May 2,

2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today we are very pleased to welcome to our Speaker's gallery from

Saskatchewan, the Minister of Social Services and Minister Responsible for the

Status of Women, Public Service Commission and the Housing Corporation, the hon.

June Draude.

Welcome to our Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are also very pleased to welcome back, this time though

to the Speaker's gallery and not to the Assembly, the former Member for the

District of Port de Grave, Roland Butler, and his wife Maude and grandson

Justin.

Welcome back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are also quite pleased this afternoon to have in our

public galleries five Grade 9 students from St. James Regional High in Port aux

Basques, located in the District of Burgeo La Poile. The students are

accompanied by their teacher Joann O'Brien. This morning the students

participated in an event by the Occupational Health and Safety, sponsored

Safework Newfoundland and Labrador, and they won the trivia game competition.

Congratulations to the team and welcome to our Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

District of Lake Melville; the Member for the District of Lewisporte; the Member

for the District of St. Barbe; the Member for the District of Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair; and the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House

to recognize several residents of Sheshatshiu who participated in the Penote Ben

Michel Hockey Tournament in Sheshatshiu earlier last month.

The annual memorial tournament is named for the former President of Innu

Nation the late Ben Michel, an Innu leader whose life's work was to preserve the

culture and way of life for the Innu people, and create a better future for them

through partnerships with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

federal government. In attendance were family such as his grandson, Zach

Pastiwet, his brother Simon Michel and wife Janet Michel.

Of the four teams in the competitive division, Team Sheshatshiu placed second

in a hard fought championship with Labrador City resulting in a final score of

two to one. Team Sheshatshiu are: Atshapi Andrew, Jonathon Andrew, Matthew

Andrew, Sheldon Nui, Tyson Russell, Kilibuk Qupee, Owen McCarthy, Jeremy Andrew,

Mike Ward, Muakuss Fontaine, Chris Holden, Lee Bellefontaine, Steve Power, and

Adam Thrasher.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to congratulate these

athletes from the Community of Sheshatshiu for their hard work and great effort

at a tournament in honour of a great man.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this hon. House to recognize a recently retired RCMP officer,

Mr. Harold Nippard of Embree.

Harold grew up in a family of ten children where he was taught the value of

hard work and the need to be successful. Shortly after graduating from high

school, Harold began his training in Regina and started to fulfill his lifelong

dream of becoming a police officer.

Harold spent his entire career within the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. He started out on Bell Island and had postings in Labrador City,

Trepassey, Springdale, Bonavista, Flower's Cove, Carmanville, Port aux Basques

and Grand Falls - Windsor. Harold worked his way up the ranks, becoming a

Corporal in 1988, a Sergeant in 2003, Operations NCO in 2004, and Staff Sergeant

and District Commander in 2008.

Harold's philosophy has been to become an integral part of each community in

which he was posted. He believed in serving people and helping out wherever he

could. Reflecting back, Harold says, "I would do it all again".

Colleagues please join with me, and also with Harold's wife Elizabeth, in

congratulating and thanking Harold Nippard for his thirty-eight years of serving

and protecting the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Mrs. Evelyn Rose who recently

passed away at the age of ninety-six in L'Anse Amour, Labrador.

She was the oldest resident residing in my district and had moved across from

Flower's Cove five years ago to live with her daughter Rita Davis and the Davis

family in L'Anse Amour. Mrs. Rose grew up in a family of sixteen children; she

was the fourth youngest sibling. She had twelve children, forty-two

grandchildren, fifty-three great-grandchildren and seven

great-great-grandchildren.

In August of 2011, she celebrated her ninety-sixth birthday and was featured

in the Northern Pen sitting atop a motorbike in a leather jacket and a

helmet. She told the reporters that she never felt better and that the highlight

of her year was her birthday because her family was all together. She was a very

honourable woman who worked hard for her family and who uplifted people with her

beautiful smile, her insightful view of life, and her unconditional love for God

and all of those around her. She was a true example of one never being too old

or too wise to learn new things and to have fun. After all, Mr. Speaker, she was

the only ninety-six-year-old who I ever saw on a three wheeler.

