PDF Version

December 5, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 53

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

welcome to the Speaker's gallery today Members of Neria Aylward's family, her

mother Sue Hurley and grandparents: retired Justice, and former Member of this

Legislature, the hon. Fintan Aylward and Mrs. Ann Aylward. Neria is the subject

of a Ministerial Statement today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we have the Members for the Districts of Exploits, Stephenville Port au Port,

Burin Grand Bank, Terra Nova, Ferryland and Mount Pearl North.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to extend birthday greetings to an exemplary resident

of my district.

Mrs.

Ignatia Madden of Grenfell Heights, Grand Falls Windsor, is celebrating her

95th birthday today with her family and friends. At 95, Mrs. Madden has retained

considerable independence, keeping herself busy with gardening and yard work,

washing the windows in her house, tarring the roof in summer, and shovelling

snow in the winter. Though, she has six children and numerous grandchildren, she

insists on performing all of these tasks on her own.

Despite

the demands of raising six children on her own, Mrs. Madden still found the time

to serve as a member of the St. Gerard's Guild, the Immaculate Conception

Ministerial Team, the Catholic Women's League and as a volunteer with shut-ins

and the sick.

She is a

strong supporter of the Provincial Drama Festival, having travelled to

communities across the province as often as possible to attend them. Mrs. Madden

is an inspiration to us all, enjoying a full and independent lifestyle well into

her golden years.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join with me in wishing Mrs. Madden all the

best on this, her 95th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

proud to take a moment to recognize Mrs. Cheryl Stagg from Stephenville. Cheryl

will be receiving the Order of Newfoundland from the Lieutenant Governor at this

year's investiture ceremony, being held next week. The Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador is the highest honour of the province.

Cheryl

is widely known for her involvement as the founding administrative director of

the Stephenville Theatre Festival, which just concluded its 38th season, making

it the longest-running professional theatre festival in the province.

Cheryl

is chair of the board of the College of the North Atlantic and has previously

served on the boards of Marine Atlantic and the Canadian National Railway. She's

a board member with the NL Film Development Corporation, has served on the NL

Arts Council board, the hospital board and chamber of commerce for Stephenville,

just to name some of her community involvement.

addition, she was a founding member and editor of

The Georgian newspaper. Extremely humble, Cheryl is a compelling

leader who is passionate about her community and the province, and she's truly

deserving of this prestigious honour.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Cheryl Stagg.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Burin Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. HALEY:

Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a

magical time of year. In the Town of Grand Bank, that magic is amplified each

year because of the extraordinary efforts of a group of citizens determined to

bring a smile to the face of young and old alike.

Several

years ago, this volunteer group, led by Chris Emberley, decided to decorate

Frazer Park, a park in the center of town. Year by year, the display has grown,

to the point this year it has spilled into the community park further up Main

Street, Mr. Speaker.

The

committee, which consists of Chris and Dallas Emberley, John Hillier, Dave and

Dawn Noseworthy, Theresa Cousins, Brian and Amanda Dodge, Kelly Burton and

Chantel Clarke, spend countless hours fundraising, planning new displays and

erecting them in advance of the official light up, which draws people from Grand

Bank and surrounding towns to see what new wonders will be unveiled this year,

Mr. Speaker.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating the Frazer Park committee on a job well

done and to thank them for their efforts on behalf of their fellow citizens each

Christmas. Mr. Speaker, this committee demonstrates community spirit at its

finest.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the Port Blandford

historical society.

In 2013,

the historical society was formed with a mandate to focus on researching,

preserving and promoting the history and heritage of the community. Their

efforts have paid off.

I am

proud to advise that on November 27, historical society member Ms. Pamela Leyden

attended the 2016 Governor General's History Award for Community Programming in

Ottawa and received an honourable mention on behalf of her group for its Story

Board Project.

The

Story Board Project focuses on 12 unique events in Port Blandford's history,

including its connection to the Newfoundland Railway, the Forestry Patrol as

well as its history in logging and shipbuilding. Of particular significance are

the stories relating to the 1959 tragic death of Constable William Moss and the

loss of five lives during the 1963 collapse of the Port Blandford Causeway.

Being

recognized by the Governor General last week truly is a remarkable

accomplishment for the members of the Historical Society, given its merely three

years as a volunteer community organization.

Would

all hon. Members join with me in congratulating the Port Blandford Historical

Society for its vision and this milestone achievement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate the community of Portugal

Cove South and the region on the announcement of July 17, 2016 to have Mistaken

Point designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Over the

past number of years many of the residents, community groups, federal and

provincial departments have worked very hard to make this happen. It was indeed

a pleasure to work with all who were involved; it was great to see the passion

and dedication from the community coming together to achieve such a significant

accomplishment, to put the area on the world stage. This will provide

much-needed economic growth and will attract many visitors to the area.

I would

like to acknowledge the residents who, for decades, recognized the importance of

the area and elevated the importance and protection of the site so we could be

here today.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join me in congratulating the

community of Portugal Cove South, all the community partners and volunteers on

making Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve designed as a UNESCO World Heritage

Site.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recognize the Member

for Mount Pearl North, we welcome members of Levandier family today to the

public gallery. They're the subject of the Member's statement.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in the hon. House today with a heavy heart to recognize a long-time resident of

Mount Pearl. Richard Levandier passed peacefully away in October surrounded by

family.

Richard

was well known in the City of Mount Pearl. Any Kinsmen event, and most other

community events, you were sure to see him there. Richard was a dedicated

volunteer in our community. Recently, he received Mount Pearl's 2016 Community

Service Award. He was recognized over the years for his volunteerism, with such

awards as the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal and the Beaumont-Hamel Local Hero

Commemorative Award.

One of

Richard's many passions was slo-pitch softball. He was involved with Mount Pearl

Men's Slo-Pitch Softball League for over 25 years. At the Citizen of the Year

award ceremony in April of this year, Richard received a big surprise as the

softball field was being named after him.

Richard

will be greatly missed by his family, members of Kinsmen and Kinettes, his

friends, but also all residents of Mount Pearl who will miss his outstanding

dedication to our community.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in this House to join me in honouring the life

of Richard Levandier and the incredible contribution he made to Mount Pearl and

to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety and the Attorney General.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize a historic event for our province: the

appointment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Justice Rowe becomes the first jurist from Newfoundland and Labrador to be named

to this illustrious bench, the highest court in our country.

This

past Friday I had the honour and privilege of joining Supreme Court of Canada

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, federal minister of Justice Jody

Wilson-Raybould, Justice Rowe's family and friends and members of the justice

and legal communities in honour of Justice Rowe's appointment.

Mr.

Speaker, it's always been our view that Newfoundland and Labrador has eminently

qualified jurists to serve on the Supreme Court of Canada. We advocated for the

vacancy created with the retirement of Justice Cromwell to be filled by an

appointment from our province. The merit-based approach for appointments has

confirmed regional representation and reflects the beliefs of all Atlantic

Canadians that this important convention be honoured.

course, convention aside, Justice Rowe is the best person for the job. He has a

sharp mind and a wealth of experience. This was evident in his application and

the question-and-answer session before the House of Commons Justice and Human

Rights Committee and Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Justice

Rowe made Newfoundlanders and Labradorians proud as we watched intently during

that session. His forthcoming decisions will help form the fabric of our

country. For that, we will all benefit.

I ask

all hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating and celebrating this

remarkable achievement of Justice Rowe's appointment. We wish him well in this

new endeavour.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. As the Official

Opposition, we join the minister and the government in congratulating Mr.

Justice Malcolm Rowe on his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. It's

truly an honour, I'm sure, for him to be the first jurist from this province to

sit on the country's most prestigious bench in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Having

individuals from our province to sit in such a position is something that we can

all be very proud of and thankful for.

As the

minister advocated, I can tell you myself personally, and Members opposite, we

advocated as well, and I believe that our efforts have paid off for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I think

of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are aspiring to have a legal

career that this is something they can now also aspire to in their future.

Again, I

congratulate, Mr. Justice Rowe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement. This indeed is a remarkable

achievement, and congratulations to hon. Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe on being

called to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canada's Supreme Court is highly regarded

internationally for its member's legal scholarship. Justice Rowe will certainly

add to that reputation.

Justice

Rowe joked that as a young lawyer he had always hoped he would get a change to

appear before the Supreme Court. Well, look where he is today.

Bravo,

hon. Mr. Justice Malcolm Rowe and thank you for your service.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in

this hon House to recognize two individuals who have demonstrated a strong

propensity to emerge as leaders for the world's future and as a result, have

been recently named to the Rhodes Scholars-elect class of 2017.

Neria

Aylward of St. John's and Maike van Niekerk of Corner Brook are two of the 95

scholars from around the world selected to commence studies at the University of

Oxford in October, 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, Ms. Aylward completed her undergraduate degree as a Blyth Scholar at

Pembroke College, University of Cambridge. Her third-year dissertation studied

Inuit political activism in response to the international seal hunt controversy,

and for this dissertation she undertook fieldwork in Iqaluit, Nunavut. Ms.

