March

8, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 5

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

In light of information that has come to my attention only very recently,

this is my earliest opportunity to raise this serious matter of privilege here

in the House. An event has been disclosed to me regarding the intimidation of

the Member for St. George's Stephenville East, who is also the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills, and the intimidation of a member of her staff.

The intimidation was by the Member for St. Barbe.

O'Brien and Bosc in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second

Edition, 2009 , on-line, Mr. Speaker, states that a "Member must satisfy the

Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as

soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation." So, that is what I

am doing by raising this now.

On February 3, 2012, at 2:52 p.m. the Member for St. Barbe telephoned the

constituency office of the Member for St. George's Stephenville East, and in

his capacity as member, left a recorded voice message for the minister's

assistant about a client. This call was returned almost immediately, Mr.

Speaker, by the constituency assistant in the office, who spoke with the

constituency assistant for the Member for St. Barbe. At 3:22 p.m., the Member

for St. Barbe called again and left this message, and I quote, "Hello, this is

Jim Bennett calling. I am calling on the xxxx file. You were just speaking with

my constituency assistant. If this problem is not resolved today, you can expect

me to absolutely vilify your Minister on Monday morning on open line. I will

absolutely trash your Minister and say what a bunch of idiots she's got working

in her department. You fix the problem and fix it today or there will be lots of

trouble. My number, if you want to call me personally or have the Minister call

me is 898-7571. It's approximately 25 minutes after 3 on Friday and this should

not have taken so long if the people in your department had been doing their

job. We've had this file complete since the 31 st of January and you

wasted three days. So get the prob the file fixed. Call back to me 898-7571 or

call back to Rhonda at 898-6751 or my office 898-2298 or on Monday morning I

will be calling and there will be hell to pay with your Minister for having such

a bunch of slackers working for her who don't care about people who are in need.

Thank you."

Mr. Speaker, those statements are threats, clearly and unequivocally. Any

reasonable person would conclude they cross the line on what is acceptable

behaviour. When she listened to the recorded message for which there is an

audio available, if needed the minister's assistant was profoundly and

understandably distressed by the threatening invective she heard the Member for

Barbe unleash. This kind of behaviour is clearly abhorrent, unacceptable and,

frankly, calls this hon. House into disrepute.

O'Brien and Bosc, Mr. Speaker, in

chapter 3, distinguish contempt from

privilege, describing contempt as including "assaulting, threatening,

obstructing or intimidating a Member or officer of the House in the discharge of

their duties" and "assaulting, threatening or disadvantaging a Member, or a

former Member, on account of the Member's conduct in Parliament".

Clearly, the threatening behaviour of this member, Mr. Speaker, at the very

least, satisfies the definition of contempt and, for that reason, warrants

discipline.

Contempt is serious in itself, Mr. Speaker, but a breach of privilege is even

more serious, and I believe a case can be made that his threats go beyond

contempt to constitute a breach of privilege.

O'Brien and Bosc define "The rights, privileges and immunities of individual

Members of the House" as including "freedom from obstruction, interference,

intimidation and molestation".

O'Brien and Bosc state, "Should an Hon. Member be able to say that something

has happened which prevented him or her from performing functions, that he or

she has been threatened, intimidated, or in any way unduly influenced, this will

be a case for the Chair to consider."

O'Brien and Bosc further state, Mr. Speaker, "It is impossible to codify all

incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference,

molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of

privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie include the damaging of

the Member's reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament,

the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses before committees,

and the provision of misleading information."

O'Brien and Bosc went on further to state: "an action which amounts to a form

of intimidation does not need to be directed at the Member in person in order to

constitute an offence in terms of privilege."

O'Brien and Bosc quote Maingot as stating: "The purpose of raising matters of

privilege' in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and

credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to

uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its

Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be

reckoned with lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised

in the House of Commons."

In light of the preceding, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule that the

threatening behaviour of this member constitutes a prima facie case of breach of

privilege, and I ask you to direct the House to proceed to debate the following

motion:

"WHEREAS threats directed by Members towards other Members or Ministers or

those who work with them are intolerable;

AND

WHEREAS the Member for St. Barbe, in a telephone message on February 3,

2012, directed threats toward the Member for St. George's Stephenville East

and a member of her staff and others in her employ;

BE IT RESOLVED that this honourable House declares that the aforementioned

threats by the Member for St. Barbe constitutes a breach of privilege, that this

House expresses its condemnation of this Member for making these threats, and

that this House directs the offending Member to apologize in this House to those

to whom his threats were directed."

Alternatively, Mr. Speaker, the bar for privilege is necessarily high, and

for this reason, if you were to rule that a prima facie case of privilege is not

established, then I ask that the member's threatening behaviour be treated as a

matter of contempt, for which there are various remedies, as defined in the

section of Bosc and O'Brien on Power to Discipline . They range from

censure or reprimand all the way up to incarceration, Mr. Speaker, indicating

the seriousness with which contempt is taken.

So, if this is not deemed a prima facie question of privilege, then I would

ask that this behaviour be deemed contemptuous and that he be ordered to

apologize in this House to those to whom these threats were directed.

Mr. Speaker, we are becoming more and more vigilant in our society in

addressing bullying, harassment, intimidation and violence with the seriousness

they warrant. The responsibility for addressing such behaviour with respect to

the members and operations of this House rests on all of us collectively. We

need to send a clear and unequivocal message and set an example that

intimidation will not be tolerated here any more than we would tolerate it

anywhere else.

That is the motion, Mr. Speaker, and the point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair to the

point of privilege.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the first knowledge that I have of this particular incident. I would

ask for the opportunity to examine the information that has been presented by my

colleague, the Government House Leader, and to consult with the Member for St.

Barbe. We will await your ruling after that.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments to the point of privilege?

The House will take a recess while the Speaker reviews the point of privilege

raised and return with his ruling.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a few minutes to look at the point of

privilege that has been raised by the Government House Leader. I had an

opportunity to review the sections of our House that deals with the particular

points that the Government House Leader did read and present today. I also had

an opportunity to discuss this with my colleague, the Member for St. Barbe.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in looking at our Standing Orders and also in

looking at the proceedings which governs the House, O'Brien and Bosc, I have had

an opportunity to read through these sections very carefully. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, as it relates to a point of privilege, which is what the Government

House Leader raised today, it states very clearly here on page 141,

Chapter 3:

"First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach

of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the

earliest opportunity."

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the phone call, which the Government

House Leader had alluded to, was actually made on February 3. That is over a

month ago. I would have to question the reason the government did not bring this

to the House of Assembly in the past two days, which they have had the

opportunity to do so.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister, the government, or the

Government House Leader cannot just wait until there is a prime opportunity to

raise a point of privilege but must do so at the earliest opportunity, and the

earliest opportunity would have been Tuesday. There is precedence within this

House of Assembly where there have been points of privilege that have been

raised even within twenty-four hours of an incident, in which the Speaker had

ruled that it was not a point of privilege because it was not raised at the

earliest convenience.

Mr. Speaker, we would certainly have to question why, again, this issue was

not raised on Tuesday or Wednesday. I am sure the minister would have been aware

of this issue if it was left on her phone since February 3. She is the previous

Government House Leader in the Legislature. She knows the rules as well or

better than anyone who sits in this House of Assembly. She would know that in

raising a point of privilege, there are very strict rules and procedures that

govern that which must be accounted for and followed. So, Mr. Speaker, the first

thing I would do is suggest that this is not a breach of privilege, nor is it a

prima facie case.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak to the piece that the Government

House Leader raised with regard to this being interference or intimidation.

Again, I have consulted the orders which govern the House, O'Brien and Bosc, Mr.

Speaker, on page 111, where it speaks to examples of obstruction, interference,

and intimidation. First of all it says: "A Member may also be obstructed or

interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by

non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect

the incident or event had on the Member's ability to fulfil his or her

parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker's view, the Member was not

obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions,

then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found."

Well, Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Member for St. Barbe, I have

learned that the incident that occurred and I am not dismissing that anything

that the Government House Leader read as part of a transcript of a phone call is

inaccurate in any way. The member confirmed with me that indeed was accurate. He

also confirmed with me, Mr. Speaker, that he was very concerned and very

frustrated in representing an issue relative to a constituent in his district.

He had been trying in his office for nearly two weeks to have the issue

resolved. He had made a number of calls, Mr. Speaker, to the department and to

others, and, including that day, directly to the minister's office and

assistant. Mr. Speaker, he was frustrated simply because his constituent this

happened to be on a Friday afternoon, the constituent who had a husband who was

a cancer patient had to be in Corner Brook on Monday morning for chemotherapy.

That particular family did not own a vehicle. They had no financial resources

to get there; they were contacting the minister's department to look for

financial assistance in being able to access the therapy that her husband

required. It was getting late in the day. No one had called back this MHA or

provided any assistance to him. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that, if the

people in that department or the minister was on top of her duties, then this

incident would not have occurred.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of no one providing assistance to this family and

answering to this MHA, the frustration continued to grow. Mr. Speaker, as a

result of it, the member was very upset and made the comments that he did.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if you listen carefully to the

comments that were read by the Government House Leader, you would suffice, as I

did, that none of these comments obstructed the minister in her duties; none of

it was relative to physical threats in any particular way. None of it affected

the minister's ability to be able to do her job, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, it

is not a prima facie case. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the minister continued to work

for the last month, and we know that. We have seen her in the House, we have

seen her in the media, we have seen her in press conferences, and we have seen

her dealing with a number of different issues.

