

discourage people from working?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it can cost upwards of $100,000 on times to provide care under

the Special Child Welfare Program. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very good

program for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and for the people who need

it, and we are very happy to provide this program to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what happens under the Special Child Welfare Program is a

comprehensive analysis of a client's ability to pay. Mr. Speaker, we look at

income and we look at the overall expenses. Mr. Speaker, we look at expenses

such as a household expense to cover off groceries, other household costs. We

will look at utility bills, Mr. Speaker, we look at phone bills, cellphone

bills, and any cost that a person might have already incurred. All of that is

considered, Mr. Speaker, in determining a

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the public outcry over the Premier's refusal to allow the PUB to

look at her Muskrat Falls deal is mounting, whether she wants to acknowledge it

or not. The Premier finally has the information that the PUB needed when she

prematurely asked them to make a decision on the project.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Premier: Will she do the right thing that

people are asking for and allow the PUB to review the new numbers for her

Muskrat Falls Project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Leader of the Third Party refers to her project and certainly the

Premier's vision, which is leading to this project. This project is for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and our children and our grandchildren, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition said there are gaps, tell us

about wind, tell us about natural gas, and explore all the alternatives. We have

explored them, Mr. Speaker, yet I have not heard in the last three weeks anyone

criticize the reports in terms of pointing out where we are wrong or where the

experts are wrong. All I have heard, Mr. Speaker, is, go back to the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, we saw a poll today which indicates that the majority of people

in this Province support Muskrat Falls. They do it for a very good reason, Mr.

Speaker, because they believe in the people of our Province and the people at

Nalcor to do this job and to do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I suggest that the minister listen to the people of the

Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: if the minister wants the project to be for the people of

the Province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the fiscally conservative Canadian

Taxpayers Federation is directly lobbying the Harper Conservatives to withhold a

loan guarantee for the Muskrat Falls Project until it gets a pass from the PUB.

The federation notes, taxpayers will carry the burden of this deal and they have

the right to an independent review.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is it about this project that she does

not want all the people, not just her chosen consultants, to see?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Jack Layton supports this project. Jack Harris supports

this project. Thomas Mulcair supports this project. We have really come far when

the Leader of the NDP is quoted to the right-wing Canadian taxpayers

association. My God, what is happening here?

project to lower our borrowing costs which will lower the rates that people will

pay for their electricity in this Province. It is just like putting cash in the

pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

guarantee to help protect us over the objections of Quebec.

Now, tell me a federal government, either Progressive Conservative, or

Liberal, or what have you, that has ever done that in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about the elusive loan

guarantee, which I suspect is going to be a long time coming, not millimetres

away as had been said by the Premier a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of well-respected experts inside and outside of

this Province, such as David Vardy, a former chair of the Public Utilities

Board, and Dr. Gordon Weil, have come forward demanding that the Premier respect

due process and allow the PUB scrutiny of the project.

Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the Premier: Will she remove all doubt from

people's minds because they have so much doubt about this project by

allowing a full and open review of Muskrat Falls?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

According to the poll today, for every person who strongly disapproves of the

project, four people strongly approve of the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Sixty-six per cent of the people of this Province approve,

Mr. Speaker, of 81 per cent of the people who answered.

When you look at what is going on, the St. John's Board of Trade has endorsed

the project. I am not going to talk about the federal NDP; my colleague just

pointed that out. The federal Liberals support the project, Mr. Speaker. We have

had the Research and Development Council, all of the unions, we have Mining

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we have the reports from our experts, but what

the Opposition wants their definition of an independent expert is one who says

no to the project. Mr. Speaker, this project has been reviewed time and time

again.

I bring it back to two basic questions: Do you accept we need the power,

because if you do, the answer is easy: Muskrat Falls is the option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotians will have the chance to have a good hard look at

the Muskrat Falls Project through their own Utility and Review Board. While Nova

Scotia has a full regulatory review to look at their portion of the project,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will not get a truly independent review of the

largest investment ever made in the Province's history.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: why won't she allow a fully open and

transparent process in this Province? She says that her government is open and

transparent. It is not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look at the

legislation governing the UARB, and essentially what it states is that they must

approve the Maritime Link if it is satisfied that the project represents the

least-cost alternative to ratepayers. Essentially what they are doing is they

are looking at rates, Mr. Speaker, so their review is: must approve.

Secondly, they are going to be dealing with, my understanding, Decision Gate

2 numbers, as Decision Gate 3 numbers are not currently available. What we are

going to see, Mr. Speaker, is a situation where they will come to a decision and

that they must give a decision, unlike our PUB. It is very unfortunate the

circumstances that surround what our PUB did. I am surprised it has not come out

more.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, do we need the power? Clearly MHI and the

provincial Load Forecast say we need the power. We need it now, Mr. Speaker, and

Muskrat Falls is the least-cost alternative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, some students with special education needs in

this Province have been wait-listed for up to a year before they finally receive

in-school assessments. Five years ago, the ISSP/Pathways Commission recommended

that the Department of Education establish provincial standards for timely

completion of these assessments. Unfortunately for parents and students, the

Minister of Education has failed to act on this.

What excuse does the minister have for failing to address the issue of

in-school assessments for students with special education needs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, about two weeks ago I met

with the School Counsellors' Association provincially that speaks on behalf of

psychologists and guidance counsellors in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, we have introduced a referral tracking system they are very

supportive of. There are some kinks that have to be worked out. We have also

gone to school boards to see if there are ways they can use resources across

different jurisdictions to speed up the wait-list time.

Mr. Speaker, we recognized there was work to be done. We have tackled it and,

Mr. Speaker, we expect to see positive results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the minister's public statements, it

is well established that early assessment is crucial for ensuring children get

the special education programs and services they need. Long wait-lists simply

make their problems worse.

