June

6, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 44

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin today's proceedings, I would like I feel compelled, really

to make some general observations and comments about petitions and the way we

handle them in the House of Assembly. Bear with me as I share with you a

reflection of my thinking and some suggestions and comments for the House. They

are not really suggestions, actually; they are directions from the Chair as to

how we would want to proceed with petitions as we move forward.

The right of citizens to petition a Parliament for redress of a grievance is

a fundamental one, established by centuries-old traditions. As early as the

thirteenth century, the Crown received petitions for remedies. Note that I said

Commons itself would petition the Crown frequently, including petitions for

amendments to laws. That practice led to the current practice of bills being

brought forward to a Parliament for debate and decision.

I want to emphasize two points here: first, the act of petitioning by

citizens has a long history and must be protected; and, petitions were directed

to the Crown that is the Executive government.

O'Brien and Bosc note that by the seventeenth century, the modern form of

petitions had been developed: they were addressed to Parliament, they used a

very prescribed form, and they dealt with perceived public grievances. The

format included in our Standing Orders, even though it was not added until 1999,

descends from these earlier practices.

Our Standing Orders in this House respecting petitions number ninety to

ninety-seven were developed in 1951 and have been essentially unchanged from

the 1920 Standing Orders of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In my view,

these existing Standing Orders have serious shortcomings. Nevertheless, they are

our Standing Orders and until the Standing Orders Committee makes

recommendations and this House adopts such recommendations we are guided by

the current Standing Orders. We will be guided by those as well as our past

practices and rulings by previous Speakers.

Members will be aware that when petitions are presented to the House of

Assembly, we insist that the prayer of the petition be within the competence or

capacity of the House of Assembly. For instance, the House of Assembly cannot

pave a road or build a school. Those matters are within the powers of the

Executive Branch of government and not the Legislative Branch. When these

petitions are brought to the House, we insist that they take a form of a prayer

and call upon the House to urge government to do something. When the House

receives these petitions, we simply forward them to the appropriate government

department. It is obvious that the vast majority of these petitions are

requesting action from the Executive Branch just as they were in the

thirteenth century. The practice of presenting such petitions to the House may

serve to bring public attention to an issue, but the House simply moves them

forward, the petitions after it is presented.

Yesterday, I understand that a member discussed, on an Open Line show, a

point of order that had been raised respecting his May 31 presentation of a

petition. During that discussion, the member indicated that only three

signatures were required on a petition to be presented to the House. Upon

reviewing the transcript of that talk show and that discussion that had taken

place, I have extracted a quote from that text. "I have collected thousands of

signatures on petitions over the last three months and the only requirement of

the legislature is that I present three signatures...."

I would not want members or the public - to think it is possible to

separate pages of signatures such that one petition can be presented to this

House many times. A citizen signing a petition which, for example, may have

1,000 signatures, there is an expectation that that petition be presented in its

entirety. If a member were to separate signature pages in this fashion so that

one petition miraculously becomes twenty or thirty petitions, I want members to

fully understand and to know that I would consider such a practice to be

dishonourable and unworthy of members of this House.

In light of the point of order raised on Monday, and the member's comments on

the Open Line show yesterday, I have decided to strictly apply our Standing

Orders respecting petitions. Standing Orders 91 and 92 speak of signatures on

petitions. I made the comment early about the origin of our current Standing

Orders dating back to the 1920s. Of course, these Standing Orders were written

long before photocopiers, fax machines, electronic signatures, PDF files, et

cetera. Nevertheless, it is my view it clearly establishes the need for original

inked signatures. Accordingly, I will require in the future, that all signatures

be original, no electronic signatures, photocopies, faxes or PDF files. This

will not present a hardship for members, as all it will mean is that the

petition will now be delayed by a day or two, whatever time it takes for the

mail to deliver the petition to the member who is presenting it. Upon reflection

of the petitions that have been presented in this House, the issues that are

commonly brought to the House by petition are not time-sensitive, so a delay of

a day or two will not make a significant difference.

The other matter respecting petitions follows from Speaker Fitzgerald's

ruling which required that all petitions be vetted by the Clerk and Clerk

Assistant before they are presented to the House. I am going to extend that

ruling further. We will now require that petitions be certified, not merely

vetted, which is outlined, actually, in our current Standing Orders under

Practice Recommendation 3(

b) in the Appendix to our Standing Orders. That

certification will require that the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant place their

initials, in ink, at the start of the line containing the prayer of the petition

and on each sheet of signatures, which have to be originals. This must occur by

12:00 noon of each sitting day.

The certification will confirm for the member and this House that the

petition is in order and suitable for presentation to the House. As the Speaker,

I will then know that each member have acceptable petitions according to our

Standing Orders and my rulings and I will be able to recognize members

accordingly as they stand in routine proceedings. This will avoid which

happens on occasion instances where the Speaker calls upon a member who has

not vetted their petition with the Clerk or the Clerk Assistance, contrary to

the early ruling of Speaker Fitzgerald.

Neither of these measures will impair the ability of members to present

legitimate petitions to the House. They simply ensure that certain reasonable

standards are maintained and that the integrity and this is a critical piece

the integrity of the whole practice of petitioning is maintained.

In conclusion, petitions are an important element of the democratic process

and their use and integrity will be safeguarded in this House. These two new

measures will be implemented, beginning tomorrow, to ensure this, once again:

Only original signatures will be accepted on petitions, and petitions must be

certified by the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant by 12:00 noon each sitting day.

I ask members in future, in presenting petitions, that they be guided by this

ruling. One thing that is extremely important I give a brief history here

because it is important to understand the benefit of petitions and their place

in a democratic society, but at the same time the onus is on us, as members, to

protect the integrity of that process and to not manipulate it for what might be

some political gain.

I ask members to be guided by my ruling, and we will start enforcing it

tomorrow.

Statements by Members

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

the District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The

Straits White Bay North; the Member for the District of St. John's East; the

Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of

Humber Valley; and the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

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

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

I rise today to salute a group of dedicated volunteers who are making a huge

difference in a corner of my district.

The Cavell Park Community Garden has just launched its first year of

operation. Conceived by writer-actor-clown Sara Tilley, the garden is in a

previously unused

section of Cavell Park, off Quidi Vidi Road.

Sara enjoys growing her own vegetables and wanted to share that pride with

her neighbourhood. She spoke to people at the City of St. John's, who offered

their unqualified support. The Community Garden is launching with twenty-five

full-sized raised garden beds, plus four table beds designed for people with

mobility issues, and three small beds sized for children. I note that the beds

are all raised because of the pollution of soil in the downtown of St. John's.

Sara and her group held bottle drives and other fundraisers throughout the

district. With the money they raised, and support from local businesses, they

got the garden ready to go.

A volunteer board of directors manages the garden. They are Steven Watt,

Nissa Hildebrand, Jen Troiani, Sarah Burchell, Dan Ficken, Jonathan LeDrew, and

Sara Tilley herself.

I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing the Cavell Park Community Garden

all the best in this, their inaugural year. I invite anybody who lives in Signal

Hill Quidi Vidi to get in touch with them with regard to using the community

garden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate two individuals from

Canon Richards Memorial Academy in Flower's Cove. Student Tony Lavallee and

teacher Tony Power were honoured at last Friday's School Sports Newfoundland and

Labrador Awards Banquet.

Tony Lavallee was named the Province's Male Student-Athlete of the Year. Tony

has represented Canon Richards in ball hockey, softball, volleyball, badminton,

cross-country running, basketball, and table tennis. He went to nine provincial

tournaments during high school. This year, his teams won the provincial

volleyball championship and placed second in ball hockey. Tony is also

provincial singles and doubles badminton champ.

Teacher and coach Tony Power was runner-up for the provincial Coach of the

Year Award. He also received the Northern Peninsula region's regional

recognition award, presented annually to an individual in each of the eleven

Sports Newfoundland and Labrador regions who has made major contributions to

sport at the regional level.

Mr. Speaker, that two such outstanding individuals can be recognized from one

school says a great deal to me about the culture of commitment and excellence at

Canon Richards Memorial Academy.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Tony Lavallee and Tony

Power.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to recognize and congratulate the students from

Gonzaga High School who recently returned from the WorldStride Heritage Music

Festival in New York.

The bands and choirs from Gonzaga excelled in the competition, and I would

like to list some of the awards: the Girls Choir and Chamber Choir won Silver

Award Plaques; the Concert and Jazz Bands won Gold Award Plaques; the Concert

Band won Outstanding Band Group Trophies for their category; the Concert and

Jazz Bands won the Instrumental Sweepstakes Trophy and one of five Adjudicators

Award Trophies; and, for the third year in a row, Gonzaga High School was

awarded the Festival Sweepstakes Awards Trophy; quite an accomplishment.

I should also mention the Avalon East District Band, which also won a Gold

Award Plaque, Outstanding Band Group Trophy, and an Adjudicators Award Trophy as

well.

The trip, of course, would not have been possible without the teacher and

parent volunteers who accompanied their students to New York. Special thanks and

congratulations are in order for teachers Doug Vaughan and Sheila Ryan. With

such people involved in our schools, it is easy to see why our Province's music

education program is envied by people across the country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Madonna

Wilkinson of Flatrock, who recently received the Volunteer Recreation

Recognition Award.

Mr. Speaker, I have known Madonna my whole life and she has always freely

given her time, her talent, and her energy to various community and church-based

organizations in our area.

I can attest that if there is something on the go in Flatrock whether it is

a community function, clean up or church service Madonna Wilkinson is there

offering her full support either to organize or to lend a helping hand. She is

also the lead organizer in community events such as the Terry Fox Run,

Remembrance Day Memorial Service, and the Canada Day Memorial Service.

Mr. Speaker, Madonna is a talented singer, dancer, and accordion player. She

often provides the entertainment at many events and functions that she helps

organize. She was even enlisted by a local group, Shanneyganock, to sign on

their recent album. The song she sings is McNamara's Band , and it is a

great song.

