June 21, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 52

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

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

the District of Bonavista North; the Member for the District of Torngat

Mountains; the Member for the District of Kilbride; the Member for the District

of Humber West; the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and the Member

for the District of Mount Pearl South.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in my place with great honour to recognize a former teaching colleague

today.

Emerson Cooze is one of a group of retiring teachers in the Nova Consolidated

School District who retires tomorrow. I have singled him out from his group

because he has served tirelessly as branch president of the NLTA for

Trinity-Deadman's Bay branch for the past sixteen consecutive years.

I remember years ago when attending a branch meeting it was an event, with

attendance at nearly 70 per cent. In more recent years such has not been the

case, and the local president is actively carrying the majority of the load

keeping members informed, and representing the interests of teachers at

provincial meetings.

Emerson has taught his entire career in the New-Wes-Valley school area as

French and Grade 6 homeroom teacher. He has a very energetic style and

entertains his students with an unending amount of trivia in his conversations.

On behalf of his students and members of the Trinity-Deadman's Bay branch of

NLTA, I would invite hon. colleagues assembled here to salute and recognize the

commitment of Emerson Cooze and the other teachers in that region in their

service to their colleagues.

Thank you and happy retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the faculty, staff, and

students of Northern Lights Academy in Rigolet for being the gold winner in

MMSB's Top Your Total school contest.

This contest is open to all kindergarten to Grade 12 students in Newfoundland

and Labrador and challenged schools to recycle more beverage containers during

the month of March than their average monthly number of containers recycled in

the previous school year.

The MMSB offered a gold prize of $10,000 to the school that had the highest

percentage of increase, and the Northern Lights Academy of Rigolet was the

undisputed winner with a whopping percentage increase of 13,000 per cent.

I want to congratulate Principal, Oliver Jacobs, the twelve staff members,

and forty-six students of the Northern Lights Academy as well as the 300

residents of the Inuit community of Rigolet on this fantastic achievement. As

Mr. Jacobs stated, this was truly a community event.

I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating the staff

and students of the Northern Lights Academy in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut on winning

the gold award in the Top Your Total school challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, the community of Goulds lost one of its most

dedicated volunteers last week, Ed Janes died on Monday, June 11 after a

prolonged battle with cancer.

Ed moved to the Goulds after he met and married Rose Finn. He built their

home there and raised two fine young sons Eddie and Blair. Ed worked many years

with the City of St. John's as a mechanic and was a former Deputy Mayor of the

Goulds.

Ed was always involved with what was going on in the community. That included

minor hockey, church and school. He was a member of the Knights of Columbus

Fourth Degree, a long time volunteer with the Goulds Scouting movement, an

active member with St. Kevin's Parish, and with many other groups and

organizations. Every time there was a fundraiser of any kind, you saw Ed Janes

actively involved. The Boy Scout movement in the Goulds owes a lot to Ed Janes.

He is one of the main reasons why it stated active so long.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in offering condolences to his

wife Rose, their two sons and their families on the loss of such a great man.

Ed, we will miss you greatly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, I stand to congratulate Mr. Ed Flood of Corner

Brook on being awarded the Ron Healey Memorial Award at the annual general

meeting of Hockey Newfoundland and Labrador recently.

The Ron Healey Memorial Award is presented annually as a lasting memorial to

a man who gave over twenty-five years of service to hockey officiating at all

levels of amateur hockey in this Province. Flood began officiating as an

eighteen-year-old back in 1974 in a game that was officiated by Mr. Healey

himself. Over the past forty years, Flood has been officiating throughout the

Province and spends many hours a week at the rink.

Mr. Flood has also spent many hours assisting with new aspiring officials in

the Province as he believes that it is important to pass on the skills of

officiating to other generations. Ed plans on returning for another hockey

season next year because, as he says in his own words, "he never wants to see

kids missing a game of hockey because they don't have an official".

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Mr. Ed Flood on his most

recent achievement and wish him well in all future hockey games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize National Aboriginal Day. June 21

is also the summer solstice the longest day of the year and for generations,

many Aboriginal people across the country have celebrated their culture and

heritage on this day.

Mr. Speaker, today we reflect upon the history and traditions of Aboriginal

persons in Newfoundland and Labrador. We observe the contributions by the

Labrador Inuit, the Labrador Innu, members of the NunatuKavut Community Council,

the Miawpukek First Nation, and the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.

Land claims, self-government, and other agreements define new and positive

relationships between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and

Aboriginal groups. We value the positive working relationships we have with the

Aboriginal organizations in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, November 18, 2011 was an important day in history for the

Labrador Innu, the provincial government, and the federal government. On this

day, the New Dawn Agreements were signed, which hold the potential to profoundly

and positively impact the future of the Innu in Labrador.

We continue to deliver on the implementation of the Labrador Inuit Land

Claims Agreement, and have already begun working with the Nunatsiavut Government

on the renewal of the Implementation Plan, as the current plan expires in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, we are finalizing a self-government agreement with the Miawpukek

First Nation of Conne River. Our government has also provided support for the

registration of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation, enabling access to federal

government programs for over 20,000 people in the Province.

An updated Aboriginal Consultation Policy is currently being finalized to

guide and facilitate consultation with Aboriginal organizations. This updated

policy will advance the relationship between the Province, project proponents,

and Aboriginal organizations as we recognize the importance of having an

effective consultation process that engages Aboriginal persons potentially

affected by exploration and development in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, on this National Aboriginal Day, I am proud to be a member of a

government that continues to partner with Aboriginal organizations in an effort

to advance the social and economic development of Aboriginal communities

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for advance notice of his statement, Mr. Speaker. First

of all, I would like to say it was an honour this morning to attend the sunrise

ceremony to kick off Aboriginal Day, along with the minister. It was a very good

honour to be there and present at this event.

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Aboriginal Day, it is very fitting we

recognize Aboriginal groups across this great Nation. The Aboriginal groups of

this Province, including Innu, Inuit, Mi'kmaq, and Metis, have and continue to

make tremendous contributions to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. The great potential that lies within our

Aboriginal youth is an untapped resource that can be used to ensure that

Aboriginal heritage is preserved in a world of evolution and change.

Mr. Speaker, while all Aboriginal groups in Newfoundland and Labrador have a

lot to celebrate, there is definitely more work that needs to be done by both

the federal and provincial governments to ensure all Aboriginal people have

adequate resources and infrastructure to adjust to

economic and social challenges they face every day. This is very important, Mr.

Speaker, in Nunatsiavut and Natuashish, the region I represent in this House of

Assembly, where improvements in transportation, communications, and

infrastructure are much needed.

I would like to take the opportunity on this day, Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal

Day, to thank the elders in our Aboriginal community for their stewardship of

the land and its people. Mr. Speaker, we continue to be good stewards for our

environment while at the same time providing employment opportunities through

responsible resource development for our people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

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

Aboriginal Day is a day to celebrate the historical contributions made by

Aboriginal peoples in this Province, as well as those that are being made today.

At a time when literally thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are

exploring their ancestry and obtaining First Nations status, today is a very

special day. We are a pretty special moment in our Province, actually, when it

comes to that. From Nunatsiavut to Miawpukek, from Bay St. George to St. John's,

people are working to preserve their languages, break stereotypes, and teach

young people about their proud traditions.

I wish everyone a happy Aboriginal Day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to note that today,

the first full day of summer, is also the last day of school for the majority of

students in Newfoundland and Labrador.

While I take this opportunity to congratulate them and the thousands of

dedicated teachers throughout this Province who have worked so hard to help them

succeed this year, I also want to raise an important point with respect to

safety of our young people this summer.

We always encourage our children to exercise good judgement when they take

part in summer activities: to use caution when swimming, to wear a lifejacket

while boating, or a helmet when biking. If they are hiking or exploring, we tell

them to obey any warning signs and always tell somebody where they are going and

when they are expected back. That is just good advice for all of us, Mr.

Speaker.

We are also aware that some young people participate in hazing rituals during

the summer months. For example, high school students take it upon themselves to

initiate junior high students who are entering their school in September. Mr.

Speaker, these hazing activities are often dangerous and even illegal. At the

very least, they can be intimidating, hurtful, and humiliating, particularly

So, Mr. Speaker, on this, the last day of school, when our young people are

looking forward to their summer break, I encourage all students, parents, and

concerned individuals to be particularly vigilant in preventing these

activities. While hazing is sometimes perceived as harmless a rite of passage

it is not. For many young people, it could result in serious emotional or

physical harm.

It is not acceptable, nobody should be subjected to it, and none of us should

tolerate it.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our students on their efforts this

year, particularly those who have graduated and are entering a new, exciting

phase in their lives. I thank all of those in our education system who have made

their success possible. I encourage my colleagues in the House to join me in

wishing them all a safe, carefree, and happy summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Burgeo La Poile.

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Certainly, it is

great to see sunny days out there. We know that the kids in school have been

itching to get out. We encourage them to get out, get outdoors, play, have fun,

make friends, and make memories. Again, with that, we all caution vigilance. We

want them to be safe. Nobody wants to hear of any accidents or bad things

happening. When we come back to this House later on in the fall, I guess we are

all in the same boat in that we want to back without seeing any bad episodes

over this summer when kids should be out having fun and doing those things.