Aylward also has a keen interest in international diplomacy, having interned in

the Humanitarian Mediation Programme at the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in

Geneva, Switzerland. She is a graduate of Holy Heart High School in St. John's.

Ms. van

Niekerk is a Schulich Leadership Scholar currently studying oncology-focused

nursing at Dalhousie University. She has earned a perfect academic average,

while conducting research exploring the relationship between historical traumas,

psychological distress and cancer diagnoses among Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Ms. van Niekerk was recently named one of Canada's Top 20 Under 20 for her

charitable program, Katrin's Karepackage, which raises money to help offset

travel costs for cancer patients living in rural communities. She graduated as

class president and valedictorian from Corner Brook Regional High School with a

99 per cent average in 2013.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

The Rhodes Scholarship is a

life-changing opportunity for exceptional young people with the potential to

make a difference for good in the world.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Neria Aylward and Ms. Maike

van Niekerk on becoming the Rhodes Scholar-elects for the 2017 class. We wish

these outstanding all-around students every success in their studies at Oxford

and all their future endeavours.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement. It gives me great pleasure to

join with this House and congratulate Ms. Aylward, Ms. van Niekerk on being

named to the Rhodes Scholar-elect call of 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm confident that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians take the utmost

pride in the accomplishments and success of our citizens, and today is no

exception. These individuals are an inspiration to us all and their hard work,

dedication and passion is to be commended.

I would

like to also extend congratulations to the family and friends of these

recipients who no doubt supported and encouraged them on their steps through

their journeys. To witness all that these individuals have accomplished thus far

in their lives is a testament that the future contributions to our global

community will be nothing other than exceptional.

Congratulations to you both.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am so pleased to

wish Ms. Aylward and Ms. Niekerk congratulations on being two of the 95 Rhodes

Scholars chosen this year.

Judging

by their achievements so far, I know they will make a difference in our society

for years to come. This is a reminder to us of the tremendous high quality of

our students. In a province with such a small population and the responsibility

we have to do all we can to ensure that our educational system supports our

students to achieve their full potential as these two wonderful young women have

shown.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, today I ask the Premier: Why was the construction of the ice boom

cancelled for this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the construction of the ice boom what the former premier is talking about is

at the Muskrat Falls Project. The cancellation of the ice boom this year was

related to some leakages that we had seen within the cofferdam itself, so it

required necessary repairs.

Also to

that, there were some disruptions around some protests that had occurred. But

really it was a combination of factors, I'd say, Mr. Speaker, on why the

cofferdam and the ice boom will not be in place. But what Nalcor has done, what

we have directed them to do, is make sure they would put other measures in place

to actually prevent as much damage to the infrastructure that's at the Muskrat

Falls site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier to tell this House when he was made aware of the delay.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was

just a few days ago through a release from Nalcor. Days prior to that, we knew

that because of the decreasing amount of water that had to have been released,

there was seepage at the cofferdam.

These

are really not unexpected with a cofferdam. This is really not a concrete

structure; what you see put in place are rocks that were put there. It's not

unusual to get seepage from the cofferdam but this was more than was anticipated

and it prevented Nalcor to get the water levels up to the required amount that

they would have needed to put the proper boom in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier to clarify his statement. Is he saying that he became aware of this

as a result of the release issued by Nalcor just a few days ago. Is that how he

became aware of it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

the province indeed most people were aware that there was water seeping

through the cofferdam. This was publicly known that water had to be decreased.

As a matter of fact, you go and do the repairs at the cofferdams so it was then

that there were ongoing problems. They had brought in people to actually do some

regrouting and so on to prevent this from happening.

Ideally,

with the weather, with the river freezing up and so on, this is when the boom

it was not just the seepage, but there was a combination of impacts. Of course,

the weather in Labrador this time of the year, we saw the river freezing up;

that was an issue. We saw the seepage; that was an issue. There were some

disruptions, as we all know, Mr. Speaker.

So the

engineers, the people who are doing the job at Nalcor, they had made a decision

based on a combination of things that were incurring on the project, that

putting the boom in place was something that they would be able to do this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

he said yes, that's when he found out about it, through the release from Nalcor.

But I

ask the Premier: When was the boom scheduled to be installed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

construction of the boom, ideally if you go back to really September, there was

an indication then that they would like to get the water levels up. This, of

course, was the notice that went out, as a part of a public advisory. This would

let people know that around October they would be in a position to actually put

the boom in place. Of course, there was a combination of things that happened.

There was some seepage, some extra seepage that didn't allow that to happen.

Mr.

Speaker, this was a construction schedule. We've seen these are done by the

people that are responsible, the engineering, the people that are responsible

for, actually, the construction of the project. So ideally they would have hoped

to have that done by October of this year, but there was a window there.

Clearly, given what's happened at the project right now, that window could not

be met and the boom would not go in place this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the Premier: Why didn't the flooding take place earlier than October?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to clarify something, too, in terms of what the former premier is calling

flooding. It was increasing water levels that were a requirement to protect the

infrastructure at the project itself. We had met with the Aboriginal leaders as

you know and, Mr. Speaker, there was a determination, based on what we had dealt

with, with the engineering so that the water could be released again this year

or next spring, I would say.

As part

of the construction of the project itself, getting water levels up to put the

boom in place, Nalcor and the people that are constructing that would have hoped

to have that in place for this fall. That was put in place really to help

protect the integrity of the assets that were in place. Ideally, if they had met

their schedule, Mr. Speaker, it would have been done this fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So they

haven't met the schedule. Last week the minister said that to repair the

cofferdam could be a few weeks away.

I ask

the Premier: What impacts will that have on the flooding of the reservoir?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Getting

the water levels up to where they want it, the current repairs are undergoing at

the cofferdam right now. Plus they're looking at other mitigating efforts that

will be put in place to protect the integrity of the assets at the Muskrat Falls

site.

Mr.

Speaker, this is not the ideal situation that we'd see. The boom itself would

have been what the project would have liked to have done, no question about

that. But now, what Nalcor has been doing, through the work of the engineers, is

to put in place other mitigating efforts to actually protect that infrastructure

that's in place.

Obviously, it is a very complicated project. I'm not an engineer, Mr. Speaker,

but what I've been told and what Nalcor are putting in place is the best that

they can to help protect that infrastructure for this winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the Premier: What is the actual risk to the infrastructure as a result of these

delays?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

former premier would know that this happens as a combination of things. We've

seen slippage in

schedule in this for quite some time, slippage that you would

see in

schedule maybe back when he was the Premier. I would suggest it would

have been part of this as well, because, if you remember, the diversion of that

river was to occur long before now. So when the former premier, on his watch, I

would say, Mr. Speaker, some of what we're seeing today is a result of what has

happened in the past few years as well. So there's a combination of impacts that

are here.

Mr.

Speaker, the number in terms of the dollar value and the

schedule lost right

now, the CEO, in a report that he gave last week, would anticipate that this

could be a few months. Of course, there is some money that would be attached to

that, in upwards to about a couple-hundred million dollars.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the weather challenges in Labrador are well known, the risk of damage to

infrastructure if timelines weren't met is well known. The Premier of the day

has been in power now for 12 months.

So I ask

him: When were you first made aware there was potential damage to infrastructure

if the timelines weren't met? Premier, when were you first made aware of it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

just mentioned earlier, there are a number of different impacts and targets they

were trying to meet with that project.

The

level of water seepage that was coming from the cofferdam was not something they

would have been aware of until they started increasing water levels at the

cofferdam. So these were ongoing. These were daily occurrences. The managers of

the project did the best job they could do. They're currently working at that

now with re-grouting, replacing rocks and so on, also making extra efforts, by

other means, not just by the boom alone.

This was

just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, that we were made aware of this. No different

than I would anticipate when the former premier was in place, that he would meet

with the CEO and so on and get his regular updates.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an ongoing problem and now they're looking for resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

sounds again like the Premier just became aware I believe it was on Friday

when Nalcor issued a release on the impacts of these delays.

I'll ask

the Minister of Natural Resources, who's responsible for the file and

responsible for Nalcor, if the Premier only became aware on Friday, I ask the

minister, when did she become aware that if timelines were not met, flooding was

not completed, that there could be infrastructure damage?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

indicated last week, the developments around the cofferdam are fairly new. About

mid-month we understood that the seepage was a little bit more than they had

anticipated, so Nalcor lowered the water levels. They brought in some

specialists, geotechnical engineers, SNC-Lavalin and Hatch, as I indicated last

week.

This is

an ongoing situation developing. I would say in the last few days, last week, I

was made aware there is a potential that they could not put in the log boom as

they had wanted to do. They are looking at how to mitigate the risks involved in

the downstream assets. So this is an ongoing situation. Today there are

engineers on site looking at how to best move forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week in one of the comments that the CEO of Nalcor made, he said they ran out of

time. He said they simply ran out of time, and he referenced the October

protest.

