PDF Version

June 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 40

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome Mr. Egbert Walters and Adolph Crant to the Speaker's gallery

today. Eg Walters, as most of you know him, is the General Manager of the

Community Food Sharing Association. Even though this is Mr. Walters' occupation,

it is obvious to all that know him that it is also his passion.

This

passion combined with his skill set has grown the Community Food Sharing

Association to the successful organization that it is today. Since joining the

association in 1992, Mr. Walters has spearheaded the acquisition of millions of

dollars in food donations and consumables, which is no small feat.

Mr.

Walters and his team work far beyond 40 hours a week and this demonstration of

commitment is not seen every day. It is for this very reason that I would like

to recognize Mr. Eg Walters today for his unwavering dedication to his community

and to his province.

Welcome

to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

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

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

The

hon. the Member for Stephenville Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the Stephenville High Spartans boys and

girls track and field teams. On May 28, the boys' team captured their sixth

straight provincial banner and the girls placed second.

Both

teams included athletes and a coach who also recently took home further

accolades at the School Sport Newfoundland and Labrador annual award banquet.

Stephenville High's Jesse Byrne was recently SSNL male athlete of the year, and

Katara White was named runner-up as female athlete of the year.

School

Sport NL also recognized coach Rosie Forsey with an honour award as well as a

coaching service award for her 30 years of dedication in coaching some of our

province's top athletes.

Under

Rosie's leadership in coaching track and field, cross-country running and

skiing, Stephenville High has captured over 40 provincial banners in the last 10

years alone. In addition to Stephenville High's recent success, the Stephenville

Middle School girls' and boys' track and field teams, also coached by Rosie,

took home first and second place respectively at the provincial level.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the amazing young athletes of

Stephenville and their esteemed coach, Rosie Forsey.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burin Grand Bank.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Lord's Cove Recreation Committee for

winning the regional Community Physical Activity Challenge sponsored by

Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador, despite being pitted against many larger

towns in the area.

The

residents of Lord's Cove were joined by those of Lamaline, Point au Gaul and

Point May in completing an array of weekly physical activities, ranging from a

poker walk, Nerf gun war, beach bonfire, to many other during the month of April

when the competition was held.

The

committee is especially appreciative of the work done by volunteer, Lisa

Sheppard, who organized a fitness night for each week during April. As well, the

local school, St. Joseph's Academy, was a worthy partner in the venture,

allowing the participants to use the school gymnasium, free of charge.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating the residents of Lord's Cove and

surrounding towns on winning their region's Community Physical Activity

Challenge.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me

great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to acknowledge the accomplishments of

athletes and volunteers in my district.

The

Clarenville Area Recreation Association is responsible for the delivery of

recreation programming to the residents of the community. The CARA Association,

in partnership with the Clarenville Lions Club, held its annual award ceremony

on May 31.

The

following individuals and groups were recognized at this year's event: The Peter

S. Cholock Senior Male and Female Athletes of the Year were awarded to Jacob

Evans and Emma Hackett; Special Olympics Male and Female Athlete of the Year

were awarded to Nick Chafe and Katelyn Butt; William T. Davis Team of the Year

went to the Clarenville High Senior Boys Volleyball Team.

The

Junior Male and Female Athlete of the Year went to Cole Mackey and Amber

Fitzpatrick; Junior Team of the Year was awarded to Clarenville Middle grade

eight Boys Volleyball Team; Leroy Miller Sports Builder of the Year was given to

Robert Pond; Lions Senior Volunteer of the Year was awarded to Mary Felkar; the

Lions Junior Volunteer of the Year went to Teeannah Jennex; and the President's

Award was shared with former CARA member Keith Randell and current member Neil

Greening.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in applauding the accomplishments of this fine group

of community volunteers and outstanding athletes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize a constituent of mine from my district.

Amelda Boland lost her courageous battle with cancer at the young age of 49 on

May 21, 2016. Amelda was married to Jerry for almost 26 years and had two

wonderful daughters Shae-Lynn and Danielle.

Amelda

was well known all over the province for her love of Girl Guiding. She has been

involved in the guiding movement for the past 27 years. Amelda's nickname was

guideaholic. She received every award there was to be awarded within the Girl

Guides. She received her last reward, The Dedicated Guider Award, the day before

she passed away, at her home in Renews.

Amelda

was a much respected leader, volunteer and loved by all guides and colleagues.

Amelda lived her life with great determination and never took no for an answer

in whatever ventures or causes she took on.

During

Amelda's funeral many guides from all over the Avalon attended and she was

acknowledged with a Girl Guide honour guard.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask all my colleagues of this House of Assembly to join

me in honouring the life of Amelda Boland and the contribution she made to our

youth and to our province overall.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize the 60 anniversary of the Mount Pearl

Lions Club. The Lions celebrated their 60 anniversary at Park Place in Mount

Pearl on May 27.

The

Lions Charter in Mount Pearl started in 1956 and consisted of 28 members. Their

longest serving member is Mr. Fred Anderson who joined the club in its Charter

year. Currently, the Charter has 32 members, including me, involved in our

community. The Mount Pearl Lions Club undertakes many projects of a humanitarian

nature, within the community, nationally and internationally.

Current

projects the club is working on include collecting used eyeglasses to send to

other countries, organizing the Mount Pearl Santa Claus Parade, working with

schools to offer scholarships at junior high and senior high schools and holding

peace poster contests in schools, plus numerous other activities. The club is

very active with helping the youth and seniors in our community.

Mr.

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

Pearl Lions Club members as they celebrate their 60th anniversary, and for all

the great work they do to contribute to our community.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

It has come to my attention

that we have a delegation from Botwood and Peterview who are here for Question

Period today. The Town of Botwood is represented by Mayor Scott Sceviour, Deputy

Mayor Dennis Woolridge, town manager Stephen Jerrett and the Town of Peterview

by Mayor Jim Samson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

The Commemoration of the

First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

For Honour 100 today, we

have the Member for the District of Virginia Waters Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost their lives in

the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland

Naval Reserve, the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine or the Newfoundland Forestry

Corps. This will be followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we

forget: Wesley Watts, Norman Way, Leonard Webb, George Webber, Hubert Webber,

Archibald Thomas Wells, Clarence Wells, Daniel Wells, Frederick Wells, Harry

Augustus Wells, Hubert Wells, Joseph Warren Wells, Robert Wells, Edward West,

Stanley West, Harry T. Westcott, Augustus Patrick Whalen, Simeon Whalen,

Frederick Wheeler, James Joseph Wheeler, Reuben Wheeler, James Whelan, Thomas J.

Whelan, Albert Clarence White, Alec J. White, Arthur E. White, Frederick White ,

Frederick J. White, Gordon A. White, Hollie White, John White, Michael White,

Reginald Bayley White, Richard White, Thomas White, William White, William

Arthur White, Willis White, Archibald Whitehorn, Edgar Charles Whitten.

(Moment of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to highlight the provincial government's participation in

the 29th Annual Baie Verte Mining Conference from June 3 to 4.

Along with the hon. Premier, the Member of Parliament for

Coast of Bays-Central-Notre Dame and the MHA for the District of Baie Verte

Green Bay, I had the honour of attending. At the conference, we had the pleasure

of exchanging information and ideas about the province's business, mining and

mineral exploration industries and the investment community.

The innovation and ingenuity, the excitement and interest

that the conference attendees are contributing to the mining sector is

remarkable. While mineral commodity prices are under pressure in the current

economy, the companies and people of the Baie Verte region are thriving.

I was pleased to tour Anaconda's Pine Cove gold mine and

meet individuals from its vibrant, young workforce. The provincial government is

supporting Anaconda Mining in its efforts to expand its operations through a

$400,000 repayable loan under the Business Investment Program and a $100,000

investment through the Business Development Support Program.

I also toured Rambler Mines and Metals' copper-gold Ming

mine. The company recently announced financing was in place for expansion plans

that will extend the life of the mine to at least 2021 and perhaps beyond. Last

month, Rambler received the John T. Ryan Safety Award a first for a

Newfoundland and Labrador underground mine.

Both companies continue to actively explore projects in the

area to expand their resources and are significantly contributing to the

industry and economy in the Baie Verte region, and ultimately the province.

Our government is supporting growth in the mineral industry

through prospector training and mentoring, the mineral incentive program, public

geoscience, the core storage program, promotions and efficient and transparent

regulation. We are committed

to working closely with the mining industry and with communities to attract

investment and to develop the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, too, certainly

congratulate those that attended the mining conference and its exchange of ideas

as they move the industry forward. It's good to see the mining industry in the

province is active and has certainly experienced growth, despite some downturns

in some other commodity markets. I want to congratulate Rambler Mines and Metals

on the financing announced and look forward to hearing good news from the

company in the future.

I know

the prior administration as well were heavily involved in the mining sector, and

certainly through Research & Development Corporation, the investment fund, also

worked with the mining industry and continued to grow very important to our

economy in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly, extended congratulations to Anaconda on their investment, and as we

invested in local resource companies in the past I'm certainly glad to support

this investment through the Business Investment Program.

Well

done!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and good to hear of the

mining developments on the Baie Verte Peninsula. We hope that our investment in

Anaconda Mining is viable. It would be interesting what returns we can expect

for our $100,000 investment.

What we

really need from government is a long-term economic plan for growth and a

sustainable economy not so dependent on the whims on the global commodity

prices. We heard plenty of promises about diversifying the economy from them

during the last election but nothing since, and certainly not in this budget.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House to note that Roadcheck 2016 will be carried out in our province, and

throughout North America from today, June 7, until Thursday, June 9.

Roadcheck 2016 is an initiative of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and

represents a major undertaking by vehicle safety enforcement personnel across

Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Mr.

Speaker, over the next three days, provincial highway enforcement officers will

conduct an inspection blitz of commercial vehicles, and remind owners and

operators of safe operating practices. Officers will mainly conduct the North

American Standard Level 1 Inspection, which is a 37-step procedure that checks

both driver and vehicle safety. Supporting safe and sustainable communities is a

priority for our government and our participation in Roadcheck 2016 speaks to

this commitment.

Mr.

Speaker, each year our dedicated staff check hundreds of vehicles throughout the

province during the Roadcheck exercise. As we undertake Roadcheck 2016, I would

like to take this opportunity to recognize the great work of our enforcement

staff, who perform their duties faithfully every day. Their work is greatly

appreciated by our government, and is vital to the safety of motorists

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I also want to applaud the efforts of

everyone in the commercial transport industry who promote road safety and follow

best practices.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Road safety is very important

to us also in keeping motorists, passengers and pedestrians safe each and every

day. We do recognize Roadcheck 2016 and recognize the work of the Commercial

Vehicle Safety Alliance and the undertaking of this initiative.

I'd

also like to extend and thank the enforcement staff that perform their duties

every day to make sure our roads are safe for pedestrians. As we come on to

summer months, I'd like to encourage all drivers, no matter if it's commercial

or whatever, to stay safe on the roads. We're having too many accidents. Road

safety is the responsibility of everybody.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Safety on the province's

highways is of paramount importance. These spot inspections are really the only

way we have to protect the motoring public from commercial vehicles that may be

in a poor state of repair.

Good

luck to the staff and to those on the highways. We must remind people about our

Move Over and other regulations when encountering people whose work puts them in

harm's way on our province's highway. I thank the dedicated enforcement staff.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bravo!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, last Thursday the Premier stated that he would release the Justice

report. Yesterday, the Premier had his Minister of Justice tell the people that

the report would not be released.

I'll

ask the Premier: Why the change of position? Why not release the Justice report

as you have committed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly what the Premier said was that he'd like to get the Justice opinion

out as soon as possible, and that he would go back to our department, the

Department of Justice and Public Safety, and see what options there were.

Solicitors within our department made it quite clear that doing so would breach

solicitor-client privilege. Not only that, it would prejudice the process.

Do we

want a legal opinion out, that has been given to government, and that could

possibly influence the testimony of individuals that may be called under

subpoena to testify in front of the Auditor General? It's not something we

thought was right, and could influence and have a negative effect on government

matters.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

Leader.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recollection is the Premier said in one day nine times that he would release the

information.

I'll

ask the Premier again: Knowing that, Premier, you've made a very clear

commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, will you now release the

secretive Justice report and documentation today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I think the Member opposite understands the concept of

solicitor-client privilege, but perhaps he doesn't. Again, what the Premier has

said all along was there would be a Justice review done. That review was done by

officials within my department and an opinion was provided that this matter

should be referred to the Auditor General, something I think that the other side

actually concurred with.

Again,

it was advised by solicitors and lawyers within the Department of Justice that

releasing this opinion at this time would prejudice the process. The important

thing to remember here is that the Auditor General has absolutely all

information that is necessary to conduct a full and thorough investigation into

the severance payout to Mr. Martin. I think that is something that all of us

here in this province want to know how this happened. The Auditor General has

the information necessary to make this determination.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

Leader.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say

to the Premier that the report, who was doing the report, and the relationship

between you and who was doing the report has not changed. It has not changed

since you said and I quote that you would happily release the Justice report

as long as the AG didn't have any objections end of quote.

Well,

the Auditor General has said he had no issue with government releasing the

report.

So I

ask the Premier again: Why are you hiding behind solicitor-client privilege when

you can release this report? Why are you keeping it secret, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

I figure that the Member opposite, with his background in policing, would

understand the concept of solicitor-client privilege, but apparently not so.

What

we've said all along here is that a Justice review would be done. Once was that

review was concluded, it was determined that the only way to get all of the

information necessary to determine the Ed Martin severance payout would be to

have the Auditor General do this.

Obviously, the Auditor General is not going to be influenced. The Auditor

General has no issue with the release of this because it is not his opinion;

it's not his solicitor-client privilege to waive. But I don't think it's a good

suggestion here that individuals who may be called in to give testimony in front

of the Auditor General should have the legal opinion provided to government

before they do so. If the Member opposite can explain how that doesn't prejudice

the process, I would love to understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

Leader.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

ask the Premier, just to be clear, if he has or has not provided the secret

Justice report to the Auditor General? Have you or have you not provided it,

Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Absolutely, everything from

government has been provided to the Auditor General so that they can do a full

and thorough investigation of the Nalcor payment to Mr. Martin.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

Leader.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll ask the Premier: How can you release information to the Auditor

General he said it's not going to create a bias from his perspective; it

doesn't matter to the work that he's going to do. So how can you release the

information to the Auditor General but not to the public? You said you would

release the information to the public; why are you not doing that now? What's in

this report that you're refusing to disclose?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, Mr. Speaker, the

public is not the group that's conducting this investigation. The public wants

to know what the investigation of the Auditor General is going to find out, and

the Auditor General has access to all this information. Again, this is nothing

new; this is the exact same thing that was done by the previous administration

when they referred certain matters to the Auditor General.

We look

forward to a full and thorough investigation of Mr. Martin's payout from the

former Nalcor board, and we look forward to having that done; and if the Auditor

General has more information that they need, we look forward to providing it as

soon as requested.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

So the Premier once again is

going against a commitment that he repeatedly made here in the House of

Assembly, a commitment he made to the people of the province.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General, he's the Minister of Justice, has the ability

and the discretion to go beyond what solicitor-client privilege he may decide,

and he still has the right and ability and authority to release the report.

So I

ask the Premier: Will you stick to your word on this one? On this one, will you

stick to your word? Will you provide direction and make the report public, live

up to the commitment that you made just days ago?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

the Leader of the Official Opposition, a former premier, is erring in his words.

The fact is the Premier said he would like to get the opinion out, but he would

have to go back to the Department of Justice and see what all the options are.

In fact, that's what the Premier said on a number of occasions here.

The

fact is I don't know why the Member opposite would want government to prejudice

this process, prejudice their case. The Auditor General has all the information.

The Auditor General is going to do a full and thorough investigation into the

payment of Ed Martin's severance under the contract that was signed by the

former Tory-appointed board. We look forward to that investigation being done as

well. Again, any information the Auditor General requires, we will certainly be

happy to provide that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'll try another question

for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has chosen to release bits and pieces

of information about this matter already. He's made that decision; he's already

directed ministers to release information. That appears to have been pieces that

government felt were going to benefit them, and that's all they've released.

So I'll

ask the Premier: Why not the release the full package, as you committed to do,

and as you provided to the Auditor General?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

I've stated twice already here today. The Auditor General has absolutely all the

information necessary that the government has in its possession in order to do a

full and thorough investigation into the severance payout to Mr. Martin. The

Auditor General has all that.

The

Member opposite, I believe, actually wanted the Auditor General involved. The

Department of Justice concluded that was the best way in order to get all the

information out and allow the Auditor General to use the powers under that piece

of legislation to do a full and thorough investigation including getting

testimony through a subpoena of all the witnesses and all of the people in this

matter.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Why was the simple deadline to inform the nurses' union

and allied professionals about the intent to enter into negotiations missed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

hon. Member for the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House.

As I

have said already, have said to Ms. Forward and certainly the Allied Health

Professionals, as the Minister Responsible for the Human Resource Secretariat, I

accept responsibility for the issue that we are faced with today. I intend to

address the issue, and certainly as minister I accept accountability for it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: How can people have confidence, considering the importance of this

deadline in the department, when you can't meet a simple deadline related to

labour negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned

earlier, as the minister responsible it is unaccountable, and my intend to solve

the problem, once I have a chance to assess whether what process broke down and

implement the corrective action to ensure that situations like this do not

happen.

I would

remind the Member, and remind the Members of this hon. House, though, that does

not change our intent and the unions knowledge of our intent and the current

situation that we're faced with, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, not only has

the Minister of Finance dropped the ball on this, but it is fair to question the

value of $500 an hour being paid to outside legal counsel hired by the Liberal

government to assist with negotiations.

How did

everyone, including yourself and your high-paid hired help, miss this vital

deadline?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, Members

opposite have the right to ask questions and I will continue to say, I accept

accountability and responsibility for the error that was made. That doesn't take

away from the fact that government has been clear from the beginning that we

intend to bargain with all of our public sector unions in a fair and equitable

way.

We are

faced with an unprecedented situation in this province and we intend to honour

the good faith bargaining. It is our intention to make sure that we treat all

unions fairly, regardless of whether or not there is a bargaining delay, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recognizing that two significant unions, the deadline was missed by the

minister, how will this miss impact public sector negotiations going forward?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, it is our

intention that our approach does not change. The circumstances that happened in

relation to the serving of the contracts has been unfortunate. I accept

accountability for that, as the minister, and intend to solve the process

problem once I get to the bottom of it.

However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that government has made it clear from

the beginning that we intended to negotiate will all of the unions in a fair and

equitable way. It will not change our approach to collective bargaining and

having a good-faith dialogue with our very valuable public sector employees, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister indicates she wants to negotiate with all the unions, but how can she

proceed with negotiations without all the unions at the table? You've missed the

deadline. How can you negotiate with all the unions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have reached out personally to both unions and encouraged them to

participate as part of the process that we have this year. We intend to set up a

meeting with them to discuss it, but let me be clear, government was clear about

our intention. Everybody in the province knew what our intention was. The unions

knew what our intention was. The delay won't change our approach.

Most

importantly, we have to ensure equity and fairness amongst all of our unions and

make sure that our public sector employees, at the end of the day, have a

collective agreement that is fair and reflective of what this province can do

for them and is respectful of the circumstances that they find themselves in as

employees, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister indicated she wanted to be clear with the unions, but she didn't

provide clarity in terms of notifying them. Unfortunately, that's the issue.

I ask

the minister: What is the impact on the budget targets if the nurses' union and

the Allied Health Professionals are not at the table this fiscal year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, that question is baffling. We would never budget an assumption

about collective bargaining when we haven't gotten to the table and negotiated

in good faith.

As I

have said in this House repeatedly, we intend to have those important dialogues

with our valuable employees at the table with their union representatives, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Before

I recognize the Opposition House Leader, I will remind all Members that the only

person I wish to hear speaking is the individual recognized to speak.

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the nurses' union celebrated news of the one-year extension granted to

them by the Finance Minister's incompetent misstep.

I ask

the Premier: Do you expect nurses to waive this provision?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, our government

expects that the conversations we've been having on an ongoing basis with the

unions and I would suggest very clearly and transparently with the people of

this province. Our intention from the beginning was to bargain with all of our

unions.

The

situation that happened with the serving of the letters, as I've said to the

Member opposite, as the minister responsible for the department, I have

accountability for that. I will get to the bottom of the issue that caused this

problem. That does not take away from the fact that we have been very clear with

the people of this province that we intend to bargain in good faith with all of

our public sector unions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Does she have the ability to force the unions to the table or is

that your intent?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, it is my

intent, as the Minister Responsible for the Human Resources Secretariat, and the

intent of this government to bargain in good faith with all of our unions. We

intend to have those conversations at the bargaining table where they need to

happen.

A delay

in a bargaining implementation date will not change our approach. We will

continue to focus on good-faith bargaining with our valuable employees at the

same time as ensuring that we put the interests of the people of the province at

the forefront when it comes to providing a sustainable public service in our

province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

public employees had been allowed to do their job, I don't think we'd have this

problem.

I ask

the minister: How much has been spent to date on the services of McInnes Cooper

and outside communications counsel?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned

earlier, it is my intention to solve the process issue that led to the

circumstances of yesterday. For the information of the Member opposite, I don't

have the information today. I'm happy to provide it to him tomorrow when I have

the information from officials.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, it's good to

see the Finance Minister accepting responsibility for a mistake, let's try the

Minister of Transportation and Works. We were shocked yesterday when he admitted

that the provincial government removed political posters in the middle of the

night.

I ask

the Premier again: Who in government ordered that the posters be removed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Really,

the answer today is no different than yesterday. I stated in this House

yesterday that it was an operational decision that a management personnel made.

We were not aware of that. However, since yesterday, I've spoken to the employee

and I think the employee is well aware that, in the future, anything of a

sensitive nature of that will come to the minister's level. But it was not

yesterday reported to me because it was an operational measure they felt that

they could care of, Mr. Speaker. It was simply no more than that.

He was

just exercising what he thought was his right to do. He did that and there are

no further implications as far as I'm concerned as minister. It is certainly not

a responsibility that Premier or myself were aware of prior to the taking of the

signs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So it's

clear that an employee of Transportation and Works engaged a private contractor

through some kind of Standing Order to do this work.

I ask

the minister: Has this contractor that he refuses to name done any additional

work since the initial $200 job?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the Member opposite should know because it's the same contractor they've used on

numerous occasions to do routine work around the building and for some of the

issues they had. Yesterday, they asked that I would table a quote. Mr. Speaker,

I have no problem in tabling the quote.

It's a

contractor that the previous government had engaged on numerous occasions to do

work around the Confederation Building, and within our property as well, Mr.

Speaker. The actual total bill came in HST included at $203.40, which I am

pleased to table today for the House.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Minister, what's the name of

the company and have they done any additional work on behalf of Transportation

and Works since the initial $200 job?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

fairly open-ended question. This is a contract that we have, a standing contract

and I don't know; they might have been up last night fixing plumbing. I have

no idea. These are contracts that we have on a routine basis and they have done

work for the previous administration, for this administration, and I would

assume if we have work today that needs to be done, then it would be done.

So for

the Member opposite to ask me if they had done any additional work since

yesterday, I don't know that. I know they haven't taken any signs down, Mr.

Speaker, nor will they take any signs down. He should know that and that's an

answer I have for him.

Mr.

Speaker, I really didn't not that I didn't want to name the contractor, I just

wanted to protect the contractor but actually the contractor is Kelloway

Construction.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

So there are no secrets over

here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, fixing plumbing

may be routine but hauling down political posters in the middle of the night

certainly is not routine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

So 24-hour snow clearing was

eliminated with the Liberal budget, long-term care beds were closed with the

Liberal budget, 54 libraries were shut down with the Liberal budget, yet you

have no trouble spending money to remove political posters in the middle of the

night.

I ask

the Premier: How can you possibly justify that expense?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't

know how many times I have to repeat myself with regard to the fact that this

particular issue came to the attention of one of the managers that we have. The

manager, in doing what he thought was right at the time it's a practice that

had been done in the past. So he made a judgement call with regard to taking

those signs down. It is not something out of the ordinary that they would have

done.

Mr.

Speaker, again I am very clear I think I've been very clear the last two days

with regard to answering the question that, in fact, it was operational and as a

matter of fact it was something that had been done previously. They were just

following what they thought was regular and they just did that, Mr. Speaker.

That is about as much as I can answer on that question.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, first they cut

snacks and stickers at the Janeway through this budget. Today we hear

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

remind all hon. Members again I know we've had a long night and Members are

tired. I ask Members to respect the individual who has been identified to speak.

The only individual I have identified at this particular time is the Member for

Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I'm hearing

Members accusing me of not telling the truth. That is certainly unparliamentary;

I hope you will address that after Question Period.

First,

this government over here allows Eastern Health to cut snacks and stickers at

the Janeway and today we learn that this Liberal government has cut funding for

the Teddy Bears' Picnic.

I ask

the Premier: Is your administration completely out of control?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

issue of the snacks and stickers at the Janeway was a decision taken in

September of 2015

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. HAGGIE:

with an implementation

date this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

I challenge the minster to

table documentation in this House to prove that statement, which is inaccurate,

Mr. Speaker.

Back to

the poster issue, the minister said there's no real policy and this feels like

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I say

to the Member for Labrador West that you need not stand today. I've made it very

clear in this House. You will not be recognized today.

The

Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Excellent call, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said there's no real policy on poster removal. This feels like flags

all over again.

I ask

the Premier: If there's no policy, why were the posters removed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

as I've stated before and I will continue to state, it was an operational

decision that was made. There is no policy in place. It was a practice as you

know, of course, at the Confederation Building we have Pippy Park and that's

within our property.

However, Mr. Speaker, since yesterday we've been reaching out to the City of St.

John's as well as to the utilities because it is our understanding that these

poles are actually owned by the city and there are certain bylaws. That's an

exercise that we will continue to do.

I can

assure you, Mr. Speaker, one of the important things, to take subjectivity out

of decision making, we need clear policies. That certainly will be my intent as

we look further into what happened in this situation, that we will have a policy

that we can adhere to so subjectivity is not an issue.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Why were the resign posters taken down while other political signs,

like the NL Rising posters that have been up for weeks in the same location,

were not touched?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A very

good question actually. It's a question I asked the employee this morning. I

wanted an answer to that because yesterday I didn't have an answer to that.

Apparently, from my understanding, the director was in Montreal at the time. The

manager had called him and specifically told him the type of sign it was, didn't

get into any details of other signs, and it was a decision based on the

information that he had.

It was

not intended to be anything other than that, Mr. Speaker. That's the explanation

I had from the employee and I believe that to be accurate and correct. That's

why I'm stressing it's important for us to have a policy in place that we do not

have subjective decisions made. We need to have a policy in place, we know

exactly what we have to do, and we will have that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister's plan A for the levy projected revenue of $126 million annually. Her

modified levy, plan B, will raise only $61 million. The minister also said a

federal loan payment due to the federal government has been deferred to 2022,

and that was the reason for changing the levy.

I ask

the minister: How can the $27 million deferral of the debt payment offset the

large shortfall in projected revenues from the levy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, as part of the

redefined temporary deficit levy, the payments for the outstanding $267 million

equalization repayment floor loan, which was deferred by the federal government,

the amount was deferring for a number of years.

What we

did in the department was ascertain how we could make changes to the temporary

deficit levy. As such, we were able to make those changes, which would mean that

individuals with $50,000 of taxable income would pay no levy and individuals

between $51,000 and $100,000 would pay significantly less. Three in four

Newfoundlanders won't be paying the deficit levy and, certainly, we were pleased

with what the feds did.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: What is she planning to cut now that the amount to be collected by the

levy will be reduced?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I

didn't hear the Member opposite's question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: What is she planning to cut now that the amount to be collected by

the levy will be reduced?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

(Inaudible) the number of

exempt taxpayers, reduce the amount that people earning between $50,000 and

$100,000 will have to pay and increase the burden on taxpayers with more than

$100,000 in taxable income.

I ask

the minister: Is she now admitting that the initial plan for the levy, her plan

A, was a political blunder which placed a disproportionate share of the burden

on low- and middle-income earners?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, what I'm

prepared to admit is that our budget made sure that we were able to borrow money

at a cost that was significantly stable compared to what would have happened had

we not made the changes in the budget, including the introduction of the

temporary deficit levy which we have debated in this House, Mr. Speaker, since

April 14, and which we've put legislation in and that we're debating now that

would see this legislation be removed.

That's

what I can say to this House. We made sure that we were able to borrow money to

pay for critical services like education, like health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, people are

willing to pay taxes that are fair, and they are willing to roll up their

sleeves to be part of the solution to deal with our debt and deficit, but they

also recognize government's budgetary measures that are not fair.

Yesterday, award-winning author Michael Crummey donated his $1,500 cash award

for his lovely book Sweetland to the

Buchans library that is slated to close. The Premier has said that his

government is listening to the people; however, while he stood by and allowed

$1.4 million, plus an additional $5 million in severance pay to go to the

outgoing Nalcor CEO, he told people that the government doesn't have $1 million

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to get to

her question, please.

MS. ROGERS:

to keep libraries open in

54 communities.

I ask

the Premier: Will he listen to the people of Fogo Island

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Change Islands

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time for her question has been expired.

The

hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

we've said, I've said, repeatedly here in the House of Assembly, as result of

the changes in the ways that people are accessing text in the 21st century, the

provincial libraries board has decided to move towards a regional model.

Regionalization is something that we heard time and again through the Government

Renewal Initiative exercise that Members opposite have even suggested. I believe

we got a missive from Brunei the other day, a former minister of Finance who sat

on with that government, suggested regionalization.

So it's

something the provincial libraries board did in good faith to try and improve

their services so they would have a minimum of 30 hours of operation per week,

that around 85 per cent of the population would be within 30 minutes commuting

distance.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of St. John's Centre, for a very short question.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker: Will the

Premier listen to the plea of the Mayor of Lourdes, supported by two of his own

MHAs for the area, and reverse the decision to close their libraries?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a

lot of work to be done in this area from here to when any changes are made. As

we've said, we encourage local organizations to reach out to the school district

to see if there is ways that public access to school libraries can be maintained

in those libraries that are co-located in schools. We also encourage

municipalities and local organizations to see if there are opportunities to take

over the operation of all of those libraries a good number of them that are

located in municipal buildings.

There's

a lot more to be done here. I encourage Members to encourage local

organizations, municipalities, local groups to reach out to the school district

and to the libraries board to try and find ways to continue service.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Budget 2016 introduces over 50 new

fees and increases over 300 fees; and

WHEREAS

Budget 2016 asks the people of this

province to pay more for a decrease in government services; and

WHEREAS

these fee increases negatively impact the financial well-being of seniors,

youth, families, students and individuals;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately reverse fees and increases

as introduced through Budget 2016 .

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we just spent 24 hours, nearly, in this House. Last night around 8, we

started a debate on the levy which allowed us to talk about all aspects of this

devastating budget once again.

What

the budget of 2016 I've heard it referred to a lazy budget; I've heard it

referred to as amateur hour. One thing that we are all certain of, apart from

Members opposite I think, Mr. Speaker, is that this budget is going to hurt

people in their pocketbooks. It is going to impede the ability of some people to

be able to have basic necessities of life such as food and shelter. It's

definitely going to take from the disposable income of families for enjoying

activities with their children, for visiting other parts of Newfoundland, any

type of disposable income whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

all devastated by the vast number of tax increases in this budget. To look at

these fees and they say, well, you know when we did our consultations, people

told us to raise fees. They told us to raise taxes. They didn't tell you to do

all of it all at the one time, Mr. Speaker. They certainly didn't expect to see

the introduction of 50 new fees that never ever existed in this province before.

It's

been a sad few weeks for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as we all try

and grapple with what this budget is going to mean. It's very unfortunate that

government is unwilling to listen to the people of the province who prior to

November 30, all they could talk about was how people matter. We see now they

mattered for purposes of November 30, but beyond that they don't seem to matter

much anymore, Mr. Speaker.

We want

this Liberal government to really reverse its decisions. To restore health care,

to restore education and to revisit

Budget 2016.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax placing a higher

tax burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS

surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only, as currently

demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and other

countries; and

WHEREAS

government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal income tax

schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

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

of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction Levy be

eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive taxation

principles and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador

provincial income tax system begin immediately to make it fairer to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I have a few hundred signatures here alone. These petitions keep

arriving. These ones arrived today in our office. There are still hundreds more

that we haven't yet presented. Most of these signatures are from the Glovertown,

Gambo area. These are people who know Trinity people who were very upset

with the levy as it stood. Why? Because they knew it was unfair.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, people are willing to pay taxes if they know they are fair. I mean

that's the culture of Newfoundland and Labrador. We take care of one another. We

ensure that our neighbours are safe. We ensure that no one is left behind.

believe this levy was so counter to the culture that most of us grew up in here

in Newfoundland and Labrador. We knew this was not a just and a fair way of

taxation, this particular surcharge even if it was temporary. People

understand what the word temporary means. So they still saw this as a very

unfair tax, and it doesn't fit in with the culture with which most of us have

grown up in, whether we grew up here in Newfoundland and Labrador or we are new

to the province. People know it's a tax that does not bring us forward.

that's why people have been so committed to signing petitions, to sending them

in, to make sure that their voice is heard here in the House. There have been

thousands and thousands and thousands of signatures, because, Mr. Speaker,

people are outraged by this.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

a high quality of education is vital to a strong and successful society and

should be a priority of the provincial government; and

WHEREAS

the provincial government has announced funding reductions to the Department of

Education which will result in an increase in the class size cap for students in

grades four to level III, as delivered on April 15, 2016; and

WHEREAS

these funding reductions will result in a reduction of teacher allocation units

at cole Mary Queen

of Peace School, the introduction of combined classes and a reduction in the

provision of Intensive Core French instruction at our children's school; and

WHEREAS

the provincial government has decided to proceed with the costly implementation

of full-day kindergarten in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador;

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

of Assembly to urge government to instruct the school board to delay the

implementation of full-day kindergarten until such time as the province's

financial circumstances improve and restore programs, teacher allocations, and

class size caps to 2014 levels.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is probably going to be the last chance I'll get to present this

petition, but I can just show you that there are over 500 names on this

petition. The parents and school council have met with their representatives. I

am not their representative. In my district before, I had part of Stavanger

Drive, which a lot of students come from, but the Minister of Finance and the

Member for Virginia Waters Pleasantville, those are the two representatives of

this school. They've met, but it doesn't seem like and they've also met with

the Minister of Education and they're not getting anywhere. They're heartbroken

really because they're after doing everything they could possibly do.

This is

a school that and I have to do a correction, too. I was saying, because my

notes were saying, it was K to 12, but it's actually a K to six school. There

are 700 students in this school. For the last number of years they've seen no

major renovations or improvements to the school. The first time last year, in

over 10 years they've seen an extension.

The

parents are very concerned about what's going to happen because they're looking

at combined classes for grades three and four, and grades five and six. They

don't have a cafeteria. There are no computer labs in the school. They have to

split the lunch time because of the students going out.

All I

ask is for the minister to listen to the parents and listen to the school

council and listen to their concerns. That's what they're asking for.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for the District

of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in the House today to present this 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

the Witless Bay Line is a significant piece of infrastructure; and

WHEREAS

the continuation of the Hebron and Long Harbour projects and the commercial and

residential growth in our region has increased the volume of traffic on this

highway;

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

of Assembly to urge the government to upgrade this significant piece of

infrastructure to enhance and improve the flow of traffic to and from the

Trans-Canada Highway.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this piece of infrastructure from Route 10 to the Trans-Canada Highway,

about 20-odd-plus kilometres, over the past number of years through investments

we've upgraded I'd say about half with significant investment, probably in the

range of $2 million. It connects the Southern Shore with the Trans Canada.

With

the number of commercial activities that are going on, significant projects, we

have a lot of employment from along the Southern Shore that uses this highway to

get to their place of employment. As well, we look at things like the fishing

industry, the crab industry in particular, the amount of product that's used

this highway is used back and forth, the flow as well.

So it's

very significant in terms of that and industry those types of industries, as

well from the tourism sector. We see a lot coming east on the Trans-Canada

Highway. Certainly whether people come in by boat or just domestic travel coming

east turning off and entering the Southern Shore, Route 10, through that means

and then going further south along Route 10 to access the many tourism

opportunities we have.

It's a

very significant piece of infrastructure. I just was on it the other day. It

needs some immediate patch work and that type of thing done. I've been in touch

with the department and with the depot, both. Hopefully that will get done

shortly. We've had some vehicles that had some damage done to them, so we need

to get that fixed, certainly on a temporary basis, some of the challenges we

have but, as well, long term to invest in a very significant piece of

infrastructure that's needed.

I have

spoken to the Minister of Transportation on it and continue to work towards

enhancing the piece of infrastructure.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would move

Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

today, Tuesday, June 7, 2016.

Further, I would move Motion 5, that pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the

House not adjourn at 10 p.m. today, Tuesday, June 7.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved that the

House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, June 7.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

It is

further moved that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m. today, June 7.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would call

Order 2, third reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, that Bill

35,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco Control

Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that Bill 35 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The Tobacco Control Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Smoke-Free Environment Act, 2005 And The

Tobacco Control Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would call

Order 3, third reading of Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 36,

An Act To

Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

that Bill 36 be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Victims Of Crime Services Act. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read

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

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Victims Of Crime Services Act, read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would call

Order 5, second reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Government House Leader that Bill 34,

An Act To Regulate

Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities In the Province, be now read

a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

that Bill 34 entitled,

An Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From

Industrial Facilities In the Province, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From

Industrial Facilities In the Province. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before

I start my remarks, I'd like to acknowledge the leadership and support of Jackie

Janes and Gerald Crane from the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

and all the great work they've done to bring this bill to the House here today.

This is truly a very amazing day.

Minister Responsible for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency it is with great

pleasure that I stand here before you today with Bill 34. Mr. Speaker, climate

change is one of the greatest long-term challenges facing the world today that

requires a global response, with a strong input from all countries and all

governments. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, established

in 1988 by the world meteorological office and the United Nations Environment

Programme, is the most authoritative source of information on climate change.

reports that average global temperatures are now about 1 degree Celsius above

pre-industrial averages and that without policy action, globally, to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, average global temperatures could be as much as 4.8

degrees Celsius above those pre-industrial averages by the end of this century.

Mr.

Speaker, let me put this in perspective. At the time of the last ice age, about

20,000 years ago and by the way, in Labrador, it only represents about 9,000

years ago average global temperatures were only five to six degrees lower than

what they are today. So now within less than 100 years, average temperatures

could be four or more degrees higher than they are today.

The

IPCC reports, with 95 per cent certainty, that this temperature growth is caused

by human actions; namely, the release of greenhouse gas emission into the

atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, the release of methane from

agriculture and waste and deforestation activities.

The

IPCC also reports that transformative changes will occur as a result of climate

change; for example, it reports that sea levels are likely to rise by up to one

metre by the end of this century, that there will be more intense storm

activity, increased desertification of agricultural areas and reduced

availability of drinking water.

Mr.

Speaker, countries from around the world recognize that climate change is an

urgent problem and are taking steps to address this issue. In December 2015, the

Paris Agreement on climate change was supported by every country of the world,

including Canada. On Earth Day, April 22, just a few weeks ago in 2016, leaders

from 175 countries, including Canada, signed this agreement demonstrating the

continued commitment globally to addressing climate change.

This

agreement will facilitate the shift globally to a local carbon economy. What

does this mean? The IPCC reports that if global temperature rise is to be kept

to a minimum of 2 degrees Celsius, then greenhouse gas emissions will need to be

reduced by as much as 80 per cent by mid-century and further again by the end of

this century. The climate change imperative will force countries and companies

to adapt. It will increasingly focus energy investments on renewable electricity

and more efficient production processes and modes of transportation.

Jurisdictions and companies that recognize these changes that promote technology

advancements and investments to lower their carbon footprint will be better

placed over the coming decades to prosper and thrive.

Turning

to Canada, Mr. Speaker, and as part of the Paris Agreement, Canada agreed to

reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

This target builds on a 2020 target in which Canada agreed to reduce its

emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, just three years away.

actual numbers, this will mean that Canadian greenhouse gas emissions, by 2030,

will need to be reduced to levels not seen in over 25 years. It will mean a

one-third reduction in emissions by 2030, below business as usual levels. These

are challenging targets. These are targets that the federal government can only

achieve in partnership with provinces and territories. These targets will

require coordinated action by the federal, provincial and territorial

governments. They will require action in areas of the economy including

electricity generation, transportation, the oil and gas sector, large industrial

sectors such as mining and manufacturing, as well as action by individuals,

households, businesses and governments. These targets will also require

technological advancement, investments in renewable and low-carbon energy and

investments to improve production efficiencies and energy efficiency.

Mr.

Speaker, Prime Minister Trudeau, since being elected six months ago, has already

held two First Ministers' meetings on climate change. One in November of last

year before the Paris agreement was reached and a second meeting in March of

this year. The message from the Prime Minister is clear. Canada has made

commitments to act to reduce the impacts of climate change. The federal

government recognizes the actions of provinces and territories to date, but more

needs to be done.

Mr.

Speaker, other provinces are already acting. Alberta introduced regulations for

its large industry in 2007 and is updating its regulations as I speak. British

Columbia introduced its carbon tax in 2008, and legislation to regulate new

natural gas development in 2014. Quebec joined an emissions trading system with

California in 2014, and Ontario will be joining this system in 2018.

Together, these four provinces account for over 80 per cent of Canadian

greenhouse gas emissions and over 80 per cent of the Canadian population. Other

provinces are now starting to act as well. Manitoba is exploring how to join the

Quebec and Ontario emissions trading system, and Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan

are taking steps to decarbonize their electricity sector.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said, more needs to be done within Canada. At the First Ministers'

meeting in March of this year, the prime minister and premiers agreed to develop

a pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change in 2016 that will be

implemented just next year. Work is underway focusing on issues such as carbon

pricing, clean technology and innovation, and other measures to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions in sectors such as transportation, buildings and

forestry, and agriculture. Work is also underway through this process to

identify new mechanisms to improve resilience to the impacts of climate change

from global warming that we have already experienced.

Mr.

Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognize the seriousness

of climate change. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change. This is

why we are an active participant in the First Ministers process for a new

pan-Canadian framework on climate change. Average annual temperatures in the

province are now more than 1 degree Celsius higher than historical averages. We

expect that temperatures will continue to increase.

mid-century we expect summer temperatures in the province to be over two degrees

higher than historical average and winter temperatures to be at least three

degrees higher. Winter temperatures in Northern Labrador are projected to be

almost four degrees higher. These are massive changes that will have very

serious implications. Climate change will result in more storms, more coastal

erosion and more impacts from sea surge and sea level rise.

Since

1990, for example, we have been subjected to twice as many hurricanes and

tropical storms per year than for the whole 90-year period prior to 1990. These

storms are getting more intense. In St. John's, for example, a one-in-100-year

storm is now expected to bring 135 millimetres of rain. By mid-century this is

expected to grow by 22 per cent and by late century to 33 per cent, to almost

180 millimetres.

Mr.

Speaker, we recognized this defining issue in our electoral platform and

committed to act. We cannot put our head in the sand and pretend it is not

happening.

Mr.

Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador wishes to be part of the solution, not part

of the problem. To this end, the province set out province-specific greenhouse

gas reduction targets in 2007 to enable long-term planning and signal our policy

intent to industry, businesses and citizens.

2020, the target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent below 1990

levels. By 2050, the target is to reduce GHG emissions by 75 to 85 per cent

below 2001 levels. However, the province is not on track to achieve the 2020

target, even with the Muskrat Falls development. I would note that the

development of the Muskrat Falls Project will reduce our greenhouse gas

emissions by 10 per cent when it starts up and when the Holyrood Generating

Station closes.

Given

this, in our electoral platform we committed to put in place measures to

accelerate progress to meeting these greenhouse gas reduction targets. Mr.

Speaker, today we are meeting our electoral platform commitment to establish a

framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial sector. Today we

are taking a significant step to becoming the fifth province in Canada and the

first province in Atlantic Canada to regulate large industrial greenhouse gas

emissions.

Today

I'm bringing forward for a second read a new bill to regulate greenhouse gas

emissions in the province's large industrial sector. This bill will see the

establishment of a flexible regulatory framework for large industry;

conceptually similar to what is being implemented in Alberta, what British

Columbia is implementing for its new natural gas developments and what

Saskatchewan has passed in legislation.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill accomplishes three things. First, it balances environmental

progress with economic prosperity. The bill will regulate these facilities in a

manner that accommodates the impacts of low and changing commodity prices and

builds on the competitiveness in that it will facilitate new investment, new

economic activity and expand production in the province. It will also allow for

regulation to occur with negligible fiscal impacts.

Second,

the bill is tailored to the unique industrial structure in this province. We

have the only oil refinery without access to low-carbon natural gas as a fuel

source. We have the larger of only two pelletizers in Canada, and this facility

also has no access to natural gas. We have the only hydromet processing facility

in North America, and that facility at Long Harbour is absolutely brand new.

Third,

the bill will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the

province. Through this bill, business as usual emissions will no longer be

allowed. We will be tasking companies to find ways to reduce their emissions at

their facilities. Where the costs of this are prohibitive, we will be providing

for alternative pathways for them to be in compliance with regulation. These

alternative pathways will generate new economic opportunity and activity outside

the large industrial sector. They will also result in reductions in greenhouse

gas emissions throughout the economy.

Madam

Speaker, at this time I need to differentiate between onshore and offshore

industrial facilities. The bill before us today deals with onshore facilities

that are within the province's jurisdiction to regulate. However, the bill will

also facilitate discussions with the federal government that will enable future

regulation from a greenhouse gas perspective of the offshore petroleum sector.

Offshore platforms are in federal jurisdiction and are managed jointly with the

federal government through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore

Petroleum Board. We will be engaging with the federal government to determine

how offshore companies can contribute to greenhouse gas reduction targets, what

the appropriate regulatory mechanism would be, and when that mechanism can be

made operational.

Madam

Speaker, I would like now to turn to a brief description of the key elements of

the bill. There are six main elements in the bill.

First,

the bill establishes that any industrial facility that emits 15,000 tons or more

greenhouse gas emissions per year will have to report their emissions. At least

two years of reporting data will be needed to set a baseline against a

greenhouse gas target that can be established for each facility. Pending

approval of this bill, Madam Speaker, we intend to start collecting data for the

2016 reporting year.

Second,

any industrial facility that emits 25,000 tons or more of GHG emissions per year

will also be required to reduce their emissions. This will include Iron Ore

Company of Canada, the North Atlantic Oil Refinery, the two facilities owned by

Vale, and any other existing and new facility that meets this threshold.

However, Madam Speaker, the Holyrood generating station is exempted, as it is

scheduled to close in the near term and any costs incurred will be passed on to

ratepayers in the form of higher electricity rates.

I would

note also, Mr. Speaker Madam Speaker, sorry that preliminary estimates

include that at the current time Corner Brook Pulp and Paper emits enough to be

required to report their emissions, but they are less than the 25,000 ton

threshold that would have to be crossed to be required to reduce their

emissions. We will work to make a final determination of that facility.

Third,

the bill requires that Cabinet set out in regulation a greenhouse gas limit for

each facility. We intend to set this target once we have sufficient reporting

data and after future consultations with companies. This will give companies a

long advanced time frame of at least two years to plan for how they will take

action to reduce their emissions.

Fourth,

the bill provides for the establishment in regulations of alternative compliance

mechanisms to allow companies flexibility to be in legislative compliance at

least cost. The rationale for these mechanisms is simple. Because climate change

is a global problem, it doesn't matter if greenhouse gas reductions occur at the

facility or off site. So the objective is to allow companies to reduce their

emissions at least cost.

These

mechanisms will potentially include a carbon offset system which will allow for

investment and job creation in sectors such as agriculture, forestry and energy

efficiency, as well as the establishment of technology fund.

Fifth,

the bill sets out governance structures for this technology fund. The fund,

which is also an alternative compliance measure, will be 100 per cent industry

funded and will be managed by the minister responsible for the implementation of

the act and, right now, that's myself.

It will

invest in projects that will reduce greenhouse gases in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Because it is 100 per cent industry funded, the bill proposes that an

expert advisory committee comprised of approximately five to seven industry,

academic and government Members will advise the minister on how to allocate

monies from the fund.

Finally, the bill sets out the mechanisms and procedures to ensure proper

compliance by the minister. These mechanisms and procedures are consistent with

those already in place for the

Environmental Protection Act.

Madam

Speaker, we have undertaken extensive consultation and preparation before

tabling this bill and we've incorporated feedback received into our approach.

Large industrial companies have been consulted four times. These consultations

have been invaluable to exchange views, test proposals and receive feedback. The

most recent consultation occurred last year after commodity prices started to

decline. The bill reflects the input and feedback put forward by the companies.

Technical studies with iron ore mining, oil refining and offshore petroleum

industries have also been concluded. These studies, which were completed in

partnership with the companies, identify potential investments that could be

made that would result in both GHG reductions, while reducing operating costs

and improving profitability. That is, Madam Speaker, the focus was on achieving

environmental outcomes, while respecting the investment and business case for

companies.

We have

engaged with the federal government, other provinces, Aboriginal organizations

and national, environmental and industry associations to understand policy

innovations elsewhere in the country and to fully understand both the

opportunities for companies and the competitiveness concerns for companies and

stakeholders.

We have

conducted economic and fiscal impacts of various greenhouse gas reduction

targets using reasonable scenarios that Cabinet may consider in the future.

While the range of impacts differ, the key findings are that the costs are not

prohibitive to companies based on what the companies themselves have said a

very important point. Economic benefits will be generated and fiscal targets are

considered negligible.

Madam

Speaker, I would like to emphasize the points I made on costs to the company and

the potential competitiveness impacts. Consultations with companies have

occurred for a number of years, over which time ideas have been exchanged and

the potential range of regulatory costs discussed with companies.

light of this, we have developed an approach that is not cost prohibitive to

companies or to government, even during periods of low commodity prices. We are

providing companies with a lead-in time, with at least two years before these

GHG targets will be established, for their facilities to allow them time to plan

to minimize any capital cost that they may incur.

Madam

Speaker, while no company likes to be regulated, the companies themselves

understand the greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced. They understand they

need to play a part of this. They also appreciate that government is working to

put in a framework that minimizes any negative competitive impacts and provides

mechanisms such as a technology fund in seizing new opportunities. Madam

Speaker, the companies supported the timeline that is being built in to allow

them time to plan a best way forward to achieve these reductions.

I want

to emphasis a final point on cost and competitiveness. There will be no cost to

companies associated with the approval of this bill, other than costs associated

with reporting their emissions. Other capital costs to improve facilities,

invest in carbon offsets or contribute to a technology fund will only be

incurred after regulations are approved by Cabinet. This is not expected for at

least another two years. Industry will be consulted as regulations are

developed.

Madam

Speaker, before ending my remarks, I would like to recap the three main points

I've made here today. First of all, climate change is a global problem and new

actions are planned and being taken, including within Canada. Newfoundland and

Labrador is not immune to this problem or its impacts and we cannot bury our

heads in the sand any longer. Second, the approach we've outlined today balances

environment and economic priorities. It is tailored to the circumstances of this

province and it will achieve real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, we have consulted with the companies and undertaken studies in

partnership with them to understand the opportunities and challenges to reducing

greenhouse gas emissions at a facility level.

The

bill we are discussing today incorporates this work and, at the same time, does

not set out a cost prohibitive approach to either the companies or government.

With

this, I will conclude my remarks and I will speak later in second reading and at

the conclusion of the debate.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

The Speaker

recognizes the hon. Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a

great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 34,

An Act to

Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial Facilities in the Province.

This is an issue, I believe, that many of our citizens will be engaged on, and I

encourage that.

Regarding the topic of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, I believe

that we need to establish and achieve responsible greenhouse gas reduction

targets. I also believe that we, as province, need to balance the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions with our economy.

Our

economy and the viability of a large industry in the province is in a fragile

state. We need to make sure that we take actions and the actions we take

regarding greenhouse emissions will not end the competitiveness of our

industries.

As our

leader has said, we see value in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We just need

to make sure that it's done in a manner which stimulates the economy. We suggest

that the price of carbon and the timeline of implementation be such that large

industry has ample time to prepare and invest in green technology.

The

legislation which has been presented to us has too many questions and a lack of

information. I'll outline some of these questions in my time here this

afternoon. What's in the bill? This bill is proposing emission reduction

regulations with flexible compliance options. The first thing that this bill

will require is for all onshore industrial producers who produce over 15,000

tons of greenhouse gases each year to report their annual emissions to the

provincial office for climate change. This is something we are in support of. We

are generally supportive in asking industry to report their emissions to us.

It is

important to have accurate and precise information before making decisions,

knowing the exact emissions will give us a better ability to estimate an impact

of reduction targets. However, I ask the minister: Is two years reporting enough

to get true and accurate data of the average emissions of a large onshore

industry here in the province?

With

only two years of data, there's no way to determine if one or even both of these

years are outliers. If production at one of these facilities is down, then the

greenhouse gas emissions from the facility would be decreased for that time

frame.

We know

commodity markets are experiencing a downturn right now. Would that affect

emission measures in 2016 and 2017? Would three, four or more years of

monitoring emissions give a more accurate level of greenhouse gas emissions for

these large industrial emitters?

As I

said, the Office of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency currently do not have

the exact emission numbers for large onshore emitters in the province, but they

do have estimates. Requiring all facilities that emit more than 15,000 tons to

report greenhouse gas emissions is a good step in turning these estimates into

exact information. Is two years of data enough to make decisions? Reporting will

start in 2017 with the 2016 data. Reporting is just the first part of the bill.

This bill also sets up a framework for reduction of emissions and how facilities

can achieve emissions.

Phase

two, Madam Speaker, reducing of emissions. Facilities that produce more than

25,000 tons of greenhouse gas annually will be required to reduce their

emissions by a target. These facilities include: IOC, Tata Steel when it's up

and running, the Come By Chance refinery, Vale at Long Harbour and Vale at

Voisey's Bay. We're not sure if Corner Brook Pulp and Paper will be required to

reduce their emissions or not.

The

Office of Climate Change estimates that the emissions of Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper are somewhere in the vicinity of 24,000 to 25,000 tons. If emissions are

over 25,000 tons, they will fall under regulation and will have to reduce their

emissions. If they fall under the 25,000 tons, obviously, they will not have to

reduce their emissions. This is one of the reasons we need them to report their

emissions; however, this is one of many questions that have been left

unanswered. It's unknown if Corner Brook Pulp and Paper will be required to

reduce their emissions.

As we

all know, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper is a very important facility on the West

Coast of our province. It generates economic activity and employs a large number

of residents on the West Coast. We also all know that Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper has gone through some challenging times. If they have to decrease their

emissions, how much would that cost them? How does the minister propose Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper reduce their emissions and thrive on the West Coast?

I would

also assume the management of the facility would want to know if they are

required to reduce emissions in future years as well, Madam Speaker; however,

this is unknown. We are concerned that there is so much information which has

not yet been determined or not yet known surrounding these regulations.

Speaking of emission reductions, this legislation will set up the greenhouse gas

emissions reduction framework. We don't know when the reduction targets will be

imposed and we don't know what the reduction targets will be. We have concerns

with that.

The

government is asking for us to support a framework without giving all the

details. Government is asking us to give blind support to Cabinet to come up

with emission reduction targets and a timeline of reduction. We also have

concerns about that.

What

should happen is that after several years of monitoring emissions from our large

onshore producers, the government and the minister should come back to this

House, recommend an emissions reduction target and a timeline. We should have a

debate about that. The House of Assembly should have a role. That would help

balance the need to reduce our emissions with the need to encourage economic

growth within our offshore industries.

To put

it simply, Cabinet hasn't determined what the reduction targets are yet. Cabinet

hasn't decided upon a timeline for reduction targets yet; but despite this,

Cabinet is asking the House of Assembly to put blind faith in them to support

whatever decision they will make.

Madam

Speaker, while I have an opportunity, I would like to pose a couple of questions

to the minister. Maybe he can address them when he gets up a little later in the

debate. How will Cabinet decide what emission reduction targets will be? What

evidence will they weigh in their decision-making process? How quickly will

Cabinet ask these facilities to reduce their emissions?

These

are questions which need to be answered. This legislation could have a

considerable impact on our large facilities facilities used to generate

economic activity. So it would be wise to outline Cabinet's process.

target which is too aggressive, a target which tries to decrease greenhouse

emissions too quickly, may be cost prohibitive for these facilities. Many of the

facilities covered in this legislation are already experiencing challenges. We

are cautious about the impacts of this legislation on their ability to operate.

We support emission reduction but we are cautious not to put these facilities in

undue stress.

I have

a couple of more questions for the minister. Maybe he can just jot down and get

back to me with some more information.

IOC in

Labrador; we know there are ongoing challenges with IOC in Labrador. Just last

week we heard that the Phase III expansion has been deferred. IOC has operations

in Labrador and also operations in Quebec.

Quebec

has a framework which industry deems to be more favourable than ours. The

company will decrease operations in this province and increase them in Quebec.

That would result in job losses in Quebec. Will the minister take this into

account when setting emission targets and timelines?

Then

there's the Come By Chance Refinery. It's another important employer located on

the eastern part of the province. How will they be impacted by reductions in

emissions? How can they reduce their emissions while still being a viable

operation?

That is

the goal here, to reduce emissions, to be environmentally friendly while

ensuring that our industrial facilities have the potential to thrive in our

province. We are asking Cabinet to think about these facilities when determining

timeline and reduction targets.

Madam

Speaker, I've listed a number of questions so far, but I have a few more for the

minister and for Cabinet. I would estimate that the general public, employees of

these facilities, and environmental groups would also have questions about this

framework.

First

of all, we know the federal government is keen on greenhouse gas reduction. We

know that recently the Prime Minister stated if the provinces didn't take

action, the federal government would take action. Emissions reduction, carbon

taxes, cap and trade systems, they're all examples of regimes which are now

being implemented in various provinces across the country.

wonder if there is a risk in implementing this system without alignment from the

federal government. Is it possible the federal government may implement a

framework which is different than ours? This is counter to what is contained in

this legislation.

All of

a sudden, Madam Speaker, I wonder, how this legislation impacts our future

development. Maybe the minister can speak about that when he gets up again as

well. What if there are new industries established in our province? Will the

legislation help or hinder the attraction of new facilities? What about future

energy developments?

We know

we have a large potential for hydropower in Gull Island. From developing Gull

Island, we could export green energy all throughout Eastern North America. We

could help other provinces, and we could help the Northeastern States reduce

their carbon footprint.

Why are

we looking at provincial emissions targets instead of regional targets?

Greenhouse gases are not bound by geography, so we should be looking at regional

strategies. With the development of Muskrat Falls and Gull Island we could lead

the country in exporting green energy.

Madam

Speaker, I have one more question for the minister. He has consulted with large

onshore industry about his framework. What are they saying about it? And how

will this framework impact the offshore oil industry?

certainly hope the minister has noted those questions I'm sure he has. Perhaps

he can address them when he rises to speak again, Madam Speaker.

This

bill, Bill 34, sets up various options from which a facility can choose to

reduce their carbon footprint. These options are known as flexible compliance

options. The framework set up in this bill gives facilities various options to

choose from in order to reach their emissions targets.

The

first option to achieve emission reduction targets is the reduction at the

facility itself. Here companies would reduce the emissions produced at their

facility. This would most likely mean the company would have to invest capital

into the facility to make modifications and purchase new technology and

equipment. Examples of this could be buying a new furnace, a new mining truck

which would produce few emissions than the one currently on site. The benefit to

this approach is that companies will be investing in their operations here in

the province.

Many

investments which are more energy efficient are also more productive. However,

the downside to this is depending on the equipment and the age of the facility,

where the facility is located and the operational practices, it may cost a lot

more to reduce emissions.

Some of

the companies may not be able to afford significantly high, one-time investment

costs to reduce these emissions. For companies that cannot afford this option

for those facilities in which the price of capital investment is too high, there

are other options which they may choose from. The options which they can choose

from are technology fund, offsets and banking.

I'm

going to speak about each of these three, but I will start with banking first.

With banking, Madam Speaker, a facility can carry forward the reductions for

future years. For example, if a facility reduces its emissions by 20 per cent in

the first year, but its target was only 5 per cent per year, it can use the 20

per cent reduction to meet its emission reduction targets for the next four

years. This is something we are supportive of. It's only fair the company be

able to bring forward their unused reductions into future years.

Related

to banking is also a concept of company (inaudible). This means a company which

has two or more facilities, say Vale, can choose to meet its emissions reduction

target overall, instead of both facilities individually meetings their targets.

In other words, if one of Vale's facilities exceed their reduction target and

the other doesn't, Vale can use the excess reduction from one facility to offset

the other. This is also something we are supportive of.

I want

to speak now about the second flexible compliance option which is carbon

offsets. We know the offsets are included in the framework set up in the

legislation, but like much of this legislation, it's short on details with a lot

of logistical information not yet available. Although the legislation mentions

offsets, there is not enough detail about how this process would work.

emission reduction targets are not achieved at the industrial facility, a

company can purchase offsets in the forestry, agriculture, et cetera, but the

legislation does not give a full list of which offsets are available for

purchase or the price per ton of carbon emissions.

Government is asking us to support a framework but one of their option offsets

is just a concept at this point. We do not know what these offsets are. We also

do not know how much these offsets would cost. The biggest problem here is the

legislation does not outline the price per ton of carbon. Again, government is

asking us to give blind authority to Cabinet for them to make the decisions

related to offsets.

Minister, I would suggest this House should debate the price of carbon related

to the purchase of carbon offsets. It is challenging to support legislation when

we don't have the full details. We don't know how much the offsets will cost

facilities. We also don't know exactly what these offsets will be. There simply

isn't enough information available. We would like to be able to be cautiously

supportive of offsets in principle, but we don't know enough about the price or

the process in which these large onshore facilities will have to go through.

Let me

speak about the final flexible compliance option, the technology fund. According

to the briefing given by the Office of Climate Change, this is something the

industry is generally supportive of. I would like to learn more about the

industry's view on this. So when the minister gets up again in debate I know

he spoke about it when he just read perhaps he can outline how consultation

with industry progress and what industry feels would be an appropriate way to

balance carbon reduction with economic activity.

Regarding the technology fund, the proposed legislation gives some detail about

this fund, about how it will be set up, its details, and how an advisory

committee will review applications and make recommendations for funding to the

minister responsible.

Facilities whose emissions are higher than their targets can pay into a fund to

offset their emissions. However, as I just mentioned, carbon offsets. About

carbon offsets, we don't know the price per ton of emissions. Again, this

government is asking us to endorse a program. We have not been given all of the

details. We do not know how much it will cost the industry to pay into the fund.

Setting

the price for each ton of carbon is a discussion which should take place here in

the House of Assembly. The price of carbon carries a lot of significance and

importance. Industry should have input into it. Environmental groups should have

input into it. The public should have input, and that decision should be carried

out in public.

The

technology fund will collect a certain dollar for each ton of carbon but no one

knows what the dollar figure is yet. So people listening at home may be asking

themselves, what will this fund do?

Once

companies pay into the fund the government will hold the technology fund in

trust. Companies can now apply to the technology fund to fund green technology.

Even smaller industrial facilities will be able to apply to access funds. So

large industrial facilities which would be paying into the fund, along with

smaller industries, will be able to access this money.

We are

generally supportive of establishing a technology fund; however, we are

concerned that the price per ton of carbon emissions is not available to us or

to industry. I don't understand it. Industry is supportive of the technology

fund but I'm looking forward to hearing more from the minister about his

conversation with leadership of various companies.

This

province is unique, Madam Speaker. One of the reasons in which finding the

balance between reduction of emissions and the stimulation of economic activity

is so important is that our province is unique. The industries and facilities

that will be impacted by this legislation are unique.

The

five facilities which are impacted by this, as I said, are IOC, Vale, Long

Harbour, Voisey's Bay, Come by Chance Refinery, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and

Tata Steel when up and running. Many of these facilities have unique properties

and are in direct competition with others in Canada, so we need to ensure

environmental regulations do not hamper their viability.

For

example, we have one of two pelletizers in the country. The others operate on

natural gas. The facility at IOC cannot operate on natural gas and because of

its location it's at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, Come By Chance

Refinery does not have a source of natural gas. This causes the refinery to have

a higher level of emissions than other similar facilities.

These

two examples, IOC and Come By Chance, emit higher levels of greenhouse gases

because we do not have access to natural gas in this province for industry. Any

price on carbon would be higher for these facilities than their competitors

elsewhere in the country.

These

facilities employ many people in our province and these facilities are economic

generators, obviously. So while we need to reduce emissions, while we need to

protect our environment, we need to ensure we also protect the economy at the

same time. We believe both can be done.

Madam

Speaker, we don't have to choose between the environment and the economy. I

believe it's possible to have both. We believe on this side of the House that

investment into green technology, investment into the green industry can help

stimulate economic growth. Muskrat Falls is one example of this, and there are

others.

There

is immense possibility in the area of green research in green technology and in

green industry. I would recommend to the Minister of Environment and

Conservation that his department look into green investment as a way to reduce

our province's carbon footprint and to decrease our overall greenhouse gas

reductions.

The

federal government has talked much about investing in green technology. I hope

the provincial government is able to lobby their friends in Ottawa to allocate

some of that funding to our large offshore greenhouse gas producers in this

province. These large producers could leverage that funding to invest in their

facilities, lower their emissions and reduce their carbon footprint.