When we talk about something like hazing though, hazing has been around a

long time and it has never been good. Especially now with the presence of social

media and the fact that these things can happen and can be put out there to the

public, it makes it even worse. It is not good. It is not acceptable. It

probably does contribute we talk about rising levels of depression in our

country; stuff like this is definitely contributing to that rise. I say from the

top down, we have to make sure that none of us tolerate this and we do

everything we can to discourage this and ban it.

By going back to the first message, thank you to the teachers and educators

for the hard work they have put in this year. Thank you to the parents, and I

hope everyone has a great summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I also echo those comments; thanks to all of our teachers and staff. To the

students of the Province I say go outside and play this summer, get a lot of

exercise and fresh air, and enjoy your youth. Also, I suggest you go visit your

local library and find good books to read; there are many to choose from.

To the Minister of Education, I say buckle down this summer and fixed your

flawed and outdated teacher allocation formula. I would hate to think, Mr.

Speaker, that students will return to school next fall unaware that they risk

falling behind. The minister has not seen fit to provide adequate teacher

resources for our schools.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning at the NOIA Conference, Exxon gave an update on the Hebron

development. They stated that the third module, which is worth about $100

million in work, cannot be completed in the Province without sacrificing the

project's timeline and its budget. In response the Premier stated that she was

drawing the line in the sand, and she thought that Exxon had other issues that

they were not disclosing.

I ask the Premier: What do you think Exxon is withholding and do you really

believe in negotiating in bad faith?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

To put that question in context, we have to go back to November 10, I think

it was, when ExxonMobil indicated that they felt the DES they first looked at

the DES going outside the Province. I met with ExxonMobil on January 16, Mr.

Speaker, where they reiterated that message, because the two modules could not

be built at Marystown. Myself and the Premier met with the president and CEO of

Kiewit and discussed that.

Mr. Speaker, ExxonMobil has been on a track from day one that we can see to

move this DES outside the Province. We do not accept that we do not have the

capacity to build this in the Province. Mr. Speaker, we do not accept that first

oil will be impacted by the building of the DES in the Province. The comment,

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly is: do they know that first oil will be delayed and

they are using this as an excuse?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the confusion is a result of the deal that was signed for Hebron, this

leaving the option for the work to be completed outside the Province. The

minister even stated that ultimately, it is Exxon's decision to move the work

out.

I ask the Premier: Why did you sign a deal with such a big hole that allows a

company to take over $100 million outside this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are extremely proud of the agreement that we negotiated with

Hebron and the development of our resources in ensuring that the maximum benefit

comes to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we anticipated in the negotiation of that agreement that there

would be times when there would be a disagreement between us, and we put a

mechanism in the agreement to arbitrate that decision or that difficulty. Mr.

Speaker, ExxonMobil has stated a position that we do not agree with. Our

position is informed by expertise in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and we are going

to hold ExxonMobil to the spirit and the intent of the Hebron agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated today that it is all about

relationship building and then proceeded to accuse Exxon of having alternative

motives. As an equity shareholder in Hebron the Premier previously stated that

government would be at the table and have a voice in the decision making. That

was the Premier's words.

I ask the Premier: Why is it now playing out in the media instead of at the

board table where we are supposed to have a seat?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition be

very careful about what words he assigns to me. I did not accuse ExxonMobil of

anything today other than precluding at the beginning of a process what the

outcome was going to be, Mr. Speaker, and that is unacceptable.

The benefits agreement is negotiated between the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador and the partners in Hebron. Nalcor, in this instance, is a partner

at the table, Mr. Speaker. They do not go in and negotiate benefits on behalf of

the Government of Newfoundland. We are the government, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Nalcor is our state owned energy

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Nalcor is our voice and Nalcor uses our money at that table

too, I remind the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, Exxon stated that they will have to recruit workers from outside

the Province and outside the country to complete construction at Hebron.

I ask the Premier: If this is the case, why are there so many skilled

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who cannot find work in Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it behooves the Leader of the Opposition, before he asks

questions on these important matters here in the House of Assembly, to

understand what it is that we are talking about and what are the terms of the

agreement that we are talking about, and where we have the issues.

The issues around the DES are around capacity in terms of infrastructure, not

human resources. So, I encourage you to learn exactly what the discussion is

about. What we have here is ExxonMobil saying that there is not room at Bull

Arm, there is not capacity in Bull Arm not that there is not enough people,

that there is not enough room, Mr. Speaker, to build the DES. Mr. Speaker, we

disagree, and that is an informed decision of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Exxon has been saying that they will have to go outside the

Province to recruit workers, and we do understand it is a capacity, you

challenged that. We will see what the arbitrator says about that, I take it, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Premier indicated that she will be going to

Corner Brook tomorrow regarding the situation at Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

I ask the Premier: What is the purpose of the trip?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious situation ongoing, as we speak, in

Corner Brook. There is a lot of tension, a lot of concern about the future of

that part of our Province, Mr. Speaker. I am going to Corner Brook to be with

the people in the community during this particularly difficult time, Mr.

Speaker. That is where the Premier ought to be and it is where I am going to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Order, please!

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you, from my point of view, I am pleased the Premier is going to

Corner Brook tomorrow but we also know that the vote concludes tomorrow evening.

I ask the Premier: Will you meet with the mill unions before the vote?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not received a request from the mill unions to meet with them. I would

be happy to do that if they thought that would be beneficial in some kind of a

way, Mr. Speaker. I have the greatest confidence in the people who are in the

union working at the mill, that they will do what they believe is best for them

and best for the region, Mr. Speaker, but I am certainly available while I am in

that part of the Province to talk to anybody who is interested in doing so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

School Councils are questioning whether there are enough human resource supports

in the education system to properly implement inclusion in schools. True

inclusion, they say, requires the necessary teaching units to ensure its

success.

I ask the Minister of Education: We have heard time and time again of the

excellent student-teacher ratios in the Province; however, if teachers, parents,

and school councils are concerned about the inadequate teacher support, will

your department reconsider the cut of forty teachers scheduled for the fall of

2012?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would contend, as the member has alluded,

that we have the best teacher-student ratio in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: We will start with that premise, Mr. Speaker. Our allocation

is a needs-based allocation so that if at a school there is a particular need,

you will have teachers, you will have parents, you will have special itinerant

supports, you will have guidance counsellors, all of those who work with the

student work to plan for that student's academic program, Mr. Speaker. Then,

allocations are based on needs.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for the allocation that we have in our

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that if the needs are

expressed to the minister, then he is going to listen to them.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from parents of kids with autism that their

children are being suspended and sent home for disrupting the class. One of the

tenets of an inclusive education model is that no child with exceptionality

should be disciplined for that exceptionality.

I ask the minister: Have you investigated the incidents of this in schools

implementing the model, and, if so, how are you addressing this response?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has a child with special needs,

there is a challenge there. The broad spectrum of autism also speaks to the

challenge that not only parents face, but the entire system places on finding

the best programming for these students.

Mr. Speaker, every child with a special need is unique. Planning is adhered

to and catered to, based on that particular need. I cannot speak to a particular

case, but I will tell you that with all of the parents, the teachers, the

specialists, and the school principals all working together, we developed the

best plan that we possibly can for these individual students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in 2005 a ministerial committee appointed by

the Minister of INTRD made several recommendations on strengthening Regional

Economic Development Boards. The majority of these recommendations were accepted

by this government and implemented in partnership with ACOA.

I would ask the Premier: As you were the minister responsible for that

committee, why do you no longer support the Regional Economic Development Board

model for community economic development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of not supporting

regional economic development. This government stands on its record of

supporting regional economic development, Mr. Speaker.

We have funds that have grown from the $2.6 million that the former Liberal

Administration had available for economic development in this Province and grown

that to $200 million. Five million of it that is available for communities, for

non-profit organizations, Mr. Speaker, to lever money for economic development

activities.

Mr. Speaker, we have a particular responsibility around economic development

which we deliver through our lead business department: Innovation, Business and

Rural Development. That is where our focus is. Our role in rural development

organizations was to support a federal government effort. We cannot take it

over, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, recent developments from ACOA show that they

are prepared to modify their requirements in regard to boards needing the

provincial 25 per cent beyond July 16 to secure ACOA funding. This will allow

the boards to transition or devolve in an orderly manner.

I ask the Premier: Why did the Province not show the same level of commitment

to the boards that ACOA did?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just as soon not follow ACOA's lead in terms of their

development of Regional Economic Development Boards because they are pulling

away from it. It is precisely because of ACOA's decision and the federal

government's decision that we find ourselves in this place in the first instance

Mr. Speaker, as I say, we remain committed to regional economic development.

We have very strong delivery systems within our own Department of Innovation,

Business and Rural Development. We will make sure that the money that was

allocated for Regional Economic Development Boards remains in communities, Mr.

Speaker, although it may be delivered a different way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACOA might not be the best model, and I agree, but they did give them a year

and the Premier only gave them a month. So that is the difference.

Mr. Speaker, an assessment of alternative energy potential in coastal

Labrador was completed by Newfoundland Hydro in 2009. Seven communities were

looked at and recommendations were made for further study. It concluded that

under the right economic conditions, alternate energy would be developed to

reduce the usage of diesel generation in many communities.

I ask the minister: At what stage are these additional studies now?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly continuing to do all kinds of work in relation to alternate

sources of energy. We are aware of the issue in relation to the use of diesel in

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, especially on the South Coast. We are looking at small

run-of-the-river hydro, we are looking at wind, and obviously, we are looking at

Muskrat Falls and what impact that could have on the delivery of hydro power to

the coast of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the issues and we continue

to work on that. Our whole energy plan is based upon using our non-renewable

resources to transition into a renewable resource economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hatch's review of the hydrology potential of coastal Labrador identified

potential sites with estimated energy costs less than that of diesel generation.