Mr. Speaker, Madonna Wilkinson is an outstanding volunteer and she is also an

outstanding person. I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in

congratulating Madonna on receiving her award for the Volunteer Recreation

Recognition Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in his hon. House to acknowledge a

shining example of youth engagement in the City of Mount Pearl.

The Mount Pearl Youth Action Team was formed in 2005 to be a voice for youth

in the community. Since that time, this group has been engaged in numerous

community activities such as the organization of Youth Week activities,

participation in the Frosty Festival and Mount Pearl City Days celebrations,

organization of community food drives, and facilitation of public speaking

events, just to name a few.

The group's membership is comprised of youth from the city's two junior high

and high schools. These young men and women are true role models and should

remind us all of the valuable contribution youth have to offer to our Province.

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

Mount Pearl Youth Action Team for their significant contribution to the

community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to commend Mr. Frank Dyke on the occasion of

his ninetieth birthday and also on the launch of his book: To be Frank -

Memories of an Extraordinary Life.

Mr. Dyke is a World War II veteran who was born in Port Union, Trinity Bay on

June 9, 1922 and he moved to Reidville where he retired in the 1990s. His book

is a life story depicting his personal and family experiences during the war and

afterward.

Mr. Speaker, every day, seniors in our Province are working, learning new

skills, volunteering their time, and writing life stories. Their wisdom, skills,

and abilities are evident throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Dyke is

a great example of a senior who has contributed tremendously to our Province's

history both through his writings and his dedication of service during war

time.

Unselfish and noble actions are the notable hallmarks of a great life. To

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

Mr. Dyke both on his book launch and on the celebration of his ninetieth

birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House during Environment

Week, June 3-9, to recognize the accomplishments of a number of environmental

leaders for their dedication and efforts. The Environmental Awards Program is an

annual celebration of environmental achievements in our Province and raises

awareness of the individuals, groups, and businesses that are taking action to

protect and sustain our environment. It is a joint initiative sponsored by the

Department of Environment and Conservation, the Multi-Materials Stewardship

Board, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes.

I had the pleasure earlier today, Mr. Speaker, of joining the awards

recipients at a ceremony to recognize their outstanding environmental and

conservation achievements. Mr. Speaker, the winners of the Environmental Awards

for 2012 in each category are as follows: Philip Gavell, Conception Bay South

Individual Category; Conservation Corps Newfoundland and Labrador Community

Group or Organization Category; Bishops College, St. John's Youth, Youth Group

for School Category; Curb It Recycling Program, the City of St. John's

Municipality or Regional Waste Management Committee Category; and, Scotia

Centre, St. John's Business or Industry Leader Category.

In addition to being celebrated at the awards ceremony, Mr. Speaker, each of

the winners also received at $1,000 honorarium from the MMSB to go towards

furthering their own environmental projects or to donate to an environmental

cause of their choice.

These men and women are environmental ambassadors for our Province and they

have demonstrated tremendous ingenuity and determination, along with an

impressive passion for our environment. We are all responsible for the

environment in our Province, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is so important to

recognize their great accomplishments and encourage others to follow their

example.

Mr. Speaker, a healthy and sustainable environment yields healthy people, a

stronger economy, more vibrant communities, and a legacy for which we can be

proud. We will continue to raise awareness about sustaining our Province for

generations to come, not only during Environment Week but every week of the

year.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of the statement. I, too, would

like to congratulate all of the award winners for the prestigious awards that

they received.

Also, as we all know, Environment Week as the minister mentioned it is

not just these groups that are involved with the environment, it is all groups

across Newfoundland and Labrador, and all individuals; it is becoming an

individual issue throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The Multi-Stewardship

Board is also a major component of environment conservation across the Province

and they also must be recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention also, I notice all of the

winners are from St. John's again. I am not sure, but I must say there are a lot

of environmental initiatives on the West Coast. I see the Minister of Finance

agreeing, that we have a lot of great environmental initiatives on the go on the

West Coast, and I am sure some of them deserve some recognition across the

Province and Labrador. I just want to thank all of them for all their hard work

also out on the West Coast. I know Memorial University has one, the MUN Campus

has one, I know there is a community garden one out in

AN HON. MEMBER: The Centre for Environmental Excellence.

MR. JOYCE: The Centre for Environmental Excellence out on the West Coast.

I just ask the minister, that we include all the Province. Also, as we know, if

there is any way we can get the glass containers recycled, I say to the

minister. I know it is a hard issue, but that is something we are trying, even a

bit more across the Province to help out our environment.

As we noticed, Mr. Speaker, in this 2012 Budget by the federal government, by

Harper, we have to be more vigilant as a Province to ensure that our environment

is safe, and the regulations are kept up to standards that we all can live and

have a safe environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement.

I would also like to thank the award winners this year for their continuing

efforts to protect and enhance the environment. The award winners today

represent a dichotomy of the population and signify a strong awareness and

message as to the importance of environment in people's minds these days. Some

years ago it would have been almost unheard of to hear the involvement of

business, for example, in the environmental message, but that has thankfully

been changing over the last few years.

I would also like to thank those who were nominated and recognize them for

all their efforts, and remind them they have not gone unnoticed and their

efforts unrewarded.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Costs are rising at the Muskrat Falls project, and the CEO of Emera stated

yesterday that the $1.2 billion is still accurate for the Maritime Link.

Currently, under the term sheet, Emera is guaranteed 20 per cent of Muskrat

power for a 20 per cent investment into the project.

I ask the minister: Would not this now mean that Emera is paying less than 20

per cent of the project costs, and if so, will they still receive 20 per cent of

the power?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We obviously have to wait until we get our Decision Gate 3 numbers to know

what the cost will be in terms of the generating station and the Labrador-Island

Link. I can assure the member opposite though that if there is a cost overrun in

terms of what Emera should share, then they will share that. It will not simply

be a matter of the Province taking on all of the overruns in relation to the

link; I can assure the Opposition Leader of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Now, I would just like to go back to the minister. This is not

about the overruns; this is about at sanction time.

At sanction time, if it is less than 20 per cent for the Maritime Link, will

they still get 20 per cent of the project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did misunderstand the question

somewhat.

Essentially, what will happen is the agreement that is in place will be the

agreement that is followed, Mr. Speaker. What I was talking about is not the

overruns that we would know about in the Decision Gate 3 numbers prior to

sanction. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the cost of the Maritime Link or it

comes to the cost of the Labrador-Island Link, we will look at all of those. I

can assure the member opposite that the term sheet will be complied with. The

plan is to provide Emera for 20 per cent of the power, but again for the cost

that has already been agreed upon, and again proportionate to extra cost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The promise of a federal loan guarantee is based upon a $6.2 billion project.

I ask the minister: Have any discussions taken place with the federal

government to ensure this promise would still apply if the project goes to $8

billion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Discussions with the federal government and Nova Scotia are ongoing on almost

a weekly basis as to the finalizing of the federal loan guarantee. Mr. Speaker,

I think one thing that has to be looked at is the $6.2 billion we talk about

does not include any of the impacts of the federal loan guarantee. The federal

loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, could result in a percentage reduction of 2 per

cent to 3 per cent and could save anywhere from $600 million to $900 million on

the project cost. The costs are still fluid.

As we move along, Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee would be for the $6.2

billion we are talking about now, but that could reduce costs and ensure that

ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador pay fair and reasonable electricity

rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not hear that it would be adjusted to the $8 billion. If the minister

wants to clarify that next he can.

Mr. Speaker, back in January, after missing two deadlines, we were told that

the finalized commercial arrangements between Emera and Nalcor would be coming

soon. In April, Nalcor stated that it was just inches away.

I ask the minister: The last missed deadline was over four months ago, and

now it is two months since we were just inches away, so what is causing this

ongoing delay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is the number of agreements that have to be put in place and the

complexity of the agreements which require lawyers being involved, which require

extensive meetings between Emera and Nalcor. I think the Premier indicated when

we met with Premier Dexter, Mr. Huskilson, and Mr. Martin about a month or two

ago that the Emera agreements were very close.

Even after the agreements are signed, there is a due-diligence period that

has to be applied. That is where the matter stands, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the

member opposite that the term sheet and the agreements are very close to being

finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, we asked the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency

if he had any discussions with a group known as CLAC; that stands for the

Christian Labour Association of Canada.

I now ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Have you or any of your

officials or Nalcor had any conversations with this group regarding work on the

Muskrat Falls Project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who this group is. I can

tell the member opposite that I did meet with the Resource Development Council

at one point, who represents the sixteen unions that are generally present at

these special projects. I had a general discussion with the individuals involved

as to the labour situation in the Province, as to the need to get our

apprentices into the workplace, Mr. Speaker. As far as this CLAC, I have no idea

who they are, and I can assure the member opposite I certainly have not had any

conversations with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nalcor made a submission to the Oakley review on the Special Project Orders,

arguing for an open-shop approach. However, Mr. Oakley concluded that the

current model provides sufficient flexibility.

I ask the minister: Why does Nalcor want to change the Special Project

Orders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is going

with this. Mr. Oakley did a review. Everybody was welcome to the review; not

only were they welcome to the review at the initial stages, after Mr. Oakley

drew up his report they were also told what the report was and advised that they

could submit some more recommendations or comment on Mr. Oakley's report.

I do not know where the hon. member is coming from. There were many people

who presented, Mr. Speaker. Nalcor, of course, presented to Mr. Oakley; so did

Emera; so did the RDC, the council of unions in this Province; so did Vale; so

did the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; so did the Employers'

Council; so did Hebron; so did CLRA. Mr. Speaker, wherever his source is coming

from, I suggest he take him to the wood shed and give him a good clack.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, notice has been given for Bill 29,

An Act To

Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Are you prepared to arrange a briefing for us

on this bill before it is called for debate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, briefing schedules, as I understand it, are

arranged between the House Leaders. The notice has been given, but with respect

to a future briefing, I have no information or explanation on this as yet, Mr.