Why is this minister pretending to have a handle on this issue when he

clearly does not understand the importance of early assessment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I spent all last spring trying to get some

message through to this member. Apparently it did not sink in then, but I am

going to hope over the next month and a half that I will get it sunk through.

Mr. Speaker, if he has followed our investments in early childhood $4.8

million over three years to put resources in the hands of parents so they can

work with their children. Mr. Speaker, I said to him: Research indicates that

those very early years from zero to three and the two years of age critical.

We have the public health assessment that goes on.

Mr. Speaker, our department are working with those agencies. We are

identifying, as early as we possibly can, where there are needs. Together, we

address them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic

and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU are resuming today in Brussels,

and the provinces are at the table too. In exchange for lowering shrimp tariffs,

the EU wants to remove restrictions on exporting raw fish and on foreign

ownership of fish plants and more access to our harbours to bring the raw fish

back to Europe for processing.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries: What is his department doing to ensure that

we do not lose control of our fishery in the CETA trade deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we view the trade agreement with the EU certainly as a great

advantage for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, especially related to

getting immediate access with no end use restrictions on our fish alliance to

the EU. We stated that publicly; it is certainly important to us.

There are a number of issues at the table and those discussions are ongoing

this week. As a Province, we are very clear. We will do what is in the best

interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of our communities, and all of the

regions of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not in the best interest,

moving the minimum processing in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of IBRD has released almost no information on to

the public and these trade negotiations are taking place behind closed doors.

After requesting twice in the last six months, I received a laundry list of

general topics, with little mention at all of the fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When are you planning to tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that their fishery is in danger of being sold out from

under them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the negotiations the hon.

member is involved with, but it is not the ones that I have been listening to

and getting updated on. I really cannot comment on his negotiations of what is

happening.

As I said before, we are very interested in a half a billion dollars in

consumers in the EU. Certainly, Canada is negotiating with the EU. My officials

have been engaged with the chief negotiator for Canada over the past

year-and-a-half, and continue to be. As I said, whatever comes out of this

agreement with the EU, it will be the best interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians for us to sign on for this Province to be a part of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports of Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I Give Notice That I Will Move That The House Resolve Itself Into A Committee

Of The Whole To Consider A Resolution Relating To The Advancing Or Guaranteeing

Of Certain Loans Made Under The Loans And Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 39)

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act To

Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act,

1999 And The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act. (Bill 40)

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 41)

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual

Reports. (Bill 42)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the Opposition parties, the four

motions introduced will be read the first time today as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. Minister of Health and Community Services are you going to be

introducing the bills under first reading?

MR. KING: Well, the four that were just read, Mr. Speaker, would be the

four that would also go into first reading today.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I would ask the minister, though, if she would

because she just served notice of her intent, and I would ask now if the

minister would, in fact, make such a motion and introduce the bills at first

reading.

MS SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move that that bill now be read the

first time.

MR. SPEAKER: All three bills in your name?

MS SULLIVAN: All three bills, yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So, with the consent of the House then, it has been moved

and seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and

MR. DAVIS: I will second it.

MS SULLIVAN: Seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. SPEAKER: So it has been moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 41)

She further has leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Health

Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 And The

Mental Health Care And Treatment Act. (Bill 40)

Also, leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province

Respecting Annual Reports, Bill 42, and that the said bills be now read a first

time.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act,

The Medical Care Insurance Act, 1999 and The Mental Health Care And Treatment

Act. (Bill 40)

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act. (Bill 41)

A bill,

An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual

Reports. (Bill 42)

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

the following bills, carried:

"An Act To Amend The Health Research Ethics Authority Act, The Medical Care

Insurance Act, 1999 and The Mental Health Care And Treatment Act". (Bill 40)

"An Act To Amend The Hearing Aid Practitioners Act". (Bill 41)

"An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Annual Reports".

(Bill 42)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave for the Premier to give

notice of her intention to introduce a private member's motion, and leave to

introduce such motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Premier have leave to serve notice of introducing a

bill and the leave to introduce such a motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier has leave.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I propose to introduce the following

private member's motion, seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl South.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House now supports the development of

Muskrat Falls Hydro Project.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will introduce the

following private member's motion, seconded by the Member for Baie Verte

Springdale.

WHEREAS the Arctic presents significant opportunities for future economic

growth and development, and Newfoundland and Labrador is well-positioned to play

a central role because of our Province's geographic location, industrial

infrastructure, knowledge and experience in operating in cold and harsh

environments, research and development capacity and facilities, and favourable

reputation; and

WHEREAS our government launched the cross-departmental Arctic Opportunities

Initiative in April of 2010 to identify opportunities, build knowledge and

capacity, promote awareness of our Province's strengths, and find ways the

government can help advance and support local successes in Arctic development;

and our Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development is also leading

a federal-provincial Arctic committee focused on promoting collaboration between

the provincial and federal governments to advance opportunities in the North;

and

WHEREAS in September and October of 2012, the Province conducted a series of

stakeholder engagement sessions in St. John's, Lewisporte, Corner Brook, St.

Anthony, Happy Valley-Goose Bay and Wabush, bringing together a broad base of

stakeholders from government, academia, communities, community organizations and

industry to discuss opportunities, challenges and the role the Province can play

in advancing and supporting work in the Arctic for companies and organizations

in the Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourages the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to continue through its Arctic Opportunities

Initiative to identify and advance opportunities for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to take the lead in Arctic development initiatives, specifically by

producing an Arctic "plan forward" that will promote Newfoundland and Labrador

as the ideal staging ground for Arctic-related activities, given our many

capabilities and competitive advantages, and work with local companies,

institutions and organizations to identify and prepare to capture Arctic

opportunities as they emerge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that the motion just read will be

debated this coming Private Members' Day, Wednesday, November 21.