I ask

the minister: What was the impact of the protest to the contracts and the

timeline in the budget of this project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, as the CEO of

Nalcor has indicated, the impacts of the time delay around the protests have

made an impact on getting the cofferdam completed and getting the water raised

in the reservoir. We don't have finalized details on what those impacts would

be, because this is an ongoing situation. Nalcor is working on mitigations.

They're working diligently to make sure that we protect the assets downstream on

behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask

the minister: When is the last time that she visited the Muskrat Falls site to

view for herself the circumstances that exist there and the mitigation efforts

that are taking place? When is the last time she actually went on site to have a

look at that?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not

a geotechnical engineer, and we have a very skilled workforce in Muskrat Falls

actually doing the work. We have brought in SNC-Lavalin as well as Hatch, who

are geotechnical engineers, who are reviewing and working on the site at present

time.

Mr.

Speaker, I would say that if the Muskrat Falls Project had been well managed

from the beginning we wouldn't be this far behind in the project, nor would we

have the enormous costs we have with Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

almost sounds like she hasn't been to Muskrat Falls. And the talented work

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Well, she never answered the

question, I say to Members opposite. She never answered a very simple question.

The talented workforce that works at Nalcor is the same talented workforce that

did the project when we were in government too, I say to the minister opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

So I'll ask the minister

again: What steps are being taken to minimize the concerns and the potential for

significant damage to the infrastructure at Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

SNC-Lavalin as well as Hatch geotechnical engineers on site today. Nalcor, as

the project manager, they have an integrated management team on the project.

They are on site, Mr. Speaker. They're looking at all the different

opportunities there are to mitigate risk downstream.

They are

also watching the weather patterns and the freeze up on the river itself. They

are making progress on bringing in, as I said last week, materials for the

cofferdam. They are doing grouting, Mr. Speaker. It will be a couple of weeks

and then they will be able to raise the water levels.

What's

important, Mr. Speaker, I understand from the geotechnical engineers is to be

able to raise that water, and that's what they're focused on today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few

weeks ago during the time while protesters were stating their beliefs and taking

their position in Labrador, officials had made a comment that they believed that

the delays could cost between $200 million and $300 million just in contractual

delays and claims from contractors who had to shut down the site.

I ask

the minister: Do you have an update on the potential cost to the project as a

result of those delays, as well as potential damage to the infrastructure

because of your construction delays?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, if the former

administration and the former premier had taken the opportunity to meet with and

understand the issues around the Muskrat Falls Project put forward by the

indigenous leaders, we wouldn't be in this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, we do not have

an understanding at present because this is an ongoing situation. We do not have

a finalized figure on what the delay in the project is costing because of the

protest or because of these changes with the cofferdam. We will bring that

forward as soon as we have that information.

Right

now, Mr. Speaker, we are very much focused and Nalcor is very much focused on

mitigating the risks to our downstream assets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

wouldn't expect there would be finalized numbers for quite some time but if the

minister could provide an update as they understand and grasp an understanding

of the increased cost because of the delays over the last number of months.

Maybe if the minister took the time to go visit the site, she could understand

it better and learn better what was actually taking place down there.

So I'll

ask the minister well, she's had lots of opportunity, I say to Members

opposite, to rise in her place to say when she went there. She had at least two

opportunities and she didn't do it. So I'll ask the minister when will you

provide an update on the cost and the

schedule implications at Muskrat Falls as

you know it again.

Minister, you're responsible for the file; when will you advise the House and

the people of the province what the latest is?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

I've noticed that the former premier is asking a lot of questions about Muskrat

Falls and that project today. He's even made reference to some of the Aboriginal

consultations and discussions with the Aboriginal leaders. Mr. Speaker, I'm very

proud that we've had a working relationship that is much stronger than what

we've seen from the former premier.

The line

of questioning that he's coming with today is we know there were going to be

increased costs; we know there are losses scheduled as a result of the

protesters. But I want to remind the people of this province, remind them of

this: It was only just a few weeks ago that this former premier stood up at a

convention in Gander when asked about methylmercury and he said this: Well, I

didn't make myself familiar with the science. Today, he's standing in this House

asking about project delays when he had years to get familiar with the project

and made a conscious decision not to.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the

Premier is referring to is the flip-flop by his minister who, in June, agreed

with the methylmercury reports, and then in the fall took a completely different

view, which according to them led to significant delays in the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

This is coming from the

Premier who is also the Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. According

to the ATIPP information that we received, he spent no more than seven nights in

Labrador since he became the minister. Twelve months he's been the Minister of

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs and he's spent seven days in Labrador on this,

where the most important project in the history of our province is taking place.

I ask

the Premier: Do you have an update on what the actual costs are going to be? Two

hundred million to $300 million, I suggest, what we knew during the protest, is

probably small compared to what could happen as a result of the delays and the

damage that could happen over this winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to remind the former premier that we have four MHAs that represent Labrador. We

work very closely with those MHAs, as we do with our MP, as we do with

Aboriginal leaders. Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely. I can assure the

former premier of this: That we have made ourselves quite familiar with the

impacts on this project in Labrador and for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

The

recent numbers that we've had between $200 million and $300 million, these are

the numbers. The

schedule delays that we have out there, they're the ones that

we know we can use for best judgment right now, Mr. Speaker.

But I

will assure you of this: That we are working with the people of Labrador and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get this project back on track. We were

left with quite the mess because of the situation that you did not pay attention

to.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When were you first made aware

of the issues concerning the obligations of the 2013 Voisey's Bay agreement and

the possible impending layoffs at Vale?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During

November, Vale did come to see the officials in my department. They have had a

conversation with the officials. We received a letter; I believe it was last

week. We are responding to that letter asking for more technical details.

Obviously, this is a change to what would be the project milestones, if it is

agreed to. We're requesting more information so that we can make an informed

decision.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, if the Opposition hadn't raised this issue last week, the public likely

would still not be aware of what's going on.

When was

the minister going to let the public know exactly what was happening with this

project?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly would have let people of the province know about Vale's underground

mine when it was responsible to do so. Mr. Speaker, Vale has only made a

representation to the department. It was only last week that we received a

letter from them. It's only now that we're responding, asking for more technical

information.

Mr.

Speaker, no decisions have been made. They are putting forward a case for making

some amendments to the agreements and we're reviewing that. At that point in

time, once we have all the information, we'll certainly make it available.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to

the minister: Any time there are employment layoffs or there are elements of an

agreement that's not being followed, it's certainly important to Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. They have a right to know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I ask the minister: Is your

administration holding Vale to their commitment to produce first ore at its

underground mine by 2020? How does the latest news impact their contractual

obligations and particular timelines?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, for the question.

It's

very interesting, I say, Mr. Speaker, when I'm listening to the Member opposite

asking these questions about Vale and the underground mine. The underground mine

is continuing. Vale has not asked for any extension to the 2020 obligations.

What they've asked for and as I indicated last week what Vale has asked for is

they've asked for some time to do more advanced engineering before they go to

procurement.

That's

their question before us. We've gone back asking for more technical information

before we make any decision or even have a full view of what their anticipated

impacts would be under the agreements.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister referenced last week about engineering procurement. Those are elements

of the operation of the business plan of that company. That's not something

we're concerned with. There were timelines laid out, there were contractual

obligations. It's up to them to follow her; it's her job to oversee it.

I ask

the minister: What the people of the province want to know is what are you doing

to deal with these issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As my

hon. colleague would know, Mr. Speaker, there have been several amendments to

the agreements with Vale because Vale is making decisions and moving forward on

the development of the underground mine. There are several, several amendments

under the former administration.

We have

been asked, as of a week or so ago, by Vale to consider making a change to their

agreements. We are reviewing the information they have presented. We have gone

back and asked for more technical details.

We'll

know more as we move forward, Mr. Speaker, but certainly this government will

make sure that it is in the best interest of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, any amendments

that were made in Vale in the project were made with the best interest of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That project was up and kept running and

moving forward because we have an underground mine that is under construction,

and that's what the minister needs to be concerned about.

Can the

minister tell us directly: What changes have Vale requested in terms of the

current agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, we have only

just in the last number of weeks received a letter from Vale asking for some

changes because they want to make sure they have advanced engineering before

they get into procurement. That is the request. They're asking for some time

within the existing framework of time in the agreement. We've gone back to ask

for some detailed information.

As I

receive this information, as we review and consider impacts, we'll consider

whether or not an amendment is even possible, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Employees at IOC said they are working in a climate of fear. People are being

forced to work overtime, not getting any required time off and subject to

disciplinary action if they take a day off.