Speaker. Ordinarily, briefings have been given all along. With respect to this

particular bill, I cannot make a comment.

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report on the College of the

North Atlantic's daycare referenced obvious moisture problems, including bubbled

paint, water stains, and damaged ceiling tiles. For years now the response has

been to replace damaged ceiling tiles.

I ask the minister: How has the response to water damage all these years been

ceiling tile replacement and not an air quality inspection, given the well known

links of excess moisture to mould growth, as well as the continual admission of

these children to hospital?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to answer this question in my capacity,

because the daycare centre we are talking about is located within the College of

the North Atlantic. On a more global perspective, and from government in general

and I know this from former portfolios as well, Mr. Speaker we have done an

incredible amount of work to ensure that the environments, in particular the

environments we have for the children in this Province, whether through daycare

or through our schools, are brought up to the safest standard as possible. This

government has spent millions and millions of dollars to ensure that the

environments which are considered learning environments for our children are

safe environments. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the daycare at the College of

the North Atlantic, we provide no other standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the air quality report is dated May 8, yet

the daycare was not closed until May 28.

You have said government deals with issues it has to deal with. I ask the

minister: How do we account for a three-week delay in response when children's

health is at risk?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, when information is collected on any buildings

that indicate there is a safety concern, due diligence is done, analyses are

done, and maybe subsequent testing is done. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon.

member, if at any time it comes to my attention as the minister that we do have

an unsafe environment, we have absolutely no worries or no concerns that the

appropriate action will be taken at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, children in Charlottetown have been taught in a gymnasium for

months now, since the school was closed for mould. We are thirteen weeks away

from the next school season and we know that the Department of Education and the

minister have been looking at some options for the students in this school.

I would like to ask him today: What is the plan for September to ensure these

children have a suitable classroom space?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I have to do is commend the parent community and the student

community in Charlottetown, because they have worked closely with us.

Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting held in the community last night, a very

positive meeting, is my understanding. We are looking at putting in temporary

classrooms for this September. The community has asked us to consider something

in conjunction with Municipal Affairs, and I will tell the member I did, indeed,

meet with the minister and two of his officials this morning to see if we can

accommodate their request. We will do everything that we can to support the

school and this entire community. Mr. Speaker, we are moving ahead with having

something in place for the coming school year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister when we can expect to see a decision on

whether they are going to replace this school, look at remediation, or what the

case is going to be I guess the longer term solution for the children in the

community.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have to go through, I suppose, the rigmarole

at arriving at a final decision. I will tell the member that Thursday before

last I met with the CEO of the Western District, met with him again last week,

met with him and spoke with him in a teleconference this morning, to find a way

forward.

I cannot give her an exact date, Mr. Speaker, but I know the community, the

member, are all looking for that final answer. I will give it to them as soon as

I possibly can and we are working on it as quickly as we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few days ago I asked about the closure of the licensed practical nurse

program at three campuses and cuts in seats at three others, as was outlined in

the LPN workforce model report. Mr. Speaker, the minister did not give me any

answer at that time, so I ask again if they can confirm now the number of

programs and the number of seats for licensed practical nurses that will be

eliminated at the College of the North Atlantic come September.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Department of

Health and Community Services has done an extensive analysis on the need for LPN

education in this Province, and has certainly looked at the sites and the number

of seats that we would need at each site. The College of the North Atlantic has

that information under active review and the college will, I guess, be in a

position to indicate how many seats and at what locations they will be offering

the program in September. At this time, that review has not been finalized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of the report here and the analysis that was done. We are only

three months away from the enrolment season of the College of the North Atlantic

and we know what the recommended cuts are here. This was done in consultation

with the minister's department, the Department of Health, the college, the

College of the LPNs, and some of the health authorities.

I ask the minister why it is taking so long to disclose the information and

when can we expect to find out what the plan is for September.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this is not about the disclosure of information.

It is about the final decision of the College of the North Atlantic of how many

seats they feel are appropriate and at what sites, Mr. Speaker. So it is not

that we are not disclosing the information. The analysis is done, the

information is in the hands of the college, and they will do due diligence to

determine how they will offer that program in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister stated that the reason

he was going to destroy an access road near Parson's Pond was for conservation

to protect the moose and caribou population in the area. The environmental

assessment submitted by Nalcor in 2010 raises no concern for moose and clearly

shows that the caribou herd is at least five kilometres from the road.

I ask the minister: What is the real reason you insist on destroying this

valuable public infrastructure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is coming

from on this. We take advice on the removal of roads that are built for industry

or for cutting wood and so on from our Wildlife Division, Mr. Speaker, and our

expert at SDSS. So, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor would certainly not influence the

decision as a developer of the conservation measures of the Department of

Environment and Conservation.

Mr. Speaker, this was something that was done because of advice I had taken

from biologists with our Wildlife Division a very educated, concerned group.

As the hon. member was concerned a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, but I guess he

has changed hats a little bit. Now he is not so concerned about the caribou or

the moose populations in this area.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: I ask if the minister will table this information he says he

has from wildlife that he just referred to.

Mr. Speaker, the Parson's Pond Road is being destroyed because Nalcor claims

to have failed to have found oil. If Nalcor had been successful, the road would

have remained. So, conservation is not an issue.

How can the minister tell the people of this Province that he insists on

throwing away more public money to cover up this road than he would if oil had

been discovered and he left it there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member to do his research and go and read

the EA, Mr. Speaker. It is all laid out there, all the residents of the area,

all the people of the Province, had the ability to comment on this all the way

along, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing something for the right reasons. It would be very easy for me,

Mr. Speaker, to stand here today and do a political thing and say, yes, we will

leave the road alone. Mr. Speaker, on times, this is a government that stands

for the right thing. Whether you are the Premier, whether you are the Cabinet,

or whether you are the caucus, Mr. Speaker, we are standing for the right thing

on this one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, when this government believed that the federal

government was not living up to their responsibility to manage inland fisheries,

this Province organized its own Inland Fish Enforcement division to supplement

federal efforts. Now the federal government is cutting five or six DFO offices

in the Province, gutting enforcement by fisheries officers and river guardians.

I ask the minister: Is government planning to staff up its own Inland

Enforcement division in response to these office closures?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is responsible for

the Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife but not for DFO. It is a federal

matter, what the federal government is doing there. We are obviously going to

look at our own initiatives and our own responsibilities here to see how they

are impacted. At this stage, we have no comment to make on the cuts of the

federal government with respect to how it affects the impacts on wildlife in the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, without strong, obvious, and vigorous

enforcement on the part of Inland Enforcement, it will take no time before the

last salmon in the Province is taken by a poacher now that DFO is withdrawing

their support. This would decimate the outfitter industry of the Province and

wipe out our sports fishing activity.

What actions will this government take to control poaching on our rivers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

A little over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, we merged the Wildlife and Inland Fish

Division and created a very effective division to protect our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the results we are getting and the impact that

group is having.

With respect to the cuts the member speaks about in DFO, Mr. Speaker, if

there are impacts on the natural resources of this Province, and impacts on our

Division of Inland Fish and Wildlife, we will have a look at it and see what is

going on. In terms of making any plans or arrangements at this point in time to

accommodate any impacts of the federal government cuts, Mr. Speaker, we are not

at that stage yet.

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

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

In the media yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources said that

government had outlined their framework for assistance with Kruger should the

company and the unions make a deal. The minister further said that government

would not make this plan public at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has he informed union

leaders of this plan or has he sent Kruger to the table with an unfair

bargaining advantage?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the member opposite, I have spoken to the union leaders.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I would like to point out to the Minister of Natural Resources that he has no

idea of what I do and what I do not do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper workers, their

families, and the thousands of other workers who rely on the mill directly or

indirectly are very worried about their future. Yesterday, government seemed to

take offence at our questions regarding how government is handling this crisis.

Mr. Speaker, voicing the concerns of people is not grandstanding, it is our

duty.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When is government going to meet

with the union to outline the framework with them as they have with the company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I indicated to the unions in my meetings with them that the framework would

involve offering reasonable support. It would not involve subsidies and it would

involve the power asset.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a role for government to play in the current crisis at Corner Brook

Pulp and Paper. Workers are fearful and distrustful of Kruger's commitment to

maintaining the pension plan already in place.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What will government do to ensure

that current and former Corner Brook Pulp and Paper workers do not lose any

future pension benefits?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Negotiations are ongoing. The president of the union indicated today they are

happy with that. We have four MHAs, two in the Opposition and two on the

government side, Mr. Speaker, whose friends, family and colleagues are concerned

about this. We will continue to monitor the situation, Mr. Speaker, and if an

agreement is reached, we will be there to help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources said

unions do not want government to impose themselves in the union negotiations,

nor does the owner. I say to the minister that holding Kruger to its legislative

responsibilities regarding pensions for workers in this Province is not

interfering in negotiations.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Will he step up for the workers in

Corner Brook and show them concrete proof of his support to them in their

struggle over pensions with the Kruger company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matters that are facing the people of Corner Brook are very critical. I

can assure you and I can assure the people of Corner Brook and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we will continue to support their efforts to

reach an agreement between the workers and the company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the House we are going to be

debating a government motion on an east-west power grid which has been a policy

of the New Democratic Party for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Is this motion here

today because government cannot get a deal with Emera to supply electrical

power?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This motion arises as a result of recent discussions of a national energy

plan. Our position is quite simple, Mr. Speaker, you cannot have a national

energy plan when you have one province blocking another. In order for there to

be a national energy plan, there has to be a rectifying of the historical

inequity which exists between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if Kruger shuts its paper mill in Corner Brook, the effects of

the closure will reverberate across the Province. Everyone in the Province will

feel its effect. For example, sawmills will lose their market for biomass, which

has helped many of them survive through a tough industry. Government has failed

to develop local markets for industrial wood pellets and has failed to assist in

opening foreign markets.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What is

government's plan to address this troubled industry for long-term

sustainability?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as the members of the Official Opposition

are saying, perhaps they should talk to the unions. We as a government are doing

everything we can, Mr. Speaker. We are all, as I indicated yesterday, trying to

transcend political boundaries here and deal with a situation that affects not

only the people of Western Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, but the

people of this Province. This is not about political grandstanding on our part;

this is about an attempt to find a solution to save a very valuable part of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to the minister's statement yesterday in the House, ISO, FSC, and

CSA certification is not a chicken-and-egg situation. First comes certification,

then industry can grow globally. So, Mr. Speaker, this is what Abitibi and

Kruger understood. They achieved this and these international certifications.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why can he not

understand this and move forward with the development of our stagnant industry

by certifying part of Crown lands?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have invested or helped, Mr. Speaker, provide money of up to $10 million

for the plant in Roddickton; we have allowed for another $1 million for the

Northern Peninsula up to $1 million for the harvesting of wood. We are doing

our best that we can to try to ensure that the forest industry in this Province

continues, and we are going to try first and foremost to save the mill in Corner

Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, certification is certainly needed to

advance the industry. The Province administers the federal Growing Forward

program, which is designed to meet unique challenges facing developing

agricultural industry, yet government cut the legal land survey program, which

closes the door for people in the agriculture industry who want to access this

funding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why cancel a program

useful to new entrants who want to access funding from other programs in your

department to grow the agrifoods industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Growing Forward program, Mr. Speaker, has injected more than $27 million

into the agriculture and agrifoods industry in this Province. What we have to do

is ensure sustainability. We have to look at supply, Mr. Speaker. We are doing

that, and we will be moving forward, hopefully with Growing Forward, too, at the

federal-provincial-territorial meetings in the Yukon in September.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, in the public consultations for the Strategy for

the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities, we heard about the need for better

home support services so more people with disabilities can live and work in the

community. The final strategy only talks about disability-related supports with

no commitment to provide more home supports for independent living.

I ask the minister: How does she intend to ensure that the disability

strategy will improve home supports so that people with disabilities can live

independently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Disability Policy Office certainly did an extensive consultation across

the Province. We would like to see this Province emerge as a Province that

includes people, everyone in our Province, including people with disabilities.

If there are any specific government programs that can be enhanced or will be

enhanced on a go-forward basis, that will certainly be done by individual

departments as opposed to the Disability Policy Office, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities should have the right to

live in the community with the appropriate supports. Adults with disabilities

should have the right to live independently outside their parent's homes.

I ask the minister: Will the disability strategy ensure that every person

with disabilities has access to supported independent living?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our inclusion strategy certainly lays out a framework, and we do agree and

feel that everyone should be included in their community, Mr. Speaker. Again,

the Disability Policy Office will assist government to make decisions and help

guide our policies; however, we will not be responsible for direct program

delivery as suggested by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked a question about whether the POMAX study was going to be

ready. This is June 6; I would like to ask the minister if the POMAX study is

ready to be made public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Soon, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Cannot wait to get it.

Mr. Speaker, scientists are predicting that the Atlantic hurricane season

will see between nine to fifteen storms this season. There is a very real

possibility that one of these dangerous storms may affect Newfoundland and

Labrador region again.

What preparations and protocols are being put in place in the event of a

storm hitting the Province with impacts like Igor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: We track a storm as it is being formed, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the problems with Igor were problems with water runoff that caused so

much damage to road networks in the Province, particularly in the Burin and

Bonavista Peninsulas. One thing that some municipalities have suggested was

upgrading an enlargement of the culvert system along certain roadways.

Does the minister have confidence that the repairs it carried out will be

able to handle the effects from a storm such as the category of Igor again?

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: He is getting good. I will keep them coming.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities were asked to pass in emergency plans to the

Province by the end of May month. Can the minister tell the House and the people

of the Province what kind of response he received to the initiative and what

communities have been left out?

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

MR. O'BRIEN: An excellent response, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I asked the Minister of

Justice whether he would table the peer review of the psyche services at HMP

before this session of the House closes, and he replied: I never said at

Estimates we would table the report of the review.

However, he did say in Estimates: It is difficult to put a timeline on it but

we would like to get it to you as soon as we can.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice again, whether he will table the

report of this peer review before this session of the House closes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, I cannot make a

commitment at this stage of the game if we will table the full report. It is a

very sensitive report. Peer reviews are not ordinarily made public.

Mr. Speaker, if there are recommendation in that review, then obviously they

would become public; but, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the timeline in receiving

that report, my answer is the same: We should have it very soon.

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act.

(Bill 33)

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The

Province. (Bill 36)

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

Act To Amend The Municipalities Affairs Act. (Bill 35)

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation,

Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act To

Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, No. 2. (Bill 38)

Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 16, the Member for St. Barbe tabled a question

in the House of Assembly requesting a detailed account of the activities of the

Fish Processing Licensing Board for the last two years; Mr. Speaker, I am more

than pleased to provide information here today.

As a category 3 entity under the Transparency and Accountability Act, the

Fish Processing Licensing Board is required to produce yearly activity reports.

These activity reports and activity plans for the board are also published on

the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's Web site. Mr. Speaker, the 2011

Fish Processing Licensing Board Activity Report will be tabled in this House of

Assembly by June 29, 2012. At that time, it will be available for public release

and the hon. member will certainly be provided with a copy.

The mandate of the Fish Processing Licensing Board is to make recommendations

on all fish processing licensing proposals or requests made to the provincial

government. Only the routine renewal of fish processing licenses is exempt from

this process. In keeping with its mandate, the board's main objectives are to

assess and make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

regarding: first, licensing applications including applications for new

licences, change of operator and the consolidation and transfer of fish

processing licences; secondly, applications for the addition of new species to

existing fish processing licences, and where appropriate recommendations

regarding licences on a regional basis; third, corporate concentration, merger

and acquisition issues in the context of fish processing licensing matters; and

fourth, appeals to reinstate licences which have been cancelled as a result of

not meeting productivity activity requirements.

The Fish Processing Licensing Board, Mr. Speaker, is responsible for

reviewing and assessing all licence proposals or requests made to the provincial

government in accordance with the Fish Processing Licensing Board Act. To ensure

that interested members of the public have the opportunity to provide comments

to the board with respect to applications they have received, applicants must

advertise their intentions in both a generally circulated and a regional

newspaper.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture's Licensing and Quality Assurance

Division serves as a secretariat to the board. The duties and responsibilities

of the secretariat include but are not limited to: administrative functions, the

review of all applications, and the provision of background and other relevant

information to the board for use in its deliberations. Copies of all proposals

and requests submitted to the board are also provided to the minister.

The department's Fish Processing Licensing Policy Manual also guides the

board in making its recommendations. The record of recommendation is signed by

the chairperson or vice-chairperson of the board and then submitted to the

minister through the secretariat for review and for the rendering of a final

decision on licensing applications. The board's recommendations to the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture on all fish processing licensing proposals or

requests are made public, Mr. Speaker, as are the final decisions of the

minister.

To ensure equity and impartiality, all board members are appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Members of the board are selected with a

consideration of gender balance and regional distribution. Members are expected

to have a general knowledge of, but not a vested interested in, the fishing

industry.

During 2011, the terms of appointment for three of the board members expired,

Mr. Speaker. The outgoing board members were David Bonnell, Ida Powell, and

Shirley Shea. Prior to the expiration, the board was comprised of Ted Lewis as

chairperson, Mr. Bonnell as the vice-chairperson, Ms Ida Powell, Ms Shirley

Shea, and Mr. David Woodman. Returning board members include Ted Lewis as

chairperson and Mr. Bonnell as the vice-chairperson, and they have been joined

by three new members, Mr. Speaker. They include Clarence Brown, Violet Parsons,

and Clayton Welsh.

Mr. Speaker, the board supports our belief that decisions regarding fish

processing licences should be based on solid evaluation, not on politics.

Previous governments, unfortunately, have added to the overcapacity currently

present in the industry by not following that philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present this information today. I look

forward to later in the month when the Activity Report of the Fish Processing

Licensing Board is released publicly, highlighting their important work in 2011.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Given this is Wednesday and Private Members' Day, the motion

is to be debated starting at 3:00 o'clock. We have twenty seconds left before

then. I suggest we move on to the Orders of the Day and debate the private

member's motion that rests in the name of the Member for Port de Grave.

I ask him to stand and introduce his motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following resolution on East-West

electricity corridors:

WHEREAS the federal government has tremendous power and leverage to lower

barriers between provinces and forge a path toward fairness and true community;

and

WHEREAS Quebec has frustrated Newfoundland and Labrador's attempts to wheel

electricity fairly through that Province; and

WHEREAS Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his colleagues have committed to

provide a loan guarantee or equivalent financial support to the Muskrat Falls

Project, which includes a sub-sea transmission link to the Maritimes, because it

has national or regional importance, it has economic and financial merit, and it

will significantly reduce greenhouse gases; and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister, in announcing funding for Ontario under the eco

Trust on March 6, 2007, said that province could choose to use its funding to

advance construction of "an East-West electrical transmission interconnect with

Manitoba, allowing for the importation of clean hydroelectric power"; and

WHEREAS on September 16, 2009, the Prime Minister announced funding for the

construction of the Northwest Transmission Line in northern British Columbia and

the prospect of connecting the line to Alaska; and

WHEREAS the opening of Canadian East-West energy corridors will give

provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within Canada, create

economic opportunity, and strengthen the country;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urges all governments in

Canada to co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity

transmission corridors within Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has moved it, it is seconded by

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for St. John's West, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to start today by saying it is a great honour to

stand here today and present this resolution to discuss the opportunity for

East-West transmission of electricity across the country.