MR. SPEAKER: This Wednesday coming we will be debating the Member for

Lake Melville

MR. KING: The Arctic opportunities, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further, to the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, respecting the whole debate on the Muskrat Falls

issue, I want to make a couple of comments to share some information for the

House. As we have all observed over the last number of weeks and months, and

again today, there has been a significant level of questioning about what is

happening in the Province with the project. As the minister and the Premier have

repeatedly said throughout the process, that information is available and

(inaudible), a report is presented. We continue to try and make information

available to the public.

Mr. Speaker, in light of government's continued concern to focus on a debate

in the House of Assembly, you have just heard a few moments ago the Premier's

intention to introduce a private member's resolution, which we will call later

in the session. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it known for the public here

today, that the government has at its access, approximately fourteen hours

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We are under Notices of Motion, does the House Leader have a new motion that

he is bringing forward, because I am not sure what is happening, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: As I understand, the Government House Leader is making

comment on the notice of motion provided by the hon. Premier. That is the

heading. We are under Notices of Motion. He has just served notice that the

motion to be debated this Wednesday will be the motion read into the record by

the Member for Lake Melville. I understand he is making comment now with respect

to the notice of motion made by the Premier. Is that correct?

MR. KING: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: So, if you would confine your comments to that particular

point, then

MR. KING: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker.

The notice of motion given by the Premier was respecting a provincial debate

in this Legislature on Muskrat Falls. I am making it known to members of the

Opposition and the public that the government is still interested in a full

debate, beyond the Private Members' Day.

Today, we are letting you know that we are going to devote the entire

allocation of Address in Reply time that government has left for members who

have not participated. Mr. Speaker, along with the private member's motion, that

will amount to some fourteen hours of continuous debate in this Legislature that

we are going to participate in.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize many of the issues raised by the Opposition. They

continue to have questions, so at this time I invite the Opposition to consider

committing their entire thirty minutes of Question Period per day for the

remainder of time until we get to the debate, which would give us another

five-and-a-half complete hours debate on Muskrat Falls, for a total of just shy

of twenty hours debate on Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just noted the comments made by the

Government House Leader, and I guess I am asking for the opportunity to respond

to the request which has now been placed on the floor of the House of Assembly.

I am looking for your direction to see in what format we do that.

MR. SPEAKER: As I am understanding the comment made by the Government

House Leader, there is not a motion on the floor; there is no request to the

House to make a decision. As I was listening to the member, he was making a

comment around the Private Member's Motion introduced by the Premier and how

that motion was going to be debated. There is no request on the floor to ask the

House for permission to do anything, as I am hearing his comments. Is that

correct, Government House Leader?

MR. KING: The only request, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you making a request?

MR. KING: No I am not, Mr. Speaker, other than to ask for the Opposition

to consider devoting Question Period time, but it is not a decision for the

House, it is a decision for the Opposition if they feel it is critical enough to

focus on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: If I could just before, though, because I think it is

important, the issue of Question Period is the prerogative of the Opposition

parties and the issue that they choose to debate and ask questions on is their

prerogative and their call.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarity, what I am understanding is that the Government House Leader

is proposing today that the Opposition forfeit all of our other issues in the

Province to use our time for Question Period on Muskrat Falls alone, to forfeit

the opportunity to address and speak to Address in Reply and use that time to

debate the Muskrat Falls project, as opposed to the Premier today doing what

allows her to do under the rules of the House: move a motion on the Order Paper

towards Muskrat Falls, which gives every member in this House the opportunity to

speak to that; Mr. Speaker, that is the fair and reasonable approach of the

government, to be able to respond and debate that particular motion.

I take great offence to the government today telling us that if we want to

talk to Muskrat Falls and debate it, we give up our Question Period to do so and

we give up our opportunity for Address in Reply. That is absolutely ridiculous,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just so that members understand what the Speaker heard in the comments, what

I was hearing and that is why I indicated that there was no request to the

House to make a decision the Government House Leader had indicated that it was

his intention that the government would use their time in Address in Reply to

speak to the issues with respect to the Muskrat Falls issue.

Second, I heard the comment that he was offering up in suggesting that the

Opposition might entertain using Question Period to pose questions.

It was not in the form of a motion. It was not in the form of a request to

the House that such

an act would take place. I am understanding that is the

statement made by the Government House Leader and I not seeing a motion before

the House, nor am I seeing any requests to the House to make a decision, nor am

I seeing a request to the Opposition parties to make a decision that the House

needs to address.

Have I captured the essence of your comments?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you have.

To be clear, it was not meant to be offensive. I make the following offer

that government is prepared to waive the fact that some members have spoken to

Address in Reply. I will let all of those members speak again if there is

consent of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The issue of

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I appreciate the spirit in which it would have been said, but it is not the

Government House Leader's, nor the House's, prerogative to actually change the

order of speaking for the Address in Reply. Each member gets an opportunity to

speak once. There is a time allocated as outlined in our Standing Orders and we

will continue to be guided by our Standing Orders with respect to how much time

is left to speak, who is left to speak, and how that will be managed.

The Leader of the Third Party was rising on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: I was, Mr. Speaker.

I still do not understand how what the Government House Leader has been

putting forward fits under the notice of motion. I really do not. I think he has

gone beyond what the notice of motion is about and what the intent of notice of

motion is. I cannot believe that he has done what he has done, which is to bring

the government's agenda in to try to further manipulate the discussion in this

House using the notice of motion as the way in which to do it, Mr. Speaker. I

cannot see how that is not out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further points to the point of order?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have one other point.

Not only do I take great offence to what is being suggested here today, but

obviously, this is a way for the government to try and say they met their

commitment on debating Muskrat Falls, which indeed is not the case at all.