I ask

the Minister of Labour: Has your department undertaken an audit to make sure

that all labour laws are being adhered to?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the most robust labour regimes anywhere in

North America. It is a jurisdiction which takes great pride in our ability to

meet the needs not only of employers but of employees, especially within the

context of a collective agreement. Collective agreements are in place. There are

ways and means to be able to deal with all issues that arise in the course of a

working day and in the workplace. Those processes are underway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island for a quick question.

MR. BRAZIL:

While in Opposition, Members

opposite constantly raised concerns about labour relations and requested

government undertake an industrial inquiry. Today it appears things have only

worsened.

I ask

the minister: What actions are you taking to address these issues?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Educations, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, officials from

within the labour branch are always in communications with all affected parties,

stakeholders, in this. Whenever a specific request or a circumstance arises that

needs the attention or is being requested to receive the attention of officials

within either the labour board or within the department, they're acted on

accordingly and with haste.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

independent engineer's report, arising from the Muskrat Falls site visit in

July, identified and I quote a risk of serious leakage with respect to the

cofferdam.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Premier: When did Nalcor first learn of this conclusion of

the independent engineer and when did Nalcor inform the government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor

certainly appreciates, as do the people of the province, the work of the

independent engineer. The independent engineer does visit the site on a regular

basis. On an ongoing basis, as a province we listen to and respect what the

independent engineer has to say, as does Nalcor.

With

regard to the specific question, the independent engineer did raise some issues

around broken rock and other issues around some of the work taking place at

Muskrat Falls during the summer. This is unrelated to the cofferdam, Mr.

Speaker, but we did make sure that Nalcor was made accountable for that work,

and made sure that they were mitigating in that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I point

out that the quote that I used in the first question related specifically to the

cofferdam.

I ask

the Premier: Can he explain why we are only now learning that major cofferdam

issues were identified in July?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

independent engineer did his work in July, returned, produced the report the

finalized report was received, I believe, by November 1. The Oversight

Committee, obviously, has gone back to Nalcor on this report, has received a

response from Nalcor making sure this is the benefit of the Oversight

Committee that all of the issues have been addressed. This is the ongoing

process, Mr. Speaker, and an important one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two

government representatives were present at the July site visit with the

independent engineer.

I ask

the Premier: Are we being told that they did not immediately report on such a

serious matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor, as the

project managers, would have had people on site. The Oversight Committee would

have had people on site; they would have discussed this issue.

The

independent engineer offers some suggestions in what could happen, make sure

that people understand and they would have worked on those. The Oversight

Committee would have spoken to Nalcor about these issues and we have an ongoing

process of making sure that these issues are addressed.

Mr.

Speaker, regarding the cofferdam, seepage is not unusual and work was still

ongoing on the cofferdam during the summer and into the fall.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week in response to a question on the cofferdam, the Minister of Natural

Resources downplayed the significance of the leakage, as she's doing today. A

day later, Nalco's CEO said problems with the cofferdam will now lead to project

infrastructure damage.

I ask

the minister: Why did she downplay the issue in the House last week? They've had

the report since November 2. Has she read the independent engineer's report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I was indeed

asked a question on Thursday with regard to the cofferdam by the Third Party. I

responded we were concerned about the time of year. We were concerned about ice

coverage. We were concerned about the delay. I answered that in the question,

and Hansard reflects that, Mr.

Speaker.

With

regard to independent engineer's report, I have seen a copy of the report. It is

available publicly on Nalcor's site.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I will allow a very quick

question from the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

I ask the Premier: Is this

province's multi-billion dollar asset in jeopardy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The work

is ongoing at that Muskrat Falls Project. We just recently have been able to

secure another $2.9 billion in the enhanced federal loan guarantee. I would not

consider this project to be in jeopardy. It is no doubt, as you would know,

creating a fair amount of interest and a financial demand on our province.

In terms

of the project itself being in jeopardy, what we would see right now, when you

look at the transmission line, many of the projects and different contracts that

are in place are ongoing. There has been a lot of discussion around the

cofferdam itself and around the generation station right now, but I would not

consider this project to be in jeopardy.

I do

know our job right now is to get it back on track, get the

schedule back on

track and get this budget back intact as much as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic

Act No. 4. (Bill 60)

Mr.

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

Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, And The

City Of St. John's Act. (Bill 58)

Mr.

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

Act To Amend The Municipalities Election Act. (Bill 57)

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

I give notice that I will ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety

And Compensation Act. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the following private member's resolution:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges government to request a conflict of

interest advisory committee, pursuant to

section 14 of the

Conflict of Interest Act, 1995 to review the terms of employment

contract to the Chief Executive Officer of Nalcor Energy and Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro and determine the appropriateness of the employment contract; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that this House urges the Lieutenant Governor in Council to

ensure the conflict of interest advisory committee's report on this review is

made public.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Standing Order 63, the private member's resolution just entered by my colleague

will be the one that we will debate on Wednesday, December 7, on Private

Members' Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Wow, things are moving right

along here today, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the decision of the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union presents

new trade opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a historic trade relationship with

the United Kingdom; and

WHEREAS

the two regions may mutually benefit from trade opportunities;

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

of Assembly to urge government to develop an economic strategy which capitalizes

on trade opportunities between the United Kingdom and Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to have an opportunity to raise this issue once again in the

House of Assembly. Back in June, the people of England voted in a referendum to

leave the EU. Since then, the new prime minister has made it clear that the will

of the British people will be brought into effect, and that by March of next

year, the UK will have formally started the process of leaving which will, of

course, take some time.

It's

important to note that during this process, known as the triggering of

Article

50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the UK remains a fully paid-up member of the EU as

before. It's also worthy to note that Europe and the European Union are not the

same thing. For instance, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland are not EU members.

As the

UK leaves the EU over the next few years, powers that have been taken to

Brussels will be returned to the UK government in Westminster. Most importantly

for this province is the power for the UK to make its own international trade

deals.

You may

ask why that matters. Doesn't the EU strike its own trade deals? One only has to

look to Belgium where Canada's trade deal with the EU was at one point vetoed by

the region of Wallonia. It is very difficult to get an EU trade agreement.

Twenty-eight member states all have to agree on the trade treaty or it falls

through.

However,

a bilateral trade deal between Canada and the UK will be much easier. The deal

would be a best-fit model for these two countries; countries that share so much

history, two countries that could come together to promote trade and commerce

without the hindrance of 27 other European states vying to get a better deal for

champagne producers or Italian car manufacturers for instance.

So this

really matters to our province because the UK is the second-largest buyer of

goods from Newfoundland and Labrador on the international market. That's

significant, so it makes sense for us to build a stronger and better

relationship between our countries.

It can't

simply be about the ongoing work we've been doing within Business, Tourism,

Culture and Rural Development for years. There's lots of good work being done,

but this requires a concerted effort because there's a unique opportunity that's

before us and should be pursued.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest percentage of the workforce earning

the provincial minimum wage in Canada, with women, youth and those from rural

areas making up a disproportionate number of these workers;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate an immediate increase in the minimum

wage to restore the loss of purchasing power since 2010 and an annual adjustment

to the minimum wage beginning in 2016 to reflect the consumer price index.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I point out how disappointed the petition signers are that the minister

chose this year, in 2016, to ignore what they were asking for and to ensure that

minimum wage earners in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2017 will still be living

in poverty. A 25 cent raise in April, and a 25 cent raise in November of 2017,

is not going to take care of the concern of the people who signed this petition.

There is no way that 50 cents in 2017 is going to restore the loss of purchasing

power since 2010, the last time these workers saw a rise in the minimum wage.

There's

no way that 50 cents is going to ensure that we move above being the lowest

minimum wage in the country, because while we may be going up, the other

provinces are going to be going up in 2017 as well. I can assure the minister

that most likely we will still, in November 2017, have the lowest minimum wage

in this country and we will still have people working for a wage that is putting

them below the poverty line, Mr. Speaker.

It's our

minimum wage workers who are going to food banks. It's our minimum wage workers

who can't make ends meet. There is no reason why this government could not have

put the minimum wage up further and ensured that we would continue to have

workers improving their lot, not worsening their lot, Mr. Speaker.

What was

asked for and what this government hasn't done is to bring the minimum wage up

to a point that makes up for the lost earning power and then add to that, Mr.

Speaker. The minister has chosen not to do that. He has ignored the voice of the

people who are living in poverty in this province. People who are working, some

of them holding down two and three jobs because not only being on minimum wage,

the jobs are temporary very often. There's insecurity. They have no idea if

they're going to be able to keep all of the jobs they have. We have to end

poverty in this province, and this is one way to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government has once again cut the libraries budget, threatening the closure of

54 libraries; and

WHEREAS

libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with

little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and

computer access; and

WHEREAS

libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's

literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS

already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation

and cost of libraries;

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

of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a

long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this particular batch of petitions comes from Port au Port. Like so

many other public libraries in small rural communities, the Port au Port library

at St. Thomas Aquinas school is highly valued by the people who use it. As one

patron put it, a library is a library because of the people. It's not just about

books.