Mr. Speaker, also, our rules speak to the fact that was this damaging to the

reputation of the minister or usurp her in her title or as a member. Mr.

Speaker, we certainly do not see that was the case in any way. We do not see

that it was damaging to her reputation in any way.

Mr. Speaker, the other piece to this is that in addition to the member

leaving that message on the answering machine by the way, that message did

prompt action in the department; it did prompt someone in the department and in

the minister's office to finally react to the constituent and what their need

was, and to help resolve it. Mr. Speaker, what the Government House Leader did

not outline was the other message that was left on the answering machine when

the Member for St. Barbe actually called back and apologized if he had been

forceful or strong in his comments that he had made.

Mr. Speaker, these are the points that I want to make with regard to this

particular case, that one: it is not a point of privilege simply because the

rules around the point of privilege have not been followed in making this

particular case in the House of Assembly. It was not brought to the attention of

the House at the earliest possible time, although the minister, who was a former

Government House Leader here, was aware of it since February 3 or soon

thereafter.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined the circumstances under which this

has occurred. Mr. Speaker, I also outlined the fact that this has not been a

prima facie case because it has not damaged the reputation of the minister; it

has not affected her ability to be able to do her job in any way, shape, or

form. Mr. Speaker, I would provide that argument

MR. SPEAKER: Just to advise the House, apparently there is a malfunction

in the door; it needs a key to deactivate it, so just be a little patient while

they do that.

Thank you.

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only other piece that the Government House Leader raised around this was

the piece around intimidation. I would suggest that there was no intimidation to

the minister, Mr. Speaker. Our argument would be that if the minister felt

intimidated or threatened in any way within the last thirty-five days or

thirty-six days, she would have made contact with the RCMP or, Mr. Speaker, she

would have reported it to some authority or at the very minimum to the

Government House Leader, or to the Speaker's Office prior to this. So we would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is just an opportunity for the government to be

able come into the House and to raise this issue on a day when it is, in our

opinion, at the earliest opportunistic time for them, as opposed to the earliest

opportunity to make the case.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments to the point of privilege?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first point I will deal with is the issue of the timing of the issue. The

earliest opportunity, Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that it has to be

brought forward at the earliest opportunity. Now, because Minister Burke is a

minister of the Crown, as a Member of the House of Assembly, does not mean that

she reacts any differently to situations than any other human being. One of the

myths that were debunked many years ago, Mr. Speaker, in terms of violence

against women and reporting of everything from sexual abuse to spousal abuse was

that people act immediately. There are situations, Mr. Speaker, in which people

do not know what to do.

I would suggest to you, and I am going to have a suggestion here, that we

play the tape, and you listen to the tape, and you see for yourself if there is

intimidation.

So, as it was pointed out, on International Women's Day to be promulgating

these myths and fallacies that we got rid of in the legal system years ago, Mr.

Speaker, I do not think does justice to the system. What happened was that I

heard this tape yesterday. When I heard the tape, I said immediately: Something

has to be done here. I became aware, as the Government House Leader, yesterday.

Now, what happens is, when I hear it, this is close to a physical threat. Do

we go to the police or do we bring it to the House? We chose this route, Mr.

Speaker, because the Member for St. Barbe, in his role as an MHA, threatened and

intimidated, or attempted to threaten and intimidate another MHA.

So, Mr. Speaker, the House opened two days ago. The application or the point

of privilege relates to his role as an MHA, a member of this House, in relation

to his behaviour toward another member of this House. That is what we are

relating to. Not only the staff, because to refer to members of our public

service as idiots and slackers, what kind of message does that send to people

out there, Mr. Speaker? Is that the way this individual, who wants to be the

Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, treats the people who work in this

government, Mr. Speaker, in the civil service?

In terms of the earliest opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you

that the earliest opportunity has been met. Even beyond that, look at the

seriousness of the matter. Look at the seriousness of the words. There is no

acceptance of responsibility, in fact, I think it is rather sad, Mr. Speaker.

What we are seeing here is a condonation of intimidation, bullying and threats

by a former Status of Women minister, Mr. Speaker. I find that disconcerting.

Let us look at what happens in between. At 2:52 p.m., Mr. Bennett excuse

me, the Member for St. Barbe phones and identifies himself as the MHA for St.

Barbe. Hello, this is Jim Bennett; I am the MHA for St. Barbe. He clearly

identifies he is acting in that role.

Then we have, Mr. Speaker, thirty minutes later: Hello, this is Jim Bennett

calling. I am calling on the so-and-so file. You were just speaking with my

constituency assistant.

In between, Mr. Speaker, in thirty minutes, he has placed one call, a call

has been returned, and then he goes on this unacceptable tirade. It is not as

simple to say, well, he was frustrated. We all get frustrated, but we can

control our behaviour to a certain extent.

What I am going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, and I really think we should do this

here. I have seen it so often, Mr. Speaker, in a courtroom setting where a

transcript does not give you the flavour for what actually took place. I am

suggesting we play the tape. We play the audio of what was said and then let you

I was going to call you Your Lordship hear the words, hear the rage in the

voice, hear the threatening tone. Then look at it, Mr. Speaker, from that

perspective, and ask yourself: Is this the kind of behaviour that is acceptable?

It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, to be heckling and critiquing each other. This

goes far beyond that. In fact, what I hear the Opposition House Leader to be

saying is, bullying is okay in certain circumstances. It is okay for an MHA to

bully members of the civil service and to say, and this is the word, Mr.

Speaker, "on Monday morning I will be calling and there will be hell to pay with

your Minister" Mr. Speaker, we are getting awful close when we are starting to

use words like that. I am suggesting we play the tape and you listen to it, Mr.

Speaker.

Finally, as I have indicated, to say that the minister did not bring it to

anyone's attention early enough is because she was not bothered. We have sat in

the House, Mr. Speaker. There is a pattern developing on the other side. There

is a pattern of intimidation developing and it needs to be dealt with, Mr.

Speaker. I understand we still have several points of order. I see the member,

Mr. Speaker; I see he is commenting and smiling. Do you find this funny, Sir? Do

you find this funny?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. KENNEDY: The Member for the Bay of Islands, do you find this funny?

Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting now, let us play the tape. Hear for yourself

what was said. Those would be my comments, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have spent a lot of years in this House of

Assembly, but I do not think I have ever seen anybody sink so low to score

political points in my entire life as I am witnessing before me today as I am

witnessing before me today. It is a proud day in this Province to have a female

Premier, and what do they do? They orchestrated, Mr. Speaker, to bring a point

of privilege to the House of Assembly against a member on International Women's

Day instead of coming here and talking about the important issues that face

women in this Province.

Why didn't you bring the issues in on Tuesday when you were supposed to bring

the issue in?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: We would not be debating today whether it is a point of

privilege or not, because if it was brought here on Tuesday, you would have

followed the rules of the House and it would have been done appropriately. Well,

forgive me if you do not like the message, but those are the rules. You did not

follow them appropriately. When you do not follow them appropriately, then I

argue with you, with all due respect, Sir, that you are in violation of what the

rules really are. It is not a point of privilege.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government members opposite are actually exploiting

this issue and exploiting International Women's Day, and that is what is

happening there. That is the lowest, lowest thing I have ever seen in my entire

life. That is what I say to you.

Mr. Speaker, if the government and the members opposite can plead ignorance

after the very member sat there as the Opposition House Leader for three or four

years, that she does not know the rules and waited for thirty days before they

brought it forward to the House of Assembly is a little bit much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am not justifying the behaviour; I am justifying

the procedure, I say to the member, and you listen to what I have to say,

because that is what I am talking about procedure, Mr. Speaker. When you look

at the procedures for this House, and when there are points of privilege, when

they are supposed to be raised is the earliest opportunity, that did not happen

with the government opposite because, Mr. Speaker, it was more opportunistic for

them to do it today. They know that full well. That is what I find so degrading

about all of this, I say to you, Premier. I would expect more from you than to

allow your government to do that.

Mr. Speaker, if there are things in that tape or in that message, I say to

the hon. minister, that are threatening, why did you not take it to the RCMP and

why are you not taking it to the RCMP today?

It is not a breach of privilege in this House of Assembly. You know that. You

know the rules of the House. You know the guide that governs it. If you feel

that it is so serious and that there were such strong implications to you, your

office, and your government, then you are really bringing it to the wrong

authority, I would suggest to you, Minister. I would expect that the Government

House Leader, being a lawyer himself, would certainly know a lot better, Mr.

Speaker, what the process is and what the practice is, as opposed to taking the

route that he is taking today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Barbe, after he made that call out of

frustration in trying to get a response from the government to act on behalf of

a person in this Province who needed help, he also made a call of an apology.

That was not expressed in the House of Assembly today.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, after consulting with the Member for St.

Barbe, he realizes that he may have overstepped his bounds in saying to the

minister and, by the way, what was the threat? - that I am going to go to the

Open Line show and talk about your minister? Well, Mr. Speaker, people are on

the Open Line show talking about politicians every single day.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister not accepting the apology that

was left on the answering machine a couple of days later, and looking at the

fact that she feels a threat from an MHA that she is not doing her job and will

bring his voice to the open line shows to talk about her behaviour, if she finds

that upsetting, well I have to say that the Member for St. Barbe has no problem

standing and apologizing again, as he did two days after he made the phone call.