I think it is important to note that even if you were to use Address in Reply

time, there are number of people in the House of Assembly who have already

spoken to Address in Reply. In the case of the Opposition, there are only three

members in our bench, one member in the NDP bench, who have not spoken.

This is a very unfair and unreasonable practice that is being proposed by the

government, Mr. Speaker. I would call on the Premier to do the right thing, and

that is to put a proper motion to the House of Assembly that allows all members

to stand and speak at their will.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I said a few moments ago we are quite prepared to

offer our support, if there is consent of the House, so that all speakers would

have an opportunity to speak to this debate. I said that five or six minutes

ago. There is no intent here for members not to be able to speak.

We are trying to find a way forward so the debate can take place. We have

indicated our willingness to participate through Address in Reply and the

Private Members' Day. If it is the will and there is interest in having a

discussion, we are prepared to look at how those other members can participate.

We are not trying to exclude people; we are trying to find a way forward to

facilitate a debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

order.

MS MICHAEL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader

is trying to have a negotiation here on the floor with regard to the debate that

we wanted to have. If that is what the Government House Leader wants to do, we

should be doing that. We should be calling a meeting and doing that and not

using notice of motion for the government to bring forward. It is manipulation

of this House.

I cannot believe what is going on here, Mr. Speaker. It is outrageous what is

going on.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comment to the point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. As I have summarized in the past, I understand

the Government House Leader has indicated in response to commenting on the

Premier's notice of motion of when that motion will be debated. There is no

further point of order to be debated in the House.

We move on to the next order of business, which is Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS education is a provincial responsibility; and

WHEREAS high school students are finding their sexual education is lacking in

areas such as inclusivity, depth and consistency across the Province; and

WHEREAS because of this, students are at a disadvantage in understanding and

utilizing knowledge in concepts that will help them in their daily lives;

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

urge the government to implement a mandatory educational program for high school

students that includes what is lacking in the sexual education program as of

today. A program that includes correct and unbiased information on a wide array

of useful and realistic subjects and issues that are relevant to high school

students and have to do with human sexuality.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, two Sundays ago I attended a Youth Leadership Conference at

Memorial University. It was attended by members from my party and members from

the Third Party. This is a Youth Leadership Conference that takes place annually

for young people to develop leadership skills, and they come from all over the

Province. It was noteworthy, Mr. Speaker, that nobody from the governing party

saw fit to attend this youth conference. In the course of the youth conference,

they provided petitions, had them properly drafted, circulated them among

themselves and their families, and asked that they be presented in the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we educate students in so many areas, yet in some areas that are

vitally important in their daily lives we do not bother to educate them. This is

a critically important area and high school students have properly and

professionally drafted a petition and have asked to have it presented here in

the House of Assembly. This House of Assembly will call on the government to

advance sex education at a high school level. They are to be commended at the

initiative they took; however, the importance of the issue is something all of

us deal with, whether we are parents, grandparents, or any family members.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition and I urge this House to act

forthwith on this petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

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

I rise today to present a petition from people who rallied in St. John's

yesterday, expressing concerns with regard to the process being followed around

Muskrat Falls. The petition speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities (PUB) is the entity

responsible for the regulation of electric utilities in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project proposal is potentially the single largest

expenditure the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has considered; and

WHEREAS the PUB is an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body capable of

providing an unbiased and apolitical decision on the Muskrat Falls proposal; and

WHEREAS the government is breaking its own commitment to greater transparency

and accountability by not allowing the PUB to review the Muskrat Falls proposal;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to mandate the Board of Commissioners of

the Public Utilities Board to review the Muskrat Falls Project proposal along

with any and all alternatives available for meeting our energy needs.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I have the sheets of signatures here, Mr. Speaker, to go with that petition.

This petition reflects, Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from people all over

the Province. The people who have signed this petition I believe reflect the

voice of many, many thousands of people in this Province with regard to the

process that is going on around the Muskrat Falls proposal. I think it is

important to point out it was obvious to me yesterday as I met, and met many

of the people who signed these petitions yesterday that people were not

gathering and saying yes or no to Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker. Many people are

still wondering, is it the best way to go?

Some who were even involved in the rally yesterday thought maybe it is, but

they are really upset about the process, and this is what the petition is about.

They do not understand why government is not using our formal regulatory body to

look at this project. It smacks of secrets, and it makes people question. That

is why they want an open process, so that everything is out on the table so that

people have a full understanding of all the details of the project. They cannot

understand a government in this day and age acting in the way that it is acting

actually closing down our own regulatory body to do the work that it is set to

do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The petition does speak for itself, and I am very

happy to pass it in.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the Immaculate Conception School 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 our schools are the heart of our communities and we should do all we

can to preserve them long into the future; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Immaculate Conception School in Colliers

as a K-4 school denies students fundamental rights, including the right to a

healthy, active, safe, and caring school environment;

WHEREAS government is compelled to give school reconfiguration decisions some

consideration, as was the case in 2005 when the PC government decided to ensure

the continuation of a K-12 system in Bishop's Falls; and

WHEREAS parents of Immaculate Conception School students have been lobbying

government for a school gymnasium facility since 1999;

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

ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to

maintain Immaculate Conception School as a K-6 school. We further petition the

House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that a new school is constructed

to replace the existing inadequate facilities at Immaculate Conception School.

Mr. Speaker, I will just say briefly that parents in a number of communities

around in schools that are governed by the Eastern School District are concerned

about proposed closures and reconfigurations within the district. I attended a

public meeting in Avondale a number of weeks ago, and I know the hon. Member for

Harbour Main, the Minister of Environment and Conservation was also there. There

were quite a number of people there. There were even PC Party luminaries such as

Marjorie there, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all know how concerned people are in Colliers and surrounding

communities. They are very concerned. We also know how optimistic residents in

the area are about the future of the Conception Bay, Central region. They have a

great future ahead of them and they hope that Immaculate Conception School will

have that as well.