I ask the members of this House to join me in paying tribute to a wonderful

lady, Ms Evelyn Rose, and to offer to her family our condolences at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to commend the

work and dedication of two development associations in my District of St. Barbe.

Local groups enrich our communities and the work carried out by the St. Barbe

Development Association and Central Development Association is immeasurable and

commendable. Our local economy and culture have benefited from their efforts for

many years. The work these two associations and their employees undertake not

only benefits the local economy; they also offer leadership and advocacy in many

communities within my district.

The St. Barbe Development Association's mandate is to strengthen our region

by building partnerships that enable our communities to grow and prosper. The

Central Development Association works in much the same way in the development of

the local economy and in the advocacy for communities in the area.

People who offer their time, energy, and commitment to ensuring the

betterment of their communities are people who should always be recognized for

what they do. Mr. Speaker, every day associations in all our districts make a

difference.

I would ask all members to join me not only recognizing the St. Barbe

Development Association and the Central Development Association, but to also

express my gratitude for all that they have done and continue to do in the

future for our communities and our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I rise to commend a young woman from my district, Ms Chelsea Harris. Ms

Harris is a kinesiology student at the School of Human Kinetics and Recreation

at Memorial University.

Rewarded for her hard work and dedication, she was one of four recipients of

the Director's Award for an Exemplary Work Term. Chelsea completed her work term

with Dr. Michelle Ploughman as a research assistant, where she recruited and

conducted in-depth interviews with Multiple Sclerosis patients. She also worked

directly with patient rehabilitation as a therapist assistant and as a group

exercise instructor for people with disabilities.

Dr. Ploughman described Chelsea as having excellent organizational and time

management skills, and as a critical thinker and problem solver. Mr. Speaker,

while on work term, Chelsea was also successful in winning a $5,000 research

studentship from the Atlantic endMS Regional Research and Training Centre at

Dalhousie University, out-competing medical and graduate students from across

Atlantic Canada. This studentship would see her working with neurologist Dr.

Stefanelli conducting further MS research.

Chelsea Harris is a fine example of the extremely bright and energetic

students MUN is turning out. Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House

to join with me in congratulating Chelsea Harris on her recent accomplishments

and wishing her every success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 2008, Mr. Speaker, this government announced a Parental Benefits Program

consisting of the Progressive Family Growth Benefit and the Parental Support

Benefit to help offset the high costs associated with the first year of

parenting. The program provides $1,000 for every child born or adopted in the

Province, as well as an additional $100 each month for the first twelve months

for the child.

I am happy to report that as of April 30, 2012 almost 12,000 applicants have

availed of the program through approximately $26 million provided by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Parental Benefits Program, Mr. Speaker, is designed so that the benefits

are not taxable and that any parent who gives birth or adopts a child can avail

of the program regardless of employment status or income. I would encourage

anyone who has recently had or adopted a child and has not already applied for

the program to do so. The deadline for filing an application is three years

after the baby is born, or in the case of adoption, three years after the child

has been placed. The complete details can be found on the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador's Web site under the Department of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, the Parental Benefits Program is just one example of this

government's efforts to put more money back into the hands of the residents of

this Province to spend on what they deem is important. Residents are saving in

such areas as personal income taxes, home energy, and insurance premiums. All

told, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are currently spending approximately $500

million less in taxes and fees annually as compared to 2006.

Mr. Speaker, for too long the population of this Province was in steady

decline as residents left for opportunities elsewhere, but we are finally

beginning to see a reversal in that trend. A strong, healthy province is one in

which families and children have an environment in which they can thrive, Mr.

Speaker, and this government continues to work on creating such an environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his advance copy of the Ministerial Statement. I

certainly was surprised to get this statement today, as this was a Budget

announcement of 2008. I guess within the year or so a lot of those kids at

least the first recipients will be in kindergarten next year. Nevertheless, it

is coming a week on the heels of the 2012 Budget. Congratulations to the new

parents who have taken advantage of this. Of course, this money I am sure helps

the new parents in the early days, either after childbirth or after adoption.