It also identified the opportunity for the interconnection of three South Coast

communities that were studied: Mary's Harbour, Port Hope Simpson, and

Charlottetown.

I ask the minister: Has government considered the possibility of an

interconnected grid in those communities and is this being looked at under the

small-scale hydro study?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will give an example first of how Muskrat Falls can impact upon the

delivery of power to coastal Labrador, Mr. Speaker. If Voisey's Bay goes

underground, they will need power. If power is provided to Voisey's Bay, then

that can result in the connection of communities like Nain and Natuashish. Mr.

Speaker, we then move into the Aurora or Paladin site, and if that can result in

a need for energy up to twenty-five to fifty megawatts of energy, that could

again reach out to communities. We are certainly looking at the interconnection.

The goal at the end of the day is to replace diesel, whether it be with wind,

big hydro, or small run-of-the-river.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answer from the minister, but three of the communities that

were looked at in the study and recommended for an interconnection were in

Southern Labrador; they were Mary's Harbour, Port Hope Simpson and

Charlottetown. I am asking if that is being considered as part of the

small-scale hydro study that is ongoing.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware, and I just read something

recently on the small hydro throughout the Province and the ability to small

hydro, I think, is generally described as anywhere from five to fifteen to

twenty-five megawatts of energy, Mr. Speaker. We are certainly looking at

providing electricity to all areas of our Province, and the South Coast of

Labrador will be looked at, similar to the North Coast of Labrador. We want to

replace the diesel and we are certainly looking at all aspects of the provision

of energy, but in Labrador we also have significant wind resources, so it is a

question of how you provide the energy required in the cheapest way and in the

most expeditious way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I ask her to pose her question without

preamble.

MS JONES: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The study also recommended wind power be studied in four of the communities.

I ask: Will the towers be erected this summer and that project implemented

for the study?

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

answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know we have significant wind resources in this Province and

in Labrador, but we are certainly not going to rush ahead with the building of

wind towers anywhere in this Province. We currently have two wind projects

ongoing that are working very well, Mr. Speaker. As outlined in the MHI report

prepared for the PUB, eighty megawatts of wind energy can be integrated into the

system as it now exists. We will look at all aspects of providing the energy to

the residents of our Province.

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

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

It is good to see the Premier standing up for the workers of Newfoundland and

Labrador today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Do they want to hear the rest, Mr. Speaker?

Her bid to have the third module of the Hebron topsides built in the Province

is one we should all support. It is important for the workforce and the

community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she introduce an all-party motion to

this House of Assembly which will allow us to show ExxonMobil unanimous support

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: for completing the work in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Hebron Benefits Agreement specifically sets out, Mr. Speaker, the

definition of physical infrastructure and physical capacity, and when the

modules are to be built in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: For example, Mr. Speaker, with the modules, the DES and the

DSM, they relate to physical infrastructure and they can only be an adjustment

to the work if there is a significant adverse economic impact. When there is an

impasse, Mr. Speaker, we then move into the mediation and arbitration procedure,

which is outlined in the Hebron Benefits Agreement.

There is, Mr. Speaker, a process outlined and that process has to be

followed. It is a contract and oftentimes in this Province we certainly do not

like some of the contracts that have been signed in the past. In this one, Mr.

Speaker, there is a process that has to be outlined. Our point today was

ExxonMobil usurped that process by announcing their decision without going

through the proper process. That is certainly unfair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Well, it was nice to get a listing of the proposal. It is too bad we will not

get the opportunity to show in this House that we altogether support what is

going on.

Mr. Speaker, with the wonderful news of more oil discovered off our shore

comes the realization that we must be prepared to ensure we receive the maximum

benefit from this non-renewable resource. It has been over a year since Captain

Turner submitted his report on the Province's oil spill prevention and response

capabilities, with its twenty-five recommendations for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can she give this House an update on what the

C-NLOPB has done to implement these recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly good news yesterday to hear Statoil indicate

that they could have discovered up to 100 to 200 million barrels of oil. To put

that in perspective, Mr. Speaker, last year in this Province, in 2011, we

produced 97.3 million barrels of oil, so an average of 266,000 a day. It has the

potential to be a significant discovery. It does bring with it, though, Mr.

Speaker, the challenges of drilling in deepwater and being further out, so there

are certain issues that have to be looked at.

The C-NLOPB, Mr. Speaker, and our government have indicated that the safety

of the workers is the primary concern. That is the concern, Mr. Speaker, that we

will address, so that anything that takes place in our offshore has that clearly

in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

One of the key recommendations made by Justice Wells in his inquiry into the

tragic crash of Cougar Flight 491 was the implementation of an independent

offshore safety authority. To date, this recommendation remains unfulfilled.

With new oil discoveries being made further out in the North Atlantic in

deepwater, we need this agency more than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In the event she does get a meeting with the

Prime Minister, how high a priority is this on her agenda?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NLOPB certainly looks at these issues, but there is a constitutional

division, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Province and the federal government

leading to the creation of this board. I can remember clearly, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier standing up in this House and saying immediately that the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador supported Justice Wells' recommendation. We have, Mr.

Speaker, time and time again informed the federal government of our position. In

fact, when I met with Minister Oliver, I think a few months ago in Ottawa, I

indicated to him again the importance of this recommendation.

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly indicated our support. We have asked the

federal government to consider it, but at this point nothing has taken place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Last year, people in the Province were shocked to learn from Captain Turner's

report that there was no plan in place to deal with a deepwater blowout.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Have preparations been put in place to foster

the prevention of, and in the worst case scenario, deal with deepwater blowouts

and related environmental disasters?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is acutely aware of the importance of protecting our

environment, Mr. Speaker. It is one of the reasons that we support Muskrat Falls

and the use of clean, renewable energy, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NLOPB will look at this issue and is looking at this issue, Mr.

Speaker. There are plans in place. What is happening right now, and I think one

of the not to quote from the media, but I think that Statoil was mulling over

the decision of whether or not to continue with exploration and development.

Mr. Speaker, when a project comes forward further we will certainly look at

it. I can assure the members of this House and the people of this Province that

safety and the environment are primary concerns; not only in relation to our

offshore, but in anything we do in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, one of our key criticisms of the report on the

Province's offshore spill prevention and response capabilities was they did not

speak with any of the Province's most prominent environmentalists or seabird

experts. Their concerns are not included in the report.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What has the C-NLOPB done since the

release of the report to correct this serious oversight?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Captain Turner made certain recommendations and he looked at what was going

on. Mr. Speaker, there are EA processes in place, environmental assessment

processes in place, but, Mr. Speaker, we also have to be careful here. Right

now, in Old Harry in the Gulf we have environmentalists who are not interested

in balancing the protection of the environment with development. Their motto,

their goal is to shut everything down.

I do not know if that is the position the NDP takes, Mr. Speaker, but it is

certainly not the position that our government takes. We want to use our

non-renewable resources to secure a bright future for our children, Mr. Speaker,

but in doing that, we want to ensure that things are done safely and that our

environment is protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, as the school year comes to a close we continue

to see at-risk students failing to graduate and falling through the cracks.

During the last election, the PC Party said it would work with stakeholders to

establish an alternative school in St. John's under the aegis of the Eastern

School District.

I ask the Minister of Education: Does his department have a plan to establish

the alternative school or was that just another empty promise offered up at

election time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this government is not about making empty

promises I can assure the member that. If you look to our commitment to

education, Mr. Speaker, it has probably been the best in the history of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, across this entire Province there are students

with challenges. We work, as the Department of Education, with the school board.

We identify the needs and then we attempt to address the needs. Mr. Speaker,

that is how it works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, this government has done very little in the past

nine years to address the challenges of Level IV students who have fallen

behind. Government has made only hollow promises to provide solutions for

at-risk students who face alienation and unemployment.

I ask the minister is he satisfied that Level IV students have a graduation

rate that is 20 per cent lower than the graduation rate for other students?

MS MICHAEL: Good question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Third Party say, as

the member sat down, good question. I am going to give her a good response, Mr.

Speaker.

We have in this Province a pilot project; it is called PASS. It is about

outreach services to those students who have left school, some who have left

school for as long as maybe two or three years, Mr. Speaker. This past year, 210

students, including sixty-six who had left school, enrolled in their program

from June 2011 and received assistance in 497 courses; 77 per cent of those

enrolled students were eligible and did graduate in June of 2011 success, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, federal Bill C-38 involves cuts that are far and wide ranging,

some of which will have a great effect on this Province. The cuts to the

Department of Fisheries, in particular

section 134, talk about the possible

downloading of responsibility of fish habitat unto the provinces, with us taking

responsibility for that.

My question is for the minister: Has the minister talked to his Ottawa

counterpart or officials of the department about the possibility of the Province

taking charge of offshore habitat management and management of the fish

resource?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, we have not had

discussions about any downloading to the Province. As a matter of fact, the

Premier and I have both been very strong in our opposition to any downloading

from the federal government to the Province. We, in fact, are pulling our weight

and leading many provinces in fisheries and fishery science in particular, Mr.

Speaker. We have made significant investments over the last number of years and

some of that has been to try to pick up a gap that we thought existed with

changes in the federal system.

We have certainly not had any discussions about the downloading of other

duties. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are not all that interested in having any more

downloading. We believe the federal government has a responsibility to the

country and to the Province to manage the fisheries and we are going to work to

help make sure they uphold that responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: It sounds like they have been downloading already, Mr.

Speaker.

The danger in taking over fish habitat responsibility is that while we take

it on, other provinces may not, resulting in the patchwork of jurisdictional

control.

Has the minister talked to his other Atlantic Canada counterparts on this

issue?

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: As I said a few moments ago, we have no interest in receiving

duties put off to us that are not our responsibility. The member is not putting

out something that no one in this House recognizes. There is always a danger

when someone downloads a responsibility to a lower level government that you

have not been responsible for.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have been very strong on our position on the

fishery. The Premier has spoken many times in this House about where we stand on

fisheries management, and what we expect to do by way of our responsibility, and

what we expect the federal government to do to ensure that the fisheries

management is carried out the way it ought to be for the benefit of the country

and the benefit of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move,

seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that this House not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 26, 2012.

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

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 26, 2012.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I give notice that I will move,

seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the following

resolution respecting the reappointment of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS

section 42.1 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly; and

WHEREAS

section 42.2 of the same act states that a commissioner may be

reappointed; and

WHEREAS the appointment of the current commissioner, Mr. Ed Ring, expires on

June 23, 2012; and

WHEREAS it is proposed that Mr. Ring be reappointed as the commissioner for a

term of two years;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Mr. Ed Ring will be reappointed as the

Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of two years.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 26, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question in the House of

Assembly requesting information on the quantity of fish products exported from

our Province. I am more than pleased today to provide answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's seafood industry experienced another

successful year in 2011. Higher market prices for key species, particularly snow

crab and shrimp, combined with a continued growth in the value of the

aquaculture sector, resulted in a rise in total production value. Through

marketing, trade shows, and various other initiatives made possible by the

provincial government, we continue to support the fishing industry's success in

diversifying our global seafood markets for the benefits of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Highlights of 2011 include: record-level market prices for five-ounce to

eight-ounce snow crab sections and cooked and peeled coldwater shrimp; total

seafood production was valued at over $1 billion, representing a growth of 7.3

per cent; both the capture fishery and aquaculture industries saw a rise in

production value, up 6.2 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively; the majority of

the Province's seafood products were exported to approximately fifty countries,

with the United States and China remaining the Province's primary markets; in

2011, 114 processing facilities were licensed in our Province; shellfish

production increased 2.4 per cent, representing a 45.4 per cent of total

production for our Province; cooked and peeled coldwater shrimp production, Mr.

Speaker, was at 19,296 tonnes for an increase of 5 per cent; snow crab sections

for the United States market also increased by 5.6 per cent; and capelin

production increased 7 per cent from 2011.

The Newfoundland and Labrador seafood industry is no doubt export dependent,

Mr. Speaker. According to Statistics Canada, the Province's seafood export value

in the first eleven months of 2011 surpassed its total value of 2010, reaching

$830 million, up by some 11.7 per cent. Improved global demand for seafood,

higher market prices for snow crab and shrimp, and an increase in aquaculture

exports all contributed to this growth. Annual exports in 2011 were expected to

reach 160,000 tonnes and a value of about $880 million, compared to about $780

million in 2010.

As previously mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the United States and China continue to

be the Province's largest seafood markets, last year representing 36.2 per cent

and 21.5 per cent, respectively, of our total export value. Other key markets we

have, based on export value, include the United Kingdom, Russia, and Japan.

These top markets make up more than 73.8 per cent of the provincial export

value. The remaining portion was exported to about fifty combined countries.

Snow crab exports accounted for the highest value of all of Newfoundland and

Labrador's seafood exports in 2011, at over $400 million. That same year, market

prices for snow crab reached a record level. The United States continues to be

the largest importer of our crab product, accounting for 60.6 per cent of the

total value, while China and Japan follow them.

The total export value for shrimp was nearly $212 million in 2011. Within

that category, Mr. Speaker, market prices for cooked and peeled shrimp showed

significant gains. The major markets for the shrimp include the United Kingdom,

Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States, while offshore frozen shrimp

mainly goes to Russia, China, Iceland, and Denmark.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide this information and make members aware

that further information is available on our Web site.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

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

I have a petition.

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

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

WHEREAS hundreds of residents on the South Coast of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the communities of Burgeo,

Ramea, Grey River, and Francois, use Route 480 on a regular basis for work,

medical, educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 480; and

WHEREAS residents and users of Route 480 require cellphone coverage to ensure

their safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the Department of Innovation, Business and Rural Development recently

announced significant funding to improve broadband services in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 480 feel that the Department of

Innovation, Business and Rural Development should also invest in cellphone

coverage for rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support

the users of Route 480 in their request to obtain cellphone coverage along Route

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I have made on numerous occasions in this

House. I have raised it for a whole number of reasons, whether it be safety,

whether it be employment, or financial.

The reason I am bringing it up today is as we enter into the summer season,

tourism season is here. I took the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, last week to look

at the Department of Tourism Web site, which is an absolutely fantastic Web

site. I have taken the opportunity to speak in this House about the advertising

that we have done as a Province. It is great; it is award-winning.

The Web site is great, but the problem I have is that it is absolutely

useless in many rural areas of this Province. The mobile apps that have been

developed cannot be used because there is no cellphone service so that tourists

and people of this Province can access this information as they travel around

this Province.

It is just one more reason that we need to invest in this. We need to work

with the private companies and we need to work with the CRTC to make this

happen. The costs are not that much that we will not reap the benefits down the

road, there is no doubt about that. We have seen other provinces do this. When

we just look at this tourism industry, which is an industry in this Province

that is continuing to grow, we need to make sure that the benefits of it can be

conveyed to the people through this technology.

That is the reason I wanted to bring it up today, to say that we have a great

thing there but we have to make sure that people have access to it. I would like

to see the government develop a strategy to address this issue. There is not one

right now. I have not seen it, I have asked for it. I have no idea where the

government stands on this right now. I know there are a number of members here

who have this same issue in their district, so I am hoping we can work together

to make this happen. It would be a great step in the right direction for this

Province, especially as we talk about the tourism industry and our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS early childhood educators are trained professionals essential to the

operation of child care centres and indispensable to many parents and children

across Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS on the occasion of Early Childhood Educators Week in May 2012,

government conveyed its support and recognition for the role of early childhood

educators and expressed its appreciation for their value; and

WHEREAS early childhood educators working in child care centres receive

salaries that are amongst the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS government's 2012 increase in subsides paid to ECEs applies only to

Level I ECEs working in child care centre homerooms and Level II early childhood

educators who operate child care centres; and

WHEREAS all early childhood educators are highly educated, skilled, and

deserving of a fair and equitable wage subsidy; and

WHEREAS government is discriminating against some of the most skilled ECEs in

Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

House of Assembly to urge the government to revise the enhancement to the Early

Learning and Child Care Supplement to include all early childhood educators

working in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

I am glad I had an opportunity to rise on this, this week, Mr. Speaker,

because on Monday I spoke to an owner-operator of an early childhood centre, a

child care centre in Central Newfoundland. That person is a Level II and that

person did get an increase in subsidy in recognition in this announcement that

was made in May. I have to say, they are happy they received it but they are

concerned that it was not extended to other ECEs in the Province.

I think if we really want to skill up this workforce and recognize people for

their hard work and their dedication to this profession I think the government

may have lost an opportunity this year, but as we move forward I would urge

members to think about something next year, as this 10-Year Child Care Strategy

rolls out, something to provide an additional wage subsidy to ECEs at the higher

end of the certification scale so that they all can get recognition and be

better off for the work that they do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant

to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday,

June 21, 2012.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant

to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Thursday,

June 21, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not

adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2012; and it has been further

moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on

Thursday, June 21, 2012.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, a Notice of Motion

given previously, with leave, respecting the reappointment of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner.

MR. SPEAKER: The House has leave.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

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

that the motion read earlier respecting the appointment of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: The members have heard the motion read into the record.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to speak in support of this motion. As

pointed out in the motion, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act provides for the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner, and a

reappointment term of two years.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ed Ring was appointed in an acting capacity back on December

18, 2007, and was confirmed in this House of Assembly four months later on April

10, 2008, and reappointed again in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, in the past when these motions have been put, Mr. Ring's bio and

resume has been presented extensively in this House and presented in detail. Mr.

Speaker, I am not about to do that today, but in the interest of new members in

the House and for those people who are watching, I would want to briefly

summarize the rather impressive record of Mr. Ring.

Mr. Ring had a long and distinguished career in the Canadian Armed Forces

spanning thirty-four years, serving in both the regular and reserve components.

He began his service in 1969, and was commissioned in 1973 under the Regular

Officer Training Program. He graduated from Memorial University in 1973 and was

posted to his first unit at the Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick.

He went on to serve, Mr. Speaker, in a number of provinces in Canada and also in

England, South Wales, and West Germany. In 2001, he was appointed Deputy

Commander of the Land Force Atlantic Area and was promoted to the rank of

Brigadier General. Mr. Speaker, he has long and distinguished record in Canada's

military, having retired from there in 2003.

He transferred to the reserve component, Mr. Speaker, and at that time began

employment with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1992 and served

as the director of policing services with the Department of Justice for four

years. Subsequently, he moved to the Public Service Commission in 1997 and

initially worked as a staffing officer and in 2002 to 2007 as Director of

Appeals and Investigation Division. Mr. Ring is a graduate of Memorial

University having graduated with a Bachelor of Physical Education.

During his military career, Mr. Speaker, he receiving training in

investigations and judicial and quasi-judicial functions. Having a long,

distinguished career both with this government and the military, he was at that

time very well suited for his appointment. At the time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier

said, "During his career with the Provincial Government and previously during

his very successful military career, Mr. Ring acquired a depth of experience,

knowledge and skill sets that will serve the public service well in his new

position."

Mr. Speaker, rather than sing the praises of Mr. Ring today, I will use some

quotes from the Opposition parties who can do it very well for me. At the time

of reappointment in 2008, the Opposition House Leader at that time stated: Mr.

Ring "is a gentleman beyond reproach, a person who does not only have the

intellectual capacity to do this job but also has the ethical, the moral

capacity to do it, to be absolutely independent, and I certainly have had no

suggestion, intimation whatsoever, that this individual being put forth by

government is not the right person. In fact, anything I have heard is that he is

the right person."

At the time, the Leader of the NDP stated, "I am sure government has made a

really good appointment, and I am really happy to support it I am very pleased

to ratify the appointment of Mr. Edward Ring."

Mr. Speaker, when he was reappointed in 2010, both Opposition parties again

were very loud in their praises and very strong in their support of Mr. Ring's

appointment. Mr. Speaker, hopefully the parties will see fit to do the same

thing today in support of this motion. Mr. Ring's record in this position speaks

for itself. He has performed an outstanding service to this Province. We are

very fortunate to have him.

I want to ask all members in this House to support the motion to reappoint

Mr. Ring for another two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased today to rise in the House and support the motion that

had put forward by the hon. minister. It is a pleasure for us to offer our

support for the reappointment of Mr. Ed Ring at the office of information and

privacy in this Province as the commissioner. This is the third time that Mr.

Ring has been appointed to this position. We feel that the experience that he

brings to the job at this stage is very valuable.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Ring has proved himself over and over again in the

position as commissioner for information and privacy in this Province. He has

led what has been a very balanced approach in the protection of information but

also in aggressively defending the public's right to know. That is really the

true job and responsibility of any commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, as my former colleague for Burgeo La Poile would have said in

this House on the last occasion that Mr. Ring was appointed: He is a man, not

only a gentleman, but a man of high morals and ethics. I think he has shown that

to us. He has shown that to the people of the Province when they have come

forward wanting to access information. We have seen Mr. Ring, Mr. Speaker, even

take solicitor-client cases to the court of appeals in this Province in the name

of representing individuals who sought to get information under this act.

We have no problem whatsoever in endorsing his reappointment. We certainly

felt that the appointments in the new legislation for commissioners should have

been longer than two years. I am not quite sure why the government did not

choose to accept the recommendation of the Cummings report to make the

appointments on a five-year basis. It is quite obvious that they do feel that

experience is important when you are putting someone in a job of this calibre in

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ring in his job certainly was able to arbitrate between the

public and government on access to information. He did that very well on many,

many cases. I was one of the people who had the opportunity to deal with his

office through my job as an MHA, like I am sure many others have in the House of

Assembly. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that any time I sought to access information,

it was done in a timely manner and it was responded to in a very professional

manner. When things were not eligible for disclosure, we were informed

immediately. When things were, the information was made available to us. We may

not have always agreed in terms of the

interpretation of the legislation, but

that is the balance that I felt that he brought to the job because oftentimes he

did not agree with government either. We saw that in the court actions that he

took in the time that he was there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him on this appointment and say to him

that as the Official Opposition in this Province, we look forward to continuing

to work with him in his role as a commissioner for information and privacy in

this Province. We will be interested, Mr. Speaker, in learning how he will

operate under the new stricter regulations around access to information in Bill

29 that was just recently passed in the House of Assembly.

I think, Mr. Speaker, by the mere fact that government is reappointing him at

this time, they are also about to make serious changes to the act and proclaim

new legislation tighter, more restricted legislation in the Province. His

experience, his continuity to the position, and his expertise will certainly be

very valuable in that exercise and will guarantee that the people of this

information that needs to be protected is protected in their best interests.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I again congratulate Mr. Ring, support the

resolution as has been put forward, and look forward to working with him in his

next term of office as the commissioner of privacy and information for the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am pleased also to stand this afternoon and support the government's

reappointment of Mr. Ring in his role as the Information and Privacy

Commissioner. We have had the history of his position explained by the Minister

of Justice. Just as we were all pleased with his initial interim appointment and

his consequent permanent appointment, I am again very pleased to see him

continue in this position.

I did not know Mr. Ring when he first came into this role back in 2007. I

would see him occasionally, because initially their offices were on the same

fifth floor of the west wing of this building for a number of years, actually,

before they were moved to another area. The one thing that I had been fortunate

for was that as a Member of the House of Assembly Management Commission, we do

interact on that commission with officers of the House; as a member, I certainly

got to know Mr. Ring in his interaction with the House of Assembly Management

Commission. Obviously we have to meet with officers to discuss their budgets,

for example. That is the time when we most meet with them.

One of the things that has always struck me and continues to strike me about

Mr. Ring is he, as has been said, is a very gentlemanly person. He is

reasonable, and yet what I find very forthright

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Forthright in presenting what he believes, forthright in

presenting requests, forthright in putting his information forward; if there is

anything I appreciate in somebody, it is that, Mr. Speaker. There are no back

doors with him. He is up front. I think that is a very good quality to have in

the commissioner for information and privacy.

He has a broad range of responsibilities and powers under the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Some of those we discussed last week,

obviously, when we were dealing with Bill 29. One of the things which he has

responsibility for is actually for making recommendations to ensure compliance

with the act. That is something that he does take seriously, that he has done

and I firmly believe he will continue to do.

The other thing with regard to his role as the commissioner is that he leads

a team. I have to say that I think the stamp that he has put on their office and

on his team is one, first of all, of professionalism; they are an extremely

professional group of people. They are also very co-operative, and I think that

comes from their leadership as well.

When we have questions and when we have to deal with issues of seeking

information and deal with clarity around the act, to get the information that we

need to make sure that we are performing our role correctly as a caucus and it

was me by myself up until now, so I probably am the only one in the caucus who

has really interacted a lot with the office. I have always found the team to be

there for us, to be co-operative, and to make sure that we have what we need to

do our work. I do think that it is the leadership of Mr. Ring that has brought

that team to the level of professionalism that I see there.

I mentioned the fact that he is forthright and he is a very principled

person. He takes his role very seriously. He did show himself to believe that

strongly and to act in a politically neutral role when he did not back down from

having to do what he thought was right in taking the government to court. He

really is totally committed to the defence of citizens' rights to freedom of

information.

Because of that I feel very confident that he is going to be very strong in

trying to make the new act, the amended act, work for the citizens of this

Province. I am very glad that the government recognized the need to keep him

there, because I think having the person who understands the act well remain in

the position right now is extremely important.

I look forward to seeing Mr. Ring monitor how things unfold under the amended

act, and I hope that just as this government was willing to reappoint him here

today and I am delighted to hear the minister speak so highly of him just as

they are ready to reappoint him here today, that they will also be just as ready

to listen to him when he brings forward, if he has to, recommendations with

regard to how the amended act is working.

I have absolutely no doubt and feel fairly confident that if he sees any

glitches he is going to make that known, because that certainly has been his

history.

The NDP caucus and I extend our congratulations to Mr. Ring on his

reappointment.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Members have heard the motion and heard the comments to the

motion.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Orders of the Day, Order 2, Committee of the Whole on a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.

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'.

Motion carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The last time Committee of the Whole sat, we were considering Bill 33, and

that one has been referred again. My recollection is that we had carried clauses

1 and 2 and we were debating clause 3. There was an amendment put forward by the

Opposition House Leader; the Opposition House Leader spoke to the amendment, so

now we are looking for further speakers to the amendment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, it is a pleasure to speak again to this act, and to speak

specifically to the amendment. I know I went into it the other day, but I just

thought I would highlight again the amendment that is put forward and the

reasons why we see no need to support this amendment, because we have so many

reviews in place already.

I would not want the public to think that if a child died, with the act that

we currently have before us, that there are not reviews that are done, because

there certainly are; there is a whole host of reviews that are done. This is

just another tool in the toolkit for the prevention of child deaths, Mr. Chair.

As I said, there are many existing mechanisms in place for the review of child

deaths and to look at the systemic issues relating to these deaths. As I said,

this child death review is essentially another avenue to do that. It is in

addition to all of the processes and review processes that are currently in

place to review child deaths and systematic deaths. So I would not want the

impression to be left that if a child dies, for various reasons and various

circumstances, that there is not a review conducted, because there certainly is.

I thought I would again take the time to highlight some of those reviews,

starting with the reviews in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

We certainly have an internal review process for deaths, as well as critical

incidents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: This review would be for children who are under our caseload,

so whether they are in protective intervention, whether they are youth

corrections or adoptions, or even if a child dies within the care of a regulated

child care facility, because that certainly comes under our jurisdiction as

well. A very high level of review takes place when a child dies under our

caseload. We certainly look immediately to see if there is any immediate risk to

other children in the case where a child died.

Mr. Chair, there are many things that could come out of the death review

within our department. Some of the examples of actions could be further

clarifying policy for staff or even planning a review of a particular policy and

see what could come out of that. That is one place where death reviews already

occur. As I said, this is to strengthen it by bringing it into legislation and

adding the teeth. There are only two other provinces that have child death

reviews in legislation, and that is one of the main reasons why we are putting

it in legislation is to show that we are serious.

There are also reviews conducted in the Department of Health when a child may

die, upon the death of a child in or upon arrival into a health care facility.

An occurrence report has to be conducted. While I cannot speak to specific cases

and the Opposition House Leader did mention one particular case, I can assure

the public listening that there is an internal review that takes place in such

circumstances as that. Then, through those review processes, there can be

notifications made for changes to legislation or policy and so on. The results

of those reviews could conclude that a child died as a result of a child medical

condition. It could be that the standard of care was met or was not met. There

could be issues related to the health care provider, and certainly that would

require further review, and it could conclude that current procedures or

protocols need to be further reviewed. That is another example of reviews that

take place when children die.

As I mentioned the other day, we also have the Office of the Citizens' Rep.

The Office of the Citizens' Rep is certainly appointed by this House. They can

field inquiries, investigate circumstances, really on anything that is done in

government but certainly in the case of looking at a child death. Certainly, the

Citizens' Rep can do that and they certainly are required to do an unbiased

investigation, an impartial investigation, and they too can make recommendations

to government, to the government agency in question or the department in

question, and they too can certainly then come back and report on their findings

and make recommendations to this House of Assembly. We are the people who put

the Citizens' Rep there.

I mentioned the other day the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and they

have been and they continue to be a strong advocate for the rights of children.

They have very broad powers to investigate individual complaints as well as

systemic issues. I know the Opposition House Leader mentioned some concerns

around her dealings with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. We have to

remember, Mr. Chair, that we as elected members put the Child and Youth Advocate

in their place; they are an Officer of the House. If those concerns exist, I

think that it is incumbent upon us to follow up on that with the Speaker. The

Child and Youth Advocate it is an independent office and they can review; they

can investigate any matter related to government services affecting children or

youth. This is whether or not a request or a complaint is made. They can do it

upon just wanting to do it themselves. They can take it upon themselves to do

it. They do not need to act upon a complaint. That is really a key piece, Mr.

Chair.

They can conduct an investigation on the child or youth's behalf, or on the

behalf of a group of children or youth in cases where advocacy is required, or

for whatever the reason may be. They can make recommendations to government.

They can make recommendations to an agency of the government or communities.

They can make recommendations about legislation, policy, and practices, all in

respecting the services and rights of children. As a result of the Turner

recommendations in 2008, there were changes made to the Child and Youth Advocate

Act. This was to further strengthen their powers in investigation in terms of

subpoena and so on. That is another avenue for reviews to be complete when

children die.

We also have the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. Currently, under

section 5 of the current Fatalities Investigations Act, the Chief Medical

Officer does have the authority to review the circumstances of accidental death,

suicide, deaths attributable to negligence or while in institutional care.

Wherein the public interest, this office can request that a public inquiry be

done. There are also other review mechanisms in place when you look at police

investigations and through the court system, people can avail of legal services

and so on.

There are a number of avenues currently in place. I certainly would not want

the impression to be left that when a child dies it is not looked into, it is

not investigated, and that recommendations are not made. This is about

strengthening what we currently have and making it really comprehensive. It was

one of the fifty-eight recommendations in Turner. It is one of the final

recommendations we are acting upon. It is a really good recommendation. This is

a good bill, and I understand the members opposite agree that this is a good

bill.

The other thing with this new act is the Child Death Review Committee will

have the authority to go back and look at past cases if they see a trend

occurring or a pattern occurring. Some of the examples that were used here in

the House on Monday were fires in Labrador. It is in their purview to go back

and review those cases should they so choose. That ability is there. The two

other provinces that have brought this into legislation do not go back and look

at past cases, but we are even strengthening it and giving that committee the

opportunity to go back and look at past cases, Mr. Chair.

Just to put some numbers behind the fact there are certainly reviews

conducted now when a child dies, this is just information from 2009 that I

pulled out. Within our department, the Department of CYFS, there have been since

2009 ten death reviews completed. I also looked at the Child and Youth Advocate,

and since 2009 they have done five official reviews of death that occurred in

children as well. There is currently a process in place to review the death of a

child. This is about enhancing what we currently have, strengthening what we

currently have, and bringing in a team of experts. It is multidisciplinary and

so on. There are many opportunities there to review a child death now, Mr.

Chair.

As I said, prior to the establishment of this review committee, there has

been and there continues to be the means for reviewing tragic circumstances

leading to the death of a child and also looking a the systemic issues that may

occur relating to children. These mechanisms serve a really good purpose, Mr.

Chair. They have been available for the review of cases and issues up to the

present time, and they will continue to be there. This will even strengthen

that, Mr. Chair.

The process we have established is in-line with BC and Ontario, as I said.

They have this legislation in place, and our understanding is it is working well

there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the minister that her time for speaking has elapsed.

MS JOHNSON: If I could just clue up?

CHAIR: The minister has leave.

MS JOHNSON: Just to clue up, Mr. Chair, I believe the members of the

House here believe that this is a good bill. It is the right thing to do for our

children. It is a multidisciplinary committee that will review the facts and

circumstances around the death of a child.

What is really critical out of this bill, Mr. Chair, is it will enable the

Province to learn from and help prevent untimely deaths of the children in

Newfoundland and Labrador, all while ensuring that their best interests are met.

This bill really speaks to our commitment to the process of review and learning

from reviews and learning from those evaluations to work towards continuous

improvements. We do not want any less than that for our children, Mr. Chair.

As I said, the Child Death Review Committee may base its report on an

aggregate and a multidisciplinary analysis of the deaths reviewed. They can

identify systemic problems. They can promote the prevention of deaths through

education, protocol development, and dissemination of information, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, they can make recommendations respecting the health, safety and

well-being of children and pregnant women.

I want to say in closing that what we are bringing in here today, this

process is a new lens to add to what we currently have, to strengthen it, to

enhance it, but it is a new lens. It does exist in two other provinces. We could

have done it in policy, Mr. Chair, but we really believe this is so important

that we want to give it teeth. We want to raise the significance of this and put

it into legislation and really help us learn from child deaths. No other

provinces, as I said, have established committees to accept referrals from past

cases but we are allowing the committee in this place, to go back and look at

past deaths if it is part of their analysis for looking at trending based on a

current referral.

As I said, officers of this House, like the Child and Youth Advocate and

Citizens' Rep, they did and they still do have the ability to review past

deaths. I really believe the amendments to this Fatalities Investigations Act is

a very significant and positive step for the Province to learn from and to help

prevent death to the children of our Province, Mr. Chair. We really want to

ensure that their best interests are met and they deserve nothing less.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just going to speak very briefly again to the amendment that I proposed.

I am a little disappointed for sure that government has chosen not to accept

this amendment. I was somewhat hopeful in the fact that they were prepared to

give it more careful research before making a final decision, and I certainly

appreciate that. However, Mr. Chair, my rationale for bringing forward the

amendment and my arguments for it have not changed.

I realize and understand the abilities that have been given under legislation

to the Citizens' Rep, the Child and Youth Advocate, and the medical examiner;

however, Mr. Chair, I feel these entities have not adequately addressed the

problem for which I have spoken. If they would have addressed that problem

adequately, we would not be bringing forward the legislation on child death

review in the Province in the first place.

I think it is significant to say that not only myself, but many others who

have been engaged with the death of a child in this Province and are trying to

get proper investigations and reviews done, suffice it to say they too have felt

that the legislation and the responsibilities currently entrusted with these

other legislative bodies have not been able to give them the results that they

have been hoping to attain.

That is why, Mr. Chair, they have continued to lobby for a child death review

in this Province. We are pleased with the legislation. Do not let my amendment

be confused with the fact that I do not support what is being done here; I

support it 100 per cent. I think it is definitely good legislation; it needed to

happen, but our amendment really speaks to only one specific clause of this

bill, and that is, Mr. Chair, that people who have lost a child in this Province

deserve to have the right to have a child death review if they see fit to do so.

I understand the government's argument that they do not want to bog down the

system with past investigations of children that may have died in the Province.

I can certainly understand that. However, Mr. Chair, we are not asking that it

be an open policy, as such; we are asking that the medical examiner would be

given the right to be able to make recommendations as they see fit. Most of

those recommendations would be based on systemic events that may have happened

in our history that have not been properly researched or investigated. My

rationale was that another child should not have to die to have that done, and I

maintain that position, Mr. Chair.

I do understand the new legislation very well, and I do understand that

future events will be looked at for systemic issues, Mr. Chair; however, it does

not resolve the stalemate that we now find ourselves at, nor does it allow us to

go forward with proper recommendations and proper changes within the policies of

our Province to ensure for the protection of children. Therefore, Mr. Chair, I

maintain my stand, and I still ask that members would support the amendment.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also stand to support the amendment, and I believe that the amendment as it

stands provides us as a Province, as a community, as people who take care of

our children an opportunity to go forward, an opportunity to take a look and

investigate further some clusters. We are not talking just about the odd

individual death, but in some ways there are some aggregate cases, there are

some clusters around suicides in Labrador, around suicides on the Island, around

deaths due to substance abuse and drug overdoses.

We support the legislation. It is timely. It is actually way overdue, and we

support it, but we would hope that the government would take leadership in this

area and make it possible again for the Chief Medical Examiner and the review

committee because of their expertise, because of their commitment to be able

to reach back and to pull forward. This is about helping us all move forward. It

is about helping us learn from something that already happened.

I would stress again, rather than looking at legislation as being

retroactive, looking at the fact that in 2007, the Turner inquiry had made this

recommendation; had this recommendation been fulfilled in a timely manner, we

would not be in this position. Those deaths that we are talking about and

perhaps others would have been subject to a Child Death Review Committee that

would have been instigated by the Chief Medical Examiner.

Those deaths would have been examined and we would have learned from them in

a more comprehensive way, with specific recommendations that would have been

made public. Yes, they were examined, but this is different; the Child Death

Review Committee with its expertise and what this legislation allows them and

mandates them to do is something more substantial and something that gives us as

a community something further to go on.

There were fifty-eight recommendations of Turner; this is the last one, as

the minister said, the final one to implement. If it had been implemented in a

timely manner, we would be way better off than we are today.

Again, I applaud the legislation. I applaud the amendment. I would hope that

government members would see fit to look at supporting this clause and looking

at it as a way to cover the time period from the time that the Turner inquiry

had made this recommendation; it is over five years, almost six years in terms

of the implementation of that recommendation. To reach back is not retroactive,

but in fact simply addressing the issues that have happened since those

recommendations have been done.

This is about giving information to our citizens. This is about all of us as

a community benefiting. It is about all of the Province benefiting. I have

confidence in the Chief Medical Examiner's ability to make decisions, to make

recommendations, and also in the Child Death Review Committee's ability to do

that as well. I have no fears about anything willy-nilly being done.

I am disappointed that the government is not supporting what I think is a

very reasonable amendment. I would hope that people would think again about

that. This is an opportunity that we have as a community of people to be able to

go forward, to be able to learn from some very, very tragic events, and apply a

certain level of expertise so that we can all go forward on this. It is giving

to the community; it is giving to the families who are involved as well.

I would hope once again that people would look at this and reconsider their

position on the amendment and take advantage of this opportunity.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: We will be voting on the amendment as put forward by the Member

for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

Is it the pleasures of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6 through 9 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 6 through 9 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, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are in Committee, so I will simply call now from the Order Paper, Mr.

Chair, Committee of the Whole on a bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations

Act, Bill 37.

CHAIR: The Committee of the Whole will now consider Bill 37.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act". (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 3 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to get up and say, as I said in debate the other evening, there

were good things in this piece of legislation, Bill 37, we thought, 65 per cent

automatic certification being one and the very clear timelines for recognition

of first collective agreement. We thought those were very good things to do. We

felt the Special Project Order provisions included were also very reasonable and

very much in keeping with what the Oakley report had suggested.

There were things that we did not want to see, and then there were things we

wanted to see. I apologize to the House in advance because I feel I may sound

like I am a broken record because we have been talking quite a lot in this

Legislature

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: The member says: Hear, hear!

We have been talking quite a bit in this Legislature about the issue of

anti-replacement worker legislation.

Without further ado, I would like to move an amendment to clause 6 of the

bill. Clause 6 of the bill relates to

section 25 of the act.

Section 25 of the

act deals with: prohibitions relating to employers. We felt that this was the

most appropriate place to put this amendment.

This is an amendment to Bill 37,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

Clause 6 of the bill is amended by adding, after the proposed subsection 25.(4)

so this adds a subsection 25(5).

Article 25.(5) of the bill, as amended, would

say: During a lockout or strike authorized under this act an employer must not

use the unpaid or paid services of a person (

a) who is hired or engaged after

the earlier of the date on which the notice to commence collective bargaining is

given or the date on which bargaining begins; (

b) who ordinarily works at

another of the employer's places of operations; (

c) who is transferred to a

place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place,

if he or she was transferred after the earlier of the date on which the notice

to commence bargaining is given or the date on which bargaining begins; or (

d) who is employed, engaged or supplied to the employer by another person to

perform (

i) the work of the employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or

locked out; or (ii) the work ordinarily done by a person who is performing the

work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked out.

Then, subsection (6) An employer shall not require any person who works at a

place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place to

perform any work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or is

locked out without the consent of the person.

Subsection (7) An employer must not (

a) refuse to employ or continue to

employ a person; (

b) threaten to dismiss a person or otherwise threaten a

person; (

c) discriminate against a person in regard to employment or a term or

condition of employment; or (

d) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or

other penalty on a person, because of a person's refusal to perform any or all

of the work of an employee in the bargaining unit that is on strike or locked

out.

That is the substance of the amendment. It is seconded by the Member of the

House of Assembly for the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

CHAIR: Will the member provide us with copies of the amendment, please?

MR. KIRBY: Absolutely.

CHAIR: Given the length of the amendment, we will take a brief recess to

consider whether it is in order.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have considered the amendment put forward by the Member for St. John's

North. The amendment is a lengthy amendment. It starts off by amending clause 6

of the bill, and I would ask direction. Shall I dispense with the reading of the

entire text?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: Yes.

The amendment is in order, and I will go back to the Member for St. John's

North to speak to the amendment.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment.

We have had labour disputes in this Province where employers have saw fit to

bring in replacement workers, or scabs as known in the parlance of the labour

movement. After I was elected in October of last year, I took it upon myself

after being appointed a labour critic for the New Democratic Party caucus, I

started a petition and circulated it throughout the Province. I spoke to quite a

number of people in Newfoundland and Labrador about this particular issue, and

quite a number of people have signed the petition, have agreed with it.

Then, in February of this year, we had the standoff between Ocean Choice

International and the FFAW trawlermen from the Newfoundland Lynx. That was an

unfortunate situation, a strike that was prolonged by the use of replacement

workers. Much like what we saw in Voisey's Bay, but of course, not quite the

same duration. I believe it was ten weeks that that labour dispute went on.

We know there is quite a lot of support. In fact, after we talked about it

here in the Legislature the other day, CBC carried a story on the radio and the

television and on their Web site. When I was home with my son this morning, as I

always am, listening to the news, the reporter was saying that they had a poll.

That may be unscientific, but they had a poll on the CBC Web site in the last

few days that asked people: Do you believe that we should have anti-replacement

workers in Newfoundland and Labrador? I believe it was about 50 per cent,

roughly 50 per cent of the people who responded to the poll over a thousand

people responded positively and said, yes, we agree with it. Now, we know

there are others who do not agree with it, and I respect that difference of

opinion, but we do have this is not alien in Canada, and we have talked about

the provinces that have it. We know Quebec has had it for quite a long time, and

British Columbia has had it since the 1990s. We say, well, that is only two

provinces. That is two provinces that represent over one-third of a population

of this country.

I also say, I note the minister has pointed this out quite correctly that

Ontario did have this legislation when the Liberal Member of Parliament, Bob

Rae, was Premier of that province. They did bring in that legislation under an

NDP government. It was subsequently taken out. It was reversed by the government

of Mike Harris. We know that was one of the most regressive, neoconservative,

perhaps paleoconservative governments that we have ever had in the history of

the Country of Canada. I really would not hold that up as a hallmark because I

think no government wants to be holding up Mike Harris' government as an

exemplar of how to do business, because I think that government was

unnecessarily harsh on the poor, unnecessarily harsh on others, including

workers.

I will not go a lot further on this because I know my colleague from Signal

Hill Quidi Vidi would like to have a few words on the amendment as well. I

would say that this is entirely reasonable and it is in spirit with what the

minister had said at the outset in introducing this legislation, because he

talked about the need for there to be balance. I think this restores some

balance in the event of strikes or lockouts because it enables people to bargain

with good faith at the bargaining table with employers, and that process is not

impeded or prolonged by the use of replacement workers, by the use of scab

labour on the job site.

I will leave it at that. I hope members will consider the amendment. I

believe it is within reason and the language if anybody is interested was

adapted from that which is in use in British Columbia at present.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a pleasure to get up and speak to this bill again while it is in

Committee. It took some time to do this bill, Mr. Chair. This was thirty years

since we have had any significant changes to the Labour Relations Act in this

Province. It was something that started quite some time ago. It started back in

2009, I believe. We had an Employment Relations Committee formed. We have, since

that time, had the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry and, of course, we have also

examined our Special Project Orders when we had a gentleman, Mr. Oakley, do a

review of that.

Mr. Chair, this was quite an exhaustive process. Our main goal in this

process was to create a balance. We knew we had to bring our legislation

up-to-date; we knew we had to modernize our legislation. We are competing

against national companies, international companies, and bringing business here.

We are doing a good job of it, but, in all honesty, our labour legislation had

lagged behind a bit. Our goal was to create a balance. As you can tell from some

of the media hits that we have had and you go out and look through the media,

you will quickly find out that there is quite a balance of opinions out there.

You will see one side of the equation totally against certain things; the other

side of the equation are against the other things. They are not all against the

same things; they are in favour of certain things.

Mr. Chair, we have to find that balance. We thought by introducing

replacement worker legislation and being a red Tory, you look at all

possibilities. You do look at all the options that were on the table and were

put before me. It was probably one of the things that slowed me down the most,

that I wanted to do the most research on, that I wanted to know the most about,

Mr. Chair. I quickly discovered that this is one of the most divisive things

between labour and business that currently exists. Views are very, very

polarized, depending on if you are on the employer's side or if you are on the

labour side. The hon. Member for St. John's North mentioned, yes, there are only

two provinces that have it; it is Quebec and BC. He is equally right when he

said that Ontario did have it for a short time and then had it removed.