Madam

Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the reduction in greenhouse gas

which will occur from transitioning our power supply from Holyrood to Muskrat

Falls. Holyrood is not covered under this legislation because it's scheduled to

be offline by the time the reduction in emissions will occur; however, there is

a provision which will allow its inclusion if it's not offline.

Holyrood produces 1.2 million tons of greenhouse gas annually. By switching our

industry source from Holyrood to Muskrat Falls we will be reducing our

provincial emissions by 1.2 million tons. This is a step in the right direction;

however, this will not meet our province's emissions reduction targets. We must

all work together to reduce our emissions.

Madam

Speaker, I noted earlier that the emissions are not contained within geographic

boundaries. Our province has the exciting potential to work with other Eastern

Canadian provinces and the Eastern States to devise a regional greenhouse gas

reduction strategy.

We have

a great resource here in our hydro power. We can develop Gull Island and help

our neighbouring states and provinces convert their electricity and green hydro

power. This would result in a reduction of greenhouse emissions for the entire

region.

conclusion, Madam Speaker, I just want to summarize a few things for the benefit

of the minister and for those who will speak on this legislation. First of all,

I believe we do need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in order to achieve

our 2020 emissions targets. There are many ways it can be done and the

government would be wise to progress and to look into some of these options like

green technology and development of Gull Island.

Madam

Speaker, some concerns we have: we do not know enough about a government price

on carbon, we do not know what the emission reduction targets will be, and we do

not know how aggressive the timeline to reduce emissions will be. So I hope the

minister will give us some insight into that.

Madam

Speaker, without this information, we are unable to fully assess the impact of

this legislation on these industries. We do not know how they will reduce their

targets and what their costs will be.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's

certainly an honour to rise and speak to Bill 34,

An Act to Regulate Greenhouse

Gas Emissions from Industrial Facilities in the Province. Madam Speaker, when

the minister asked if I could speak to this bill, I just went and scribbled down

some notes I think, more or less, on my own experiences over the course of my

very short, young life.

When I

listened to the minister talking about greenhouse gas emissions in history, I

was a little surprised that his research kind of coincided with the notes that I

scribbled down and I'm going to get to those very shortly. I'm just going to

speak to the part of the bill that reflects on the area that I come from or the

district that I represent. Madam Speaker, that's the area in the North.

We do

have diesel-generating power stations in all the communities in my district. The

only industrial complex or the industrial plant is the one that operates the

Vale nickel mine at Voisey's Bay. Madam Speaker, I can remember going into

Voisey's Bay as an observer back in the '90s when there were just three tents

and a bunch of Archean Resources employees doing exploration.

Since

then, it has evolved into a major open-pit mine. It is almost nearing completion

in that respect, Madam Speaker, and now plans are being made to go into

underground mining at the same site. Voisey's Bay permits less than 100,000 tons

per year which is, at this time, less than 1 per cent of the provincial total of

emissions. This will increase once the facility goes underground, but will still

be less than 2 per cent of the provincial total.

This

facility, like many of the communities on the North Coast, is an awkward

facility; it also relies on diesel generation. It will take a considerable

investment between now and 2020 to allow the mine to gear up to go into

underground.

I think

it's one of the biggest employers, if not the biggest employer, in Northern

Labrador, having created and I think consistent with approximately 500 jobs.

Now, I'm glad to see that our province is buying into the greenhouse gas

reduction targets for 2020 and 2050. It seems that it's a tall order and it's a

strict deadline, but I think, Madam Speaker, it is something that needs to be

done.

This

legislation will require all industrial facilities in our province to be

regulated. Madam Speaker, it's a small world that we occupy and the need for

greenhouse gas reduction is more and more a priority. I don't think we can stand

by and wait for greenhouse gas emissions to reduce themselves. If left

unchecked, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions have the potential for

irreparable damage.

Madam

Speaker, evidence suggests that the North is the first place where indications

of environmental impacts are felt. Industrial development has been front and

centre in the North for the last 50 to 60 years, with new developments occurring

on an ongoing basis.

Madam

Speaker, there are areas of concern when it comes to the emission of greenhouse

gases and the effect on climate change and global warming. I'd just like to

point out a couple of examples that concern us in Northern Labrador. It's a

species that's in decline that affects people in Labrador and Northern Quebec

and that is the caribou herds, Madam Speaker. The herd that concerns us the most

is the George River caribou herd.

Madam

Speaker, I've been harvesting the George River caribou herd since the late '70s.

I've seen the herd go from just over 100,000 animals up to nearly three quarters

of a million in the early '90s, to a population today which is hovering around

the 10,000 mark; all this in a span of less than 40 years, so there are

concerns.

Not

only that, Madam Speaker, there are other non-native species that over the last

20 years are starting to make an appearance in Northern Labrador. Some of these

species may not seem like they're something that's weird and tropical, these are

species that are quite common in other areas in the province.

Madam

Speaker, to see them up in Northern Labrador has gone from a rare occasion to

larger and larger populations. Some of the examples include mallard ducks,

gannets, black cormorants, porbeagle sharks; some of these species that were

rare occasions not that long ago that are quite common now. It's causing some

concern. Is it the impacts of global warming and climate change that comes from

greenhouse gas emissions?

Another

example is the ice formation and the thaw of the sea ice in the spring. Madam

Speaker, when I was a young man and started in the commercial seal harvest of

ringed seals and harp seals in the early '80s, we went out on the ice late into

the spring. From that point in the early '80s to now, we've seen a huge

difference in the ice formation and the thaw.

Back

then in the early '80s, it wasn't uncommon to travel out on the sea ice seal

hunting by snowmobile into the second and third week of June. It was not

uncommon. Today, Madam Speaker, by contrast, it's now not uncommon to be out in

boat by the third or fourth week in May.

Madam

Speaker, the same applies to freeze-up in November, December. In my lifetime,

we've gone through spring break a month early. In the spring, the ice breaks up

a month earlier and the freeze-up comes a month later in the fall. Now, these

are just some of the changes that we're seeing and it is causing concern.

Another

area of concern that I scribbled down that I've noticed in the last 30, 35 years

in the change in weather patterns. I believe that along the Eastern Seaboard,

which includes Labrador, storms are becoming more and more severe and are

occurring more and more often. We do question whether or not these are the

impacts or the results of greenhouse gas emissions which, in turn, cause global

warming and obvious climate change.

Mr.

Speaker, we've seen the potential for green energy and, certainly, we look

forward to more exploration into the possibility of green energy. I know in my

hometown in Makkovik in the last few years there was a demonstration, a wind

power generating station set up to monitor the potential to harvest wind energy.

Certainly I've been waiting to sit down with the Minister of Natural Resources

and explore the results of the survey. That alone, Mr. Speaker, would cut down

on greenhouse gas emissions even within the communities.

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I'm happy to support this

bill. It is good to see that our province is joining our federal government to

tackle greenhouse gas emissions regionally, provincially, nationally and,

hopefully, very soon, internationally.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

(Inaudible) Bill 34,

An Act to Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Industrial

Facilities in the Province. No doubt, as my colleague suggested, this is a

framework to start the process of putting in place I guess it is the start of

a framework but, as we go forward, in terms of monitoring emissions of five

facilities on land in Newfoundland and Labrador of looking at a process, over

the next two years and subsequent to that, of developing some kind of guidelines

in terms of what those emissions are from those facilities, how they would rate

in terms of what the legislation says in regard to thresholds, and then from

there, pay towards an actual fund that would look at reducing greenhouse gas

through a number of areas.

One of

the things we talked about too is the detail that's provided in the legislation.

So what it's looking at are five facilities that have been mentioned before:

IOC; Vale, Long Harbour and Voisey's Bay collectively; the Come By Chance

refinery; Corner Brook Pulp and Paper; and Tata Steel when, indeed, it is

developed.

We know

through resource development, industrial development in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, it's certainly extremely important to us, as is

greenhouse gas emissions, the reductions and what's happening in protecting our

environment. So both of those go hand in hand and we have to take a balanced

approach, recognizing, as I said, the importance of these facilities and for

economic development, economic growth and how we put in place a method to reduce

greenhouse gases and emissions to help for the betterment of all and do our

role, which is extremely important.

The

other thing that stands out too when we look at the federal government and what

role they played in I mean they're the sovereign entity, Canada, when they

sign on to international agreements in regard to greenhouse gas emissions,

whether it's Kyoto or other provisions that we often adopt and use as guides as

we move forward. It's unusual that the federal government has sort of stepped

back and said for the provincial jurisdictions to take a leading role in this.

When

you look at it broadly you kind of wonder, if each jurisdiction develops a

regulatory framework, then at some point the federal government says, well,

here's our regulatory framework and we have a bunch of patchwork across the

country for various jurisdictions. I think that's a little problematic. Maybe

the minister can speak to that at some time in debate here or maybe in actual

Committee.

I guess

you could debate whether the federal government should lead this because they're

on the national scene in terms of Canada as a whole and what percentage of

greenhouse gases we emit as a country. Then you further break it down by I

think it's a couple of per cent and I could be wrong. Most of that may be with

the tar sands. Then you break that down even further to Newfoundland and

Labrador. What role should the national government play in coming up and

developing these standards? What role does each province play in that? At some

point, will it come together? What's that going to look like? So we would like

to have some discussion and some thought on where that would be.

Other

issues, as we have gone through this piece of legislation, our caucus talking

about it, the Member mentioned as well we had some discussion about the fact

that we have five facilities mentioned here so what about we are able to attract

another facility to the province, which ultimately had certain emissions that

would fal