He certainly, Mr. Speaker, is prepared to do that.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise again, but there are a

couple of points. We have now, Mr. Speaker, gone from the condemnation of

intimidation, the promulgation of old myths to support the minister's failure to

report, to now saying it is only physical threats you should go to the RCMP

with. That is not the purpose of this House, Mr. Speaker. There is a basic rule

that sometimes you have to look at form over substance. You have to look at the

substance, Mr. Speaker; you do not allow form to guide.

Now, what I will say to you is that she has misled the House, Mr. Speaker; it

is a very serious allegation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: The Minister for Advanced Education and Skills

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: That the Minister for Advanced Education and Skills states

unequivocally, and will state under oath, that there was no apology. So what we

have here, Mr. Speaker, we have gone from bad to worse. That has to be

investigated, because she has stood up in this House and said that there was an

apology. You said there was a message left. Well, we got the messages and we

would like to play them for you, Mr. Speaker. We would like to play the two

messages that we have for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, what we have now is a situation that has gone

from bad to worse, and the minister can speak to this. She states unequivocally

that there was no apology. So what we have now is someone is lying, and we have

to get to the bottom of this, Mr. Speaker. I hate to use that word in this

House, but there is no other way to describe what is going on here. What we have

is a situation where there is not only a condemnation of absolutely abhorrent

behaviour but now they are trying to cover it up.

Mr. Speaker, my first request, and I have asked you to deal with this

request, is to play the tape and listen to the tape. Mr. Speaker, listen to it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe to a point of privilege.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that this matter did happen late

on Friday afternoon. A few days later I telephoned and left a message for the

supervisor, who is Ms Joanne Woodward or Woodford, and said that if I was too

extreme in my comments then I would apologize. I think my constituency assistant

was present in the room with me when I did that.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the lady referred to does not work in the

minister's office. The Opposition House Leader said that he apologized to the

minister or her staff. The tapes, Mr. Speaker, are to the constituency assistant

office in Stephenville. So, here we go again. The truth is coming out again,

isn't it? The truth is coming out again. You do not insult and threaten someone

and then apologize to someone else. So here we go, we are now seeing a little

bit of slipping and sliding.

Now I come back, Mr. Speaker, to the orchestration point. Again, I challenge

the Opposition House Leader on that. To say that this government is

orchestrating anything is simply false. I heard that tape yesterday. Mr.

Speaker, I heard the tape and then decided as Government House Leader that there

is an issue here of privilege. Again, Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point of

now we have gotten deeper into it because there has been an attempt here to put

forward a statement, a set of facts that are not correct, and the Member for St.

Barbe stands up when he is caught again. That is what has happened here, Mr.

Speaker.

Again, I ask you, I implore you, Sir, play the tape.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised on the floor of the

House today. Obviously, points of privileges are taken very seriously, they

reflect on the entire House. We have heard comments from both sides. I wanted to

ensure that we have given ample opportunity to reflect on the point that has

been raised, but I want to defer my decision until another day and I have had an

opportunity to reflect on the evidence that has been provided and comments

provided in the House, but I would also ask the Government House Leader if they

would turn over the tape in question to my office so I can hear them. On a

future day I will make my ruling.

The House will now move to daily proceedings with Statements by Members.

Before we do that, I want to acknowledge some guests we have in the gallery

today. There are seven individuals from the Isthmus Rural Development

Association Targeted Initiative for Older Workers group from the District of

Bellevue. The group is accompanied by their coordinator, Cynthia Smith.

I welcome you to the Assembly today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, the Member for the

District of Bay of Islands, the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North,

the Member for the District of St. John's North, the Member for the District of

Mount Pearl South, and the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On International Women's Day, I am pleased to rise in this House today to

congratulate the recent winner of the Wayne Earle Community Service Award in

Labrador, a remarkable woman and a great friend who has given a lot of time to

community service: Ms Madelyn Kelly of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

First of all, the Wayne Earle Community Service Award was established in

memory of Mr. Earle of L'Anse au Loup. This award is presented each year at the

Combined Councils of Labrador AGM.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Kelly served as a councillor for the Town of Happy

Valley-Goose Bay for eight years. During that time, she was involved in many

different aspects of municipal life, chairing the Economic Development Committee

and acting as a council representative on the Central Labrador Economic

Development Board and the Labrador North Chamber of Commerce. She also sat on

the board of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and a number of their

subsidiary committees.

Locally, she was a willing volunteer and ambassador from Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, involved in events such as the annual SnoBreak and the Labrador Winter

Games. She gave freely of her time to serve not only the people of Goose Bay,

but represented and expressed the views of people in all areas of Labrador as

she actively engaged in the economic development process to stabilize and

improve our local economy.

Ms Kelly always had the best interests of residents in mind when discussing

their challenges. Her dedication to her community and to Labrador as a whole is

commendable, and she is very deserving of the Wayne Earle Community Service

Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to join with me in extending

congratulations to Madelyn Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Terri-Lynn Loder Gillett of Summerside 4-H Rockets, who has been awarded the

Leader of the Year award for Newfoundland and Labrador by the 4-H Canadian

Council.

This award is presented annually to one person in each Province who has

demonstrated the leadership and continued contribution to their local 4-H club.

To be nominated by this award, the nomination is made by the members of the

local club. There is no better honour than being recognized by your peers.

Mr. Speaker, Terri-Lynn has been a member of the 4-H Rockets since childhood,

always providing leadership and taking the initiative to get things done. In

recent years, she has held many positions within the club and this year has

taken on the role of club coordinator.

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

congratulations to Terri-Lynn on receiving this much-deserved award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today on International Women's Day to recognize

Mount Pearl Intermediate and the Character Counts Community project, an

initiative that has been created to help encourage children and youth to be more

accepting of others. This program was implemented in recent years.

The Character Counts program invites students and staff to create a positive

school environment where all students and staff can feel safe and respected.

This program also promotes an atmosphere of acceptance, trust, and

responsibility for others.

While planning this project, the committee sought a unique way to transform

the physical building so that their determination and commitment to the

Character Counts program would be reflected. Posters, murals, banners and

displays were created, but still, the committee felt their efforts lacked the

wow factor they were looking for.

Considering that Mount Pearl Intermediate was a small community within the

larger community of Mount Pearl, it was decided to designate the hallways and

corridors as friendly areas by using street signs. The size and design of the

signs were mirrored after the City of Mount Pearl street signs, but the colour

was changed, the school crest was added along with the new street names. The

signs have made a huge impact on how the school looks and feels.

Placed in high-traffic areas, like the main circular hallway referred to as

the Citizenship Circle, all students see the signs. Twenty signs have currently

been mounted with plans for at least ten more to complete the community. The

names reflect the type of school Mount Pearl Intermediate strives to be. Some of

the signs include: Caring Crescent, Citizenship Circle, Fairness Freeway,

Respect Road, Responsibility Way, and Trustworthiness Trail.

The overall response from the Grade 5 to 9 students, staff, parents, and

visitors has been overwhelmingly positive. This idea has definitely made a bold

statement to everyone concerned. The message is clear: Character counts at Mount

Pearl Intermediate.

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

staff and students at Mount Pearl Intermediate for continuing to create the best

learning and working environment for our children and youth.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 3 of this year, the College of the North Atlantic hosted the sixth

Newfoundland and Labrador regional finals of Canspell, the national spelling

bee. CanSpell is locally sponsored by The Telegram newspaper as part of

its ongoing commitment to literacy skills.

The 2012 CanSpell competition saw 1,800 students participating from around

the Province, and a record fifty-five young scholars from Grades 4 through 8

competed for the right to represent the Province at the national final in

Toronto. Every participant deserves congratulations, Mr. Speaker. I would add

that their teachers and parents deserve our thanks for supporting the students.

If the House will indulge me, I would like to single out two students who

represented a school in my own district for special recognition. Grade 4 student

Aaron Sarkar and Grade 6 student Brandon Tilley represented St. Andrews

Elementary in the regional spelling bee. St. Andrews has a long history of

involvement with the CanSpell bee, and the school is to be applauded for its

commitment to literacy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members join me in congratulating the

participants of the 2012 edition of the CanSpell spelling bee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in this hon. House to

recognize the tremendous success which was the thirtieth annual Frosty Festival

in the City of Mount Pearl. Once again, this year's festival included various

activities for citizens of all ages and interests including: a concert featuring

Newfoundland and Labrador's own Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers, two

community breakfasts, an Irish pub night, a lip sync contest, seniors bingo,

jigs dinner, a variety show and a dinner theatre, just to name a few.

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you can appreciate, any festival of this magnitude

would not be possible were it not for the hard work and co-operation of a number

of community partners. I would therefore ask all members of this hon. House to

join me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl, the Frosty Festival Board of

Directors, the various community groups and organizations, the corporate

sponsors and all of the community-minded volunteers who contributed to the great

success story which was Frosty Festival 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, I rise in this House today to recognize and

congratulate Captain John Russell on reaching a major milestone that few of us

probably ever will. On December 11, 2011, Mr. Russell celebrated his 105 th

birthday.

It is most astonishing that Mr. Russell still resides in his own home. I had

the honour of sitting with him as he enlightened me with the tales of his life's

adventures, portraying a memory as sharp as yours or mine. These memoirs can be

found in the book, Memories of a Lifetime , a published autobiography that

Mr. Russell wrote back in 1997 at the age of ninety.