Parents have serious concerns about sending their Grades 5 and 6 students to

Roncalli. They believe that a better solution is to construct a new school to

replace the facility at Immaculate Conception. I hope that the members opposite

will think about that and hear the concerns of these petitioners.

Thank you.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a petition of members from a small

community, Eddies Cove West:

WHEREAS with declining enrollment, distance education by Internet is now an

accepted way to deliver educational services to students living in small

communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families

reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their

children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than

the slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the community of Eddie's

Cove West; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this

community;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to partner with the private sector and

offer high-speed Internet service to this community.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the delivery of high-speed Internet or

broadband throughout the Province is that the government is simply asking for

proposals from different companies. They say bring us a proposal and then we

will price it and then high-speed Internet is being delivered to the various

communities. What they ought to be doing is going to the companies instead and

saying that we have these ten communities, twenty communities or five

communities and we need a proposal to cover all of them.

What is happening instead is that the companies are being permitted to cherry

pick and pick up the larger centres and bypass the smaller centres. The effect

to the smaller centres, they are absolutely panicked and justifiably so that

as time goes on it would be virtually impossible to go back and add them.

Whereas, instead of blundering forward, the government could have a better

strategy.

This government brags about the increase in the amount of broadband access

there is in the Province and, in fact, they have increased from 60 per cent

coverage to 85 per cent coverage over the last eight or nine years. That puts us

more or less at the Canadian average; however, the ones that are being left

behind are more and more difficult to serve.

Eddies Cove West is only twelve or fifteen kilometres from Port au Choix and

it could easily have been included in the overall package. By leaving these

small communities, it means that they will be unable to grow and to progress; it

is difficult for Distance Education, for the small businesses, and for the small

community offices. These are self-sufficient communities. They are not being

provided services.

Today, broadband or high-speed Internet should be the same as telephone

service or electricity. Government should make the proposal to the communities

rather than have the companies come to the government with the proposal. The

government needs to take the lead, show some direction, show that it has a

strategy, and ask to have it priced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the access to information and protection

of privacy amendment act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

weakened citizens' access to information and has reduced government

transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater

secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own

commitment for greater transparency, accountability and freedom of information

which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal

the passage of Bill 29.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again speaking about one of the most regressive

pieces of legislation ever passed in this House of Assembly. People across the

Province are still reeling from the betrayal that they feel as a result of this

legislation. This government promised to be the most accountable, transparent

and open, but their actions have been the opposite.

A month after passing this regressive bill many, many people of Newfoundland

and Labrador are still opposing it, as is our caucus here today. People continue

to ask us for our petition because they want their voices heard in this House,

and they feel their voice on this bill has not been heard.

Bill 29 has become synonymous for bad government decisions and an attack on

the very principles of democracy. This amounts to nothing short of a betrayal of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and of our democratic principles when we

need greater access to information more than ever.

I ask this government to repeal this legislation and honour its commitment to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in order to restore governance with

greater openness, transparency, and accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the need for cellular coverage is far reaching in the District of The

Straits White Bay North; and

WHEREAS there is limited cellphone coverage in the Route 430 from St. Anthony

Airport to St. Anthony and there is little to no cellphone coverage in

communities surrounding Route 432, Route 433, Route 434, Route 435, Route 436,

Route 437, and Route 438; and

WHEREAS residents of these communities require cellphone coverage to ensure

their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the residents of The Straits White Bay North district feel that the

Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also develop

incentives for further investments in cellular phone coverage for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

support the residents of The Straits White Bay North district in their request

to obtain adequate cellular phone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, today this petition is signed by residents of Savage Cove,

Eddies Cove East, Green Island Brook, Flower's Cove, St. Anthony, Pines Cove,

St. Carols, Great Brehat, Goose Cove, Raleigh a lot of signatures from Raleigh

and signatures from Port au Choix as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development has

developed a Rural Broadband Initiative, but as we move forward in a

knowledge-based economy we have not truly developed and adapted an advanced

telecommunications strategy which is all-encompassing and includes cellular. It

would also include how it would share government services around technology and

the technology base sector, how we educate, how we provide safety, whether it

would be developing the next generation of 911. These are significant gaps.

I have talked to mobility providers and I do believe we can have movement on

this so that we can have better coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador, in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, so that the people can get the service that they

deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

district, which says:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the crab being fished in Area 2J is currently landed and processed in

Area 2J; and

WHEREAS this ensures that processors and plant workers adjacent to the

resource benefit appropriately from the resource; and

WHEREAS any change to this practice will be detrimental to communities with

processing plants in communities adjacent to Area 2J;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to commit to maintaining this practice and

disallow any Area 2J crab to leave Area 2J to be landed or processed in other

parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that petition has come about simply because the provincial

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has decided to do a review of a

longstanding policy around the crab fishery in Labrador, which has been in place

since the early 1990s. Really, I guess, the awareness around it was created back

in the later 1990s, when there were additional crab processing licences given

out in Labrador.

At the time, the government decided that in order to protect this fishery for

the communities, and so that people would invest, they would ensure that all the

crab caught there would be processed there. As we know, the Province can dictate

where people land fish, they can dictate where it is processed; in this case,

they have. As a result of it, they have allowed these communities to build a

very stable fishery over the years when other areas of the Province have been in

complete turmoil in the same industry.

To take this policy now and change it would mean, Mr. Speaker, that it could

affect every single community that is in the fishery on the South Coast and the

North Coast of Labrador, very much so the South Coast, which is the area that I

represent.

As of today, the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company is a model for

future fisheries in this Province. It is a model for the world in terms of how

fishing enterprises should be run and how the rewards of a raw resource owned by

people can see dividends flowing to communities and enterprises. Well, that is

what this company has done over the years, and they have been able to do it,

because government has allowed them to have practices like the policy we see

around 2J crab.

This company, they use their operations in crab, and shrimp, and the

offshore, and the ground fish, to all supplement industries in communities, and

create jobs. I think that is the goal we all strive for in the industry, and

that is the goal that I would like to see kept in place, so I ask the government

to look at this policy and look at the wishes of what people are asking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 3, Bill 31, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill

31,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31,

An Act To Amend The

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill 31)

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege for me today to be here in my capacity as the Minister

Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat to move second reading of this

particular piece of legislation. I am very happy to do it, because what this

amendment is going to do is that it is going to protect union membership of

bargaining unit employees who are going to be transitioning into the new Human

Resources Secretariat, which is part of the Executive Council.

Honourable members, I know, will be aware from when we did the Estimates

during the Budget process, and they discovered that we had renamed what was

previously the Public Service Secretariat as the Human Resources Secretariat.

This came about because of a review that took place of the human resource

policies and strategies and programs that the government offers to our public

service. We noticed that the people providing human resource services were not

in one place. It was kind of disjointed; they were scattered around in different

departments, some in the Public Service Secretariat, some in the Department of

Finance, and in other places, the other one being Strategic Human Resource

Divisions directors; I think there were six of those as well. They felt the

services that were being provided were disjointed, the human resource services,

and that there was a lack of clear accountability. The recommendation was that

we correct or that we establish a new secretariat, a Human Resources Secretariat

within the Executive Council to integrate all human resource functions and to

focus all human resource functions into one place, and that would be in the new

secretariat.

We are talking about human resources. What do human resources mean? The term

of course human resources generally refers to a set of people or the group of

people who make up the workforce of any organization.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador provides services to the people

of this Province. The most important part of being able to provide those

services are the people who work for the government, who work for the core

public service and work for government agencies and commissions, what have you.

These are the people who provide the services to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

In addition to governing, of course, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador is an employer. The government hires people to provide very important

programs and very important services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Human resources is the management of the employment relationship. It is all

about the interactions that occur between the government as an employer and the

thousands of its very valued employees.

Human resource management professionals help to attract and retain the most

qualified and talented people to work in our public service, and I think all of

us have learned. Maybe some of us did not know this before we got here, but one

of the things we particularly learned is the number of very capable people, very

hard-working people that we do have working in the public service here. Maybe a

lot of people who are watching on TV today may not realize, but that is one

thing I learned very quickly, that we have a lot of highly talented and

extremely capable people. That is good in providing good progressive policies to

the people of the Province.

Human resource management professionals help us attract and retain the most

qualified and talented people to work in our public service. They plan for

changing workforce needs. They offer advice and support to managers and

employees on employment and performance related matters. They support

organizational and professional development, and generally try to ensure that

departments and agencies have the human resources, or have the people they need

to meet their goals and objectives. The creation of a new integrated Human

Resource Secretariat, at the time we are doing it, certainly fits nicely with

the new Human Resource Information Management system that we brought in.

Phase I of the new system is scheduled to roll out this fall. When fully

implemented, the new Human Resource Information Management system will combine

data and functions of several separate and antiquated HR payroll systems into

one modern integrated system. This system will benefit the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador as an employer, as well as Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador employees by providing them with a more direct and timely access to

human resource information pertaining to such things as payroll, leave,

benefits, pension counselling, group insurance, and what have you.

With a better integration of HR information through the Human Resource

Information Management system, this new computer system, and have HR services

throughout the new Secretariat, there are many exciting opportunities to provide

a level of HR service delivery that rivals any public sector employer or,

indeed, any private sector employer in the country. Indeed, this is the goal of

the Secretariat.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of a new Human Resource Secretariat, as I said

earlier, is going to integrate all human resource functions that are within the

core public service into this new Secretariat, which is within the Executive

Council. It is very important to note that the Secretariat is in the Executive

Council. What this is going to do is improve access to human resource services

for employees. It is going to provide consistency in human resource service

delivery. So, instead of it being offered by various different groups scattered

throughout government, we are now going to have one group offering consistent

messaging. We are going to improve processes as well.

Essentially, what that is about is making improvements to the provincial

government's internal human resource structure. It is improvements for both

government departments who provide the service and it is going to be

improvements for the employees who are recipients of human resource services.

What we are talking about here is not services we are providing to the public,

but services that government is providing to its employees so that they can

better serve the general public.

Our employees, Mr. Speaker, work hard every day to provide services to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the creation of this new Human Resource

Secretariat will provide the best possible human resource services to the people

who, in turn, serve the people of our great Province.

Mr. Speaker, employees of the former Public Service Secretariat have already

transitioned I think that was in March or April of this year into the new

Human Resource Secretariat and the new name, as members became aware of during

the Budget process, during the Estimates process, the new name Human Resource

Secretariat has been adopted. Other employees and other functions will be

transitioned over the coming months.

Once the transition is complete, the new Human Resource Secretariat will also

include, in addition to the Public Service Secretariat, the six strategic human

resource management divisions that formerly existed. They will now report to the

new Secretariat. Also, selected components of the Department of Finance will

also be transitioned. These are employees, although in the Department of

Finance, that manage what are human resource functions, such as: payroll

processing, time and attendance management, group insurance administration,

pensions counselling services to employees, and strategic staffing functions for

the public service whose employees will now report to the Human Resource

Secretariat's Assistant Deputy Minister for Compensation and Staffing.