Another

patron speaking about an elderly woman in her community who had been through a

period of illness said, books delivered from libraries got her through hours of

not being well and a library keeps a world open for seniors when it would

otherwise be shutting down on them.

Library

users in Port au Port noted that Service Canada had previously offered help with

job search, only to lose that service when the Service Canada office in the

community was closed. The library had taken over that service but now even that

is in jeopardy. As we've seen in the past few years, the number of services that

have been stripped away from rural communities all over the province and this is

just another service that is on the verge of being stripped away.

Mr.

Speaker, as in other communities, the Port au Port library hosts a number of

programs and events, including a breakfast program, the only summer program for

kids in the community, the only one, storytimes, school visits, a program to

help dropouts, knitting classes and shut-in services. So this library serves the

people of that community in a broad number of ways.

interesting program in this area with a significant Indigenous population is a

special program educating people about the Indigenous community's history,

language and culture. The people of Port au Port will be the poorer for it if

they lose this important pillar of their community.

As we

heard on CBC Radio Sunday morning, there was a whole program on the importance

of libraries, not just about books but about being at the heart of the

community.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the education of children is one of the most important and vital investments

that can be made in the success of our children; and

WHEREAS

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be choosing educational

options that will provide all students of our province with a higher standard of

education and enhance the learning experience for all youth; and

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

WHEREAS the government's

decision to make cuts to teachers and to our educational system will have a

negative effect on the students;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reverse the decision effective immediately.

Mr.

Speaker, I had hoped, with the first term of our school system being done, that

this wouldn't still surface. It was very doubtful, knowing the dramatic impact

that the cuts have had on the education system; but knowing the due diligence by

our administrators, by our educators, by the volunteer groups, by parent

organizations and school councils, that maybe, maybe some way we could dodge a

bullet here.

Unfortunately, the feedback I'm getting from administrators, the feedback I'm

getting from school teachers, the feedback from organizations, particularly

those who deal with the schools themselves, the school councils, but

particularly from parents and even students, this hasn't happened. The impact on

their ability to have a quality of education has been severely tarnished here,

and tarnished because of the lack of supports here.

First of

all, we're cutting teaching units in our schooling system. So obviously that has

an impact on the time that a teacher can spend with a student, particularly

those who may have some challenges in particular areas or may need some

additional help in some way, shape or form. The challenges around overcrowding,

obviously it's adding to an inability to be able to offer programs in the proper

environment, in a learning, conducive environment.

Issues

around multi-grade classrooms: We know teachers are struggling with the fact

that the ability of resources and the ability for them to be able to spend

quality time with people are limited. Also around some of the training that

would have been necessary to be able to make that transition more fluent. The

all-day kindergarten, while a great asset to have, because of the preparation

not being done in advance, added challenges with overcrowding, with the

supervision, challenges around those things.

The loss

of core French programs: Obviously, for those who would have some options around

potential careers down the road and having to modify exactly their stream of

education has had a major impact. When we look at busing, even the busing

schedule has a detrimental effect on the learning ability of a number of young

people. Their families have been, no doubt, put in an area here where it becomes

a challenge being able to get the students to school on time. Some of the issues

around the stress around getting a kid who has to walk a further distance, or

all of a sudden there is a time frame there that they miss extracurricular

activities after school because the timing doesn't work.

There

was little to no consultation with people, all of these factors and the factor

here that the consultation between all the key stakeholders wasn't done in

advance so that you best address the issues that are going to be relevant when

you talk about cuts to education.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'll add this petition again. No doubt, I'll get a chance to speak to

it again.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 2,

third reading of Bill 51.

MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 51,

An Act To Amend

The Emergency 911 Act, The Emergency Services Act And Fire Protection Services

Act be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 51 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Ms. Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend

The Emergency 911 Act, The Emergency Services Act And The Fire Protection

Services Act. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 51 has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Emergency 911 Act, The Emergency Services

Act And The Fire Protection Services Act, read a third time, ordered passed and

its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 51)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 52.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that Bill 52,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act, be now read

the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 52 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act. (Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 52 has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices

Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 52)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, again

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Secure Withdrawal Management For

Young Persons, Bill 55, and I further move that the said bill now read the first

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall have leave to introduce Bill

55 and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, An

Act Respecting Secure Withdrawal Management For Young Persons, carried. (Bill

55)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting

Secure Withdrawal Management For Young Persons. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 55 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 55 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development, for leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, Bill 56,

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

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. the Government House Leader that he shall leave to introduce Bill 56

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

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development to

introduce a bill,

An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation, carried. (Bill 56)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Rooms Corporation. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 56 has now been read a

first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 56 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for leave to introduce a

bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Regulatory Accountability And Reporting, Bill

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

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded by

the hon. Government House Leader that he shall leave to introduce Bill 54 and

that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill,

An Act Respecting

Regulatory Accountability And Reporting, carried. (Bill 54)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting

Regulatory Accountability And Reporting. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 54 has now been read a

first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 53,

An Act

To Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2, now be given second reading.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 53 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2.

(Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

This is

an important piece of legislation that I feel may receive support from all

Members and all parties from within the House on its substance and the value

that it creates to those that are impacted, those who are charged with the

requirements of caring for someone who is gravely ill.

Mr.

Speaker, amendments to the Labour

Standards Act which we are asking for leave to codify, to create into

statute, build upon existing labour standards that prescribe and allow for a

protected leave by employees from their workplace, from their employment, to be

able to care for a direct relative, a family member, who is gravely ill and, in

fact, facing unspeakable circumstances. Those that we would never wish to have

to be placed on anyone.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill, this amendment to the

Labour Standards Act will build on an existing provision for compassionate

care leave. Family members who are charged with the responsibility of caring for

a family member who is facing terrible circumstances such as near death,

currently can avail of up to eight weeks to 28 weeks up to eight weeks of

protection to be able to leave their employment and still be able to provide

care for unpaid leave. This act, this amendment will increase that statutory

protection to 28 weeks. It brings in line our legislation with recent changes

introduced by the federal government to the federal labour code and to the

Employment Insurance program.

Mr.

compassionate care benefits under the Employment Insurance program increasing

those benefits from six weeks to up to 26 weeks for benefits. In addition to

this, the period during which leave can be taken was expanded from a 26-week

window to a 52-week window. The federal government also introduced changes to

the Canada Labour Code to provide up

to 28 weeks of job protection for federally regulated employees. Our legislation

effectively mirrors this.

Mr.

Speaker, compassionate care has indeed been in existence since 2004 when the

federal government implemented changes to the Employment Insurance program to be

able to enable workers to avail of up to six weeks of paid EI benefits while

they are temporarily away from their work, to be able to provide care and

support for a family member who is at a significant risk of death within the

next 26 weeks or in six months.

The

Canada Labour Code was amended

at that time to provide job protection for up to eight weeks to enable employees

under the federal jurisdiction to avail of this new benefit. The eight-week

compassionate care allowance accounted for the two-week waiting period required

to access Employment Insurance benefits.

Following the federal changes to both the EI program and

the Canada Labour Code , in 2004 the

province amended our own Labour Standards

province. The changes were to align with the changes made at the federal level

and to ensure that workers could access this EI benefit should the need ever

arise.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the

Labour Standards Act before the House today will once again align

our legislation with that of our federal government

counterparts and will ensure increased job protection for workers providing

support and care for a family member during, what we all know to be, an

exceptionally difficult period in their lives. The increase in length of these

benefits will help so many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be more at peace

during a challenging time, indeed. The last thing people should be worrying

about is job security when duty calls you to look after a family member who's

facing death.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a benefit not only to employees but to employers as well.

Obviously, an employee who's facing such circumstances will naturally be

distracted. They will naturally be elsewhere. They will naturally need to be

able to care for their loved one, for their family member. All employers would

recognize how important it is to be able to provide such an opportunity, such a

necessity to their own employees during such a difficult time. This is what we

are all about, not only as a country, but in particular here as a Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine,

Mr. Speaker, if your own loved one became gravely ill. I'm sure that each and

every one of us would want to spend as much time with them, caring for them,

providing companionate care to help comfort them and to provide them with some

peace. These changes would do just that.

It would

allow up to 28 weeks, that is approximately 6 months, of comforted care for a

family member who is gravely ill, without that family member ever having to

wonder or to question or to be uncertain about whether their job will be secure

for them when it's time for them to return. That's why our government is

proposing this legislation today and the change therein, as it will have a great

impact on the lives of the people of our province who are facing such a

challenging time.

The

provincial government amended its own compassionate care leave policy I would

like to add, to allow for extended access to unpaid companionate care leave,

mirroring what we're doing here today, but for the provincial public sector

employees who are away from work to be able to provide care or support to a

gravely ill family member. Public service employees may be eligible to receive

now up to 28 weeks of companionate care leave in the form of unpaid leave, an

identical way we are offering it here on the floor of the House.