Captain Johnny Russell, a title he earned while sailing on schooners as a

young man, spent his earliest years growing up in Red Cliff, and has then lived

in Bonavista since 1952. He is well known and admired by many people throughout

the Bonavista Peninsula and the great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

certainly hope I get the privilege of helping Captain Johnny Russell celebrate

birthday number 106.

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

such an honorary member of our Province, Captain John Russell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commemorate the 101 st

anniversary of International Women's Day.

Last week, the Premier and I met with representatives of numerous groups

committed to advancing the status of women in our Province and a lot of those

women are in the gallery today. Together, we proclaimed March 8 as International

Women's Day in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On this day, women in our Province celebrate the many accomplishments women

have made to date, as well as determine next steps to continue achieving

equality for all women.

A striking example of the progress that has been made here in our Province is

that for the first time in our history, a woman serves as Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: In honour of International Women's Day, MSN News compiled a

list of Canadian women worthy of note. They further described these women as

distinguished and at the top of their game. Included in this list was our

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, this year's theme for International Women's Day

is Strong Women, Strong Canada Women in Rural, Remote and Northern

Communities: Key to Canada's Economic Prosperity. This theme allows us to

celebrate the economic contributions of women in our rural communities, as well

as the overall achievements in advancing women.

For instance, over the last three years a total of 172 women have obtained

apprenticeship opportunities with the help of the Office to Advance Women

Apprentices and over fifty of these hires were supported by our government's

Apprentice Wage Subsidy Program.

Mr. Speaker, government's commitment to the women's community remains strong,

with funding to organizations throughout the Province, including: Newfoundland

and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs (NLOWE); Women in Resource

Development Corporation; eight Status of Women Councils; Provincial Advisory

Council on the Status of Women; Multicultural Women's Organization of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and the Newfoundland and Labrador Aboriginal Women's

Network.

International Women's Day allows us to share our gratitude for these

organizations and all women past and present who are the driving force in

advancing the status of women in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We want to join with others in the House of Assembly today, Mr. Speaker, in

commemorating International Women's Day and celebrating the many accomplishments

of women, not just in Newfoundland and Labrador, but all throughout our country;

women who have reached to the top pillars of many offices and many jobs, in many

different sectors of our society.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot forget that when you reflect on the theme of this

year, which is Women in Rural, Remote and Northern Communities, we cannot forget

the challenges that many of these women still face. Many of them today, Mr.

Speaker, still live in communities where they do not have water and sewer

running into their homes. Many of them are still living way below the poverty

wage and dealing with significant challenges every day around things that we

take for granted, like the cost of food and the cost of living. Mr. Speaker, we

need to turn our particular attention to them, to women in our Province who are

caregivers, who care for their parents, who care for their sick children and

have to give up their jobs and give up a large chunk of their lives to be able

to do that. We need to ensure that we can reach out in some way to many of those

women as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think the one that we hear all too often are women who are

still looking for child care in this Province and women who want to be an active

part of the workforce, but without having affordable, reliable child care

services, which they look to their governments to provide, they are unable to

able to provide it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we commend all the groups out there today who work to

advance the status of women in our Province. We certainly wish them well and say

to them that we are there to support you and work with you as we go forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is wonderful that we all are here today celebrating International Women's

Day. For some of us in the room here, we began on Sunday with the bigger than

ever brunch that took place here in St. John's. I think well over 400 people

attended the brunch on Sunday. It is wonderful to be with the women's community

as we do celebrate.

I am glad the minister mentioned the groups that government supports because

those groups, such as NLOWE, Women in Resource Development, the various advisory

councils, and the multicultural and aboriginal women's organizations, are doing

tremendous work in this Province. They are a backbone to the needs of women on

all kinds of levels, economic and social, in this Province. It is most important

that we recognize them.

We also have to look at the whole role of women in decision making in the

Province too, Mr. Speaker. We need to see government develop plans and targets

to ensure equal representation of women and all publicly-funded agencies,

boards, and institutions.

Today, MP Irene Mathyssen tabled a bill in the House of Commons requiring

mandatory gender parity within the boards of directors of Crown corporations,

and women must account for no less than 40 per cent of directors in federal

organizations. So I put this forward as something for us to think about here

provincially, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to inform my

colleagues that our tourism marketing campaign Find Yourself was recently

honoured with ten Adrian Awards, presented by the Hospitality Sales and

Marketing Association International of New York City.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: The Find Yourself campaign has now won a total of 147

national and international awards, including a Grand Prix CASSIE, the top award

for advertising in Canada. These awards demonstrate that our Province is leading

the way in tourism marketing in the country. We are particularly proud of the

CASSIE because it not only recognizes creative design, production, and content,

but it focuses on the tangible results of our advertising campaign such as

tourism numbers and spending. The Find Yourself campaign was also named

Marketing Campaign of the Year by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada.

In January, we released two new chapters in our television advertising

campaign, featuring Iceberg Alley and Secret Place. These ads are well received

by audiences throughout Canada, motivate the tourism industry here in the

Province, and exude the sense of pride that we have in this amazing place we

call home.

Our government has been working with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador

and destinations management organizations as part of the Tourism Board to

implement our provincial strategy Uncommon Potential: A Vision for Newfoundland

and Labrador Tourism.

Mr. Speaker, our vision is to be a leading tourism destination, offering

authentic experiences, showcasing our people, culture and natural environment.

Resident and non-resident tourism spending in Newfoundland and Labrador was

almost $880 million in 2010. Our goal is to reach $1.6 billion in tourism

spending by 2020. Mr. Speaker, there is no question we are on the right path.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I thank the minister for the advance copy of his ministerial

statement and certainly congratulate government on the Find Yourself campaign.

Receiving ten Adrian awards is quite the honour and certainly deserves the

recognition. It makes all of us proud to be a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian.

I know every time as I travel, if it is on an airplane or in a hotel room, it

makes me feel at home when I look at those campaigns. It makes me proud, as I

said. What I really particularly enjoy is if I am travelling, as I said on an

airplane or so, it is watching the reaction of people who are around me as they

respond to the ads that they see, especially on some of our airlines these days.

It is their reaction, and as we interact with fellow passengers and tell them

that is exactly where I live, it stimulates conversation and a lot of questions

are answered.

I encourage the support and the investment into the Find Yourself campaign as

it supports our people, culture and our natural environment. Tourism in general

is important and an economic driver for all of us, in particular in rural

Newfoundland. I look forward to 2020 as we reach the goal of $1.6 billion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Congratulations to all the people who worked very hard in this industry to

have achieved these awards. What a marvellous job they have done, and they make

us all proud. I also congratulate the department for acknowledging that tourism

is not just for people from away but for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

What a great shift that was.

I also would like to remind government that there is still a lot of work to

do and, in particular, people come to see our magnificent geography, but they

also come to experience our culture and our heritage. The people who work in our

cultural and heritage industries are doing it at great cost to themselves, and

these cultural and heritage groups are often hanging on by a thread wondering

when the next bit of money will come so that they can provide the wonderful

cultural experiences that they do for us. They have no core funding, and they

must rely on piecemeal project funding. Often, never knowing when that money

will come.

So, I would like to encourage the government and the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation to review their funding policy guidelines and the

timelines as it relates to cultural and heritage activities so that they may

better accommodate the needs of this industry.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, Justice Robert Wells, in his report on the crash

of Cougar Flight 491 was very clear: Offshore workers deserve to have a separate

and independent safety board, apart from C-NLOPB. Any changes to the offshore

regulatory structure require the support of both levels of government; however,

the federal minister has been very clear, he is not interested.

So, I ask the Premier: What will you do now that the federal government is

not onside?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is clearly onside in terms of supporting all the

recommendations of that report. We have made our position very clear to the

federal government. Responsibility for the C-NLOPB is shared between us and

between the federal government. Unfortunately, I do not have unilateral

authority to direct the C-NLOPB to have a stand-alone regulatory agency. I

continue to press my point, Mr. Speaker. Immediately following Question Period,

the minister and I will be meeting with the federal Minister of Natural

Resources and we will press our case once more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since there is no movement on the Justice Wells recommendation, the C-NLOPB

is still responsible for offshore safety. The provincial government has left a

vacancy on the board for over a year now.

So, I ask the Premier: Why have you left this position vacant for so long and

when do you plan to make an appointment of an individual to fill that role?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that

appointments to the board require concurrence by both levels of government. Mr.

Speaker, we have made a recommendation to the Department of Natural, we are

waiting for their concurrence.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador are in a financial

crisis. The Mayor of St. John's stated this morning that it is fundamentally

wrong for the Province to be taxing communities and is calling on the Province

to halt its practice of charging the municipalities HST.

My question is for the Premier: Will your government introduce a rebating of

the provincial portion of the HST to communities in Budget 2012?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am disappointed in the remarks of the Mayor

of the City of St. John's today, given the fact that we had a meeting last week

in which he did not raise those two particular issues. We did talk about the MOG

and the fact that we need a new formula for Municipal Operating Grants in this

Province. We are working on that, a considerable amount of work has been done.

I shared with him at that time that it would not be ready for this year's

Budget. We will continue the work and the consultation that is required to do a

really good job of that. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to make other changes to

municipal financing until we have all of the work done because that needs to be

done in concert with the new MOG formula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador have

called an emergency meeting of its membership on Monday, March 12, this to

discuss the inaction of government in developing a new fiscal framework for

municipalities.

My question once again is to the Premier: Will communities have to bear the

brunt of the inactions of this government to develop a new fiscal framework as

promised for the last several years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government has acted very responsibly in terms of municipal

government. Many of the members in this House cut their political teeth in

municipalities in this Province. I certainly did and was the first woman, in

fact, to be President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Municipalities

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: so I understand these issues very well, Mr.

Speaker. We are taking a comprehensive approach, a consultative approach in the

formulation of a new MOG, something that was not done with the last MOG under

the Liberal Administration, I might add, when I was President of the Federation

of Municipalities. Last year, Mr. Speaker, during the Budget we made available

transition funding to buffer some of the effects that municipalities are feeling

until the new MOGs are in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Premier this is leading to the

frustration, so this is a reason why the emergency meeting is being called on

March 12. I think it is timely. It has been discussed for several years now.

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Natural Resources also mentioned today

that a final decision on a loan guarantee for Muskrat Falls is still months

away. Apparently, they are waiting on several documents from the provincial

government.

I ask the Premier: What documents are they waiting for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have checked, I am not aware of any documentation that the

Department of Natural Resources federally has requested that has not been

provided. I will follow this up with the minister this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, a loan guarantee is not critical to the Muskrat Falls project.

We have defended this project and the financing of this project and the cost to

ratepayers without inclusion of the federal loan guarantee. If we get a federal

loan guarantee, and there is no reason to believe that we would not, Mr.

Speaker, then that just helps ratepayers in the long run.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, only minutes after a commitment was made in the

Throne Speech to review the formula for the Municipal Operating Grants, the

Premier said in the media they will not be announcing it this year. All of a

sudden the Premier stated that this is a complicated issue and municipalities

will be left to bear the brunt of government cuts.

I ask the Premier: Has your government stated the process of revisiting the

MOG formula, if so, when can we expect the changes to this formula and when will

it be tabled in the House of Assembly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the MOGs. There is a considerable

amount of work that has already taken place. There are consultations that need

to take place with communities all across this Province. Mr. Speaker, last year

when the case was made to us that we needed a new MOG formula and that there

were financial pressures on municipalities that was taken into account in our

Budget, Mr. Speaker. The Leader opposite will have to wait to see what is going

to happen in the next Budget.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate very much the level of government and governance

that is provided at the municipal level. We have always been very supportive of

our municipalities, Mr. Speaker. That is not going to change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are so supportive; when the

mayor had the press conference not one MHA from St. John's showed up to support

St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, Budget 2011 also saw a one-time percentage increase in the MOG

allocation for the 2011 fiscal year that was based on the 2006 population

census. The Premier has now stated that there is no fiscal framework this year.

My question to the Premier: Will the Premier commit today, in light of the 3

per cent cut to all departments, to maintain the same level of the 2011 MOGs for

2012?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the Member for Bay of Islands,

I do not believe the members of the NDP, or myself, were invited to the news

conference. I certainly was not, and I do not think the members of the NDP were

invited to the news conference, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not plan any cuts to MOGs. Last year we added over $4

million in support; $4.6 million, in fact, to the operating grants last year

during the transition. Mr. Speaker, I suggest he wait until the Budget is

brought down and then he will see the level of support that this government

provides to municipalities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In March, last year, I presented a resolution to the hon. House to lower the

age of breast screening in the Province from age fifty to forty. At that time,

government deferred the decision to the Cancer Control Advisory Committee.

During the election, the government also promised that within ninety days they

would conclude a review of whether it was appropriate to lower the age to begin

breast screening in Newfoundland and Labrador at age forty.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services today: Has the work of

the Cancer Control Advisory Committee been completed, and are you prepared to

lower the age for breast screening in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we all understand that cancer touches the lives of many of us

here in this Province, in many of our families. In fact, I would suspect in most

all of our families, cancer touches the lives. We will continue to work

aggressively to fight this terrible disease.

In response to the question, the ninety-day review has been done. The Cancer

Control Advisory Committee did its work. They consulted on a number of different

fronts, and they have reported that back to me. As well, Mr. Speaker, we have

done a jurisdictional scan and a review right across this country as to what is

being done there and about the appropriateness of reducing the age from fifty to

fifty-nine down to forty to forty-nine. We are taking all of what we have found

throughout those reviews into consideration, and we will be able to advise on

that in the coming weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that this year, there will be nearly 400

women in this Province again diagnosed with breast cancer. We still have one of

the highest mortality rates associated with breast cancer of any other Province

in Canada. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have eight provinces and territories in Canada

that have already reduced the age of screening for women to age forty.

So, Minister, with all due respect, it has been a year now and I would ask

you: Are you prepared to follow the best practices of the other provinces in

Canada and reduce the age of breast screening for women in Newfoundland and

Labrador to age forty?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we take this very, very

seriously. This is not a matter that we have sloughed off. It is not something

that I am doing on the corner of my desk. This is an issue we take exceptionally

seriously in the Department of Health and Community Services, Mr. Speaker.

To that end, we have continued to invest, and invest significantly in breast

cancer control. In fact, we have now in this Province, operational, twelve

mammography units. Budget 2009 allowed for the purchase of those twelve

mammography units at a cost of $10.9 million, Mr. Speaker. They have replaced

the older units, which really could not do the job to the degree these new units

can do. These are now not analog machines anymore, but digital mammography

units, Mr. Speaker. They are placed right throughout the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, listen to the Fisheries Broadcast and you know

our inshore fishermen fully support fleet separation as a cornerstone of our

fisheries policy, yet the federal minister cannot make up his mind on fleet

separation and the provincial minister cannot make up his mind on fleet

separation.

I ask the Premier: Will you stand up for our rural communities and support

the Fleet Separation Policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is very, very supportive of our fishery. As I

have said several times over the last number of weeks, we have invested over $52

million in the fishery in the last five years. We understand that there are many

challenges. We are prepared to work with everybody to overcome those challenges.

We understand that fleet separation is an important policy to fishers here in

this Province, and this government has not backed away from its policy on fleet

separation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Fisheries Minister of this

Province will be attending the Atlantic Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Ministers conference in Halifax.

I ask the Premier: Has she directed her minister to include fleet separation

on the agenda now that the Province of Nova Scotia has come out in strong

support of keeping this policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a quick comment on the previous question because it is

very interesting. I sat in this House eight or ten months ago when I was a

minister of a different department and we heard the same rhetoric from the

Opposition. We were doing consultations across the Province and they encouraged

us to stop them and to not listen to the people. Now I am hearing the critics

say the same thing today. There is a period of time we are asking to hear from

people in the Province, and the federal minister is asking the same thing, and

yet the member opposite wants a decision today; he does not want us to listen to

what is happening in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, that is not how we operate here.

We listen to people and we try to form opinions based on good evidence. My

meetings tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, will involve a lot of topics including

aquaculture and wild fishery and fleet separation, among many other things,

will be part of the things that we will be talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, Crown attorneys are warning that increased

caseloads due to the Harper crime bill, which is slated to be passed next week,

could result in more plea bargains and dropped charges, releasing offenders into

society.

Given the majority of sexual assault and domestic violence is perpetrated

against women, I ask the Minister of Justice on International Women's Day: What

is being done to lessen the impact on victims of violence whose offenders are

released because our prisons cannot accommodate the increased numbers of

prisoners?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I assume the hon. member is referring to Bill C-10, which is currently in the

House of Parliament. We recognize that it is a significant piece of legislation

and a complex one. It has some positive provisions to it, Mr. Speaker, which we

have supported, but it also has some complex provisions that we are currently

analyzing and we will continue to do so.

In terms of the analysis of the impact of that bill, Mr. Speaker, that is

ongoing. We are part of an Atlantic committee of correctional officials who are

looking at the impact of legislation, and we will continue to work on that

dialogue with federal officials on the implementation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer in Ottawa

has estimated the Harper crime bill will cost the provinces billions of dollars

to implement. A minor

section eliminating house arrest alone will cost the

provinces an additional $137 million annually.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Has your department determined the provincial

cost to implement the entire bill, and if so, is there a plan in place to

address these costs, particularly in light of government's instructions to cut 3

per cent of spending?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the connection is of the 3 per cent cut in

spending, but I will repeat that the analysis of Bill C-10 is currently underway

by all provinces, and all provinces are having their difficulty trying to

ascertain what impact this might have. We are currently assessing our whole

correction system and a lot of factors come into play, Mr. Speaker, with regard

to the replanning and reshaping of our infrastructure. Certainly, any impact of

Bill C-10 will be factored into the equation.

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, the Premier talks about the needs for austerity in government.

She compares the prudent running of government to the prudent running of a

household; yet, at the same time, she is not giving householders in this

Province an exact indication of what they can expect to pay for electricity in

the future so they can run their households prudently.

I ask the Premier: Why doesn't she understand the need for people to have

accurate information to help them prudently manage their own households?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Let me try again, Mr. Speaker.

The average household ratepayer and that is the ratepayer, Mr. Speaker, of

230,000 ratepayers who uses 1,517 kilowatt hours of electricity a month in

2016, they will pay $217. That is based on what we know today, and we will

adjust those numbers as (inaudible).