Mr. Speaker, myself personally, my generation has grown up with this debate.

Be it one way or another, every Premier since I know I was in elementary school

I can start out with the late Premier Smallwood; he tried it, he got a deal

for Churchill. The next time, it was Mr. Moores; he fought it. After Mr. Moores

was Mr. Peckford, he took it to the Supreme Court. After Mr. Peckford it was Mr.

Wells, he had a go at it, then Premier Tobin, and, Mr. Speaker, right up until

the last Premier, our former Premier, Premier Williams. Premier Williams, in

June, 2010, made a speech; he made a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa, and

if I may, I would like to just read a couple of things out of it.

In the speech he talked about our Province has had a long-standing issue with

Quebec. It is about one of the province's actions purposely working to deny

economic progression of the whole of Eastern Canada, and that most definitely

includes Ontario. Mr. Speaker, once again, he was referring to the fact that for

all these years, for my fifty years, I would nearly say, or forty years, former

Premier Williams was referring to the fact that Newfoundland and Labrador, no

matter by what means, has still not been able to transmit their potential

hydroelectric power through Quebec successfully.

So, Mr. Speaker, they had one more try at it. Nalcor and our Province went to

the Rgie. The Rgie basically is a regulatory body, much like our Public

Utility Board, if I understand it correctly. So they took it to the Rgie.

Normally if someone takes a case to the Rgie and wants a decision, it is

normally nine months nine months, Mr. Speaker. In our case, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador has endured a four-year four-year application

process in Quebec, a process, Mr. Speaker, that normally would take nine months.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is fair. We have made our arguments for years

that we have a great resource, but we can have all the great resource in the

world, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get it to market. Because of the lack of a

transmission line across this country, Mr. Speaker, and because of our lack of

being able to get an agreement in specifically with the Province of Quebec, we

have been stymied, literally stymied, in our attempts to do this.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday I read with some interest an

article in The

Globe and Mail . It is an

article from excuse me if I do not do justice

to this gentleman's name John Ibbitson. He had an

article called: National

energy plan near impossible but worth the effort. In this

article the author

talks about the relationships that exist across the country, good and bad some

good, some bad. He particularly, Mr. Speaker, talks about the recent meeting of

the Western Premiers, and he talks about the fact that "Alberta Premier Alison

Redford got the other Western premiers to agree last week to seek a common

strategy for harnessing and delivering energy across the country."

Mr. Speaker, we need the same agreement, but then he references, and I quote

once again, the relationship between "Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador are

one step short of open hostilities". He goes on to talk about various

relationships with various provinces. The eco Trust, as I just referenced in our

resolution, Mr. Speaker, allows transmission and an agreement between Manitoba

and Ontario. Manitoba and Ontario now, Manitoba is able to ship clean energy to

Ontario to help Ontario who is suffering and need the energy, Mr. Speaker. We

always hear tell of the concern the Ontario government has, particularly during

the summertime and peak periods in the summertime when all the air conditioners

are on, the humidity is on bust. What happens, Mr. Speaker? They do not know if

they have the power they do not know if they have the power.

He also, Mr. Speaker, talks about interests and that we have a history in

this country of provinces and territories only serving their own interests. Mr.

Speaker, I think that can be argued and that has been going on for years.

Particularly in our relationship with the Province of Quebec, it has been in

their interest, Mr. Speaker, that we not be able to have a corridor through for

power. Mr. Speaker, he talks about that and that is an interesting point. In

that point, there are only three provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut

and Northwest Territories are the only jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, that are not

part of the national electricity system only three: Nunavut, Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, outside of that in this particular article, he also talks about

challenges. Obviously challenges, Mr. Speaker, are partnerships, because it is

going to cost a lot of money to make this happen. We have to have corporations,

partners, provinces, territories, and our friends at the federal government

coming together to ensure that this happens. If that does not happen, Mr.

Speaker, I am afraid we will never have an East-West corridor in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we live in a time in Newfoundland and Labrador that we are

blessed. We are truly blessed at this point in time in our history, Mr. Speaker,

to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are blessed why? Mr. Speaker,

right now we have a vast supply of non-renewable energy resources. Not only do

we have a vast supply of non-renewable energy resources, Mr. Speaker, we also

have an abundant supply of clean, renewable energy sources. The opportunities

for this Province have never been better never been better, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, responsible development of these renewable

resources will give us the ability to have a clean, stable source of electricity

well into the future to meet all our domestic needs. Not only support our

domestic needs well into the future, Mr. Speaker, but also supply our industrial

needs well into the future. That is all within Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker, be it in Labrador or in Newfoundland. Not only will it give us that

opportunity, but it also will give us the ability to sell any excess power to

outside markets which will provide a source of revenue that could be used to

benefit our Province through long-term strategic investments.

Mr. Speaker, one of the central commitments in our provincial Energy Plan is

to reinvest the portion of our non-renewable energy money into our renewable

energy developments. Mr. Speaker, doesn't that make sense? Doesn't that make

sense to us, and doesn't that make sense to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that while we are reaping some of the best benefits we have, the

resource we have now is non-renewable, so let's inject some of that

non-renewable money into planning for the future and giving us clean, green,

renewable energy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, along with having that, that will also

provide us the opportunity to seek and explore other opportunities, like wind

and I have heard the Opposition parties talk about wind and we need to explore

those, too. Mr. Speaker, by investing our non-renewable resources into the

renewable, we can do that again. That protects the environmental future for

every person in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, fulfilling this commitment is not only

beneficial to us. If we can fulfill this commitment, if we can do this, if we

can open up a resource, and if we can open up access to that East-West corridor,

Mr. Speaker, it is not only good for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; it is

good for our neighbouring friends in the Atlantic Provinces. The transmission

line will give them needed energy, something they have been crying out for, for

years. Not only our Atlantic friends, but the rest of the country; we can help

offset some of those energy demands that are now existing in Ontario. Not only

that, in our excess we can sell the rest to our North American friends and

beyond. Mr. Speaker, I think it makes perfect sense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take us back just a little bit to 2003. I want

everybody to recall the blackout that happened across the Northeastern United

States and central parts of our country. At the Canadian Chamber of Commerce

annual general meeting in 2010, they talked about this. The St. John's Board of

Trade brought a motion to the floor. Mr. Speaker, if we do not address this

East-West shortage, or the lack of a corridor, they say we will have another

blackout in twenty-five years. If we do not change something, Central Canada and

the Northeast States will continue to have blackouts every twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, they also talk about, in their resolution, and talked at that

time about having adequate power. We have the mighty Churchill, and we have the

power, but we do not have the way to access the markets. We can supply and we

can provide the adequate power. It is reliable power and it is clean power. It

can be there day in and day out. The river will always flow, Mr. Speaker.

As well, there is growing demand. We hear tell of the energy needs all across

our country; all across North America, there is a growing demand. Mr. Speaker, I

argue, and I will argue until the cows come home, probably, that

hydroelectricity is one of the cleanest, cheapest, and best ways to do that to

meet that demand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, as well, it lessens our country's dependence

on fossil fuels. Not that we do not need fossil fuels; fossil fuels have been

good to our country, and now they have been good to our Province, but it lessens

dependence on fossil fuels and lessens our carbon footprint. Mr. Speaker, as

well, we are at a time in our history where we have aging infrastructure and we

have to address that aging infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, as my time is winding down and I will get another opportunity

to continue I just want to end on this note. I want to end by encouraging all

parties today opposite to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I look forward

to the continued debate this afternoon in the House and I look forward to

closing debate a little later on this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a well-intended but not

a well-advised private member's resolution, for reasons that I will set forth.

What I see is this resolution is almost in the nature of somebody who wants

something so badly that they do not think of the consequences. It is almost as

if the member who is bringing on the private member's resolution is like King

Midas, who loved gold so much that he wanted everything he touched to be gold.

The first thing, his young daughter came in, and he held her, and she turned to

gold. She was lost to him forever, but he had what he said he wanted.

Mr. Speaker, by that I mean that this private member's resolution, in my

view, would give more power to the federal government than they currently have.

In no way would I agree that this federal government should have more power over

us than they currently have.

If you look at how Canada is constructed constitutionally, and if you look at

how Great Britain or the United Kingdom is constructed constitutionally, and if

you look at how the United States is constructed constitutionally, we have a

special place in constitutional law which separates the levels of government and

the power. The United Kingdom is a unitary state, so that means parliament is

supreme, one vote, one person, no matter where you live. This may have been in

the best of intentions, and there is a House of Lords, obviously; however, with

a unitary state, you have less opportunity for regional representation. That may

work in the UK, although it isolates other areas such as Northern Ireland,

Scotland, and Wales. They do not have the opportunity for any regional autonomy

or semi-autonomy, which is not the case in Canada.

The United States is exactly the opposite. The United States is a republic,

and in the United States their constitution is supreme. Their constitution also

separates state power from federal power, and you have certain anomalies in the

United States. State governments have criminal law, for example. In one state

you can commit an offence and be executed for it, and over the state line, that

may not even be an offence. In their evolution, when they set up their republic

and their constitution they gave certain areas of power to states, and states

jealously guard those powers. Their states, I would argue, have far less power

than our provinces, which for us is good. In Canada, criminal law is federal.

One law applies to a Canadian wherever you are, but the administration of that

is a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, my concern, constitutionally, with this private member's

resolution is that as soon as we approach the federal government and we

basically implore the federal government, we try to work with the federal

government so that we can have this East-West corridor now, there are some

practical and business reasons that I do not think it is well-advised, and

certainly it would seem to contradict Muskrat Falls, in any event. However, when

we go to the federal government and we say to the federal government, we want

you to participate and impose an East-West corridor on Quebec or on any other

province, whatever we ask the federal government, and we give up sufficient

power that the federal government is able to impose something on that other

province, then, by default, that federal government can also impose that outcome

on us.

For example, today, do we want to provide more power to the federal

government than the federal government currently has? We can see the big

argument, the big debate recently over search and rescue and it being a federal

responsibility. We can see it even in this House today with DFO giving up

certain responsibilities and leaving the Province to fend for ourselves.

We also see in the new EI legislation, federal income taxes imposed across

the board, the GST was imposed across the board. The more power that we give to

the federal government the more we diminish ourselves as a Province. By

diminishing ourselves as a Province, we have less autonomy, we have less power,

and we have less opportunity to determine our own destinies within Canada.

In Canada, the system is neither republic nor a unitary state, as the United

States or Great Britain. In Canada we have a federation of provinces. All

provinces stand equal. Our federation of provinces we do have a Constitution.

Although Parliament is supreme, we have also entrenched certain benefits, powers

and advantages. For example, even though this Province has only 500,000 people,

and Canada now has 35 million, percentage wise we have declined significantly,

but we are still guaranteed seven federal seats and six seats in the Senate. By

the numbers, this far outweighs our population. We have more power your vote

is worth more in this Province than it would be in many other provinces in a

federal election. We have certain advantages in Canada and I see no reason why

we would want to implore the feds, as this private member's resolution seems to

do.

To give you an example of how misguided the federal government can be. In

1980, when Alberta was profiting substantially from oil they had not yet had

the oil fights and the oil wars there were two very large provinces, Ontario

and Quebec, and they are still very large provinces. At that time they

controlled as much as two-thirds of Canada. The very misguided, in my view,

federal Liberal government at that time, imposed the National Energy Program.

The National Energy Program, in a short stroke, said that any energy sold from

Canada had to be offered to Canadians at 75 per cent of the world price.

Clearly, Alberta was the energy producer and exporter, as we are today, even

though much of ours is offshore, there may yet come a time when we have more

onshore energy. Alberta was going to be penalized to benefit Ontario and Quebec

to the extent of losing 25 per cent of the value of their non-renewable

resource. Do we want to give that kind of power to the federal government in

seeking an energy corridor be imposed upon Quebec?

The net loss to the Alberta treasury, as calculated by Albertans, since then

has been in the order of $56 billion to $60 billion over a very short period of

time. I am told, and having lived in Alberta I can believe it, that within

forty-eight hours there were 600 drilling rigs lined up at the Montana border to

leave Alberta and leave Canada because of a too powerful and misguided federal

government.

I do not see how we can ask the federal government to impose on Quebec, for

our benefit, an East-West energy corridor. Constitutionally that is the reason,

and politically the reason, why we ought not to have this type of a private

member's resolution. There are also other very good policy reasons.

Nalcor, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the provincial governing party

are attempting to convince us that we need to have a bypass around Quebec with

Muskrat Falls. The bypass that is anticipated around Quebec is traditionally

called the Anglo-Saxon route and is to come across Labrador, across the Strait

of Belle Isle, down through our Province, across the Cabot Strait, on down

through, and potentially hook up with the United States energy grid. Mr.

Speaker, that potentially could be a very good thing; however, if we have the

power corridor through Quebec and imposed upon Quebec, why do we need Muskrat

Falls? Doesn't it simply defeat the argument the government is trying to make?

The government is saying on the one hand we need Muskrat Falls so we can get

around Quebec and we can access markets. Now we have a private member's

resolution that says: Implore the federal government to force Quebec to give us

an energy corridor. Obviously, if we have that, the reasoning and the rationale

for the link, certainly across from this Island to Nova Scotia, would be

unnecessary and would, in my view, make Muskrat Falls redundant.

Simply put, the argument being advanced for the reason for this imposed

energy corridor is exactly the reason we say we want Muskrat Falls. We are

seeking, we say, an East-West link. In fact, what we are asking for is really a

North-South link where we would be able to ship energy through the Province of

Quebec to some place else. If we build Muskrat Falls and access other markets,

then the energy corridor becomes redundant. If we have the energy corridor, then

why are we going to commit our public Treasury to billions and billions of

dollars

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: that may take fifty years to pay off?

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how it can be in the interest of this Province to

give up any of our autonomy to the federal government. What the federal

government can do for you it can also do to you, as we have been learning in the

last year or so. I do not see any reason why we would want an energy corridor

when the argument on the other side that the government is making right now is

that we should build Muskrat Falls.

Without speculating on whether Muskrat Falls is the right move or not,

clearly if we have the energy corridor we do not need Muskrat Falls any more. We

can simply use our own energy self-sufficiency here. We can use cash from the

energy corridor that we force through Quebec in order to create more energy on

the Island and through coastal Labrador. So, the private member's resolution,

while it seems to be well intended, is misguided is misguided on

constitutional grounds, is misguided on political grounds by we will give up

more political power to somebody outside of us, that somebody being the federal,

and it is misguided on economic grounds.

So, Mr. Speaker, I find that I am unable to support this private member's

resolution.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this private member's motion has arisen as a result of recent

discussions on a national energy plan between the Premiers of Alberta and

Ontario. Our position is quite simple: How can their be a national energy plan,

when one province Quebec has treated another province Newfoundland and

Labrador with contempt and disdain since 1969, and continues to hold us

hostage to this very day, Mr. Speaker? What we are suggesting to governments

throughout this country, including provincial governments and the federal

government, is that you should support the East-West corridor. For many reasons,

Mr. Speaker, both from an economic, environmental, but also as a nation-building

process.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very good analysis as to the role of the federal

government and the abdication of responsibility in an

article a 1999

article

by Jason Churchill called Pragmatic Federalism: The Politics Behind the 1969

Churchill Falls Contract . Mr. Churchill points out on page 215 that one of

the key issues was the "inability to secure a power corridor across Quebec

territory", and we lost a tremendous negotiating advantage that had been

geographically allocated to Quebec. They had used this leverage, Mr. Speaker, to

basically secure the onerous terms of the 1969 contract. At page 216, Mr.

Churchill stated that the refusal of successive federal governments to intervene

was "tantamount to capitulation to Quebec's interest." So, Mr. Speaker, again,

that is the political pragmatism more votes in Quebec than there are in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we see a glimmer of hope that this can change, and I am

very disappointed that the Member for St. Barbe has chosen not to support this

motion, Mr. Speaker. I know he does not want to be seen as choosing Quebec over

Newfoundland and Labrador, but the reality here is that when you stand up and

say in this House of Assembly that this should not change, then what you are

saying is that the Upper Churchill contract should not change either, and that

is simply exactly unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, to understand this you have to examine history. You have to go

back to the 1927 decision of the Judicial Privy Council whereby the highest

court in Canada at the time, being situated in the United Kingdom, decided that

Newfoundland owned Labrador, and not Canada or Quebec. In the 1940s there was

one report done, and in 1963 there was a Dorion report which investigated the

1927 decision and basically held that, by their lack of objection, Mr. Speaker,

or their silence, had acquiesced the decision. The Judicial Council decision was

entrenched in the 1949 act that brought Newfoundland into Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, what we have and what continues to happen to this day is what is

referred to as the revenge of geography, that we have been landlocked as a

result of Quebec's intransigence, Quebec's unfairness, and Quebec's inequitable

treatment of a supposed partner in Confederation, Mr. Speaker.

In 1962, Premier Diefenbaker proposed the establishment of an integrated

national electrical system, and that is referred to by Mr. Churchill. In 1963,

Mr. Speaker, Premier Jean Lesage at that time told the Quebec Assembly that

Churchill Falls was linked to the boundary dispute. Another

article which

examines this issue is the Feehan and Baker

article in 2005; although they deal

with the renewal clause, they also point out that the issues surround the

boundary dispute, Quebec is opposed to any attempt to transfer power over their

territory without their approval, the federal government was not anxious to

confront Quebec over this issue. Well, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, that approach has

changed.

One of the best descriptions I can see, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot attribute

where I got this source from, but I have a lot of writings on the Upper

Churchill, and it is a great quote. I see one of our learned doctors present in

the gallery who will appreciate this quote: For the historian trying to make

sense of the events and forces which led to the 1969 contract, the boundary

talks between Smallwood and Lesage cling to the Hamilton Falls negotiations like

a shadow, though nearly invisible at the time, but inextricably attached.

Mr. Speaker, there were negotiations in 1963 to 1965 and there was a

tentative boundary settlement that blew up, because what happened around 1962,

Ren Lvesque at least in 1962 he was the Minister of Natural Resources in

Quebec; what Mr. Lvesque saw, Mr. Speaker, was the development or the vision

for Quebec's future and what is sometimes referred to as the development of

hydro-nationalism. He took Shawinigan Power, Montreal Power, took a number of

different power companies, nationalized them, and Quebec Hydro was born, Mr.

Speaker.

Quebec Hydro was born out of these various companies. It was born to look

after the needs of Quebec. That is exactly what we have tried to do, Mr.

Speaker, with the creation of Nalcor, because what Mr. Lvesque saw back in the

early 1960s was that hydro was the key to Quebec's future prosperity. How true

that has been, Mr. Speaker, and how unfair it is.

There was an

article recently, I think, in the National Post, which

referred to the fact that Manitoba and Quebec, because of the way they get their

hydro, it is not included in their equalization payments. Quebec has the lowest

child care in this Province, it has the lowest tuition in this country, excuse

me, Mr. Speaker, and essentially they get about $18 billion in equalization as a

result of that. Mr. Speaker, Quebec on the one hand is a very rich province

using our power to pay for their child care and education. On the other hand,

Mr. Speaker, they get massive amounts of equalization and always look for more.

Mr. Speaker, it was these kinds of disputes which led to Premier Smallwood's

investigation of the Anglo-Saxon route on November 28, 1964, which would allow

Newfoundland at the time, Mr. Speaker, to escape the clutches of Quebec. Here we

are, almost fifty years later, still trying to escape the clutches of Quebec.

Muskrat Falls will do that, Mr. Speaker, but more importantly, an East-West

electricity grid will allow for the transmission of electricity and the

development of Gull Island to get our power into Ontario, into the Maritime

Provinces, and into the Northeastern United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have been to the Supreme Court of Canada on

two occasions: on September 28, 1982 when the Water Rights Reversion Act

reference was heard; on March 23, 1984, Mr. Speaker, while that case was

ongoing, Quebec submitted a proposal to Newfoundland and Premier Peckford at the

time said no.

Mr. Speaker, May 3, 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada said that our actions

as a Province were unconstitutional and Ren Lvesque was now the Premier of

Quebec. Mr. Speaker, Premier Peckford refused to have any further discussions

with Quebec and he said that the solution to the dispute now lies with the

election of a Conservative government in Ottawa. Here we are thirty years later

still looking for that solution, Mr. Speaker, to develop our natural resources

for which the people of our Province will be the primary beneficiaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have is one province and a federal government that

refuses to allow that to come true. June of 1988, we went back to the Supreme

Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker, and lost again. In recent years, Nalcor or Hydro

has gone to the Rgie in Quebec trying to apply FERC rules and open access

rules, all to no avail. I think I was present at a speech where former Premier

Williams just said that in his forty years as a lawyer, the worst decision he

had ever seen was the Rgie decision in terms of being factually inaccurate and

simply outlandish.

So, Mr. Speaker, we start again. Now we go to the good faith action which

CF(L)Co currently has. It is important to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the good

faith action is not looking to say the contract is null and void. It is not

saying return power to this Province. What the good faith action does, Mr.

Speaker, is based on the civil law of Quebec, and one of the most basic mistakes

made in this contract was that it was governed by the law of Quebec. We are now

trying to use the civil law of Quebec to get a more equitable treatment. The

basis of the action, Mr. Speaker, is that on good faith in civil law, the French

law, there is a moral or maybe, we are arguing, a legal obligation to

renegotiate a contract where circumstances changed that could not have been

foreseen at the time the contract was entered into.

What has happened, Mr. Speaker? That cheap power that Quebec got in 1967 or

1969, which could be justified by some people, becomes cheaper in 2017. How, Mr.

Speaker, can anyone tell me that that is fair? Yes, there was a contract entered

into. Mr. Speaker, when you benefit to the extent that Quebec has benefited from

this contract, surely there comes a point in time when equity and fairness in a

national federation demand reconsideration.

Mr. Speaker, while the opening of an East-West corridor will not undo the

wrongs of the past, it will allow optimism for the future. It will allow for the

development of our natural resources for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It will allow for the transmission of power across Quebec without

having to go on bended knee to Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It is not going to happen

without intervention or negotiation, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? In utilities years, 2041 is not that far

away. To most of us, we may not what year is this? Some of us, I guess, will

be around to benefit from it, but our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.

The Upper Churchill contract still has the agreement. CF(L)Co is divided up

between 65 per cent Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or Nalcor and 35 per cent

Quebec Hydro. There are still issues in 2041.

Mr. Speaker, at some point Quebec will have to discuss, I would assume, the

renegotiation of that contract and the development of Gull Island. We are not

asking for anything outlandish. We are simply saying we want to develop our

resources for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker.

In a federation like Canada where you have a federal government, a central

government, and you have a number of provinces, Mr. Speaker, surely the federal

government at some point will say to the Province: Please get together and work

this out. Mr. Speaker, that 1927 decision hangs like a shadow. We still see maps

today, Mr. Speaker, with the old maps as put forward by Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully, the present political pragmatism will be based on

fairness and equality and not simply getting votes in one province. That is what

this motion is about, Mr. Speaker, because we have seen signs from this federal

government that perhaps they are willing to go there. We have seen a commitment

from the Prime Minister on the federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, on the basis

that it is a regional economic benefit.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered through tough times, but

we are people who can endure tough times. For 500 years we have lived on an

Island that has been inhospitable and very tough, but we are still here, Mr.

Speaker. In the last number of years times have gotten better but we have to

manage our own resources, Mr. Speaker. We have to encourage businesses, big

companies, oil companies, to come in here and do business. Mr. Speaker, it has

to be based on fairness, and there has to be one guiding principle, that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are to be the principal beneficiaries of our

natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, here we are with one of the greatest hydro developments in North

America right now that we cannot get to market in terms of Gull Island because

an intransigent province can simply say no. Mr. Speaker, what this East-West

corridor will do, will allow for the development of Gull Island. I think when

you see some of these Labrador mining developments, depending on the economy of

China, but if they all go ahead, Mr. Speaker, then Gull Island can be a very

real possibility.

Do you know something else that I read last night as I was preparing for

this, Mr. Speaker? There are a lot of big aluminium plants in Quebec, and those

big aluminium plants require a lot of power, 400, 500, 600 megawatts of power.

Three of them, Mr. Speaker, I read last night, their contracts expire before

2041. Now, Mr. Speaker, in business there appears to be no great loyalty. The

question is who will give us the best deal? Newfoundland and Labrador will be

there to do deals but those deals will be fair.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with this resolution is encouraging the

governments who are discussing a national energy plan to put forward the need

for it to be truly national, because otherwise it becomes regional. What we are

also suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that it is time for everyone to come into the

twenty-first century. It is time for Quebec to get over the 1927 decision. We

have had to get over the 1969 contract. It is still, Mr. Speaker, like an open

sore at times, but what inflames us even more is that Quebec makes all the money

from our natural resources. This will go, Mr. Speaker, a small part of the way

towards saying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you truly are

members of this great Confederation and we want to treat you fairly. Because

that is all we have asked for, Mr. Speaker, is fairness and to be the

beneficiaries of our natural resources.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am quite pleased actually to stand and speak to this private member's

resolution today. I think it is an important resolution. I am certainly going to

be happy to vote for this resolution.

It has always been important to the NDP, both as a provincial party and

federally, to look at the whole issue of an East-West grid. One thing that is

really important about this resolution, and the Minister of Natural Resources

has just alluded to it, and that is the importance of all provinces and all

territories to be concerned about the federation that we are part of and to

strengthening that federation. If there is anything that can help us in working

together and strengthening who we are as the federation of Canada, then it would

be through trying to develop the East-West grid because the East-West grid would

be the federal level along with the provincial and territorial levels working

together. It would become a responsibility not just of two provinces looking at

each other, but of the whole country and the role of those provinces in the

whole country.

The first time that we actually came out as a party with regard to the

East-West grid was in our platform during the 2003 provincial election campaign.

It was a major part of our platform. Then on a federal level in 2004, just after

Jack Layton became the leader of the federal New Democratic Party, he supported

the Kyoto Protocol that dealt with climate change. The most important parts of

the federal policy document that was part of that support for Kyoto was a pledge

to establish an East-West power grid.

At that time, Mr. Layton was looking specifically at Quebec and Manitoba and

the role that they could play with regard to coal dependent provinces. The scene

has changed a bit in Canada now and with the role that we are playing as

Newfoundland and Labrador, we obviously have a significant role to play in the

development of an East-West grid as well. It is all of our responsibilities, not

just the responsibility of one province or two provinces. It is all of our

responsibility to try to help with climate change.

The things that were in Kyoto, which unfortunately we know have been rejected

by the Harper Government, but recommendations of Kyoto and agreements that were

agreed to within Kyoto would have seen us working not just as separate entities

in this country, but working together to reduce, for example, the coal-dependent

energy sources that are rampant in the country. We do have a responsibility to

do that. I am very happy that we are here today trying to get all of us, and it

looks like it will be all of us, agreeing that this is a good way to go.

During 2006 when there were energy plan consultations, again at that time we

advocated the East-West grid. Back in 2008, Mr. Jack Layton, who was then the

Leader of the New Democratic Party federally, said to Danny Williams, at the

time of the 2008 election when Danny Williams was the Premier of the Province,

that New Democrats will continue to push for the development of a national power

grid for electricity, increasing Canada's energy security and facilitating

development and distribution of renewable energy to provinces currently

dependent on fossil fuel. It would also give hydro-producing provinces like

Newfoundland and Labrador access to energy markets, to maximize benefits. I

think it is much better that, as a Province, we are looking to maximizing the

benefits for the rest of the people in Canada as well as for ourselves. The

markets we should be gaining access to are the markets in our own country, which

is extremely important.

In 2011, you had some provinces working together, because Manitoba signed an

energy Memorandum of Understanding with Saskatchewan that says the two provinces

will work together to enhance the East-West grid and increase energy transfers

between provinces. So we do know that provinces out there support the notion of

the East-West grid, and provinces as far west as Saskatchewan.

I would imagine, having heard some of the comments I have heard the new

Premier of British Columbia say recently, that the desire to create the

East-West grid would go all the way from Newfoundland and Labrador right over to

British Columbia. I do not think we would find it difficult to get support from

other provinces with regard to this, so that is why the main resolution is so

important, that this House of Assembly urges all governments in Canada to

co-operate in exploring opportunities to open East-West electricity transmission

corridors within Canada.

I guess my interest, Mr. Speaker, would be that besides coming to an

agreement today, as the three parties here in our House of Assembly, besides

coming to an agreement that it is good to do that, that then we have to count on

the government side of the House, who is putting the resolution forward, that we

have to depend on them to then start bringing this issue to the table at the

federal, provincial, and territorial levels and I guess that would happen

probably through the Premier. It obviously would happen through the Minister of

Natural Resources as well. It is also something I think that could happen

through the Department of Justice, because you have legal ramifications here

also.

So, there are many opportunities that will be coming forward, which could be

opportunities which can be used by the government to bring forward this notion

of the East-West power grid in Canada. As I said, there are so many aspects to

it which are positive. One is the environmental aspect, because we do have

places in Canada which have cleaner sources of energy than others. We also have

places in Canada which are doing real gains in some of the alternative sources

of energy, for example, wind power. In Nova Scotia, they are upping their use of

wind power. They are actually even building turbines in Nova Scotia. They are

upping their use of wind power in New Brunswick as well. So, there is a lot to

learn from each other across the country, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what is

going on around energy, and how we can really improve who we are as a country.

I think the East-West grid is good for us, because the US energy market,

which is one of the markets that the government has been looking at, is actually

becoming very volatile now, especially due to the shale gas emergence. So, I am

really pleased for us to be talking about developing our own country, rather

than looking south. I think it is important that we co-operate with countries

south of us and there are more countries south of us than the US, but of

course they are the ones that we are right on the border with. We have to do

that with strength, and I think the strength we do it with is not just as one

province, but together as a country, because they are really doing a lot in the

US to develop who they are and to start planning regionally and working together

regionally.

The volatile energy market in the States is very concerning. Because if we

put our eggs in that basket, the basket of the US market which is partially part

of the discussion around Muskrat Falls, then I think even if we are talking the

spot market, it could become very problematic for us. If we are depending on

that market which is changing so radically, we have no idea what it is going to

be like in ten years. The thing of depending on ourselves and developing who we

are is extremely important.

This position has been taken by the way, by a very important group of people,

the Canadian Academy of Engineering. They have made some points on why an

East-West grid would be very good for Canada. When you get a body like that, the

Canadian Academy of Engineering, I think it is somebody to listen to. According

to the Canadian Academy of Engineering, a substantial amount of Canada's power

potential is stranded. That has been part of the frustration of many governments

in this Province. It is stranded because we do not have an East-West grid. We

know there is a lot that we can do here with wind power, for example, if our

wind power could be moved off the Island. One of the things said to us is in

order to have wind power, we need to be able to transport it because we have not

enough use for it here on the Island. The thing is that if we are looking at

transporting with the possibility of Muskrat Falls, well wind power could be

transported also. This is something that we need to do.

We cannot do it without the East-West grid. It will not make any sense

depending on the US market doing it to get wind power out of here. If we

depended on an East-West grid, then it makes a tremendous amount of sense.

According to the academy, without a strong East-West grid, we are squandering a

key competitive advantage. If we as a country were consolidated and we were

together in the production of energy, then that would put us in a real strong

position with the United States. We would actually become competitive with them

in the whole area of energy production.

The thing around having the East-West grid in our own country would mimic

what is happening in other countries. Here, for example, on this side of the

planet, in South America, they are actively investigating inter-country grids;

one country combining with another country, their grids working together. Other

places are developing integrated grids, where different sources of energy are

all being integrated into a grid. The US, as I mentioned a minute ago, is

investigating several inter-regional grids. So they would have different grids

around the country on a regional level and these grids would work with each

other. There is a lot of work going on in other countries and in other areas

with regard to building larger grids and having co-operation between grids and

among grids.

Unfortunately, the economic downturn on a global level has led to a downturn

with regard to global plans to build infrastructure. There has been a slowdown,

not in the idea but being able to carry it through with regard to infrastructure

because of the economic downturn. A point to make here is that getting into

creating an East-West grid and really putting energy in that and to the

infrastructure that we need to be developed would actually be good for our

economy in Canada. It would be a very positive economic turn. Because of the

development of the infrastructure, that in it self would strengthen our economy

in this country. We need to look at the fact that it is the provinces that have

to drive this. If something is going to happen we have to be the ones as

provinces coming together and agreeing together and then going to Ottawa and

saying this is what we have to do, because of course electricity generation and

transmission is a provincial responsibility.

The other thing that we have to do, and we have to do this in our Province as

well as the other provinces, we have to engage the involvement of the Aboriginal

communities and First Nations. We have Aboriginal communities and First Nation

communities that are self governing, and they have a key role to play. We would

need to get the full support of Aboriginal communities and First Nation

communities in getting this to happen. We would have to have that happen too, on

both sides of the border. That is more complicated. We can only be concerned

about what we have control over. The Canadian Academy of Engineering, of course,

has a Pan-American vision, I think, and they see the importance of the

involvement of the Aboriginal groups.

One of the things that we will have to deal with is that there are

conflicting goals. Right now we have a conflicting goal with us and one

province. Certainly, regionally there will be conflicting goals too, but they

can be worked out.

Mr. Speaker, all of that to say, this is something really good to work on. It

is obviously something that is long term but it is something that we would have

to start working on right away. As I said in the beginning, I think it is

something that the government will have to drive. They are the ones who take

part in the meetings on the federal, territorial and provincial levels. They are

the ones who are going to have to bring forth this idea. What I call upon the

government is to be accountable to the House of Assembly when we pass this

resolution today, because obviously, we are going to pass it, to be accountable

to us for the way in which they are going to bring this forward in the

discussions that they have in an ongoing manner on the various levels of our

governments here in our country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad to speak today on this resolution put

forward by the Member for Port de Grave. It is a resolution that looks at

something that is certainly well needed in terms of development of our Province.

As the Minister of Natural Resources said, it goes to nation building. An

East-West electricity transmission line, in terms of our future development and

where we need to go as a Province, is certainly where we need to go as a

country, and east to west in terms of developing that link. Certainly from a

need perspective and from a business and economic perspective, Mr. Speaker, and

how we need to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in the actual resolution that I would like to

specifically speak to, in referencing the opening of Canadian east-west energy

corridors and giving provinces the freedom to transmit energy to markets within

Canada, create economic opportunity and strengthen the country. That is what we

are talking about here. I think it was mentioned earlier too, we cannot look to

undo the wrongs of the past but we can certainly control our destiny in where we

move forward as a Province and as a country with an East-West transmission grid.

That is so important. That is the resolution, a very important component to it.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I just wanted to comment on, certainly from my

department and our government's perspective in terms of the opportunity for

business and economic development as we move forward and advocate to all the

provinces and the territories in terms of coming onboard and supporting an

East-West electrical transmission grid, Mr. Speaker. We are known as the

Province, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador vast energy resources has

allowed our government to strengthen our financial position, reduce our debt,

reduce taxes, and contribute to the programs that support economic growth in all

regions of our Province. Harnessing these riches provides exciting and rewarding

spinoff opportunities for the business community, and it is helping small and

medium companies tap into supplier development opportunities that are leading to

greater success and company expansion.

Mr. Speaker, business success increases the tax base for the provincial

government and it increases the volume of spending in a community, in a region,

and in our Province. The sum of that activity helps fuel social programs and

infrastructure improvements.

Economic development, Mr. Speaker, as we know, and entrepreneurship small

and medium-sized businesses, the corporations out there, those are the ones that

drive our economy. They hire people, they pay taxes, they build our communities.

Through that, we collect taxes and revenue, the provincial government does, to

provide those social programs that are so important to all our people and to all

regions of the Province. We need economic activity to drive that, Mr. Speaker,

as we know.

Export activity leading to one in every four jobs in the Province has

surpassed $12 billion last year. It is no surprise that the government, we have

taken such a focused effort on building Newfoundland and Labrador's trade

capacity. Energy would just be another component to that, Mr. Speaker.

We are committed and we have been a partner in supporting conditions where

businesses can excel, wherever that may be and whatever industry that may be,

Mr. Speaker. Our efforts in that area are looking at, as I said, solidifying

supplier development opportunities and maximizing their potential for the

benefit of all local businesses, which is so important. Supporting business to

maximize benefits from our local resources like green energy, hydro development,

we have seen it and we continue to improve on that, Mr. Speaker; we can through

an opportunity like this, where it allows for future development in Labrador as

we move forward with this transmission line.

We need to look at the opportunities identified for products like energy. We

anticipate greater market access. That will improve companies undertaking

expansion and more companies to expand their workforce. By all of that, through

hydro development, through the East-West transmission line, we are looking at

economic development, various projects. We have Muskrat Falls now that we will

make a decision on later in the year. Phase 2 of that development would be Gull

Island and the opportunities that will hold to that and make that much more

attainable with that agreed-upon transmission across the country from east to

west.

That is what we look forward to in the future as we move this agenda forward

and that is what the resolution asks this hon. House to do: to support that, to

call on the members of the federation of Canada to support this as we move

forward, from a nation-building point of view and from Newfoundland and

Labrador's point of view as well, Mr. Speaker.

I spoke of the Supplier Development Program which flows from significant

projects, small and medium enterprises. It is a great opportunity for local

business communities in all regions to learn about the process of the public

sector, companies, and how to interact with purchasing representatives. So, when

you consider, Mr. Speaker, the requirements of large procurers of goods and

services on industrial projects, various levels of government spend billions of

dollars annually, and supplier development certainly represents an exciting,

rewarding opportunity for businesses.

So, Mr. Speaker, looking at the economic benefits from an East-West grid and

what this actual resolution is calling for, you might ask: well, what would it

accomplish? Where would we be? Well, first and foremost, you certainly look at

linking each and province and territory to a national electricity grid.

Newfoundland, Nunavut, Northwest Territories, and Yukon are now not part of that

national electricity system, and all other provinces would like to see greater

inter-provincial connections east and west. So that is the key: we get connected

up, and we have those opportunities that exist, especially for us in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly have that access to energy for future

development that we can access that transmission, Mr. Speaker.

What would an East-West grid provide? It would increase the amount of

electricity that is accessible in Canada. You could certainly look at it from a

trade perspective. Most of our electricity right now is from north to south; it

has been traditionally that way, dominated by electricity sale to the United

States. No doubt US markets receive a greater benefit from Canada of low-cost

hydroelectric exports from places like BC, Manitoba, Quebec, and certainly the

rest of Canada.

A national electricity grid will improve system reliability, which means

greater economic output and benefits for all Canadians, and that is the key, as

I s