I want

to say a very special thank you in recognition to the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board whose own leadership brought forward this particular

policy within the provincial public sector, and it should be recognized as just

that, leadership.

Government is committed to providing family friendly policies for its employees

and this policy applies to all provincial employees. We continue to work with

our federal partners, Mr. Speaker, to find the right balance to better support

workers, improve mental health in the workplace, and meet the needs of

employers, given the changing nature of work, not only here at home but

globally.

These

proposed changes align strongly with the government's commitment to work with

and support employers, employees, and unions to foster positive employment

relationships and work environments, which contribute, ultimately, to a stronger

workforce and stronger economic growth here at home.

I would

like to thank all Members of the House for what I anticipate will be support for

this particular piece of legislation. For those who will take the opportunity to

speak to the bill, I invite all hon. Members to share their perspectives.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Members of the House for sharing their views

of this bill with me already. I am encouraged by the support expressed by hon.

colleagues for the working people of the province. Dealing with the modern

demands of work, life and family in balance can be challenging enough without

the added burden of caring for a gravely ill family member.

These

amendments can help ensure that workers can be there for their loved ones when

they are needed most, without having to worry about keeping their jobs. This

bill supports Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by ensuring they have job

protection and a source of income from the federal EI program during a very,

very difficult time in their own lives.

I look

forward, Mr. Speaker, hopefully, to the speedy passage of this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is

indeed a privilege to be able to stand and speak to Bill 53. I, too, have to

agree with the minister that this is an important piece of legislation and it is

a very important amendment to Bill 53, because it's about quality of life. It's

about quality of life for an employee, but it's particularly about quality of

life for a family member who finds themselves in great peril around a health

condition, and it's about the whole concept of the family being able to support

each other.

Obviously, what we think about here in our society, particularly Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who are the most caring and giving of any society, it's about

how we support each other, but particularly how do we support each other when

we're at a serious crossroads in addressing our health needs. In this case, when

you're in peril and you have a condition by a family member that is so grave

that it may end up in the loss of that individual's life, you need to be able to

concentrate on the quality of life for them and the quality of care. And

everything else shouldn't be a distraction, and everything else shouldn't be a

hindrance, and particularly it shouldn't be a stressor to you and your family

when you deal with that.

And what

this piece of legislation here does, it gives the people of this province an

ability to minimize one of the impacts, the financial impact, on how they

provide proper care for that individual.

I'm glad

and I want to thank the minister and his staff for the debriefing. We had a

good, open conversation about what this really means for people. The finances,

no doubt, are important. It's about the stability; it's about the peace of mind

for someone to be able to move towards providing a service, providing health

care, and providing peace of mind for a family member for up to a year. That is

very important and it's important for a number of reasons.

It's

important because we keep our family unit together. It's important because you

want to ensure whatever services or whoever provided health care, or whatever

interventions can be done to ensure that persons quality of life no matter

what time frame may be left in it is given and is supported in any way

possible.

It also

gives us any opportunity here to ensure that employers here are very cognizant

of the fact of being supportive of their employees. There's no doubt in

Newfoundland and Labrador we probably have the most supportive group of

employers, from the Federation of Businesses to the Federation of Labour, to all

of the unions to the private business people, small and large businesses, who

support their employees.

That's

why you notice employees who come in, in businesses in Newfoundland and

Labrador, stay for the duration of their careers because they're committed,

they're treated properly and it becomes a family-oriented process. In some

cases, the employer has no control over what you may have access to when it

comes to financial security.

EI is

one of those processes where we all contribute to it. All employees and

employers contribute to it and it gives you at least some peace of mind for a

period of time that you have some sustainable income. Your concentration should

be on the quality of health care.

there's no doubt it's a great piece of legislation. It's been supported by the

business community and they understand the merits here, and they understand the

philosophy and the culture in this province of being able to support people. But

there's no doubt, unless you've been through it, to understand the impact it has

when you have to care for somebody who is terminally ill, having those things

not to be a hindrance and not to have an impact on the other parts of your life

about finances, knowing you still have to keep your own finances in order and

your own homes available, you want to have additional monies to be able to

support whatever the needs are of that one you're caring for.

So this

is a good piece of legislation. It shows that we're proactive here, that we'll

be only one of the four jurisdictions here that are bringing this in, in a

timely fashion to improve the quality of life here. It also adds some stability

here from a financial point of view, because the small disruption and I know

in talking to some of the employers, they accept this may be they may have to

retrain some people to come here. It many mean they change the process or they

move people around, but they're accepting that.

They're

accepting because for the betterment of their employee and the betterment for

their reputation as an employer, but particularly for the betterment of the

quality of care for that individual who's going through a particular very

serious health situation that they want to be supportive of this. That is why

this is a key piece of legislation.

It does

alleviate some of the stresses that families are going to face. It would

hopefully bond the family units here, because it's an opportunity here for a

multitude of people in a family setting to be able to support the loved one that

they're going to care for. It also ensures that our economy still moves forward,

that our businesses are not hindered to a certain degree and that there's money

still in the process here that we've been paying in for years and years.

Very few

people, if anybody, would like to draw down on EI. It's a necessary support

mechanism that's part of our process. In this case, it's not about the financial

ability; it's about the stability to be able to offer what's being done here.

Mr.

Speaker, I know myself and, no doubt, us on this side of the House of Assembly

will be supporting this change to this piece of legislation. We think it will

move forward in ensuring people have a better quality of life and families are

reunited as they care for their loved ones.

Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for that. I compliment the minister and look forward to

this passage in the House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly is a pleasure to stand here to speak to Bill 53. I'm very pleased that

our government is introducing a bill to amend the

Labour Standards Act to increase compassionate care leave

provisions from eight weeks to 28 weeks, to bring our legislation in line with

recent changes introduced by our federal counterparts.

Government is committed to providing family-friendly

policies, as the minister outlined, for its employees. This policy applies to

all employees. You should give your employer as much notice of your intentions

as possible. Then, if you qualify, you can apply for EI benefits. At this time,

your doctor should also provide a medical certificate to accompany your

application. Employees under provincial jurisdiction and employed with the same

employer for 30 days qualify for compassionate care leave.

We continue to work with our federal partners, business and

labour to find the right balance to better support workers, improve mental

health in the workplace and meet the needs of employers, given the changing

nature of work. The department

engaged and researched cross-jurisdictional analysts with respect to current

legislation and future amendments in relation to compassionate care in Canadian

provinces and territories. This review confirmed that Manitoba, New Brunswick

and Nova Scotia have implemented legislation changes to increase compassionate

care entitlement to 28 weeks and, as we understand, all other provinces are

expected to come in line.

Our

government believes in these situations the people of our province should not

have to choose between their job and their family when faced with a serious

medical crisis. Mr. Speaker, we can all put ourselves there. We never know and

we can never take for granted our good health or what we will be facing at any

given day.

Given

the recent expansion of the companionate care benefits under the federal EI

program, the province wants to bring our legislation in line with the federal

government and other governments across Canada who have implemented legislation

changes to enhance companionate care leave legislation.

encourage all Members and our viewers at home, all of our constituents across

Newfoundland and Labrador, if you have questions, to reach out and contact the

Labour Standards Division of the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and

Labour.

Mr.

Speaker, every Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay in to EI benefits. We get

up, we go to work, we take our jobs very seriously and we work hard. We pay

these taxes. Lord knows we pay a lot of taxes here in our jurisdiction and in

our country. So, of course, we deserve the very best; all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians deserve the very best. I look forward to the co-operation of all

Members of the House. This is certainly a no-brainer. It's positive all around.

It is a

pleasure to speak to Bill 53. I will take my seat and I will look forward, of

course, to the co-operation of all Members on this.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a privilege and an honour for me to rise in the House today and speak

briefly to Bill 53,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2. Myself and

all my colleagues here in Opposition are proud and delighted to be supporting

this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it really is a bill that is quite important to

families who are facing critical illness.

I can

speak to this based on my own personal experience. Back in 2002, my mother had a

heart attack and it left her with only 20 per cent of her heart capacity

functioning. At the time, all we could qualify for was five hours of home care a

day. So I managed to work the hours such that I would take my lunch break and be

with her in between when the workers weren't there and come 4:30, I was back at

the house with mom. I stayed there until 9 o'clock the next day when the home

care workers arrived again.

We were

very blessed, Mr. Speaker, that our mom managed to live an additional five

years. It was not expected that she would live beyond a few months. I truly

believe it was the exceptional care that we were able to give her as her health

care providers for the five hours, and as her family that she managed to enjoy

five more years of a very good quality of life. All of her siblings, all of her

brothers and sisters, her children and her grandchildren got to enjoy her

wonderful company for another five years.

I won't

say it was easy, Mr. Speaker, because it was exhausting. There were many a

nights when I didn't shut my eyes because you were dealing with quite serious

health care issues. By the time the end of five years was up, I was quite

exhausted.