What will happen, Mr. Speaker, in 2017, when Muskrat Falls comes on that

average Island ratepayer, based on what we know today, we will $232. It will go

up $15 per month. What will happen, Mr. Speaker, then, it will go up $14 per

month over the next thirteen years. Without Muskrat Falls, it will triple. That

is pretty simple. I have a chart I can give to the member opposite, if she would

like to see it, and I can explain it to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: I am really glad the minister stood up today and made it a

bit clear because I tell you, I read Hansard about four times yesterday

afternoon to try to figure out his answer, and it was really hard to figure it

out.

I do, Mr. Speaker, invite the Minister of Natural Resources today, he

mentioned yesterday that he could provide documents

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He said yesterday he could provide documents in the plural outlining how

government arrived at the figures that he was using, so I do ask the Minister of

Natural Resources today: Will you please table the documents with an "s"

that you said you could provide?

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.

Both sides have been asking us to table documents. Next week, Mr. Speaker, we

will table some documents, but you are going to have to make that floor a little

bit bigger out there because it is going to be taken up by these documents.

Mr. Speaker, it is very simple how we get to these numbers. We have 230,000

ratepayers in the Province. We have developed three profiles. The ratepayer who

uses 770 kilowatt hours per month is the person who just has electricity. Then

we have the person who burns 2,000 kilowatt hours per month, they use

electricity and electric heat. We take the average of those, Mr. Speaker, it is

1,517 kilowatt hours, we look at the numbers, and what I can say to the members

of the public is what we have broken this down is into dollars, Mr. Speaker.

Muskrat Falls will stabilize and reduce rates. Without Muskrat Falls, rates will

raise three times more than they would with Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look forward to a speedy reception of the documents that the minister is

referring to.

Mr. Speaker, in order for the Muskrat Falls Project to be released from the

environmental assessment process, the provincial government must reply to the

recommendations of the joint panel review, specifically the ones that apply to

the provincial government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can she report to the House what work, to

date, her government has done to complete this requirement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Minister Oliver in Ottawa last

week, we discussed the environmental assessment process. Well, let us talk about

the environment for a second, Mr. Speaker, because we are not hearing much from

the NDP about the protection of the environment. If you live in Holyrood and you

breathe in what is spewing there 18,000 barrels of oil a day, Mr. Speaker,

when Holyrood is burning at maximum capacity. It is the equivalent of taking

300,000 cars off the road. It is the equivalent, Mr. Speaker, to removing a

million tons of greenhouse gases.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, this government is looking to the future, the

environment, and protecting the environment for our children. One of the ways we

are doing that is through Muskrat Falls and getting rid of that dirty, Bunker C

burning Holyrood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it that they are not doing anything with regard to the requirements

today, except to talk to the other minister on the federal level. Well, we want

some action, Mr. Speaker. The joint panel review of the Muskrat Falls proposal

noted the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has already found mercury

in Lake Melville because of the Upper Churchill hydro project proof that

downstream mercury contamination is already a reality in the region. The panel

also noted Health Canada questioned Nalcor's calculations surrounding the

measuring of mercury contamination in wild game, country food, and fish

downstream from the proposed hydro dam, and recommended more research to be

done.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is her government doing to address the

immediate and future concerns of the significant adverse affect on the residents

of the Upper Lake Melville communities and Rigolet?

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.

This is the same member, Mr. Speaker, who on a debate on VOCM a few weeks ago

said that Muskrat Falls was not a clean, renewable project it was not green

energy. So, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the approach taken by the NDP, we have

to take all that into account.

What we do as a government, Mr. Speaker, is we balance the environmental

concerns. We balance them against the economic benefits. We balance them against

the vision for the future of the Province. Mr. Speaker, the NDP keep saying:

Spend, spend, spend. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is Muskrat Falls and projects like

Muskrat Falls that provide the projects that allow us to provide housing, to

allow us to deal with the Poverty Reduction Strategy, to allow us to provide for

education, and the level of living that people have in this Province.

So we balance all of that, Mr. Speaker. We are confident when the decision is

made, it will be the right one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I did not hear myself say anything about money in the last three questions I

have asked, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken very significantly about an identified

contamination in Lake Melville already already, Mr. Speaker identified by

DFO and presented to the panel.

Is this government investigating the possible immediate need of a consumption

advisory regarding Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker?

This is serious business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One question I would have for the member opposite: If it is such serious

business, how come she never asked the question the last sitting of the House of

Assembly? All of a sudden she realized that Muskrat Falls may get her some

political points.

Well, what is her position on Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker? All of those other

NDP members out there who support Muskrat Falls, did they not have the

information? Were they incorrect? I heard her waffle on Open Line yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, and the question becomes: Does she support it? Does she not support it?

We are taking all the steps we have to take, Mr. Speaker. She does not have

to worry about that. We are doing what we have to do.

What I would say to the Leader of the Third Party: Make up your mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

The report from the panel did not come out until August of this past year

August. That is when this information came to light.

So I want to know: What is this government going to do about the

contamination in Lake Melville?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the member opposite that we have looked at this issue. The

environmental assessment panel recommendations have been looked at. The ones

that are appropriate to be examined in terms of their mandate we have looked at

and we are continuing to look at. The federal government is working closely with

the provincial government. We are working closely, Mr. Speaker, with the

stakeholders in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and in the Labrador area. Only two days

ago, representatives of Nalcor were in Happy Valley-Goose Bay meeting with

people.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting though. I would like to know: Did Jack Harris

have this information when he came out last week and endorsed Muskrat Falls?

Perhaps she should tell him that.

Thank you.

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, time and again we have seen companies in this

Province hire strikebreakers when they do not want to negotiate with our

workers. Workers at the mine in Voisey's Bay were forced to strike for eighteen

months eighteen months, because Vale Inco was able to fly in scabs when they

did not want to negotiate. More recently, Mr. Speaker, dozens of trawlermen were

thrown out of work by Ocean Choice International when that company chose to hire

strikebreakers instead of reaching a fair and just agreement with its workers at

the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency:

When will he finally introduce legislation to ban the use of scab labour in this

Province once and for all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today and receive this first question from the

member opposite. An interesting note, it is his first question in the House and

my first opportunity to answer on behalf of the Minister Responsible for Labour.

The Employment Relations Committee was struck some time ago, Mr. Speaker, and

included representatives from business, labour and government. They were tasked

to review all aspects all aspects of the Labour Relations Act. They completed

their work in the fall of 2011, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has received the report and has reviewed it. He has asked for

further research and further information before he proceeds with answering that

question. He is waiting on that research and when he receives it, he will

provide further information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, having anti-scab legislation would help workers

and their families to avoid days, and weeks, and months of lost wages and

encourage both sides to bargain in good faith so that labour disputes do not

drag on and on needlessly. In 2007, this government promised to look at

implementing anti-scab legislation but did nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister once again: Will he support anti-scab

legislation or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you once again.

The anti-replacement legislation that is being considered is something that

has to be carefully considered. As I just indicated to the hon. member opposite,

the minister responsible has requested further information requiring further

research before he answers that question. When he has all the information, he

will provide his answer.

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, this government has spent much of its so-called

new energy talking about the positive business environment, but we have seen too

many labour disruptions as a result of not having anti-scab legislation. This

government does a good job of repeating itself over and over, Mr. Speaker.

I ask: When are the workers of this Province going to see some of that new

energy put into action instead of more talk, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to try this again. The anti-replacement legislation that is being

considered is a very important matter for the minister to consider. It is

important for the minister to review all of the information that is available to

him. He has requested some further information. It is important as well, Mr.

Speaker, to acknowledge and to understand as well that there is no consensus

throughout Canada when it comes to anti-replacement legislation. There is no

consensus among stakeholders and as well, it is interesting to point out that it

is only the Provinces of Quebec and B.C. that currently have such legislation.

It is important to consider all of these factors, and when the minister

responsible has all of his information he will provide his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26, subsection (5) (

a) SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26 (5) (

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling twenty-three Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for

the 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to table the 2010-2011 Annual Report for the

Certified Management Accountants of Newfoundland and Labrador; as well, the

2010-2011 Annual Report for the Certified General Accountants of Newfoundland

and Labrador; and the 2011 Annual Report for the Chartered Accountants of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 and the

Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

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

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. (Bill 10)

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, earlier a point of privilege was raised by the

Government House Leader, and that involved conduct of mine outside of the House,

and that conduct was at a time when I was very frustrated in helping a

disadvantaged

MR. SPEAKER: We going through now Answers to Questions does the member

have leave to make commentary? I just want to ensure that we we are straying

from the Orders, and if it is the intent of the member to speak to the point of

privilege, then we have passed that point in the proceedings. If the member is

asking for leave to respond to the point of privilege by way of an apology of

some kind, then if that is the case, then apologies are qualified in the House.

They are statements of apology, and that is as far as you go. So I just want to

make sure that we understand, if you have leave to stand at this proceeding of

the House, then I would ask the Government House Leader if that is okay.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, if he wants to make an apology and it is unqualified.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to make sure that we understand, the apologies before

the House are just apologies without qualification, and if the member intends to

do that, I would ask him to get to the apology without the additional

commentary.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in that case, I absolutely, and wholeheartedly,

unequivocally apologize for the House if I have done anything that

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: I apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member again, apologies in the House are not

qualified in any way, and do not require any elaboration or explanations.

Apologies are offered to the House and accepted if they are not qualified in any

kind of fashion. So, if the member is attempting to apologize for the issues

arising out of the point of privilege, then I ask the member to apologize

without any explanation or qualification.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the point of privilege raised by

the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I spoke on this petition yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but there was a lot of noise

and shouting from the other side of the House, and I hope the hon. members will

have a better opportunity to hear me today.

This is a petition that has been circulated throughout the Province, and it

pertains to the issue of the Department of Education's school bus transportation

policies.

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times

and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres

of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in

the walk to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting

children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and

directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noontime routes, causing

hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student

transportation policies have not been reviewed through public consultation since

1996; and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for more flexible policies for

student transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of

school children;

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

conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring

to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this review of school bus regulations is very much long overdue.

In fact, on my drive here this morning I saw at least five kids walking on the

road because there are no sidewalks. In some areas of the Province, we have

students with longer and longer busing times and that becomes more and more

hazardous at this time of the year. In urban areas of the Province, we have

other issues. Because of the 1.6 kilometre policy, we have a lot of students,

small children, who have to cross streets that have become busier and busier

over the years. That gets more problematic at this time of the year when we have

a lot of snow covering sidewalks and, as I said, there are a good number of

roads and streets across the Province where there are no sidewalks at all.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in the Avalon West region alone of the

Eastern School District children at eleven schools have to cross four to five

lanes of traffic to get to school. This petition is supported by many school

councils across the Province. It is supported by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of School Councils. I have also received support from a number of

municipal and community leaders across the Province. I hope the government will

see fit to heed this request from the petitioners.

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 in the House today to present a petition, and I will read the prayer

into the record:

WHEREAS breast cancer is the most common cancer among Newfoundland and

Labrador women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with approximately 370 women

will be diagnosed with breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador this year; and

WHEREAS we have one of the highest mortality rates for breast cancer and

breast cancer in young women tends to be more aggressive; and

WHEREAS the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast

screening program is age fifty; and

WHEREAS women aged forty to forty-nine are not eligible to participate in

Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program, while women aged

forty to forty-nine are eligible in the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta,

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon; and

WHEREAS there is empirical evidence that routine mammography screening of

women in their forties can reduce mortality from breast cancer by at least 24

per cent, but Newfoundland and Labrador still does not allow women in that age

group to self-refer into their breast screening program; and

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

House of Assembly to urge the government to allow women aged forty to forty-nine

to be eligible for breast screening to begin at age forty and that all women be

able to self-refer through Newfoundland and Labrador's screening programs.

Mr. Speaker, I presented petitions like this in the House of Assembly over a

year ago, actually I would say getting into a year and a few months. The

government at that time, Mr. Speaker, not only in the process of presenting

petitions but also bringing in a motion, also posing this issue in Question

Period; I had responses from the government that they would indeed act on this

particular request and have it looked at and to make a decision.

It is more than twelve months that have passed and we are still getting

absolutely no response from the government on what they are going to do. They

have told us that they have completed some of the work and that they have a

report; however, they have not tabled that report or made it public. They have

told us that they are looking at what is being done in other provinces. That

does not take too long; I have looked at all of that myself, Mr. Speaker. There

are many documents out there written on it in what is happening in other

provinces. Even as we speak, there are other provinces like Ontario that are

getting ready to move to a different screening process.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the capacity to be able to reduce the

age of screening for women because of the fact that we have a lot of new

mammography equipment throughout our health care facilities in the Province. We

have only a 65 per cent take up on most of that equipment. There is a lot of

work to grow and broaden the program.

Mr. Speaker, I would say almost every single day I get an e-mail from a woman

in this Province who is under the age of fifty who is looking for breast

screening or have already been diagnosed with breast cancer. It is becoming a

problem, it is an issue that is confronting women's health in this Province, and

we are asking the government to please, please reduce the age of screening for

women in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here today.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Department of Health and Community Services of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is responsible for the funding and administration of

the health care system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Western Health Care Corporation is responsible for the delivery

of health care services in the Town of Ramea and surrounding communities upon

Labrador Department of Health and Community Services; and

WHEREAS we have a medical clinic within the Town of Ramea which services the

residents of Ramea, Grey River, and Franois; and

WHEREAS there is a constant shortage of nurse practitioners at the Ramea

clinic in order to provide the necessary medical services to the residents of

Ramea and the coastal clinics; and

WHEREAS the Ramea Health Services Committee and the Town of Ramea and

concerned citizens have been repeatedly requesting of Western Health to provide

the appropriate number of medical/nursing personnel at Ramea; and

WHEREAS Western Health and the Department of Health and Community Services

have failed in their obligations to deliver stabilized medical/nursing personnel

to Ramea and coastal clinics;

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

House of Assembly to support the residents of Ramea, Grey River, and Franois in

their request to have adequate health care and nursing services available at all

times and in appropriate numbers and with appropriate skills at the Ramea and

coastal clinics;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been ongoing for some time. The

member before me dealt with this issue, and ever since I started my campaign

during the summer and during the lead up to the election and after the election,

this has been an issue. There are two nursing practitioner positions at the Town

of Ramea. Both are empty and have been empty since the early fall. Western

Health is trying to fill these positions, but as you can imagine, it is

difficult to fill positions such as these in a rural community.

What I am asking, what I am hoping is that we can work together and again,

this is another issue that affects my colleague from the District of Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune. We can all work together to make sure that we solve this

problem. There has to be more done, it has been ongoing for too long. I am

looking forward to a meeting with the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I have written her, and she is certainly aware of this. Due to the number of

letters coming from citizens all over Ramea, whether it be the schools, whether

it be the seniors club, whether it be the economic development corporation,

everybody is aware. This is affecting their day-to-day lives. They are supposed

to take a ferry over to Burgeo to get health care that they should be getting

right home in Ramea. Again, the coastal clinics down in Grey River and Franois

are affected by this. So, I am very happy to stand and present this, but it is

unfortunate that I need to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills, that the hon. Minister of Justice to ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act,

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

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill now be read a

first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act", carried. (Bill 3)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Skills, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax

Act, 2000, Bill 4, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House to have the bill read a first

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

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

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", carried. (Bill 4)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 4).

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 65(1), that the following

members constitute the Striking Committee whose duty it shall be to prepare and

report within the first twenty sitting days after its appointment lists of

members to compose the following Standing Committees of the House: (

a) Government Services Committee, to consist of not more than seventeen members and

not less than seven members I am doing this with leave, Mr. Speaker, by the

way - (

b) Social Services Committee, to consist of not more than seventeen

members and not less than seven members; (

c) Resource Committee, to consist of

not more than seventeen members and not less than seven members; (

d) the Public

Accounts Committee, to consist of seven members; (

e) the Privileges and

Elections Committee, to consist of five members; (

f) the Standing Orders

Committee, to consist of five members; and (

g) Miscellaneous and Private Bills

Committee, to consist of five members.

The members of the Striking Committee will be: the Member for the District of

Grand Bank; the Member for the District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island;

the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair; and the Member for the District of St. John's

North.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Section 65, it shall be the duty of this Striking

Committee to prepare and report within the first twenty days after its

appointment the lists referred to therein.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Committee

of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, Government House Leader it was my error

- would you make that in the form of a motion? We need to vote on that motion,

of a Striking Committee.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded?

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Orders of the Day, Order 1,

Committee of Supply.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into

a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution and Bill 2, Committee of

Supply.

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair and that the House

resolve into a Committee of the Whole to consider the resolution and the bill.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

We are considering Bill 2, but before we do that, before we recognize any

speakers to Bill 2, I would like to bring forth a ruling on a point of order

that was made when we were in Committee last, on Tuesday, March 6.

On Tuesday, March 6, in Committee of Supply, a point of order was raised by

the Government House Leader respecting the language and the actions of the

Member for Bay of Islands, specifically, that the language together with the

action of pointing at another member was unparliamentary. At the time I took the

matter under advisement so that I would have an opportunity to review Hansard,

and to also review the video record of the debate leading up to the point of

order.

Our Standing Orders are the rules agreed on by this House; they are the

Orders which allow us to conduct order and decorum in the House. Primary among

these is Standing Order 7(1), stating in part as follows: "The Speaker shall

preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order." Standing Order

49 states that no member shall "use offensive words against any (other) Member

of the House." Standing Order 60 provides for the Standing Orders to be followed

during Committee of the Whole House, so far as may be applicable.

In addition, the members of this hon. House have endorsed, and are thereby

bound by their Code of Conduct. The second paragraph of the Members' Code of

Conduct states: "Members of this House of Assembly respect the law and the

institution of the Legislature and acknowledge our need to maintain the public

courtesy, honesty and integrity." Clause 1 of this Code states, in part:

"Members shall inform themselves of and shall conduct themselves in accordance

with the provisions and spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly".

A breach of the Code by a member can lead to a report to an investigation by the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

These are serious matters, and members must be aware of their obligation to

behave appropriately in this Chamber. In this House, a word, phrase, or

behaviour must be seen within the context of how and what it was said and done.

Some actions are unparliamentary in some contexts and not in others. The

essential route of supporting or not supporting this point of order is, however,

whether or not the challenged actions are seen to be disruptive and therefore

unparliamentary.

O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice , states on

page 619, "In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into

account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking; the person to

whom the words were directed; the degree of provocation; and, most importantly,

whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber." It is not that a

statement or behaviour in incredibly egregious but that it causes disruption or

disorder.