Mr. Chair, there have been a number of studies done and a couple that I have

been made familiar with and spent some time looking through. By the way, I did

not read just one side of this debate. I certainly took the time to read both

sides of the argument. I just want to refer you to a couple, Mr. Chair, if I

could. In 2006, there was a federal government report done. At that time they

looked at the jurisdictions of Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. Mr. Chair,

they quickly came to the conclusion and what they did actually they took it

over three decades. They took a three-year period in the 1970s; they took a

three-year period in the 1990s, and a three-year period in early-2000. They had

a comparison of places that had replacement worker legislation and places that

did not.

Mr. Chair, there was a trend that was evident from my perspective and the

report said so. Just to give you one example rather than getting into all the

details of the whole report, just from one period, the 2003 to the 2005 period

for example, Mr. Chair. We have Quebec, that does have replacement worker

legislation and they had lost forty-seven days, compared to Ontario that did not

have the legislation and lost thirty-eight days. Mr. Chair, that was the trend.

That was not just that decade, Mr. Chair; that was three separate decades that

occurred in.

Mr. Chair, then in 2008, Supreme Court Chief Justice Peter Annis I am not

sure, Annis could be spelled a different way, and I could pronounce it but we

will call him Annis anyway. Mr. Chair, his conclusion was evident; when he

examined the legislation across the country, Mr. Chair, he could not come down

on either side of the debate. His thinking was that it was inconclusive, just

that, and he could not confirm whether this worked or whether it did not.

Mr. Chair, my colleague from St. John's North one of his learned

colleagues, I will call him, one of the Member for St. John's North's learned

colleagues, a gentleman by the name of Professor Morley Gunderson, wrote a

report called Bans on Strike Replacement Workers: Pouring oil on the fire ,

was the way he titled this report. This report looked in depth at replacement

worker legislation. The professor concluded that by having this legislation

and he did a synopsis in a number of different places you were 50 per cent

more likely to have a labour dispute than without it. That was the conclusion he

came to.

Mr. Chair, I am not going to go on too long, but I just want to get this

point out, too. In 2009, there was an

article written by Paul Duffy and Susan

Johnson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chair, that is what I would call one of those six of one

and half a dozen of the other articles. They did say that replacement worker

legislation did increase the number of labour disputes in jurisdictions that had

it. However, what they did say was that it shortened the amount of time of the

labour dispute.

Mr. Chair, that was the kind of

article I was seeing. That was the kind of

work being done by professors and by Supreme Court judges. These were the kinds

of analyses that were presented to me, Mr. Chair. I had to say no to replacement

worker legislation, and as a government we had to say no, simply because the

arguments were not there.

I understand it. I hate to see labour disputes. I and the government we have

here, Mr. Chair, believe there has to be way for both parties to come to their

own resolution, not a forced resolution. We want these parties to come together

and work. It is very easy, of course, when this kind of an incident happens and

when there are replacement workers who come in to become involved, Mr. Chair

obviously people cry out in anger, in frustration. You know, I empathize with

these people. I really do. I can see where you can be upset, but I still believe

that the onus is on both parties to come to an agreement. Based on the reports

that I have read and I have shared with my colleagues on this side of the House,

Mr. Chair, it is certainly inconclusive the value and the effectiveness of

replacement worker legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am quite happy to stand and speak to this amendment, which we have

presented from a very serious perspective. Since I have been in this House I

was first elected in the fall of 2006 there have been a number of lengthy

strikes in this Province, some not as long as others. The first one that I faced

was in April of 2007 when the support staff at Voisey's Bay went on strike. They

were on strike for two months at that time.

The contractors brought in replacement workers, because it was contractors at

the mine whose workers were on strike; they brought in replacement workers,

resulting in a tremendous amount of tension on the picket line and actually

violent acts by the replacement workers, violent acts that were shown to

actually have happened. This situation of people from this Province being

pitched against each other, and being in a situation where violence actually

happens, is something that we do not want, Mr. Chair. It is something that none

of us should want to see in this Province of ours.

At that time, at the time of the Voisey's Bay strike in 2007, the NDP did

join with the labour movement who called for anti-scab legislation. I think we

should point out that this is a position of the labour movement. The labour

movement would really want to see anti-scab legislation in this Province; there

have been at least one, if not two letters from the current President of the

Federation of Labour of Newfoundland and Labrador indicating a desire for

anti-scab legislation. I know individual unions have exactly the same position,

and it has always been the position of the New Democratic Party.

In 2007 there was a promise from then Premier Danny Williams and then MHA for

Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for Lake Melville; they promised the union local they

would intervene. Unions and the NDP followed up with letters, both to Mr. Hickey

who was the MHA at the time and to the Premier, and questions were asked in the

House. At that time the minister responsible, who was Minister Burke at the

time, said that such legislation will be examined as part of review of the

Labour Relations Act. I guess the government did, I suppose from their

perspective, review it.

We had the minister just now tell us what he looked at and what he studied.

Unfortunately, it seems to me, they did not listen to anything that the labour

movement has been saying. They listened to nothing about what the unions were

asking for. What they are doing in saying no to this amendment, which the

minister has indicated he will be doing, is rejecting the position of the labour

movement.

The minister has made reference to and so has my colleague from St. John's

North the anti-scab legislation in BC and Quebec. Let's look at that. Let's do

a more in-depth look at what we have there in BC and Quebec. Those two provinces

themselves represent 37 per cent of the Canadian population, 12 million out of

33 million.

In BC and Quebec, the anti-scab laws have been in place for a long time; in

Quebec since 1977 and in BC since 1993. Now I appreciate the minister is looking

at documents and looking at research people have done but I would be rather

encouraged if he had told me that he looked in-depth at the history of what has

happened in Quebec since 1977 and in BC since 1993, and why in both of those

provinces the legislation has been maintained even though especially in BC

they have had many different changes in the political stripe of government. No

government in BC, whether a Social Credit, whether it is Liberal, whether it is

NDP, and I think that is all they have there when it comes to the western

provinces they have some different provincial parties, but I think they are the

three in BC that not one of those political parties saw fit to change that

law.

In BC, they obviously must be happy with the anti-scab legislation because no

matter what the political stripe of government has been there, they have not

chosen to change the law. The law has been intact. They have a good history with

the use of that law. A study does show and I think the minister acknowledged

one part of this that where you do have anti-scab legislation, that if you do

have a strike, it is a shorter strike. It makes sense, because the company or

the corporation cannot hire workers to continue production, for example, or the

offering of a service. They come back to the table more quickly, which is the

whole idea of having the anti-scab legislation, that a company cannot use

replacement workers as a way to just keep earning money while people are out on

strike.

Let us remember what it means to be out on strike. I do not know how many of

us in the House have done it. I have been doing it for a good forty years of

standing on picket lines, sometimes myself because I was on strike as a teacher

and other times in solidarity with others. It is no fun, and people are not out

there because they want to be out there. They are out there because they do not

know what choice they have. They have no choice.

If this government is saying it cares about the people and it stands for the

people, then we should want to put in place something that would ensure that

never again will we have workers out for two months, or workers out for eight

months, or workers out for eighteen months. Standing on that picket line in

Happy Valley-Goose Bay over eighteen months in minus forty, and then with the

extremes that happen in Labrador though I am jealous of their extremes

sometimes almost plus forty. It was an awful experience, and I stood on the

picket line at different times in both of those conditions.

We should never want workers to feel they have no choice but to do that. That

is the issue, they have no other choice. The one thing that our labour laws

and it is a universal feature of our labour laws, is the right to strike. The

one thing that we give workers that our labour laws recognize, they do have the

right to strike. We take the right away from them when we do not have anti-scab

legislation. The anti-scab legislation confirms the right of the workers to

strike. Take it away and their right to strike is nullified.

The frustration that I feel, it is hard to express. I listened to the

minister; he says he wants a balance. Well, if you want a balance, Mr. Minister

and I say this, Mr. Chair, if they want a balance - then we should see some

equality between the strikers and the company. The strike is there to try to

give the workers something that they can use.

When we do not have anti-scab legislation, I am afraid to see-saw goes with

the workers down here. It is a total imbalance without anti-scab legislation.

The fact that the company, or the corporation, the employer, can bring in

workers, can continue to dig in the mine or can continue to fish in our waters,

and the workers are out there on a pittance having to hold back payments on

mortgages and do not know how they are going to keep going because they have no

other choice the balance is gone. I cannot understand that the minister does

not see that.

Anti-scab legislation is what causes balance, because it stops the company

from having the power to nullify the benefit of the workers being on strike. I

cannot speak too strongly to why we should be putting this in place. I want to

point out that in Ontario, when the legislation was brought in when it was

gotten rid of, it had only been in place for a very short period of time. When

the Harris government one of the most right-wing governments we have had in

the country; not the most, but one of came in, one of the very first things

it was not the first; probably the second or third thing they did, without even

testing the legislation; without even knowing if it was going to work because it

had not had time to be used, they got rid of it based on ideology.

The minister made some reference here in the House recently to the difference

in philosophy between our two parties. I guess this is one of the signs of the

difference in philosophy between our two parties.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: That will be fine, Mr. Chair.

I will get to speak again, so thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am rising to speak to the amendment in Bill 37. Mr. Chair, I can see

certainly why this amendment has come about. It is obviously to do with events

in our history where we have seen very prolonged strikes, and probably to try to

justify the rationale behind those prolonged strikes by the fact that many of

these companies were able to bring in replacement w