If a

program like this had been available at the time, I most certainly would have

availed of it, as would some of my brothers and sisters, Mr. Speaker. It truly

does make a difference. There is nothing, I do believe, more important to any of

us than the optimal care of our loved ones. I truly believe there is no one who

can provide such optimal care other than family members. The level of

compassion, the level of understanding that we have as family members, I think,

is second to none. It's certainly a wonderful initiative to bring forward, a

great bill, as my hon. colleagues have already discussed here in the House

today.

You have

many worries when your loved one is suffering from a critical illness. The last

of them needs to be where you're going to be able to put food on the table to

sustain yourself and your own family during the time of caregiving. An

incredibly stressful time, as my colleagues have already stated here again

today. You really want to focus on enjoying quality of life that you have left

with a person who has a critical illness. This bill is truly going to make a

difference, I believe, in the lives of the caregivers and of the persons who are

suffering from critical illness.

So we

certainly will be supporting this bill on this side of the House. We look

forward to its speedy passing here in the House of Assembly as well.

Thank

you so much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for the

District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

am happy to stand and speak to Bill 53,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act

No. 2. I think the minister did a good job of presenting what this bill is all

about, and my colleagues who have spoken to date as well. It is a pretty

straightforward bill because it does increase the provincial compassionate care

leave from eight to 28 weeks to reflect, I point out, the federal government's

increase to compassionate leave to 28 weeks in January, 2016.

So we

are joining with other provinces in bringing our legislation up to date with the

federal government changes. We don't need to speak a lot to that, just to say

that I am proud to be part of a country that does recognize the need for workers

to be able to be involved with our families, and that family life and work life

are all intermeshed. That we need to take into consideration the fact workers

have parents and children and members of extended family in their lives that are

part of their lives and affect their lives.

We are

very fortunate in this country to have Employment Insurance. To have an

insurance that even though right now I find is quite inadequate for the needs of

workers in the country and we have too low a percentage of unemployed workers

who are eligible for it after paying into it. We have a lot of weaknesses in our

Employment Insurance, something I would hope that my colleagues on the

government side would recognize. It is something I would like to see the federal

government take a very strong look at, but I think it takes provincial

governments pushing the federal government on this issue.

Having

said that, this one particular point with regard to compassionate leave I'm

really glad to see, because in 2004 when the federal government first made the

changes which allowed for the eight weeks, leave was granted for an employee who

had a family member with a significant risk of death within 26 weeks; yet, the

worker was only going to be able to take eight weeks to be able to be at home

with that family member. So the eight weeks was quite inadequate when you looked

at the 26 weeks that they had to show the loved one had probably left in life.

I was

moved by the presentation by the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune, because

I too had a similar experience of having a parent, my mother, who was bedridden

for two-and-a-half years. I really felt with her when she talked about, towards

the end, how tiring it became. I know that experience as well, being awakened in

the middle of the night because my mother died at home being awaken in the

middle of the night to help take care of her needs. During the day of course

there were caregivers, but in the middle of the night there wasn't. It does

become very tiring and it does take a toll on the person you love, the family

member. I loved my mother dearly, yet I had to admit to myself it was becoming

difficult.

I do

believe we have to do more as well than have the significant risk of death. I

think we have to be able to look at a chronic condition that takes a longer time

to worsening and if there is any way to determine death, and that's a very

difficult thing to do. I think we need to find a way to really help with chronic

care and the situation that happens for family members when it comes to somebody

who is undoubtedly going to die from the condition but you can't pinpoint it.

I think

we've taken big steps in Canada, especially now that the federal government has

upped the benefits to 26 weeks within a 52-week period. I think that's a big

step, but I do think we need to even look at the situation in terms of

determining who needs help. If I would have been able when my mother was

bedridden, if I would have been able to take 26 weeks at that time, as my

colleague said, that would have been a tremendous help both to my mother and her

care and also to myself.

We're

probably not the only ones in the House of Assembly who've had a similar

experience and who understand the importance of this legislation for workers. I

think the fact that shows this piece of legislation is a solid piece of

legislation and one that we're happy to support is it is supported by the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Employers' Council.

Obviously, we support the federal legislation, and our legislation is bringing

us in line with the federal government. I think this is extremely important that

we are doing this. Obviously it is going to be in place anyway, whether we

change our legislation or not, but we have to have our legislation in sync with

the federal government practice and the federal government legislation.

having said that, Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted we are joining Manitoba, New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia in making the amendments to our legislation, and I'm

sure the other provinces that haven't done so yet will be doing so.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 53. I'm not going to take

too long but I do want to have a few words just to show my support for this

bill. I think this bill, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the reality of life, quite

frankly.

When you

look at life in the 21st century I know if we were to go back in time, there

was a time when we primarily had one person working in the household. One spouse

was working and the other spouse was home caring for family. Whether that was

child care, or later in life it was elder care with the grandparents and so on,

that was something that was, I would suggest, the norm in most households in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

course, as we fast forward to the 21st century where two spouses are working,

generally speaking, we realize it is a different time and there are pressures

placed upon families, as I said, whether you'd be dealing with issues around

child care and the growing issue because I can recall going to, I believe it

was a seminar or whatever, maybe it was with the Seniors Resource Centre or

Mount Pearl Seniors Independence, one of those groups, and they were talking

about perhaps one of the biggest stressors on families these days is actually

senior care, elder care, looking after your mom and dad as they age.

With the

baby boomers coming through now and the aging population, it's just going to

become more and more of an issue for families in Newfoundland and Labrador. So

any time we can bring in what I would term as progressive legislation, which is

going to help families when they deal with any issues around care, then I think

it's important we do that and we support that.

This

particular bill, as has already been said, is to deal with a situation where you

have a loved one who has come down with a particular illness or disease and they

are in their final days. It has been determined by a physician that they only

have so much time left and, of course, with that comes the need to care for your

loved ones. Certainly I think there are a lot of Newfoundlanders who have

experienced that, a lot of Members of this House I'm sure who have experienced

that.

I've

experienced it in my family with the passing of my father in particular a few

years ago. In that particular case, it was my brother who had taken time off

work and was in a position to be able to care for him in his last days. I know

the challenges around that, the stresses around that. I think if we can do

something that's going to be able to assist families in caring for their loved

ones in their final days, then we need to do that.

course, as has been said, this is going to basically mirror the federal

legislation. So now if you have a family member who is in their final stages,

you can apply for 28 weeks of compassionate care under the Employment Insurance

fund. That's what's in place federally.

course, it's not much point in having that federal I mean it's great to have

that federal legislation and have that ability for people who are working to be

able to take time off and receive that pay because, obviously, the world doesn't

stop. It may stop in some ways, I guess, emotionally when you're dealt these

situations that you have to care for a loved one who's in that position but the

reality of it is the bills still have to be paid, the mortgage has to be paid

and all the other bills associated to living. You still have to eat, you have to

have groceries. The fact that the federal government has a program now where you

can take time off and receive compensation from the federal government to be

able to do that, it's very important. It's a very positive thing.

Beyond

having that federal program, there also has to be the ability for someone to be

able to take time off work from a provincial point of view, for their employer

to allow them to apply for these benefits and to take time off work. Currently

that doesn't exist. What we're doing here is we're going to pass a bill

provincially that would basically ensure that if an employee had to take time

off work to care for a loved one in that situation, then in addition to

receiving benefits from the federal government, the employer would be required

to allow that person off work without pay to avail of that program. That's

really what it's doing. It's just matching up the provincial legislation with

the federal to ensure that a person can actually take time off to care for a

loved one.

I'm

sure, as has been said, that this is going to be unanimously passed. There's no

reason why we wouldn't want to pass it. It's the right thing to do. It

recognizes the realities of life. There's nobody, I'm sure, that hasn't been

affected or could be affected by this, whether it be a direct family member or

distant family member, relative or friend or whatever, this is something that,

there's no doubt, will be utilized. It's a great social safety net and I'll be

supporting the bill 100 per cent.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. minister speaks

now he shall close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

heartfelt stories of those who have been impacted by the serious consequences of

caring for a terminally ill family member do provide perspective to this debate

and also create a sense of urgency to passing this kind of legislation. That's

why I take it with great satisfaction that this House appears to be endorsing

this legislation unanimously.

It sends

a great signal not only to family members, to the community at large, that this

Legislature takes very seriously their own personal circumstances, is prepared

to act on it collectively but it also speaks to, I think the wisdom and the

sense of decency within our business community, within our province as a whole,

that we would embrace this as a universal quality and a universal circumstance

that needs our attention.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll just speak very briefly to some of the nuances to this particular

piece of legislation, to the regulations that will follow. Important to point

out, that when a terminally ill family member needs the support of their family,

it is not one specific individual who exclusively has to be designated to

provide for that care.

The

additional benefits, the EI benefits, but as well the weeks of protection, the

additional 28 weeks of protection, can indeed be spread over several family

members.