Mr. Speaker, having provided some background and context, I would now like to

speak to the amendment that we have before us today in Bill 31. I think we have

to look at the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, the original act, and

we note that the Human Resource Secretariat like the former Public Service

Secretariat is, in fact, housed within the structure of Executive Council.

Section 2.(1)(i)(xi) states that an employee of the Executive Council are

exempt from being members of the bargaining unit. That means employees who work

in Executive Council and there are other divisions than Executive Council, as

members are aware, are not allowed to be members of the union.

Mr. Speaker, there are two exceptions to that: one is employees who work in

the establishment of the Lieutenant-Governor; and also there were certain

employees at the Office of the Chief Information Officer who transferred back in

2005. The various employees of government who working in Information Management

and computer management were transitioned into the new Office of the Chief

Information Officer, which was in Executive Council. They were grandfathered.

Their bargaining positions were protected.

What this amendment will do today will preserve union membership for

bargaining unit employees who are now going to be transferring to the new Human

Resource Secretariat, as long as they remain in the position they occupy upon

transition to the new HR entity. Once a current incumbent leaves a position, it

will become a non-bargaining unit unless another unionized employee who

transitioned to the Secretariat at the same time successfully secures that

position and the position has not, since the transition took place, been held by

a non-unionized employee.

In simple terms, the employees of the Executive Council and the Human

Resource Secretariat will be part of the Executive Council. They are not

permitted to be members of the union. These employees are being transferred into

this position, not because they asked to but because this is a government

internal reorganization. What we want to do is to protect their rights to remain

in the union as long as they occupy the position. So even if the first person

who transitioned, if that person retired and somebody else who transitioned at

the same time applied for and got that transition, the position would still be a

union position.

Again, once a current incumbent leaves the position, it will become a

non-bargaining unit position unless another unionized employee who transitioned

at the same time successfully secures the position and the position has not,

since transition, been held by a non-unionized employee. Mr. Speaker, government

entered into a memorandum of agreement, an MOU, with NAPE to ensure these

employees would be protected.

Now, it raises an interesting question, of course. I am sure the people

watching would be interested as to why members of Executive Council would

normally be excluded from this. Why would they not be allowed to be members of a

union?

As I said, the exception is the Lieutenant-Governor's residence. I do not

know why the employees of that residence are exempted. We know that when OCIO

employees moved in, they were exempted and they were protected so they could

remain in the union. We are going to do the same here with the employees coming

over into the new Human Resource Secretariat from other departments.

Employees of Executive Council are precluded from being members of the

bargaining unit, since the Executive Council is essentially the operating arm,

the operational arm, the administrative arm of government, which is involved in

labour relations, including collective bargaining. They are doing that on behalf

of the employer; in developing and enforcing policies, that affects the

employment relationship between the public service employees and their employer.

What we are trying to do here, the background reason, the main reason, of

course, is that by excluding bargaining unit positions from Executive Council,

it helps to prevent potential conflicts of interest. Most human resource and

labour relations positions are properly excluded from a bargaining unit because

of the nature of the duties that are assigned to those positions. This is the

case for other public sector employees across the country, and is also the case

in the private sector as well.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that these employees are being moved into Executive

Council, again, not because they applied, but because of an employer-initiated

restructuring, and they would, of course, have concerns about losing their union

rights, their membership, their seniority, et cetera. This amendment will

address some of those concerns. We believe this is a reasonable accommodation

for employees who are current union members to protect their bargaining unit

membership. We believe this is a reasonable balance between the employer's

interest on the one hand and the interests of our valued employees.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly looking forward to an opportunity to discuss

these short but important amendments to the Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act here in the House of Assembly. The passage of this bill will facilitate the

ongoing formation of the new Human Resource Secretariat and will benefit our

public service employees now and well into the future.

I know that hon. members were certainly interested in what I had to say about

the Human Resource Management System. I am sure that is something that we can

discuss during the debate, and I look forward to hon. members taking

part in

this debate and working with us to ensure that the union rights of our employees

are protected in this instance. So, I would urge passage of the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After review of the amendment to Bill 31, when you take a quick look at it,

there really does not seem to be a whole lot in this amendment, but the fact

that the members that currently would be exempt from the bargaining unit, and

now with this transfer from the they would now maintain their position within

the bargaining unit.

The minister made reference that currently the Executive Council would not be

members, and I guess the question would be: what would happen now? What would

the impact be, for instance, in these positions right now, once we had some kind

of mixture during the transition where we would have some members of a

bargaining unit, and some that probably would not be the ones that are currently

existing there.

So the fact is, from the employee's point of view, we would ask the question:

how did the consultation process go with the number of people that have been

affected I understand there are about fifty-one people or so there and

protecting the rights in the transfer, what has been done, what does this mean,

except the fact that they will still remain within the bargaining unit itself.

The big thing for us is how the consulting went with the employees, what was

the feedback, and if indeed this is a situation that they are willingly

embracing, or is this just simply that the government had made a decision that

the transfer of those employees was something that they really had no say in,

but indeed was something that was required by government.

Of course, when you make any changes like this, there are always certain

costs involved; I am not sure how much that would be, but it would be a question

that we would certainly like to see answered when you move this many people

around.

Mr. Speaker, from the onset of this bill it seems to be somewhat a very

simple amendment but, as I said, the question for us would be about consulting

with the number of employees who are involved. Are any of the benefits affected

and, indeed, the cost that is associated with any of the transfers of these

employees into the Human Resource Secretariat?

With that, that would pretty much mean this would, once we get those

questions answered, I guess I am sure there is probably something else that

would come from the discussion we would want to see answered; yet, like I said,

when you take a quick look at this, there really does not seem to be any huge

impact. The employees who are affected here are in agreement with this transfer.

I would imagine the timing of the transfer, this is something that is already

done, or when do you anticipate this happening?

Those are my remarks for now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: I rise in the House today to support Bill 31,

An Act To

Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

Before I comment, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for including

me in this debate today. I would like to thank the Member for Humber Valley for

his comments. He is right, this is a little bit of housekeeping in essence, but

I would like to get into it a little bit further and discuss it here today.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 31 is certainly an example of investment and goodwill by

our government. This is about being fair and doing the right thing for our

employees. This is about treating our employees with respect.

Bill 31 is about providing better service to government employees, and, Mr.

Speaker, this just makes sense. The purpose of the amendment is to protect

employees who will be assigned to the new Human Resource Secretariat of

Executive Council by protecting their union membership. That is basically the

essence of this amendment. At face value, that makes all the sense in the world,

and I am sure everybody would agree with that.

While it is a union-friendly initiative that protects union rights,

membership and seniority, perhaps and most importantly, there will be no job

losses as a result of these changes. Mr. Speaker, we believe this is a very fair

way to treat employees who are involved in the restructuring. As we move forward

we will see more of that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about the new

Human Resource Secretariat As the minister alluded earlier, world-class best

practices in both public and private sectors encourage human resource

organizational structures to be held under one umbrella, and this is the essence

of the formation of the Human Resource Secretariat. By establishing a Human

Resource Secretariat we are creating one point of contact, providing better

service to government employees with an overall improvement in service delivery.

This is essential as we move forward into the twenty-first Century.

The first employees to be transitioned came from the Public Service

Secretariat, this was done last March. Others to follow during this transition

include the Strategic Human Resource Management Divisions, human resource

functions in the Department of Finance, pension counselling, group insurance,

administration, time and attendance management, payroll processing, et cetera.

As well, there are other employees in strategic staffing, functioning for the

public service, who are involved as well. We are expecting full transition to be

completed by April 1, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, the future of human resource management is about making services

more user friendly to employees. Not only through the use of technology, which

the minister alluded to, but through one point of contact, business processes

and business structures.

Just a little sidebar on the technology piece; as we move forward in today's

society technology is playing more and more a role in our everyday lives. As

employees of the government or employees in private business, you want to have

access to your files. You want to have access to exactly where you stand in

terms of your vacation time or your pension plans. That technology is now

catching up with us in the public service here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is very important as well.

As we move forward, the plan is to get better with newer technology tools

that employees in the public service will be able to take advantage of. Again,

providing consistency in service delivery, in simplifying services, is good for

the employee and good for the employer.

Governments want motivated and productive employees. I think that is a pretty

basic statement. They want to treat their employees with respect. I think that

is very, very important. I think we all agree. Every member in this House would

agree to that, and they want to treat them as valued assets. When I say the word

assets, it is in the right sense. An asset is something that you want, that you

need, that is worthwhile.

Employees in today's lexicon, in human resources, are looked upon as valued

assets. By improving HR processes, employers are thinking about their employees'

needs and wants, and this is one of the positive outcomes by creating a new

Human Resources Secretariat. Mr. Speaker, from a personal perspective, I spent

many years in the private sector as both a front-line employee and lately as a

senior manager. This certainly is one of the areas that stands out to me in

terms of increasing in importance in the company that I worked in for

twenty-five years.

When I first joined my company twenty-seven years ago now actually, the HR

processes were there. There was very little involvement between the employee and

the employer other than your payroll; there were some pension issues that you

had to deal with. Personal development, using your vacation time in the right

process there are a lot of elements that were not there twenty-five years ago.

As time has progressed I noticed it within my company. Our practices improved

over the years and it just got better and better.

The private sector has seen that. The public sector has seen that as well.

What we see today is that evolution. It has been fast tracked; HR is becoming a

critical piece in any corporation, for any business, or in particular in the

public service sector.

Once upon a time the HR manager or the head of HR in a company would not be

sitting at the board table. Today, the HR, the VP of HR or the CEO would be

sitting next to the HR managers. They would be involved in every single

decision. Today, they are involved in every single decision that is made in the

corporate boardroom.

The same should be said for government. The HR function is a very, very

important function in today's society, and employees expect them to be treated

with respect. This is what the Human Resources Secretariat is meant to do and

meant to accomplish.

This trend is across all sectors. The traditional HR functions have rapidly

evolved in recognition that employees again are indeed assets. Responsive HR

processes help employees manage their present and their future. When we talk

about that, we talk about managing their pension, managing what is going to

happen after your life in public service or in your job.

Tracking what you do and how you do it is essential to people making their

long-term plans and commitments for their families and for themselves. Better

processes that are in place make it better for all. The Human Resources

Secretariat is basically meant to do exactly that.

While we bring both government employees to a better place and essentially

this is what is happening here now government is going about this in the right

way. We are treating our employees with respect. We are showing them that we

respect what they do by offering them the ability to carry their union status

into the new Secretariat. That is a good thing government has done. It is a

responsible thing that we have done and our employees would be happy about that.

Our government firmly believes employees are an asset whose values enhance if we

provide them with strong human resource management practices. We need to

continue to make our processes even stronger.

So when we look to the future, what is our HR management going to look like

within government? I would suggest to you that this is just the beginning. I

would suggest to you what you will probably see in the future is more

interactive technology involved in our day-to-day lives in terms of determining

what our future holds for us and what we need to do with the HR piece of our

status as employees.

Happy employees are productive employees. That is obviously an essential

piece to business and an essential piece to good governance as well. So the

strategic management of our workforce is essential. We need to continue to do

the right things. By listening and responding to employees we are being

responsible and respectful during this transition.

Bill 31 is a necessary piece of legislation that protects employees impacted

by this transition while at the same time benefiting all government employees

with better service delivery with regard to human reso