Further, O'Brien and Bosc states on page 619, "any language which leads to

disorder in the House should not be used." On page 309, "The Speaker can call to

order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House".

Thus having reviewed Hansard, our Standing Orders, and the advice of the

various authorities I have concluded that the language, together with the

actions of the Member for the Bay of Islands were indeed unparliamentary.

Therefore, I must ask the member to make an unequivocal apology to the

Committee.

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I withdraw my remarks, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La

Hune.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay. We go back to the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that. and thank you for allowing me

to continue debate. I would never do anything to try to dishonour this House.

Most people who know me know that. I have no problem with withdrawing remarks if

they feel as we all know, they were done in jest, but just to save the House

Mr. Chair, I just want to talk today

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member has already given an unequivocal apology and you cannot take this

opportunity, in speaking in debate now, to further clarify that.

MR. JOYCE: I wasn't clarifying that.

CHAIR: I would caution the member; you have offered an unequivocal

apology, and I do not see it as in order to now get up and to add any meat to

that which you have already said.

MR. JOYCE: I was agreeing with you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I know everybody wants me to be muffled, but it is hard to do,

I will guarantee you that. Mr. Chair, today we had a very serious issue here.

During the debate, the Minister of Natural Resources looked over and said that I

was laughing.

Mr. Chair, that is unequivocally not true. I just want to let him know, the

minister, that you just cannot stand up and just make statements and expect

everybody to believe it when it is not true. I just want to be on the record,

because if the minister stands up and says it I just wanted the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador to know that

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible) to have a chat with the people on this side of

the House who saw it, Mr. Chair. It is not enough for the member opposite to get

up and deny something. There are people here who can prove what took place. If

people just want to put a show of hands - who saw him laughing - just do it.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I have to ask, that is three or four times now that

the members opposite this is a very serious issue and if the minister wants to

keep on doing this, that was a very serious issue and you should not be just

trying to single members out because you think it sounds good and looks good,

Mr. Minister. I can guarantee you I will not be standing for it on a regular

basis. I can assure the minister right away, I will be standing on a point of

privilege at every time

CHAIR: The Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible) standing and pointing a finger at me. That is

the very thing you just said a few minutes ago that the member could not engage

in, Mr. Chair. I guarantee you I will not stand for it, and he is pointing a

finger exactly what you just ruled he could not do.

CHAIR: Could the Government House Leader the point of order is?

MR. KENNEDY: The point of order, Mr. Chair, is that he contravened the

very rule that you just made that he cannot threaten and intimidate people in

this House.

CHAIR: As Chair, I did not see that at that point in time, but I will

take it under advisement and will have a look at it, but that is not what I just

saw.

We will go back to the hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, pointing, we always point. We point to a minister

when we ask questions. Mr. Chair, I will just go on to the Member for Humber

West, and I know the member. I know the member made some statements last week in

his speech and he got caught up in the speech. I just want to bring it to his

attention.

Mr. Chair, I never had to give up my seat for a political appointment to the

House. I did not have to do it. I just want to let the member know; I know you

did not mean it, but under any Chief Electoral Officer, it is illegal to give up

a seat for a political appointment. So, I know you did not infer that I was

doing it just for a political appointment, because it is illegal to give up for

some reward. I just want to remind you earlier when I wanted to speak to you

about it, that is what I was going to say that I know you did not mean it, but

I just wanted to clear the record that

MR. CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the member to please direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. JOYCE: Well, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to let the member know earlier,

that is why earlier I just wanted to let him know that I know he did not mean

any intent by it and I just wanted to clear the record.

I will go back to 1989, Mr. Chair, when I did step aside for Premier Wells.

At the time, there was on the South shore of the Bay of Islands, there was not

one house with water and sewer; North shore, there was none. There was five per

cent on the North shore, Mr. Chair. So, my decision at the time, I did it. I did

it for the District of the Bay of Islands. I did it because I thought it was the

right thing to do to give the district also at the time, Mr. Chair, I wanted

to do the best that I could for the District of the Bay of Islands. Mr. Chair,

in the whole area of the Bay of Islands at the time there was a lot of neglect,

and I can assure you that the people of the Bay of Islands were very proud, very

happy with what I did, for the number of years that a Liberal has been elected,

except for one little interruption. Other than that, there always has been a

Liberal elected.

Another thing that the member said is that Corner Brook got what they wanted

in the Grenfell College. It is not. There were commitments made by the Minister

of Finance, the Member for Humber East. I will look at different ministers here

at least three, at least three. Sorry, I am not allowed to point; I am not

allowed to use my hand to point. At least three that I see here, Mr. Chair, at

least three that I see here that made the commitment on fourteen or fifteen

different occasions. So I will just let the Member for Humber West know that if

he wants to see the transcripts where it was committed to, promised, legislation

being developed, I would have no problem probably doing it.

The Member for Humber West also went on talking about all the funds being

spent in Corner Brook and the Bay of Islands. I agree, there were some

improvements made in Corner Brook. I absolutely agree. I cannot take that away

that there were some major announcements made in Corner Brook. Grenfell College

is one that was made. Hopefully we are going to see the hospital that was done.

There were some major announcements, but then again, I always have to ask the

question, he said even in the Bay of Islands. My question is: If there is so

much work done in the Bay of Islands, Mr. Chair, what am I doing here? With

everything that the Member for Humber West said, what am I doing here?

Obviously, everything that the member said is not 100 per cent.

I used the long-term care facility, and I know the Member for Humber West and

the Member for Humber East are very concerned about this here, the long-term

care facility. When that was being built, Mr. Chair, it was 275 units. It was

scaled down to 225. I know the Member for Humber East can remember this last

year. I am not sure if he is aware of this today. Last year, he could remember

when an individual had to be brought down to Port au Choix because there were no

beds in the long-term care unit. The family went down and they knew there were

going to be dire consequences when he did because they did not think this person

was going to survive the travel back. He did not. He did not make it back.

When the Minister of Finance, the Member for Humber East first heard it, he

said in the media: I was not aware that there were no beds available in the

long-term care facility. That was stated in The Western Star . The

minister then came up with $3 million. There was one wing in the long-term care

facility, which I do not know if the Member for Humber West was even aware, that

was not being used. It was going to be used for Grenfell College. It was going

to be used for some research on seniors.

Minister, I just want to let you know, and I am not sure if you are aware,

that unit is still not open. The money has been put aside. The unit is still not

open as of today. Those twenty-five beds are still not open. It is still not

open. Trust me; I checked today again, it is still not open. The extra

twenty-five beds are still not there. It is a major issue, Mr. Chair, and I just

bring it to the attention of the Member for Humber East and the Member for

Humber West. It is still not open. It is a major concern, as we all know, in the

Corner Brook area.

I only have a minute-and-a-half left, so I was asked on behalf of the Mayor

of St. John's today, in his press conference today when he was talking about a

new fiscal arrangement for all the municipalities across the Province, he just

wanted to make sure that all the members from the St. John's area who were

mentioned and they knew he was there. The Member for Kilbride was down a bit

earlier. Yes, he was down a bit earlier. He did not stay for the press

conference

MR. DINN: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Yes, I am just saying. I am saying you were down there a bit

earlier. I am saying you were.

So obviously, the members knew about it. They asked me to say how

disappointed they were that the members from St. John's did not show up. Even

the Premier, he wanted me to mention even the Premier never showed up to the

press conference to support St. John's. They did not even show up. This fiscal

arrangement

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I will let the Member for Humber East and the Member for

Humber West know, this affects Corner Brook, it affects Pasadena, and it affects

the whole Province. This is not a St. John's issue, as the mayor mentioned. This

is not a St. John's issue. This is an issue for all the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, can you please control these

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, this is an issue for all Newfoundland and Labrador. This is just

not a St. John's issue. I urge all members in the House to do what they can to

support the government and bring the points forward to the government that this

is a major issue and that it has to be done.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that his

MR. JOYCE: Leave for thirty seconds to clue up?

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty seconds.

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

MR. JOYCE: I have leave. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I just want to bring that up about the long-term facility. It is a

serious issue, a very serious issue.

I ask the Member for Humber East: Look into it, please, because anything we

can do to speed this up to get this unit open is going to help all seniors in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was brought to my attention and I can assure you

those twenty-five extra beds, as of today, are not in use.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me this opportunity to

speak once again on the debate for Interim Supply.

The Member for the Bay of Islands raised a matter of the long-term care

facility in Corner Brook, which is a beautiful building. The building was needed

for many, many years. It was built, and I think the cost was about $65 million

to $70 million. Then there were four dementia units built as well. Using this

model, the people who had mild dementia could live in a homelike setting in

these very beautiful units that have gone over extremely well with the people of

Corner Brook. Then, if their condition continues to deteriorate, eventually they

go into the main building, into the nursing home.

As the Member for Bay of Islands indicated, at one point there was not enough

room. It turned out that there was a floor on one of the wings of the long-term

care facility that had been promised to Memorial University of Newfoundland and

Labrador to do research on aging. For the people who had been around the table

when that promise had been made there was a new president at Memorial at that

time, there was a new chair of the Board of Regents at Memorial at that time,

there was a new Minister of Health at that time - they did not know, and I

reminded them that the promise to Memorial, of course, was on condition that the

beds were n