For

example, if a family identifies a particular member who is facing a terminal

illness, they can decide within the family itself that maybe two, maybe three,

maybe four members of the family can assist and share that burden and divide the

number of weeks out according to the family's own

schedule and needs and

opportunities to be able to provide that benefit throughout the entire family so

that it does not have to bear on one exclusive family member. The benefits can

be shared throughout several members of the family, within the context of a

28-week period.

Another

thing is that it does not have to be a contiguous use of the benefit. You can

decide, if the individual circumstances of the family mean that compassionate

care is required for, say, a six-week block, maybe because of the regime of the

treatments, there could be a break for a period of several weeks and then the

compassionate care benefit could pick up again at the conclusion of the

particular episode or particular series of treatments. So the benefit itself

could be spread out over a 52-week period but still within the context of a

28-week total protection. That's an important to make as well.

The

final thing I'd like to add is that within the provincial government itself, as

I alluded to in my initial address, the provincial government is providing

protections within Treasury Board policy for provincial government employees

that mirror this legislation. I think that's very progressive and very

appropriate.

Mr.

Speaker, with that said, I'm very heartened, very pleased, to be able to hear

the comments that have been offered. I am especially pleased to know this piece

of legislation, the amendments, will be endorsed by all parties and appears to

be all Members. I think that sends a great signal to the entire province of what

happens when this House acts in a common cause and a common voice on a matter of

equal concern to all citizens of our province.

I say to

all Members of the House, thank you. I appreciate it and well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 53 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act No. 2. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 52 has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2, read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 53.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

We are now considering Bill

53,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2. (Bill 53)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was

just wondering if we could get a definition of family member. Does this pertain

to mother, father, child, brother, sister or cousin? How far does the definition

go with respect to family member?

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It would

be my considered opinion that the definition would meet with the same that's

contained within the federal statute and would mirror that, but it would also

contain I believe there are references within the

Labour Standards Act . I'll have to check that specifically, but it

would be for a direct family member which would be brother, father, mother,

within the same family group.

CHAIR:

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act No. 2.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 53

carried without amendment?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against?

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

I move, Madam Chair, that the

Committee rise and report Bill 53.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 53.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

The hon. the Deputy

Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 53 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Whole

reports Bill 53 carried without amendment.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from

the Order Paper, Motion 1, Bill 41.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means to consider certain resolutions

and a bill relating to the amendment of

The Loan and Guarantee Act ,

1957 , Bill 41.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that the House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 41.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

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

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order, please!

We are

now debating the related resolution and Bill 41,

An Act To Amend The Loan And

Guarantee Act, 1957 No. 2.

Resolution

Be it

resolved by the House of Assembly in Legislative session convened, as follows:

That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 to

provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds

or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations.

CHAIR:

Shall the resolution carry?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a

privilege, as it always is, to stand in this hon. House today, at any point, to

speak on behalf of the members of my district, certainly the members of the

province. The particular bill that we're speaking with today is related as has

been mentioned in the

preamble

An Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act,

1957 No. 2, or as we commonly are referring to it as Bill 41.

This

particular amendment, which is listed in the bill documents, specifically is

related to the loan guarantee provided to Stephenville Airport Corporation that

was enacted in 2005 and was amended in 2010. The amendment that we're proposing

today is to suggest that we strike the expiry date of this October 31 by

substituting the expiry date of March 31, 2018.

Madam

Chair, periodically amendments are required to

The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 in order to ratify new loan

guarantees or changes such as increases in term extensions or existing

guarantees.

Through

this legislation guarantees are provided to support the borrowings for a number

of companies, both Crown owned and private companies, and except under

established programs, such as the Aquaculture Working Capital Loan Guarantee

Initiative or the Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program, the use of loan guarantees

is to provide financial assistance to the private sector and has been reduced

substantially in recent years.

Amendments to the

Schedule to this act are a regular item in the financial

administration of the province, as Members opposite and certainly Members on

this side of the House would be aware. With the last amendment having been

approved in this hon. House in the spring session and prior to that,

specifically related to the Stephenville Airport, there was an amendment made in

the fall of 2015.

Under

the act and subsequent to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,

the Minister of Finance is authorized to provide loan guarantees to either

private sector or Crown corporations covering a variety of financial

requirements, with the most common being guarantees for operating lines of

credit.

Madam

Chair, the act requires that all such guarantees that are approved and issued be

ratified by this hon. House through an amendment to the

Schedule of the act. The

current bill includes two amendments to the schedule, two extensions of the

existing guarantee.

This

bill relates, as I've said, to the Stephenville Airport Corporation for which

the province has been providing a guarantee since 2005. These amendments allow

for the extension of the loan guarantee until October 31, 2016 and then to March

31, 2018.

The act

requires that all such guarantees that are approved and issued by ratified by

this hon. House through an amendment to the

Schedule of the act. Madam Chair,

that's what the bill is proposing to do upon debate through Committee.

We'll

look forward to answering any questions that my hon. colleagues may have about

this particular piece of legislation as it relates to

The Loan and Guarantee Act.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm

certainly pleased to stand and speak to Bill 41, as the minister indicated, An

Act to Amend the Loan and Guarantee Act. This is specifically related to the

Schedule of the act as it relates to the loan guarantee placing support for the

Stephenville Airport.

I'm

somewhat familiar with this. When I was the minister of IBRD as well there have

been a couple of amendments made to assist in terms of guaranteeing that loan

debt with the Stephenville Airport, to assist with operations.

The

minister has referenced the fact that there's been some ratification made to

this by Cabinet to extend the guarantee and we're extending it from October

31, 2016 to March 31, 2018. Some may recall that back in the spring in Bill 26

there was a ratified increase to the guarantee by $300,000 to a total of

$900,000. That was extended to expire on June 30, 2016, and that was debated on

May 10 in the House of Assembly.

So now

we're here with Bill 41 to extend, as I said, the guarantee to March of 2018. As

well, the amount is not changing, as I referenced before in regard to assisting

the Stephenville Airport to continue to be operational. It's not an instance

here where there's actual I don't believe money being loaned, it's

guaranteeing the current loans that are currently on the books. Should the

guarantee be called, the Government of Newfoundland would incur those

expenditures.

As I

said before, Cabinet has already approved the extension of the guarantee up to

March 31, 2018. In accordance with The

Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 , Cabinet

has the authority to approve guarantees or approve modification of the

extensions to the guarantees. But it must be ratified by the House, once Cabinet

does that and then it's added to the

Schedule of that act.

The

reason for this is that should, as I said, a guarantee be called, the province

would have to fulfill the actual payment; therefore, that would have to go

through the House. That's why it goes through the House and it's approved here

in the Legislature.

The

payment is what's often referred to as a statutory expenditure. It would not be

contained in the approved budget funds but would be paid through a subheading in

the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Because it's not a budget expenditure, there

certainly needs to be legislative authority to fill the guarantee should it be

called. Normally we'd go through Estimates and the budget to debate it here and

it would be voted on. That's why we're here through Bill 41 to amend the

guarantee and the legislation.

As the

minister has indicated as well, in 2005 I think the prior PC administration

authorized the loan guarantee of $350,000, supporting the operations. In 2010 it

was increased to $600,000. In November 2015 there was an increase of $300,000

for a total of $900,000 which was extended to March 31, 2016. In March it was

extended to June 30, 2016, by the Liberal government. That was, as I mentioned,

for ratifying Bill 26 to increase the guarantee. That was debated in May, I

think it was, here in the House of Assembly.

Bill 41

is now extending the guarantee from October, 2016 until March 31, 2018. As I

said, the two amendments are needed as Cabinet has extended the guarantee twice.

Obviously, this is important to Stephenville Airport in regard to their ability

to remain open and with this support, hopefully, continue to advance and

increase their operations. Now, I know there have been some challenges in regard

to the airport itself, but this provides some guarantee in terms of debt that's

outstanding and allows them to continue to operate.

I do

note, back in May when there was some debate done, in the discussion from the

Minister of Finance, maybe, I think there were talks about the business plan for

the Stephenville Airport Corporation. I'm just wondering, when the minister gets

up, if she can comment on whether that review was completed and what was

contained in the business plan going forward.

There

was discussion too about various uses for the airport, whether it was military,

innovation or opportunities there and if any of these have been explored with

the corporation since that time, since we had that discussion here in the House

of Assembly.

I also

wonder if the minister could respond to the question, if there are any

conditions put on the guarantee that's identified here in Bill 41. I don't know

if it's the Department of Finance or it could be BTCRD that would be responsible

for that. I'd certainly like to have some feedback on that, whether there are

any conditions put on it.

Well,

the technical parts, the actual guarantee sits with Finance. I think Cabinet's

submission to extend the guarantee would come from BTCRD. So when the minister

or ministers get up, maybe they can respond to those couple of inquiries. I

certainly look forward to debate.

Thank

you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural De