May

26, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 31

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair welcomes the following private members'

statements: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay

North; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the

Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the

District of Humber West; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of

Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this hon. House today

and bring birthday greetings to Mr. George Ellsworth of Englee, who is

celebrating his 104th birthday today.

Mr. Ellsworth, who presently resides with his daughter Dorothy Breen in

Englee, says the reason for his longevity is because he always honoured and

obeyed his parents. He also gives credit to the fact that he grew his own

vegetables, and that there was no pollution back then like there is today.

Mr. Ellsworth worked very hard throughout his life to raise his family. He

spent most of his life as a fisherman, and he also worked as a cook with

Bowater's. Mr. Ellsworth loved to work and wishes he could still be working

today. He now spends most of his days relaxing with a word puzzle book in his

recliner, while looking out his living room window watching people go by.

According to his daughter, George has always been a very happy man; she has

never seen him angry or stressed, and he remains a very happy and quiet man

today.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize Mr. Ellsworth's two brothers,

Jim, 102 years old, who resides in Mount Pearl and Pat, 100 years old, who

resides in St. Anthony. It is my understanding that this family is the only

family in Canada at the present time that has three siblings living over the age

of 100 years old. What an amazing story of longevity!

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

George Ellsworth a very happy 104th birthday and to wish him and his family all

the best.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to remind all

hon. members that June is ALS awareness month. Several constituents in my

district have been afflicted by this terrible disease.

ALS, or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, is more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's

disease and it was the disease that took the life of the once-great baseball

player on June 2, 1941. This neuromuscular disease progresses rapidly and is

usually fatal within three to five years of diagnosis.

Mr. Speaker, I lost a colleague in 2003, Christopher Dennis, to the ravages

of this terrible disease. Chris was a fellow school administrator in the Deer

Lake area and an absolutely remarkable individual with an absolute zeal for

life. He was extremely well respected by his colleagues and was a significant

volunteer with many organizations in the region.

Mr. Speaker, cornflowers have been placed on all members desks today and they

are invited to wear them to show their support those afflicted with this

disease. The blue cornflower is the international flower of hope for ALS. This

flower was selected as it is hardy despite its fragile appearance. The same can

be said of the persons living with ALS, as they show courage and great strength

of character in order to cope with the devastating changes to the muscles in

their bodies.

To beat this disease we must make people aware of it. It is through a better

understanding that we are able to move towards helping all people with ALS

living in this Province. The ALS Society will be having several walks on June 12

across the Island, and one on June 19 in Labrador City. They need your support

and we need hope.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize Techsploration

Newfoundland and Labrador, which is an initiative of the Women in Resource

Development Corporation's Educational Resource Centre, operating out of Bond

Street in downtown St. John's.

Yesterday, I proudly attended the celebration of Techsploration's tenth

anniversary. I was still Executive Director of Women in Resource Development

when the program began, and was delighted last evening to celebrate with

original members of the board and the original corporate sponsor of the program.

Techsploration is designed to provide teenage women students with

opportunities to explore trades, technical and technology-related occupations.

The program is inclusive of all girls including those from various levels of

academic achievement, from diverse cultural backgrounds, and girls with special

needs.

Techsploration is typically available to young women in Grade 9 because it is

the year students choose their high school courses. Each school has a team of

six girls and a co-ordinating teacher working with a role model from industry.

Since it began, 500 girls have gone through the program. Today, they will be

actually celebrating the 500 th student who registered this year.

Last night, Techsploration said thank you to its sponsors, especially

ExxonMobil who was the original corporate sponsor, and the community at large.

The program's goal is to get more women into trades and technology, to respond

to the coming skilled labour shortages - they already exist, as we know. The

program's supporters know that attracting more women to train for work in all

sectors of the economy will continue to be a business imperative for many years.

Women in Resource Development, through Techsploration and other programs, are

working to change women's economic security for the better.

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

wonderful group.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House to congratulate one

of Corner Brook's finest citizens. Mr. Dave Higdon was recently awarded Citizen

of the Year as an all around volunteer at the most recent Sustainable Community

Awards reception.

The awards program is a joint effort by the City of Corner Brook and The

Western Star and is aimed at recognizing individuals, groups, organizations,

and businesses for their valued contributions to creating and strengthening a

culture of sustainability in Corner Brook.

Dave has had a long history of volunteering in the community. He started

volunteering nearly twenty years ago when he became a Cub leader at the

Salvation Army on O'Connell Drive. He went on to become a leader in Scouts and

Venturers and helped start a Duke of Edinburgh program in the city. He has also

been an active volunteer at the city's long-term care centre and, prior to its

opening, at the long-term care unit at Western Memorial Regional Hospital.

Much of his volunteer time is now spent on the Forget Me Not campaign to

raise money for a project that is to revitalize Remembrance Square which will

include the placing of three bronze statues on the site. He is also volunteering

for the Canadian Student Leadership Conference to be held in Corner Brook this

fall.

This past February, Mr. Higdon took his volunteering to a new level when he

travelled to South America on a sixteen-day volunteer mission. On that mission,

he helped rebuild a seniors' complex, a home for the poor, and an orphanage.

Always wanting to give, Dave used some of his own money to buy shoes for all

thirty-two children at the orphanage. Although his children are long graduated

from high school in Corner Brook, Dave always finds time to volunteer each year

at the Corner Brook Regional High graduation ceremonies.

Happiness lies within reach of those who reach beyond themselves is a motto

that summarizes Dave's volunteerism.

I would ask all hon. members of this House to congratulate and wish well Mr.

Dave Higdon and all community volunteers for their tireless efforts in making

our communities better places to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

individuals in the District of Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 14, I had the honour to attend The Duke of

Edinburgh Awards Silver Awards of Achievement at the Pepsi Centre in Corner

Brook. The awards were presented by the hon. John C. Crosbie, Lieutenant

Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I like to acknowledge two students from Templeton Academy in

Meadows: Ian Locke and Tyler Locke, recipients of the Silver Awards. These two

bright young men will no doubt have a great future in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge two young ladies from St. James

All Grade School in Lark Harbour: Mallory MacDonald and Deidre Wheeler are

another two very impressive young people who were very successful and determined

to receive this award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to congratulate Ian, Tyler,

Mallory, Deidre, their family and their group leaders, Mrs. Bonnie Wheeler of

St. James and Ms Debbie Greene of Templeton Academy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a talented group of Memorial University students on being named the 2011

Students in Free Enterprise national champions in Toronto on May 10. The

competition took place during the Advancing Canadian Entrepreneurship National

Exposition and students performed for a panel of judges comprising of forty top

Canadian CEOs.

This annual competition brings together the country's brightest university

and college students, academic professionals and top Canadian business leaders.

The SIFE memorial team stood victorious because of their dedication to arming

Canadian Forces personnel and student entrepreneurs with the tools and

assistance needed to thrive as business owners, as well as teaching high school

students and seniors vital financial education.

Memorial's award-winning presentation team consisted of eight students from

Newfoundland and Labrador: Danielle Seward, Nick Hounsell, Alexandra States,

Rena Kufudi, Rebecca Aylward, Bryan Glavine, Dave Feehan, and Jacob Pratt.

As national winners, the SIFE memorial team will head to Kuala Lumpur,

Malaysia, in October to compete for the SIFE World Cup.

The Department of Business is focused on attracting inward investments to

Newfoundland and Labrador. We develop and execute marketing campaigns designed

to attract progressive business investments in diverse sectors like aerospace

and defence, ocean technology, ICT, and oil and gas. One of our key selling

propositions is the fact that our Province is powered by people with knowledge,

skills, ideas, and experience, attributes strongly displayed by this winning

group of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is increasingly recognized as a

desirable place in which to live, work, and invest. We continue to show the rest

of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are clever and creative people who thrive in competition and we are

winners academically, economically, and culturally.

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

Memorial Team, and wish them every success in Malaysia.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We also wish to

congratulate the Students In Free Enterprise SIFE, as it is referred to on

their remarkable victory in becoming national champs. We can produce in this

Province the best competitors in the country and, indeed, the best in the world.

Our students are as bright, hardworking and energetic, as students anywhere. Our

educational system, our teachers, and our professors in universities are as

demanding as any in the world or the country. The key is opportunity. When our

young people have the opportunity, they can beat anyone in the world. Hats off

to the students and to the MUN Business School, and to all of the people who

participated and contributed to their success.

I only wish, Mr. Speaker, this statement had come from a minister or

department that could possibly have claimed some credit, such as the Department

of Education; instead, it comes from our sad-sack department, the Department of

Business. Mr. Speaker, one group who had absolutely no role in the success of

this team is the Department of Business. In fact, the last word I would ever use

in describing this department, Mr. Speaker, is success. They cannot get their

act together even to give away, Mr. Speaker $25 million in their budget, and

could not give it away. The Minister of Business has become so desperate to

associate himself with success that he is willing to reflect and bathe in the

undeserved glory of the SIFE team.

Congratulations to the SIFE team, congratulations to the Department of

Education for whatever role they may have played here, shame on the Minister of

the Department of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I, too, would like to congratulate the students in the SIFE program for the

wonderful work they have done once again, Mr. Speaker. We continue to have

winners in this national championship.

How exciting for them that they are going on to compete for the World Cup in

Kuala Lumpur. I really wish them success. It is great to know that people from

our Province, and especially our young people, continue to go on showing

themselves very strongly in such competitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, our young people also need jobs to come back to

and to be able to remain in this Province. It is not enough to send them off to

win; they also have to have jobs in this Province. We definitely need to

continue strengthening and upgrading our internship and apprenticeship programs

to help students make the transition into the workforce in our business and

resource departments.

We still have too many skilled and educated young people leaving the

Province, unfortunately. So, I encourage the minister and other ministers

dealing with this issue to keep looking at the issues in their departments and

to see how we can keep our young people here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge

the 100 th anniversary of Parks Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Established in 1911 as the world's first national park

service, Parks Canada today manages 167 national historic sites, forty-two

national parks, and four national marine conservation areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: It is good to see the Opposition are so excited about Parks

Canada, Mr. Speaker.

For the past 100 years, Parks Canada has protected and preserved the

environment, educated visitors, and provided a variety of programming.

Newfoundland and Labrador is home to twelve of these national parks and

historic sites. There are, of course, our breathtaking and picturesque parks

located in Gros Morne, Terra Nova, and the Torngat Mountains. Then there are our

ever popular and well-known historic sites: Signal Hill, Hawthorne Cottage, the

Ryan Premises, L'Anse aux Meadows, Port au Choix, Red Bay, Castle Hill, Hopedale

Mission, and Cape Spear Lighthouse, the most easterly point in North America.

Mr. Speaker, year after year residents and tourists alike continue to visit

these beautiful historic places to learn about our history and culture of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and to gain insight and knowledge into our incredible

national heritage.

In celebration of this historic occasion, Parks Canada will be hosting a wide

range of events and activities to be enjoyed by all ages, coast to coast. In

this Province, the celebration started on May 19 and will continue with events

at various sites from June right through to September.

I encourage those who live here, along with those who are travelling to

Newfoundland and Labrador, to be sure to visit as many of our national parks and

historic sites as possible in recognition of Parks Canada's centennial

anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I invite the members of the House to join me in congratulating

Parks Canada as they celebrate this milestone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We, too, are happy

to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of Parks Canada. Our country and this

Province in particular, is home to some of the most beautiful natural settings

in the world. I am blessed even in my own district, for example, with the

Sandbanks of Burgeo, the Table Mountains, and the Cape Ray beach at J.T.

Cheeseman Park. Every member here I am sure has equally beautiful settings in

their districts.

It is no wonder that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians love nothing more than

to enjoy the outdoors. Of course, our national parks afford us the opportunity

to do just that. In addition to the twelve national parks, of course, and the

historical sites already founded in our Province, the federal government is

currently working on establishing the Mealy Mountains National Park in Labrador.

On a national scale, this Mealy Mountains Park will represent the East Coast

Boreal Forest. It will aid in protecting the Mealy Mountains woodland caribou

and provide a breeding ground and migration route for the artic seabirds. The

Torngat, which is already a national park of course, has a great role in keeping

the Leader of the Official Opposition in shape every year; she hikes it and did

last year, six years in the Torngat Mountains.

Mr. Speaker, our parks are no doubt a resource that we need to take advantage

of. We would certainly encourage all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and

indeed, Canadians and anyone who might visit us here in our Province to get out

this year, to be active and to enjoy the activities that these parks have to

offer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am also

happy to congratulate Parks Canada on its 100th anniversary and encourage

everyone, especially this year, to see at least one park that you are actually

going to go visit, stay in, and not just drive through as we do with some of

them.

I also would encourage everyone, and this is not an ad for one particular

media, but I would encourage everyone to visit the CBC Web site because they

have a wonderful documentary on the geology of Gros Morne that was done by Chris

Brooks, I think he has earned awards for it. It is also being aired

internationally in the United States and abroad. I have not had a chance to do

it myself but I am going to do it tonight, I promise myself. This documentary

underlines the fact that the park is also a UNESCO World Site.

I obviously have to mention the historic area that is in my own district,

Signal Hill, which is a very important tourist attraction, as well as part of

our city that has very historical meaning as well as geological interest. We

almost had a dangerous thing happen last year with regard to the potential of

development right on the edge of the area that is designated as a historic site.

I encourage the minister to continue doing what he and I talked about, and

that is making sure that nothing can happen to that site and maybe even see

about getting it broadened so that we can get full protection of Signal Hill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in two weeks the Harper Conservatives will reintroduce their

2011 Budget. We know that in their original plan they slashed nearly $60 million

from DFO.

Today I ask the Premier, now that you have had over two months of downtime

with the original budget: Does government know anything more about what areas of

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans programming that will be cut in

Newfoundland and Labrador and how these cuts will affect the fishermen and

fisherwomen of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have been in touch with Minister Ashfield's

office, to head up there as soon as he can accommodate us. It looks right now,

Mr. Speaker, that we will have a meeting with the federal minister on the week

of the thirteenth.

Mr. Speaker, that particular issue, and issues that we have heard raised in

this House over the last number of days and the past weeks are all issues that

we intend to take to the federal government and hopefully get some action on

those.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Too little too late, I say to the minister, because the federal budget will

be brought down again before that date.

What we are wondering is how the $60 million cut inside of DFO is going to

affect Newfoundland and Labrador, what programs are going to be cut, and how is

it going to affect the people in the industry? Can the minister tell me what the

answer to that is?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we will be indicating to

Minister Ashfield's office before the day is out is the items that we want to

speak to him about. We are going to ask, Mr. Speaker, to hold off on decisions

until we get there and have a chat with him. Hopefully, some of these issues

will be given reconsideration, as they are extremely important to the people of

this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the government opposite have known for two months now that

there is a $60 million cut in DFO, and obviously, no one has been interested

enough to find out what that cut entails. In addition, they have announced that

ACOA will be cut by $15 million, and we know that our Province depends upon this

agency for critical tourism and agriculture dollars to be spent all throughout

the Province. It is also going to see $5.4 million cut from Marine Atlantic,

which is a vital service to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today, if she can tell me what these cuts will

entail, how they are going to affect communities and programs in this Province,

and will there be any impact on the Gulf ferry service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The games play continues. The federal government has been involved in an

election for the last two months, Mr. Speaker, and effectively, the federal

government has been shut down, which you well know; which you well know, Mr.

Speaker. Now, there is one thing that we know as well. When there are policy

decisions taken at the federal level that affect this Province, and affect it

detrimentally, this government is well-known for making its views known and

heard, and it has an effect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in the process, now that the government is up and

running and active, of having all our ministers meet with their federal

counterparts and we will be addressing all of these issues that affect the

people here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only people playing games here is you, Premier. You are playing games

with the people of this Province who are going to see cuts in the Atlantic

Canada Opportunities Agency, cuts within Marine Atlantic, cuts within the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

In the last two months, I ask you, what have you done as the Premier of this

Province to make representation on our behalf to the federal government to

ensure that those cuts in programs and services do not come to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador when this Budget is reinstated in two weeks?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I have done in the last number of months

since I have become Premier is I have tried to build a relationship with the

Prime Minister. That effort has been successful. We worked hard as a caucus to

ensure that we had provincial representation at the Cabinet table, so when these

important issues are raised, Mr. Speaker, that our voice is there at the Cabinet

table.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to advocate and lobby on behalf of the people

of this Province and ensure that our interests are given the consideration

warranted, and it is due to a respectful relationship between this Province and

the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, there is about $100 million in cuts coming to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of your newfound friendship. So,

congratulations to you.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to follow up on something that was said yesterday. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier admitted that one of the reasons Muskrat Falls is so

expensive is because of the transmission line that will run from the plant in

Labrador to the coast, across the Straits, and all the way across the Island.

The last time such a line was proposed was back in 1998. At that time, the

President of Fortis said the cost would be crippling and that customers could

not afford it in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: If this is the case, why is she

insisting on this project? Why is she bringing a project to bear that is too

expensive and too costly for the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of things have changed in thirteen years. There have been

improvements in technology. The price of oil has gone through the roof. The

demands have risen in this Province and will continue to rise.

Mr. Speaker, she is not concerned about cost when she is asking that we run

transmission down the coast. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Well, I did some research

and I found a transcript from the Leader of the Opposition on Open Line in 2005.

This is what she had to say, Mr. Speaker: We want change to the way that

electricity is generated in Labrador because diesel plants are a thing of the

past, both environmentally and both from an industry perspective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is her philosophy for

Labrador, yet she stands in this House day after day and advocates that we keep

Holyrood going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to remind the Premier, she does not have to put any words in my mouth.

We are talking about delivering cheap energy to the people of this Province, Mr.

Speaker. We are talking about developing hydro projects that people can afford.

Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is looking at doing is a project that is not

only expensive but is surplus to our needs. It is like buying a tractor-trailer

to come to work in the mornings as opposed to coming to work in a small car. Mr.

Speaker, that is the difference between what the Premier is saying and doing and

what we would certainly do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is not the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador who will

bear the exorbitant costs of this deal with Emera and Muskrat Falls. Many

businesses have seen the huge increases that are being projected in residential

rates and they are wondering what is in store for them. To date, they have not

been told in this Province what the industrial rates are going to be.

I ask the Premier today if she could tell the employers of this Province how

much more that they are going to have to pay for energy as a result of the

Muskrat Falls deal.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a perfect example of what we have to deal with on this

debate from the Leader of the Opposition day after day. No diesel in Labrador,

we do not want the effect of oil generation having an effect on our environment

in Labrador. In terms of Holyrood and the region of Holyrood, you just suck it

up because we are going to keep Holyrood operational for the next twenty-five,

thirty, forty years.

Mr. Speaker, she makes the argument: We deserve to have electricity from

Muskrat Falls on the Coast. Don't talk to me about how much it costs because I

do not care how much it costs, we deserve to have it, put it there. Costs, do

not take it into consideration; but if you are going to bring electricity to the

Province, then cost becomes a factor.

Mr. Speaker, she talks out of both sides of her mouth day after day. She is

not making sense to anybody on this side of the House; she is not making sense

to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not expect to make sense to too many on the other side of the House

because they are all on the same Kool-Aid and they do not hear anything else.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this to the Premier: We think, absolutely, it is

time to get rid of diesel-generated power in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member pose her question.

MS JONES: We think, absolutely, it is time to get rid of diesel power in

Labrador. We think it is time to get rid of diesel power on the Island. We think

that we should be developing power sources that people can afford and not

developing projects so that Emera Energy in Nova Scotia can make a profit and

Nalcor corporation can make a profit. Why are you not doing a deal so the people

can make a profit?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are doing exactly that. We are making sure that the

people of this Province do not have to rely on diesel or oil-fired generation.

That is why we are developing Muskrat. Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the

rates that people are paying. That is why we are developing Muskrat, so they are

no longer tied to the price of oil and they no longer have to rely on Holyrood.

On those points, at least, we agree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the Premier is diverting Question Period only because she do not

want to tell the people of this Province what the industrial rate is going to be

on the Island portion of Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the cost to

businesses in this Province increasing. We are going to see costs increase

drastically for transportation, manufacturing, and other businesses that have to

depend upon Muskrat Falls power.

I ask the Premier today: What will be the commercial rate for power generated

under Muskrat Falls? You have told us what the base rate for residential power

is going to be, what is the base rate for businesses and industrial customers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is the answer, not only to the ratepayers here in

the Province domestically but it is the answer also for businesses here in this

Province. Despite what the Leader of the Opposition says, it is oil that is

driving the cost of electricity. If we do not develop Muskrat Falls, light bills

will continue to increase year over year over year. The transition from 2016

from the isolated system to the Muskrat Falls system will be seamless -

absolutely seamless. What you are paying on one, you will be paying on the

other. The difference, Mr. Speaker, is your light bills will not be going up 3

per cent to 5 per cent a year; they will be going up less than 1 per cent a

year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing seamless about an electricity bill that is going to go from

$300 a month to $600 in this Province, I will tell the Premier that. It might be

seamless in her bank account, but it is not seamless in a lot of bank accounts

in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my next questions are for the Minister of Health. There are over

4,000 residents living in ninety-seven personal care homes across the Province.

Time and again we have raised this issue in the House of Assembly, yet

government has failed to provide the proper levels of funding required by these

homes. Even an independent view by PricewaterhouseCoopers verified this.

I ask the minister today: Why is government forcing these homes, mainly the

smaller ones that are located in rural areas of this Province, to close their

doors and to leave our seniors without proper care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are approximately ninety-seven personal care homes in this Province

that have 3,900 beds. We have heard a lot of talk about the financial difficulty

that these homes face. Since 2004, Mr. Speaker, the increase in the personal

care home subsidy has gone from $1,172 to $1,800 this year. We heard what these

small personal care homeowners had to say. We increased the personal care home

subsidy up to $1,800 this year from $1,717. We brought in a small personal care

home subsidy package, which is $2,000 a month for homes with less than fifteen

residents, and we brought in isolation grants of $1 million to help personal

care homes in isolated areas. If that is not helping personal care homes, then I

do not know what is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows, despite the fact there have been contributions, it does

not cover the cost of the previously mandated wage cost that your government

mandated, let alone all the other costs that come from caring for our seniors.

Our population is aging. Not everyone in this Province, Minister, can afford to

stay in upscale retirement living. They depend upon smaller personal care homes

to deliver the services they need in their aging years. Many rural areas are

totally dependent upon these particular homes.

I ask you, Minister: Why are you not working with the personal care homes in

this Province to find a way to keep these homes open? Because it is not about

the operators, it is all about the people who need the service.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, what we are dealing with, we are dealing with private business and we

are dealing with the regulated business. Mr. Speaker, let's give you an example

of what this Budget means to these small personal care homes. If you have

fifteen residents or less on average, you will get that $2,000 a month; that is

$24,000 a year. It is close to $100; again, a month per resident it is $1,200.

What we have done in one year, Mr. Speaker, is increased by more than $30,000

the amount of income that this small personal care home will have.

Then, if we talk about small personal care homes in the area like where the

Leader of the Opposition lives, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to apply for

isolation grants where we recently put $1 million into isolation grants. That

could translate into more money for these homes. There is a real financial

viability to these homes that they have to look at. We are not hearing from the

homes with more than fifty residents that they have the same concerns. In fact,

Mr. Speaker, they were quite happy with the fact that we brought the rate up to

$1,800 a month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows it is the smaller homes that are having this problem. It

is the smaller homes in rural areas of this Province that are having the

problems and he knows it is not about the operators of these homes, it is about

the people who need the service. Mr. Speaker, we have no idea what the vision of

the government opposite is when it comes to our aging seniors.

I ask the minister today, is it his wish that he warehouse all the seniors in

this Province into urban centres of the Province and not work to preserve

personal care homes in rural areas all over our Province?

I ask you, Minister: What is your vision for the aging population in this

Province and meeting the needs that they have?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, those kinds of comments are very disappointing and disrespectful

to the seniors of this Province. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, as a government

is putting money into the seniors groups, $1,000 grants, wellness grants, and

seniors' grants. I can tell you, that is the best money we are spending. These

groups are using this money.

We were at a group in Cavendish the other day, Mr. Speaker, and to see the

smiling faces and how active these people are. That is the first thing we are

doing, Mr. Speaker. Then what we are doing next is increasing home care rates.

We are hoping to allow people to stay closer to their homes. Then, Mr. Speaker,

as they move into the personal care homes we are allowing for the financial and

economic viability of these homes by increasing rates, bringing in small

personal care homes, and isolation grants. We are moving people out of acute

care beds and into other homes.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to allow for that seamless

transition from the community into personal care homes and long-term care

facilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The word of the day for the government must be seamless.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this to the minister. There is nothing wrong

with our aging seniors wanting to stay in their own communities in their own

regions. There is nothing wrong with them having access to personal care homes.

There is nothing wrong with the people who provide that service expecting what

is an adequate subsidy from the government to do so. Right now, the problem is

they are not getting the subsidies they need to meet the financial requirements

and to provide the services to many of our seniors in rural areas of the

Province that they need. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that there is a wait-list

of seniors in this Province to receive a subsidy. We know that the government

added an additional 100 subsidies this year.

I ask the minister, if he can tell me: How many more people are on the

wait-list for a subsidy in this Province and when they can see that subsidy

coming?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, as a government, have added more than 1,000 portable subsidies since

2005. We allowed $3 million for the installation of sprinkler systems.

In terms of how many people are on the wait-list, Mr. Speaker, there are

eighty-seven people waiting at Level I to get in personal care homes; thirty-one

people waiting to get into Level II personal care homes; 118 people waiting,

fifty-four in Eastern, eight in Central, thirty-eight in Western, and eighteen

in Lab Grenfell. Does that answer your question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, the fish harvesters on the West Coast have

ended their protest at the DFO office in Corner Brook. They are now waiting for

some positive action from DFO and they have strongly indicated that they are

also seeking strong and forceful support from the provincial Minister of

Fisheries as well as the Premier of our Province.

I ask the minister today: What communications has your government had with

DFO - I heard what you said a moment ago - and the federal Minister of Fisheries

to help the harvesters in their fight with Ottawa on this quota sharing problem?

Furthermore, what communication have you had with the new federal minister,

Peter Penashue, on this important issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I answered part of that question yesterday in the House, Mr. Speaker. We

heard of this in the past week. Immediately, a letter was written off to the new

minister, copied to Minister Penashue. Also, copies went to the FFAW, to ASP, to

SPN, all expressing our dismay at the decision that was made.

As I alluded to just earlier, we have requested a meeting with Minister

Ashfield. We look for a confirmation date for the week of the thirteenth when we

will express our concerns about this and, equally as important, where decisions

are going around the shrimp allocation and LIFO.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about the letter. I suggest to the

minister that the telephone might bring a quicker response. The minister is

always stressing the need to bring a unified voice to Ottawa on the matters of

great importance to our fishing industry. In fact, the minister indicated

yesterday that he is prepared to collectively work with parties to address the

issues in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke for our party or I speak for our party I should say,

when I say that we are quite prepared to participate in an all-party committee

that brings the concerns of the fisherpeople of this Province to the Prime

Minister of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, such an all-party committee, last year,

was suggested on the Northern shrimp cut, but this government declined the

offer.

I ask the minister today: Will you commit, in this House of Assembly, to the

formation of an all-party committee to advocate for and help address the

concerns of the fisherpeople of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear yesterday, I believe it

was an interview on one of the Open Line shows, that a member of the union

acknowledged the letter that we had sent off to Minister Ashfield supporting

and I publicly stated that we stand with the decision, contrary to the decision

that was made at the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we do use the telephone. I will inform the member that we did

call Minister Ashfield's office to establish the date, we did not write. We

wrote raising our issues of concern, and we certainly did make the phone call.

As to an all-party committee, I am not ready to commit there yet, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to suggest to the minister that he might start up a blog, but a

blog is where you say something, so I guess that really would not work anyway, I

suppose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, municipal leaders throughout the Province, even

though they support a new Waste Management Strategy, have grave concerns about

the operating cost attached to its implementation. People in the Western Region

feel that if their waste is transported to the Central site, the cost to the

residents will be very high compared to some other regions of the Province. In

fact, they are recently just asking for $1.5 million to help support the extra

cost in doing so.

My question today for the Minister of Municipal Affairs is this: If the

decision is made to transport Western's waste to the Central Region of our

Province, will your government commit to ensure that the fees for administering

waste management are equal across the regions of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we in the department have received a

request from Western Waste Management to consider the subsidy as an option, and

we will consider it as an option. More importantly, we will be working with the

newly appointed Chair, and the committee, and all the municipalities in Western

Newfoundland and Labrador to have and seek a viable option to the waste

management issue in that part of the Province. We will be working that through

over a period time. We have until 2016 in regard to our target date in the

implementation process.

We will be working through and making sure that we do things right, and have

an affordable, sustainable system for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We realize that we have time to implement the strategy, but one of the

concerns in the Western Region is the lack of appointments to the Western

Management Authority and we realize the new Chair was just appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again: Now that the Chair has been announced,

when will your government appoint a full complement of members to the Western

Waste Management Authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Soon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I almost lost that signal, it happened so fast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in early April the Nova Scotia government joined

with a number of partners launching a public campaign in support of Irving

Shipyard's bid for the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy. Also in early

April, Mr. Speaker, the people of Marystown were flabbergasted when Kiewit said

it was dropping out of the joint supply ships contract competition when it could

have provided thirty years of work for the area.

It is this government's responsibility to plan for the long-term future of

our Province, to ensure continued economic viability. Instead, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier supported Kiewit's decision giving the lame excuse: Isn't it a wonderful

thing that there is so much work going on in the Province that they can walk

away from the contract.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Did government decide to change their

position on the contract because of the campaign that the Nova Scotia government

has taken leadership in, to get the federal contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in my seven-and-a-half years in this House of Assembly I have

been asked some offensive questions from time to time, but I do believe that one

tops them all.

Mr. Speaker, we were involved with Kiewit over a number of years as they

tried to advance their bid for that contract. Mr. Speaker, we were in

negotiation, not over a million dollars or a couple of million dollars but tens

and tens of millions of dollars of support to that shipyard so that they could

win that contract. Mr. Speaker, they never, ever, indicated to us that they had

a problem with capacity in terms of working on that bid. We heard it when

everybody else heard it.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot address a problem that you do not know exists. We are

disappointed that things turned out the way they did

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - but, Mr. Speaker, we were fully supportive of this

company, as her own former candidate

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows the Marystown region has experienced a

boom-and-bust economy for years because of a series of projects related

primarily to oil development. The joint supply ships contract would have

provided a potential thirty years of shipbuilding with enumerable economic

spinoffs.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the announcement - and the Premier is right, I know

what they have done - the government said it supported Kiewit's bidding on the

contract, even offering to consider financial support for the graving dock

needed in the Marystown shipyard. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I want the Premier

to tell us, and to tell the public and the people in Marystown, why she did an

about-face in supporting Kiewit in their decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Kiewit is a private company that operates in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we were so supportive of what Kiewit was

doing around this contract that we were considering investing over $100 million

$100 million, Mr. Speaker in a graving dock.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Now, Mr. Speaker, they never indicated to us that

there was an issue in terms of capacity in being able to advance their bid.

We are very good here, as a government, and everybody in this Province

attests to that, but we are not mind readers. We do not have a crystal ball.

Companies have to share with us issues and challenges they have, if they want

our assistance in bridging whatever the issue might be, Mr. Speaker.

Kiewit did not do that. We are disappointed, Mr. Speaker, but at the same

time we are buoyed up that we do not rely just on one company to advance the

economy in any part of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia government managed to get a full partnership of

strategic partners industry, universities, the City of Halifax, you name it

in an aggressive marketing strategy to get the National Shipbuilding Procurement

contracts which could provide them with the thirty years of work. In contrast,

our government has sat back and did not have ongoing discussions with Kiewit,

Mr. Speaker.

Why did this government not take the same kind of initiative that they have

done over in Nova Scotia? I invite her to go onto the Web site and see how

aggressive this marketing strategy is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while she was informing herself of the effort in Nova Scotia, it

is too bad you did not take some time to inform yourself of the effort here.

There were weekly meetings with Kiewit, Mr. Speaker. We advanced that

proposal at every opportunity with our federal counterparts, Mr. Speaker. We

offered financial assistance to the company.

We heard nothing from members opposite. In fact, their leader wanted to delay

the contract to allow Quebec shipyard to bid. That is what their federal

leadership wanted to do, Mr. Speaker, and I do not remember hearing from you as

we advanced the Kiewit proposal as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair proceeds, the Chair would like to recognize a former Member

of the House of Assembly. The hon. member served the District of Labrador West,

I think, from 1996 to 1999. Perry Canning, welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed my pleasure to stand today as Minister Responsible for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and present our first progress

report on a social housing plan for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of women in the Province who

are asking the government to reduce the age for breast screening in Newfoundland

and Labrador to age forty as opposed to the benchmark age of fifty that

currently exists.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS breast cancer is one of the most common cancers among Newfoundland

and Labrador women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, with approximately 370

women to be diagnosed with breast cancer in Newfoundland and Labrador this year;

and

WHEREAS we have one of the highest mortality rates from breast cancer and

breast cancer in young women tends to be more aggressive; and

WHEREAS the benchmark for Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast

screening program is age fifty; and

WHEREAS women aged forty to forty-nine are not eligible to participate in

Newfoundland and Labrador's organized breast screening program, while women aged

forty to forty-nine are eligible in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta,

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, and the Yukon; and

WHEREAS there is evidence that routine mammography screening of women in

their forties can reduce mortality from breast cancer by at least 24 per cent,

but Newfoundland and Labrador still does not allow women in that age group to

self refer into their breast screening program;

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

House of Assembly to urge the government to allow women aged forty to forty-nine

to be eligible for breast screening and that breast screening begin at age forty

and that all women be able to self refer through Newfoundland and Labrador's

screening programs.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions are coming in from all over the Province. They

are from women and families who have gone through breast cancer. They are from

young women who were diagnosed at an early age. They are from people who have

had experiences in our system with not being able to self refer in order to get

mammograms and get testing done.

These petitions, Mr. Speaker, come out of the fact that they know that

everywhere else in Canada, most provinces in Canada, including Ontario, have now

committed to reduce the benchmark age for breast screening from age fifty to age

forty. What women in this Province cannot understand is why the government

opposite is not prepared to do this. Why the government opposite for the past

year, Mr. Speaker, has had an opportunity to review every study and every bit of

information out there that supports reducing the age for breast screening in

this country, and why they have not acted on that to ensure there is a full

program in Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can self refer and start getting

checked at an earlier age in order to reduce the mortality rate associated with

breast cancer.

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the highest mortality rates due to

breast cancer of any other part of the country. If there is a way we can bring

that down, if there is a way we can save lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, why

aren't we moving as a government to ensure that happens? Why are we not changing

the benchmarks from age fifty to age forty? That is what these women are asking

the government to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to be able to stand and present a petition

on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. This one in particular

pertains to people within my own district, but I am sure it affects other people

as well.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we have a tradition of the outdoors, enjoying

the outdoors and being able to take advantage of hunting wild game. Mr. Speaker,

this one particularly speaks to the hunting season for ducks along the Northeast

Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will read the petition into the minutes.

It says:

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of the Northeast Coast feel that due to high winds and

stormy seas during the months of December through February; and

WHEREAS during the last number of years we are unable to do little or no

hunting during those months; and

WHEREAS there is an abundance of eider ducks in the last few years; and

WHEREAS eider ducks will not nest until mid-May;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to

urge government to extend the hunting of eider ducks until March 10 during these

designated hunting seasons.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, again, this may not seem earth shattering to all of the members

of the House of Assembly but I am somewhat surprised at the number of signatures

that are attached to this particular petition; several hundred, actually, who

took the time to sign and many who are involved in the hunt itself.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a way of life, and being able to hunt wild game

within the Province is something we have enjoyed for many generations. The

greater concern for me in presenting this petition would be that people can

participate in the hunt each year but, more importantly, understanding the sea

conditions along the Northeast Coast, and the weather conditions, realizing that

earlier in the year it certainly is very hazardous to take a small boat and try

to go to traditional hunting places and locations along the Northeast Coast.

So, Mr. Speaker, I present that today on their behalf. I trust the House of

Assembly will consider the

part it can play in terms of having the season

extended so they can continue to participate in the tradition as they always

have.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as all members and people throughout the Province are aware, the

positions of Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner for Legislative Standards

were held since 2007 by the late Paul Reynolds who sadly passed away on April

21. The Speaker, all party leaders, as well as a great many others in this

Province, have paid tribute to Mr. Reynolds for his outstanding work in these

vital positions throughout the past four years.

By resolution today, we are appointing a successor to Mr. Reynolds, in fact,

an individual who worked very closely with Mr. Reynolds throughout his tenure

and also with Mr. Reynolds' predecessors in the Chief Electoral office. Let me

read the resolution into the record:

WHEREAS subsection 4(1) of the Elections Act, 1991 provides that the Office

of the Chief Electoral Officer be filled by resolution of the House of Assembly;

and

WHEREAS subsection 34(2) of the House of Assembly Act provides that a

Commissioner for Legislative Standards be appointed by the House of Assembly on

motion of the Premier following consultation with the Leader of the Official

Opposition and representatives of other registered political parties having

representation in the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Victor Powers be appointed Chief Electoral

Officer and Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Mr. Speaker, Victor Powers was born in St. John's where he attended Gonzaga

Regional High School and Memorial University of Newfoundland, prior to attaining

the certified general accountant designation in 1987. Mr. Powers has over

thirty-three years of experience working in financial, auditing, and

administrative roles with both the provincial and federal governments.

Mr. Speaker, for the last twelve years, he has been employed with the Chief

Electoral office where he has held the positions of Assistant Chief Electoral

Officer and Director of Election Finance. He is eminently qualified for the

duties associated with these two important offices of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, let me describe briefly what these positions entail,

particularly for those watching these proceedings. Firstly, the Chief Electoral

Officer functions independently as an Officer of the House of Assembly in

conducting fair and impartial provincial elections, as well as regulating the

election finance provisions of political entities in accordance with the

Elections Act,

Section 5 of the Elections Act, 1991 lays out the duties of Chief Electoral

Officer, it reads as follows, "It is the duty of the Chief Electoral Officer (

a) to exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of

elections and to enforce on the part of election officers fairness, impartiality

and compliance with this Act; (

b) to issue to election officers those

instructions that he or she considers necessary to ensure effective execution of

this Act; and (

c) to perform all other duties that are imposed on him or her by

or under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, as we look forward to a general election in October, we

recognize the importance of the work of the Chief Electoral Officer will do to

ensure the fundamental democratic rights of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador are protected and the principles of fairness, impartiality, and

compliance with the legislation are upheld. It will be a very busy year for the

CEO but with twelve years of experience in that office, Mr. Powers will be

hitting the ground running.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Powers' second role is equally important. In 2007, in light

of the recommendations of a report that our government commissioned of Mr.

Justice Derek Green, operations of the House of Assembly were overhauled and

measures were put in place to raise the standards of accountability to the

highest level. Legislation was amended to give effect to the recommendations and

the amendments included changing the name of this position from Commissioner of

Members' Interests to Commissioner for Legislative Standards, as well as

changing the nature of the role to promote greater accountability.

The Commissioner is an Officer of the House of Assembly and reports annually

upon the affairs of the office to the Speaker of the Assembly who then presents

the report to the House of Assembly. As well as the responsibilities under the

House of Assembly Act and the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and

Administration Act, the Commissioner is also responsible for hearing appeals of

public office holders under the Conflict of Interest Act, 1995.

The responsibility entrusted to the Commissioner is significant. For example,

all members of the House are required to file disclosure statements with the

Commissioner identifying private interests, and the Commissioner must review

those statements and make recommendations about measures for the member to take

to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. The Commissioner has the

power to conduct inquiries regarding the conduct of members, and if members fail

to comply, Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner has the power to recommend remedies

that may range from reprimand, to restitution, to suspension, to removal from

the seat.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner has a critical role to play in

ensuring the integrity and accountability of the House of Assembly, and it is

therefore vital that we place an individual in this role who is committed to

upholding the highest standards of accountability. The members of our caucus are

confident that Mr. Powers is an ideal candidate for this role.

As the motion notes, Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly Act specifies, in

moving this motion the Premier must consult with the leaders of the other

caucuses in the House, and this has been done, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to

hearing their remarks as this debate on this motion proceeds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to this

resolution. It was only a few years ago we went through the process, of course,

when Mr. Reynolds was appointed, the late Mr. Reynolds. That became quite a

heated debate, shall we say, in that case. It certainly was not a unanimously

agreed to resolution. That is the purpose of such a debate, of course, is that

all members have an opportunity to voice their concerns if they have any, or

give their well wishes if that is where they feel that the appointment is

appropriate.

Before that, of course, the former Chief Electoral Officer prior to - Mr.

Reynolds again was in many respects controversial. Sometimes the appointee in

and of itself, given what they did or did not do in life before, brings some

open debate, shall we say, to that particular position, because it is central.

The whole underpinnings of the system that we operate here in this Province, is

based upon the Elections Act. Everybody who is involved and I just do not mean

MHAs who happen to be a by-product of the process. We are just the elected

persons who get elected under the act, but everybody in the Province who has

rights here, and particularly the right to vote, which is central to our

democracy, are impacted by the person who holds that position. That is why it is

ever so important that the person who fills that position must be absolutely

unbiased; must be absolutely fair to everybody who is in the system, whether you

are a voter or you are a candidate or you are an MHA; must be absolutely

impartial and must be independent.

Now the word independent is extremely important as well, because we do not

need someone as a Chief Electoral Officer who takes his or her direction from

government. They are not the employee of government. The government of the day

cannot tell that individual, you do this or you do that, or you apply the rules

in a certain way. That is why it is so crucial that person have a backbone, be

strong and be independent.

If there is ever any interference or even a perceived interference with the

Chief Electoral Officer's doing his or her duty, that person has an obligation

to see that it does not happen and that it is straightened out. Anyone who would

try to infringe upon the independence of that position would be severely

chastised and dealt with. That is how important that office is. We hear all

kinds of stories from around the world where people do not have anything near

democracy. We hear all kinds of stories from around the world what are so-called

democracies are not in fact democracies, and the systems are perverted. We

certainly do not need to go there.

Sir Winston Churchill said one time: I guess democracy is probably not the

best form of government but it is the best we have figured out so far. That is a

very true statement. Sure, there are going to be flaws from time to time but it

is only thanks to such things as the Elections Act and having people who

operate, administer and implement the Elections Act properly that we can have

the system that we do have.

I have been around since 1999; I have had the benefit of dealing with four

different Chief Electoral Officers. I have found all of them in the past to be

absolutely fair, absolutely unbiased and absolutely independent. As I say, with

respect to Mr. Reynolds, that was a very heated debate in that case. Personally,

I voted for the resolution in favour of Mr. Reynolds. I did not know the

gentleman at that time but I am a firm believer that you give everybody a fair

shake. Unless you know what you are talking about and you know the facts, you do

not discredit and you certainly do not question the credibility and integrity of

someone if you do not know what you are talking about.

In that particular case I got to know the gentleman after, and I am pleased

to say that I did. I got to know him in very unusual circumstances, not only

because you deal with him in the course of your duty as a candidate, a nominee,

and an MHA, of course, but I happened to run into him at the gym repeatedly. I

found him to be a fine gentleman. He tried to get me golfing, but, of course,

that was never possible. I just do not have the aptitude or the interest in

that. I found him to be a great gentleman. In fact, I attended his wake, when he

passed away here recently, and paid my respects to his family and his friends,

and was pleased to do so. I found him to be a total, absolute gentleman.

With regard to the resolution here today, this person, Mr. Powers, is going

to have an onerous responsibility. It is pretty complicated. We talk about it in

terms of maybe one act, the Elections Act, and the Accountability Act being a

second, for example, but it is pretty complex, as anyone knows who has been

through the system, especially when you get into an actual election year. They

might only happen once every four years under our fixed election strategy, but

they are pretty complex, they are pretty detailed, and they are pretty busy.

Fortunately, we have seen a lot of changes in the Chief Electoral Office in

the last number of years, in terms of the technology that has been made

available. I know, for example, being a member of the Management Commission,

with whom the Chief Electoral Officer deals when it comes Budget time and so on,

that in the last number of years there have been some vast investments made.

Needed investments, no doubt, probably not totally where we need to go, but

there have certainly been extra resources provided so that it can be done

properly. You cannot operate a first-class operation on a shoestring budget.

In a lot of cases we did not properly, previously, pay the due respect and

provide the resources that we ought to have done as a government to see that

office was operated. The Management Commission, I am pleased to say, through its

works, has done good deeds when it comes to making those provisions available to

the Chief Electoral Office in the last while, not only in technology, in

equipment and so on, but in working resources, in having the extra bodies there

that needed to be done, to providing training to all of the people who operate

in an election because it is massive. When you have forty-eight districts in

this Province and everybody needs a DRO, a District Returning Officer, and there

are assistants, and there are poll clerks, and places that need to be rented,

for example, and there are special ballot offices that have to be set up, it is

huge. It just does not happen. Albeit the main office is here in St. John's,

when the election is on - and that is still, no doubt, the heartbeat of the

election, here in St. John's - the bottom line is there are forty-eight other

little heartbeats around this Province at that time, and that person has to be

in control of it all, and it has to be fair in all of them. If it is unfair in

either one of the forty-eight districts when that person is in charge of an

election, he compromises the whole system. So there is a lot of work involved

there.

I am pleased to see as well in recent years in terms, I guess, again of the

resources, that the Chief Electoral Officer has the provisions. If someone who

is running, for example, needs advice, what do I do? How do I go about it? What

do I need to sign? How do I get organized? Where can I go or not go? How do I

get access to a voters list? That kind of stuff needs to be made readily

available, within the law of what the Chief Electoral Office can do. If it is

available and it is proper to give it out, that information needs to be provided

in a timely fashion. Otherwise, again, the system is compromised and not working

to the best of its ability.

One other comment, Mr. Speaker, in regard to organization, is with regard to

the special ballot process. Now, for anyone who has been involved in the system

or aware of the act, the special ballots will start in advance, for example, of

the election that is actually coming up in the fall. I am very pleased to see

that the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has made available to people,

particularly in rural Newfoundland, access to vote by way of special ballot,

which they did in the election of 2007. I use my own district as an example. If

you did not go through the mailing system which existed previously, if you had

to go through that - that was the only way of doing it prior to 2007 - it just

was not fair to all forty-eight districts in the same way. For example, if

someone who was running in St. John's South had a constituent who wanted to vote

by special ballot, all he or she had to do was make sure that the voter got

delivered to the Chief Electoral Office in St. John's, a pretty simple process

in terms of delivery of the voter into the system to get it done.

That is pretty tough to do if you live in Grey River or if you live in Ramea

or you live in Burgeo and you do not have access to the office here in St.

John's and you have to go through this complicated mailing system. There were

questions about: Was it done properly? Who oversaw it? Who could you trust to

administer it, for example?

I know in the last election - there was only one before, and even then the

system was more complicated, but the DRO, for example, in my district in Port

aux Basques, she can look after everything in that area from Rose Blanche, Burnt

Islands, Isle aux Morts, Cape Ray, Port aux Basques, Margaree, everybody can

easily access within a drive's distance if they want to get a special ballot

done. In addition to that - hats off and kudos to the system - they put one in

Ramea; 600 voters absolutely on an island and isolated, but now, because of a

special ballot office, they have access to the same privileges and opportunities

that a voter would have who lives on MacDonald Drive here in St. John's;

likewise in Burgeo.

It was great to see, because it is no good to have a system if we do not make

the system accessible to the people. We talk about voter turnouts becoming less

and less. Sometimes we say it is apathy, and usually that might be the case, but

also access to the system is so important. The more access we allow people

because it is no point to try to get people energized and encourage them to take

part in the electoral process if we do not make it accessible and easily

accessible to them, Mr. Speaker. So, that is great to see.

It always does not work proper, and I am sure every MHA here in this House

has probably had some incident during an election that they wished they never

had encountered and wished could be avoided. I am going to relate one here.

There are several incidents I have had. I am not going to get into it in the

public domain with regard to individuals or whatever. Any discussions I need or

wish to have in that regard, I will take to the Commissioner and to the Chief

Electoral Officer, and I think that is the appropriate way to deal with it.

There was one incident that sometimes the act causes the problem. I will give

you an example and maybe some other members here have run into this. Back in

1999 when I first ran, I set up an office, what they call your headquarters, on

Main Street in Port aux Basques. The election is usually, of course, twenty-one

days of duration. So, you had your headquarters all set up, everybody was

working out of there; it was the beehive of activity.

Twenty-four hours before the vote started on February 9, 1999 I was contacted

and told that I had to shut down and move my headquarters twenty-four hours

before. The reason being, after I had opened my headquarters and started and was

campaigning for a couple of weeks, the Chief Electoral office - no doubt, nobody

had bad intentions or anything, but they needed a polling spot for voting day.

One of the polling places they picked was directly across the street in the

senior citizens' club from where my headquarters was.

Now, I am sure nobody did that intentionally but the bottom line is once the

Chief Electoral office made that decision to put a polling booth out there and

the Elections Act clicked into place, there is a

section in it which says the

candidates could not have headquarters or paraphernalia within so many feet. I

think that was a case that was absolutely unnecessary and should not have

happened. Anybody knows how important your headquarters are to your election,

yet here you are told twenty-four hours before voting day: Shut her down, move

all your stuff. Your telephones are hooked up there, your staff are all there,

your computers are all hooked up there, and you had to shut her down and move it

out. You were not the cause of the problem, the problem came about because that

place was chosen as a polling station. Now, we worked through it, no doubt, and

won the election, it did not impact anything. We did not have all the telephones

hooked up like we wanted to and cellphones were not as available back then as

they are today, but we got through it.

That is just an example, sometimes, of how the Chief Electoral office and the

candidates, when it comes to an election, need to work co-operatively to make

sure that kind of unintended consequence does not happen. By the way, it is

great to have a good relationship with the Chief Electoral office in order to do

that. It is not a case of calling up and getting snarky or upset because you did

this and you should not have done that. That is not the way it should be dealt

with, but you need also to know, albeit you are going to have comply with

certain rules if you are a voter, an elector, a candidate you are going to

have to do that there has got to be co-operation coming back as well. I found,

in my experience, that no matter who I dealt with over there, I have always had

that experience.

I am not sure, I do believe Mr. Powers was there when I first ran in February

of 1999. According to what the Premier says, he had twelve years' experience, so

that might have been back about the time when he started, and I do seem to

recall that I dealt with him during 1999, 2003, and 2007. Of course, you have to

file your financial papers at the end of the day. In addition to being a

candidate and filing your nomination papers, you have to file your member's

interest statements and everything annually as well, disclose whatever you have

to that Commissioner of Legislative Standards, and he puts out a public document

saying what you do or do not have within certain restrictions of what he feels

is appropriate, and it gets posted for the public to see.

So, it is very important that that person who fills that position, that every

member here, and not only every member here, every candidate who wants to get

involved in the electoral process and every voter who wants to vote, should have

the comfort of knowing you can call the Chief Electoral Officer's office and get

what you need done to allow you to partake properly in the electoral process. So

far, I am pleased to see that I have been accorded nothing by fair treatment and

respect whenever I have had to deal with the Chief Electoral office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I guess you can gather from all that, this member is

certainly going to be voting in favour of the appointment of Mr. Victor Powers

as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Legislative Standards for the

Province. I would not want to have to do what he has to do within the next six

months. He is going to have a busy time on his hands, he is going to have to

hire a lot of people, and a lot of training has to be done, this being an

election year in October.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just simply say with regard to this particular

individual, I know him. I have worked with him to some extent in the electoral

process. I am pleased to see that he has gone from working his way up the ranks

to become the top honcho there, as he should be. Based upon his experience,

based upon his training, based upon from what I understand he has treated every

person who has ever had to deal with him, and most of my experience comes from

MHAs who have dealt with him over the years, he has been nothing but fair. He

has treated them with respect and he is absolutely impartial when it comes to

the political process. He does not wear any colours. He is colour-blind when it

comes to putting the rules in place, no matter who you are.

Mr. Speaker, based on that, I am pleased to say and happy to endorse the

appointment of Mr. Powers in that position.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I am happy to be able to stand and speak to the resolution concerning the

appointment of Mr. Victor Powers as the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner

for Legislative Standards.

I do have some points I would like to make. Before making those points I want

to say, first of all, that I am very pleased to support this resolution and to

support Mr. Powers taking up both of these positions. I know him over the last

five years as a person who is totally committed in his work. Because, of course,

he was the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer, assistant to Mr. Paul Reynolds

whom we recognize here today, and he was the Director of Election Finances. In

that role, every time we had to meet with the Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer, Mr. Powers would always accompany Mr. Reynolds, whether they were

budget discussions or other discussions that we may have had. I certainly came

to know him during those years.

I also came to know him because of his availability to the political parties

around elections. There were times Mr. Powers came and gave training to

volunteers in our party who were going to be involved in elections to make sure

they understood all the intricacies of running a campaign, especially from the

financial perspective. He was always available and gave excellent presentations

that I sat at and showed his knowledge to be impeccable actually, Mr. Speaker.

When I had been at the sessions that I have sat in on, I have been impressed

with the very clear way in which he explains things to people and the very

logical way in which he does explain the whole process. I have to say he has

impressed me; impressed me also with his commitment to democracy itself and the

whole democratic right to elect, and his desire to make sure the process of

elections is accessible to everybody and accessible in every possible way one

can mean that.

The Opposition House Leader made some reference to those things, the way in

which we have to make sure everybody's right to vote is honoured and that things

operate in such a way that the whole system facilitates, maximizes the potential

for people to be able to vote. That whole principle around our elections is

something that I have seen over the last six years. It is something that Mr.

Powers is really committed to.

I am delighted to see government announce somebody who has the experience

that he has. It is extremely important right now of course with the election

coming in October that the person who is filling this position is somebody who

has a lot of experience and who knows the system inside out, as Mr. Vic Powers

does. It is not only because of convenience that I think he should have this

role, I think it is also because of the way in which he has exercised his

responsibilities over the years that I have seen him and I think over all of his

years as the CEO, the way in which he understands the roles and the way in which

he has conducted himself. Both for those reasons and for the reason of making

sure this is a smooth transition right now because of an election coming up. I

think he really is the best candidate that we should have.

I do want to make one reference to the whole thing of consultation. I want to

thank the House Leader because she did call on behalf of the Premier, when the

government made the decision that Mr. Powers was going to be their appointee, to

inform me - I think she also did the same with the Opposition Leader - of the

government's decision. I was very, very happy to say that I was really pleased

with the decision.

Government's understanding of consultation is strange, Mr. Speaker. I

actually believe - and this is no statement about the moment, that is why I

spoke about Mr. Powers' appointment first. I actually believe there should be an

all-party body that gets together and looks at who is going to fill some of

these positions where government has to consult. I think that is the spirit of

the consulting, that we all sit together and actually look at the possibilities,

and make sure that this position - and there are a couple of others like it in

the Legislature - the appointment is made in a totally complete non-partisan

way. I think that is essential to this position.

In this case, if I had been able to sit down with the Premier and with the

Opposition Leader and look at a person that I would want to see fill the

position, the person I would have wanted to see is Mr. Powers. I am not speaking

to the current moment. I am delighted with this appointment. I do put that out

to government to think about the way in which the consultation happens. What

exactly does it mean to say there is consultation? I actually think it does mean

that there should be real consultation so that it is totally a non-partisan

appointment.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will not take anymore time, I do not think

there is any need to. I just wish Mr. Powers well and to let him know he

certainly has my support for the gruelling five months or so he has ahead of him

and for his work after that. I will always try to find a way, as the Leader of

the Third Party here in this House, to listen to his voice when it comes to the

needs of the office that he is now going to head up and to facilitate his work

and the work of his staff.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just closing the debate or the discussion on our motion today. Mr.

Speaker, it is very reassuring to know that all parties support the selection of

Mr. Vic Powers as our Chief Electoral Officer. It is certainly noteworthy that

he has a very important job, particularly this year as we move into the general

election in the fall.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate how pleased we are that we have full

endorsement of our new Chief Electoral Officer from this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The motion is that Mr. Victor Powers be appointed Chief Electoral Officer and

Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried unanimously.

I am sure I speak on behalf of everybody in the House of Assembly today to

say congratulations to Mr. Victor Powers who is present in the gallery.

Congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 1.

With that, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works,

that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply to debate the Estimates

of Executive Council, the Legislature and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a

Committee of Supply and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we will call the Estimates for Executive Council,

Legislature and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

CHAIR: The Committee are now considering the Legislature, Consolidated

Fund Services and Executive Council.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my duty today to speak to the Estimates that are being heard in

Committee of the Whole House. Members might recall that on Budget Day it was the

duty of the Minister of Finance on that day to distribute the Estimates, which

is a list of the spending that the government is going to do. Because we cannot

do any spending, governments cannot appropriate any money unless it is approved

by the elected representatives of the people in this House, and the detailed

Estimates are referred to the members. Under Standing Orders, I believe, the

Estimates are referred to a number of committees, three committees in fact. On

that same day, on Budget Day, we moved a resolution that this House support, in

general, the budgetary policy of the government, that is the Budget debate and

we have had that debate.

The three committees have met from time to time. Every minister of every

department and the ministers' officials have attended these committee meetings

and have sat - some of them have been held here in this House. The minister and

all of his supporting staff sit next to the minister. The members of the

committee, members of the Opposition and members of the government as well who

are members of the various committees have an opportunity to question in detail

not only the minister but also the officials as to the Estimates, as to the

detailed spending in a particular department under a particular head.

Then we have what is called a Concurrence debate when the reports of the

committees are brought into the House. There were three committees as I said. We

had a Concurrence debate where the House voted a resolution as to whether it

concurred with the report that came from the committees. We have done that for

all three committees. There are parts of the Estimates that we do not do in

Committee; we do it here in this House in what is called a Committee of the

Whole. That is what we are doing here today.

There is a great little booklet that has been put out by the officials here

in the House of Assembly which gives a great explanation of the Budget and the

related proceedings in the House of Assembly. I would encourage members to take

a look at this booklet. I would hope that the booklet would be mailed out to the

people of the Province so they would have a better idea of the Budget process.

Most people, they think the Budget process is when the Minister of Finance

gets up and reads the Budget Speech. There is a lot more to it than that. There

is the Budget debate which is the resolution that the members of the House

support the budgetary policy of the government. That is moved by the minister,

and the Opposition then moves an amendment which is, in effect, a non-confidence

motion. It is an amendment to the effect that the House does not support the

budgetary policy of the government. Then the Opposition usually moves a

sub-amendment to the amendment. That gives the government members the

opportunity to speak more than once. All members can speak on the motion, on the

resolution, and then by the amendment, all members get a chance to speak on the

resolution and all members get a chance to speak on the subcommittee. So, we

have had that. We also have the main supply bill, which is a vote that will take

place after we finish this particular Estimates proceeding.

As I said earlier, there are some heads of expenditure that are not sent to

committee and we deal with them here, and that is what we are doing today. You

have heard a few minutes ago the officials said that the matters to be heard

today were the expenditures of the Legislature, the expenditures of the

Consolidated Fund Services, which is the borrowing expenses of the government,

and the Executive Council. The Executive Council is the one that will pique

members' interest because the Executive Council consists of a number of

different divisions that are major players, if I can use those words, in the

context of public life in this Province.

The first thing will be the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment. There are

the Estimates of Government House, that is $759,000. There are listed in the

Estimates: the Salaries; the Employee Benefits; Transportation and

Communications cost; Supplies; Purchased Services; and Property, Furnishings and

Equipment. They total $759,000, and some hon. members may have some questions.

We have the budget from 2010-2011, that is last year, and we have the revised

figures, they are the figures at the end of the year, the actual figures. For

example, in budget 2010-2011, the budget amount for Government House was

$704,500, and that amount of money was approved by the MHAs in this particular

House last year, but at the end of the year the actual amount spent was a little

more than that, it was $737,400. Now, the members may have some questions about

the differences. For example, last year's budget, the amount of salaries was

$611,000, and this year it has gone up to $635,600, and people will wonder:

Well, why is there an increase? The answer, of course, is that people may recall

that the government gave its employees a substantial wage increase during the

last collective bargaining, which was 8 per cent, four, four, and four. That is

a 20 per cent raise, and the increase is the 4 per cent that is coming into

effect this year.

After the Lieutenant Governor's Establishment, we are going to deal with the

Office of the Executive Council, and the big one there is the Office of the

Premier. The Premier's Office is about $2 million in the Estimates. It consists

of Salaries, Employee Benefits, Transportation and Communications, Supplies that

are purchased, Purchased Services, Property, Furnishings and Equipment, and

Allowances and Assistance. I am sure that members opposite will have some

questions there.

In addition to that, there is the Cabinet Secretariat. This is the executive

support for the Premier's Office. It is executive support for Cabinet and the

committees of Cabinet. There is the Economic Policy Committee of Cabinet, there

is the Social Policy Committee of Cabinet, and there is Treasury Board. There is

also a committee on appointments and routine proceedings, and there is the

priorities and policy committee of Cabinet. Cabinet Secretariat provides

executive support to support those committees in Cabinet.

In addition, under head 2.2.02, we have something called Planning and

Coordination, $538,000, and that is the Transparency and Accountability Office

which is set up under the Transparency and Accountability Act.

The next head is 2.2.03, which is Provincial Government Programs Office. That

is an office that was set up under the leadership of a deputy minister in the

government to take a look at government programs, to ensure that we are actually

getting value for the money that is being spent, to make sure we are getting

bang for our buck, and to make sure the programs are providing the outcomes that

are intended. Sometimes a program is put into place and it is there for many,

many years. It is important that we go back and look at these programs. Some of

them may have outlived their time or outlived their usefulness, or maybe it

would be simply better to cancel that program, take that money and do a program

that would have a higher priority to the people of the Province and be more

important to the people of the Province.

The next head is Economic and Social Policy Analysis. This is appropriations

of $855,000 for "planning support through analysis and advice on future

directions in economic and social policy matters for the Economic and Social

Policy Committees of Cabinet."

Then there is a relatively new office that was established, it is the Office

of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Emissions Trading. That has a budget of

almost $1.4 million. It is allocations, estimates to "provide for the operating

costs of an Office to provide policy development and analysis on climate

change" We all know the effect that climate change is having on the world and

indeed, having on this particular Province. Climate change is certainly real and

it is something that we have to be ready for.

I could not help but notice yesterday some of the remarks of the retiring

Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser. She talked about some things that were

of concern to her. She mentioned the aging demographics, the fact that the

population of Canada was aging. In Newfoundland and Labrador, our population is

certainly aging as well, and it is also shifting. We are seeing a lot of

movement of our population towards the communities that are on the Trans-Canada

Highway. We are also seeing a shifting of people into the Eastern part of the

Province. As our population ages, we are seeing people move to the Eastern part

of the Province or move to areas where there are health facilities. Many, of

course, are moving to where their children are, where their children have found

jobs and whatnot.

The Office of Climate Change was established in 2009. It is a central agency

within the Executive Council. It acts as the lead for the government, to work

with the federal government, to work with other provinces, to work with industry

and other stakeholders on policy matters that relate to climate change and

relate to energy efficiency, which is very important, and relate to emissions

trading. The office is responsible for three lines of business relevant to its

mandate, which includes: policy and strategic advice, strengthening the evidence

base, and interdepartmental collaboration.

Mr. Chair, our government believes that climate change is one of the greatest

long-term challenges that are facing this planet, and one that presents both

opportunities and potential impacts for jurisdictions such as this one in

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is strong and indisputable evidence that

climate change is happening and that it is mainly caused by humans. It is mainly

caused by human activity. If left unchecked, climate change could result in sea

level rising, coastal erosion, more intense weather systems and storm surges,

which we have been seeing in the last number of years, and increased frequency

of floods. These impacts will affect all of us. It will affect our wildlife; it

will affect the marine environment, our communities and our economies as well.

Recently, in the City of Corner Brook, at the convocation ceremony for the

Grenfell campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador, they issued

an honorary degree to Mr. Stephen Lewis, who was a former Leader of the New

Democratic Party in the Province of Ontario. He served in the Ontario

Legislature for many years. He has since done work - I think he was Canada's

Ambassador to the United Nations since leaving that position. He has done work

for the United Nations internationally in Africa. He has done major work with

AIDS, and he gave an inspiring address to the graduates at Grenfell. A very

inspiring address in which he said if he had to live his life over again, he

would have done it in the field of environmental studies and environmental

science because it is his belief that between 2030 - were the words he used -

and 2050 he felt that there was going to be a catalytic change going to happen

in the world and probably is something that is going to happen and there is

nothing we can do to prevent it. Needless to say, it certainly caught my

attention and the attention of everyone else in the room. It was inspiring to

hear this man speak.

The Office of Climate Change was established in recognition of the increased

importance of these climate change issues. The fact that leadership is needed to

integrate the issues into the work of government and that the issues are

cross-cutting in nature. Climate change is not an environmental challenge, it is

equally an economic and social one that can impact the Province and all our

people and can present opportunities for clean energy development, job growth,

and applications of innovative technologies. The Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador is committed to respond to climate change and to promote energy

efficiency to ensure that this Province is indeed a model of economic and

environmental sustainability.

Mr. Chair, in addition to that office, there is also the Protocol office,

there is Public Service Development which is an awards office. There is

Intergovernmental Affairs which was dealt with in one of the committees. There

is the Public Service Secretariat which provides human resource advice to the

government and to Treasury Board. There is Research & Development Corporation

and these were done in committee.

What we are going to do here today is Government House, the Premier's Office,

Cabinet Secretariat, the Transparency and Accountability Office, the Provincial

Government Programs, Economic and Social Policy, the Office of Climate Change,

Protocol, Public Service Development, Communications and Consultations,

Financial Administration, Strategic Human Resource Management, the Public

Service Secretariat, and the Consolidated Fund Service. I understand it is

possibly a money bill, so we may have an interesting debate on many other things

that happen today.

I believe my time is up

CHAIR: It is.

MR. MARSHALL: -and I will sit down. I understand members are going to

speak; everyone gets ten minutes or so to speak, so we will have an interesting

discussion today, I am sure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay

North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is always an honour to be able to stand in this sitting and speak again.

The Estimates, as the minister has already stated, is basically approval for

funding or for spending that is referred to Committee stage. I have enjoyed,

actually, going through the Estimates this past two years.

The day after Budget day the process this year began. I must say, it came

right out of the chute sort of thing, the Budget was delivered on an afternoon,

on a Tuesday afternoon I believe it was, and the very next morning we were in an

Estimates Committee; I believe with Municipal Affairs we started that morning.

So, there is a lot of preparation work to be done by research staff and by

ourselves as MHAs in the Opposition, in particular, to come in for that two,

three-hour period of time, whatever it would take to go through a department and

to scrutinize the different line items and the spending of all the different

categories within that particular department, and to interact with the minister

and the staff in terms of the differences in spending for the previous year,

compared to what the Budget has been. Also, to look at where that is expected to

go going forward into the next year. So, it is a very useful exercise, and one,

certainly, that for myself as an Opposition MHA and just as an MHA in general,

that I enjoy being able to participate in that particular process.

When you look at the numbers, Mr. Chair, and you get into the line items and

we realize that we have $8 billion to spend, or approximately, in our Budget

this year, and when you get in and break it down into departments, and you get

into the department and you further break it down into departments within the

department, if you will, and you look at different sections of a department,

different programs within a department, the resources that it takes financially

to make it work, then obviously, the numbers are very significant. I certainly

would agree with what the Minister of Finance just said, in terms of reviewing

the items and going through that process of critiquing and scrutinizing

different things. Are we doing things in departments that have outlived its

usefulness? Are we doing things in ways today simply because it is the way we

always did them? Tradition is great, but tradition in any setting can certainly,

at times, cause us to become somewhat complacent in what we are doing, and

believe that because it is has always been done that way, that is the way it

needs to continue or whatever. I believe this is one of the things that in the

exercise of going through Estimates, that we certainly can go through to ask

whether it really is necessary, is there a better way to do it, and is there

really any need to do it at all?

As a new MHA, as someone who has a background around numbers. Budgets are

familiar to me; I have seen them for many years. One of the things that intrigue

me about the budgets of government is that within a department and within the

branches of that department there are plenty of places to hide numbers if you

want to hide it so to speak. Not hiding intentionally, necessarily, but really a

lot of places where you can ask whether the spending is necessary.

As we look at the Executive Council here this afternoon for a few moments in

this particular type of setting, as the minister has introduced there; again,

significant spending. It is very necessary obviously, but some items I would

question, which would play from my perspective as to why the increases. There is

just one item really within the Premier's Office, Mr. Chair. I would not be one

to suggest that the numbers are extravagant or anything by any means.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We were able to realize $100,000 saving last year in Transportation and

Communications for some reason, but going forward into this year we are going to

carry the same figure forward. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could

probably speak to that in his remarks a little later in terms of why we were

able to make a saving and not able to feel that we could realize that saving

moving forward. It is approximately 30 per cent of the budget for that

particular line item. If we were able to save 30 per cent on that particular

line item last year, then the very obvious question is can we do it next year?

Is there a reason why we did it last year that does not allow us to do it this

year, whatever the case might be, on one particular item?

Mr. Chair, those are the kinds of items in terms of budgeting and controlling

expenditures. When it comes to things such as Transportation and Communications,

purchasing supplies, those are the items that are very easy to go off course, so

to speak. These are the items that are very easy to load things into and they

can really get out of hand. If we can get through twelve months and whether

there is an invoice outstanding for that, I assume it would not be anything like

that, but if we can get through twelve months at 30 per cent less then I would

just ask why we need to revert to the budgeted figure rather than the revised

figure in this particular year going forward.

Mr. Chair, that is pretty much all I see in that particular line item or

section 2.1.02. Then again, when we get into 2.2.03 and we look at the

Provincial Government Programs Office and again, just one item there that is

kind of a similar reflection but yet a greater number, and that is in the

Professional Services of line 05. We had a budget there of $200,000 and when we

finished our year we revised it down to $34,000 and going forward into this year

we carry it back again to the same figure of $200,000. There is a difference of

$166,000 in that particular line item, and there is a difference of $100,000 on

Transportation and Communications in the Premier's Office. Of course, if you add

just these two line items together alone, then suddenly you have a quarter of a

million dollars in savings I will call it, in 2010-2011; yet, going into

2011-2012 we want to take those numbers back to where they were. We realize a

quarter of a million dollar savings on two lines, but going forward we feel we

cannot take those savings forward with us and so we need to take our numbers

back up to where they were again.

Again, I just ask these questions, not to question for the sake of

questioning but in our day of tight budgets and all the program needs that are

out there and all the requests that come in from our different districts,

whether it is for student programming, whether it is through Municipal Affairs

projects, whether it is through many other things that come in, certainly all of

these items, if they were available in the Budget, if these were things that do

not necessarily need to be done, then obviously these are things that we can see

some great savings in.

section 2.2.04 Economic and Social Policy Analysis; again, we have a

couple of areas in there. The biggest item would be salaries. We were

$90,000-odd, roughly $91,000 I believe it would be, off our budget, less than

what our budget was. That is 2.2.04 Economic and Social Policy Analysis. Again,

we have increased the budget, not only from what the revised was last year but

we have also increased it from what the budget had been last year as well. I

realize some of those items could be the case of a position that was not filled

or whatever the case is, I guess then it would beg the argument of whether it is

really necessary or not. I ask the minister if he could speak to that as well.

The other item I would like to speak to, Mr. Chair, in my first few moments

that I have to speak here this afternoon is in item 2.2.05. The minister said

this is a relatively new office, the Office of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency

and Emissions Trading. While I am all for the protection of our environment and

so on, Mr. Chair, and all that we can do to understand climate change and

efficiencies and so on

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a little hard to hear when so many people get talking as you are trying

to speak.

Mr. Chair, that whole office in itself is one that, as the minister said, is

relatively new. I do not know if it is necessarily an office that needs to be,

so to speak. I am not saying the work it is doing does not need to be done. When

we consider ourselves, the number of people who are in our Province, and the

impact we have on climate globally, I am not certain that it needs to be pegged

out. It becomes that priority of ours. I guess that is a debate, obviously, that

can be had if that becomes such a priority that we establish a new office.

I do not know if this is the first year for it or not, last year, Mr. Chair,

but we have gone from $1 million budget, we actually used less than $900,000,

and going forward we have increased our budget to $1.3 million. Again, when you

look at big budgets and you have large numbers, it is easy to set things up. It

is easy to create new offices. It is easy to establish new departments and so

on.

Underneath all of that, Mr. Chair, what I see especially are the needs that

are coming in and the requests in districts like mine. Every other district I am

sure around the Province is no different. Small communities are trying to

diversify. They are looking for money for water and sewer within their own

towns. Mr. Chair, I have a community on the Northern Peninsula, for example, and

I am sure it is only one of many. Anchor Point basically has a water supply and

sewer supply that are almost flowing in together. Those kinds of items are the

things that are really important to me.

Again, I question: How much do we put behind something like this and how far

do we take it? How necessary is it in terms of where we are, in terms of the

global perspective, the number of people we have, and the real impact we can

make on climate change anyway? I am not saying it is not important, but

establishing a new office and spending that kind of money, for me personally I

would wonder whether that is the best way that we can go and the best bang for

our buck so to speak.

Mr. Chair, these are some of the comments on this particular piece. I will

end there in terms of the line items, but just to say again that I feel that

this is a very important process that we have gone through in the Estimates. The

input, I believe there is great value to it. The process is good and I do not

know where it developed or how it developed but it is a good thing, to be able

to go through these items here this afternoon. I will get a chance to speak

again a little later and I will come back and ask the minister some more

questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Yes, I would just like to get the procedure down. I take it

I now respond to the questions that the hon. member has asked for ten minutes

and then other speakers will speak? Is that

CHAIR: The House is free to speak on either side.

MR. MARSHALL: Okay, well I will be happy to take I understand I can

take ten minutes?

CHAIR: Absolutely.

MR. MARSHALL: I want to thank the hon. member for his comments and his

questions. He reminded me that my thoughts and I have heard the Opposition

House Leader talk about this from time to time and he is right. When we do the

Committees in Committee meetings, they are not televised. There is a transcript

taken of everything that is said, it is all written down and it is published.

Hon. members and the people of the Province are entitled to read the transcripts

of what is said.

It is not televised and maybe because of that the meetings are quite

different from what we do in the House of Assembly. The meetings are quite

civil. As I said the ministers are here with their officials and the Opposition

ask questions reasonable questions, questions that the people are entitled to

have an answer to. Government on this side answers the questions and we do good

work.

We have taken on that approach here today. I think if the debate that happens

this afternoon is similar to the debate that we just heard from the hon. member

for The Strait of Belle Isle, then I think the people of the Province will be

pleased to see that we do not revert to a lot of ranting and roaring as has been

customary in the past. We will see what happens as the afternoon wears on.

I should also mention that there are certain parts of Executive Council which

we have done in Committees and that included the Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat, the Volunteer and Non-Profit Secretariat, the Rural Secretariat,

the Women's Policy Office, the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and

Development Corporation and the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Now, I would like to take the time I have remaining to deal with the

questions that the hon. member asked. I think the first question was from the

Premier's Office and he questioned about the Transportation heading in the

Premier's Office. In last year's budget the amount was $296,700 but only

$195,000 was spent at year's end. The budgeted amount for the coming year is the

same as it was budgeted last year, $296,700.

The reason for the drop from $296,700 to $195,000 was simply that it is lower

by $101,000, $102,000 because of the fact that the actual travel was less than

had been anticipated for the year. We had Premier Williams, the current Premier,

and members of their staff travel, of course, to meetings in Ottawa and to

different places throughout the world, and obviously places throughout the

Province. During the past year 2010-2011, there was simply less travel than

anticipated by the tune of $102,000.

For next year, it is anticipated the normal expenditures will take place

again. That is why the amount of $296,700, which I believe is the amount that it

has been for the past number of years, is back into the budge