I can assure the minister he need not get his pen and cheque book out,

because this is not a program I will be taking advantage of anytime soon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to point out to the minister that this grant may help in the

first year I know it helps in the first year but young families face serious

barriers in this Province after the child has reached his or her first year,

because we have no universal child care program.

Quebec saw twice as many women entering the workforce once they introduced

universal child care. Studies show 40 per cent of the cost of the Quebec program

are covered by the increase in taxes generated by more women in the workforce.

If government is really trying to help families, that is the better way, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning I had the pleasure of joining students and staff at Bishops

College in St. John's as they were presented with an Inclusive Education Award

from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living.

As a government, we support the philosophy that all students should attend

school with their peers, and receive appropriate, quality programming in

inclusive school environments. We have, in fact, invested millions of dollars in

teachers, teacher training, additional support staff, as well as the latest

technologies to make this possible.

Bishops College, under the leadership of Principal Bridget Ricketts, is one

school which has truly taken the inclusion message to heart. Its students and

staff have gone above and beyond to ensure all students are involved in a range

of school activities and that all are recognized as valued, contributing members

of the wider school community.

I was proud to be with them today, Mr. Speaker, and to see some of their

inclusive activities in practice.

I also offer my congratulations to six other nominated schools: Fatima

Academy in St. Bride's; Roncalli Central High School in Avondale; Coley's Point

Primary; Menihek High School in Labrador City; St. Matthew's Elementary in St.

John's; and Sacred Heart Academy in Marystown.

Mr. Speaker, the Association for Community Living also honours an individual

educator each year, and this year's recipient is Mr. Bill Chaisson, principal of

St. Gerard's Elementary in Corner Brook. Mr. Chaisson has demonstrated both a

professional and personal commitment to making inclusion work in his school,

making him most worthy of this provincial honour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in

congratulating and thanking schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador,

especially the staff and students of Bishops College, and to St. Gerard's

Elementary for showing us each and every day how inclusion can be a positive

experience for all involved and for society at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

I wish to congratulate Bishops College for receiving this award; it shows the

great work that they have been doing. I guess we should give kudos to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living for everything that

they are doing to promote inclusion.

It is encouraging to see students, teachers, and staff co-operating together

to make sure that inclusion is a part of everyday life, and again, it starts at

the top. Ms Ricketts is to be commended for everything that she is doing to make

sure that this philosophy, this priority, starts at the top and is going

throughout the entire school, so a very good job to them.

What I would say is that again, all the schools that were involved here

deserve commendation. My alma mater, St. James Regional High, is another school

that does take an opportunity to practice inclusion every day.

I would like to congratulate Mr. Chaisson for everything he is doing out in

St. Gerard's Elementary. He is doing a great job.

This is a good message for us to be passing on, and there is no better place

to pass messages on than to our youth. They are going to make sure that the

message lives on and grows.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you.

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

I congratulate Mr. Chaisson and Bishops College for their awards and for

working hard to make inclusion a reality. I would like to hear more about what

was done at these schools, Mr. Speaker, and to see how the department plans to

disseminate these best practices throughout the school system.

Parents and teachers are telling us that they need more resources and more

frontline specialized supports in schools, such as autism support workers, so

that parents do not have to go bankrupt trying to pay for these services

themselves, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been almost sixty claims presented to the Workplace Compensation

Commission related to asbestos and multi-chemical exposure at the Marystown

Shipyard in the late 1960s to the 1980s. Families and individuals involved are

saying many of these claims are being rejected without adequate analysis or

explanation.

I ask the minister: On what basis are these claims being rejected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The circumstances at the Marystown Shipyard are significant circumstances. I

can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly, and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we take these matters very seriously. We take the

matters of the shipyard workers, former shipyard workers and their families very

seriously. In fact so, Mr. Speaker, after the last statutory review in 2005-2006

that was conducted, that normally takes place, there was the formation of what

is known as the ODAP, Occupational Disease Advisory Panel.

The first order of business the Occupational Disease Advisory Panel conducted

was to retain the services of the IRSST, a very well-respected institute out of

Quebec to conduct a piece of research on shipyard workers. In fact, the document

they produced compiled over 350 reports involving shipyard workers. It is a

piece of work that has never existed before. That piece of work is now being

used in adjudication of these -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister, what we understand is that was primarily

a literature review and there have been no specific visits to Marystown. Mr.

Speaker, Dr. Noel Kerin, an occupational disease specialist in Toronto, says

exposure to cancer-causing chemicals was much higher in Marystown than in other

shipyards in the world.

I ask the minister: Given the comments by this specialist, will this

government stop dismissing these cases and conduct a proper investigation into

the specific situation related to asbestos and multi-chemical exposure at the

Marystown Shipyard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The adjudication of occupational disease that is conducted by the Workplace

Health, Safety and Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador for all

workplace occupational disease is adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. The

report from the IRSST is going to be used to assist in adjudicating the cases

specific to Marystown, but this report also will assist adjudicating cases that

involve other occupations such as painters or welders who may work in other

industries.

I am familiar with some of the comments that Dr. Kerin has provided as well

as some other people who say that they have expert evidence to support their

claims. What we do is we have invited Dr. Kerin to provide medical and

scientific evidence to support his allegations. If he was to submit such

information and wanted to submit it, we would readily accept it and we would

help to utilize that as well in adjudication of cases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand today there are about 100 people in that database. Mr. Speaker,

the Marystown Shipyard Family Alliance is concerned about the number of deaths

and the number of people diagnosed with cancer in their area. They are asking

for assistance from government in monitoring the health of former workers who

have potentially been injured by asbestos and multi-chemical exposure.

I ask the minister: What assistance is government willing to provide to these

former workers from the shipyard to monitor their health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I mentioned, the circumstances in Marystown are very serious I know to the

people of Marystown as well as the family members of the Marystown Shipyard

workers and former workers. We have in place the Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Commission in Newfoundland and Labrador that is put in place to

adjudicate these cases and provide compensation when so required under the rules

and the procedures and policies of the Commission. A person has to file a claim

- we use all of the scientific and medical evidence that is available to the

Commission in the adjudication of these cases, and that is the right process to

follow. We will invite any new evidence that is available to us, we will utilize

that information in the adjudication of those cases, and when so, the Commission

will support those families under those circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I will remind the minister, too, that with workers' compensation there

is a quite a backlog in the review division right now.

On another question, Mr. Speaker, an energy expert from Maine was in the

media today and stated several important things about the US energy market.

Number one, they are focused on the shale natural gas; number two, they prefer

energy closer to home; and three, they are not willing to sign long-term

contracts.

I ask the minister: Given these facts, where is the market for Muskrat Falls

power in New England?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Shortly after I became minister we met with groups in New York, Wood

Mackenzie and PIRA, and talked about the energy markets in the Northeastern

United States, Mr. Speaker. We are aware of the influence of shale gas and how

it is affecting the energy markets, but, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear on why we

are developing Muskrat Falls, if we develop it. It is to satisfy our need at

home; to allow for a link to Maritime and Eastern US markets; and to provide

electricity for mining developments in Labrador. So, essentially, Mr. Speaker,

what will happen is that we will use the energy we have available, until we need

to recall, on the spot markets. We are not looking, Mr. Speaker, for power

purchase arrangements. There is, by the way, as Mr. Weil said in the CBC

interview, markets in the Maritime area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you.

Well, I am happy to hear that the minister is actually talking now about

Labrador, but let's not forget that the early days it was always about 40 per

cent export, 40 per cent here on the Island, and 20 per cent to Emera.

New England States have a renewable energy requirement, meaning that a

certain percentage of their power must come from renewable resources. Generally,

for energy to be considered renewable in New England, it has to come from a

source less than 100 megawatts capacity. This is designed to favour local energy

generation. As you know, Muskrat is 824 megawatts.

How are you going to sell Muskrat energy where it does not even meet the

Northeastern US renewable criteria?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition did not

hear the interview or if he simply does not understand what the gentleman said.

What the gentleman said, Mr. Speaker, is that renewable energy credits in the

New England States are under a certain amount to encourage wind projects, for

example, in New England, where they are not as connected to the gas markets. He

did not say there were no markets, Mr. Speaker. In the summertime now, Nalcor

sells the energy that is available it could be up to 220 megawatts into the

spot markets, going through Quebec and New Brunswick into the United States.

There is always a market, Mr. Speaker. The price of the energy being sold will

determine what is going on at any given hour and any given minute in any given

day.

There is a market, Mr. Speaker. The price is another thing because, remember,

the Emera link gives us transmission access to the American markets without

paying undue tariffs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind him that Hydro-Quebec sold for 5.8 cents and Muskrat power is

hardly going to be competitive in that market.

Mr. Speaker, the Division of Lifelong Learning offers courses and programs to

people in the Province and provides a valuable public service. We have received

notice today that the division is closing.

I ask the minister: How long have you been aware of this? Is there any way of

avoiding this loss of these valuable services?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Memorial University has decided to close their

Lifelong Learning centre. I only learned about this recently. It was not

something from the Budget or a decision that involved the Department of Advanced

Education and Skills. It was a decision made by the university based on the fact

that they had opened that centre on a cost recovery basis and had been running

about a $700,000 deficit. The university decided to close that institute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week I met with the Minister of Education with regard to

the Charlottetown school and he told me that the government would be

deliberating with regard to a solution. We know that the school is forty-seven

years old, that it has oil and mould contamination, and we just received a

recent report that outlines structural, mechanical, and electrical problems.

I ask the minister today: Will the government now move to replace and build a

new school in Charlottetown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, as I have been saying right

from the beginning, is that the environment these students, these teachers, and

the community are served by in the form of a school will be a safe one. I can

assure all of the people involved of that.

We have had an independent consultant that has gone in, as the member

indicated. The report has come back. We have done some review of it and are

continuing to do a review of it. The Western School District now is reviewing

it. We will consult with them and ultimately, Mr. Speaker, a decision will be

made.

I reiterate, the facility that these students go back into will be safe, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess my question would be: At what stage does a school no longer become

viable in terms of saving, when you have an aging school?

I have two studies that I have completely read, one that outlines extreme

quantities of mould in the school, very deadly forms of mould that have affected

the health of children. We also have another report now that tells us that we

have significant and serious problems with structural, electrical, and

mechanical.

Minister, you, yourself, have a docket in your office of letters from

students and parents outlining illness and sicknesses that these children have

experienced in that school. I ask you if you can make a decision very quickly

and move forward with a new school for the children of this community.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot stand here, commit, and say that

within a week or so we are going to commit to a new school. I simply cannot do

that. We have a report, and based on the expertise that has been provided to us,

an analysis is being done, and then we will make a decision and a determination

from that point.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say, and I reiterate it, is that whatever facility

these students go into, it will be safe and I will assure the community as well.

I met with Ms Dempster just last week, and the member opposite. I then

expressed to them that we will move on this in a timely manner, Mr. Speaker. As

quickly as we can get this moving we will, and we will inform the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, once again the ferry service to Fogo Island and Bell Island is

in a state of turmoil. Budget 2012 indicates that the provincial vessel

replacement program is still in the design stage, including the replacement of

the Captain Earl Windsor . Design, for this government, means stall.

I ask the minister: When can the residents of Fogo Island and Change Islands

expect to see a permanent, reliable service and replacement for the Captain

Earl Windsor ?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question from across the

House, obviously we as a government are on track, making sure that we are moving

forward with the vessel replacement strategy as quickly as we possibly can.

Beginning in 2006, we indicated that Phase I would involve two medium-sized

ferries, Mr. Speaker. Those two ferries are now in the water. We are very much

satisfied with them. As we move into the next phases of our strategy, we have in

the works six under design; that design will be finished and ready for tender as

of the end of November. The replacement of the Captain Earl Windsor for

Fogo, that is currently at the last stages of design and in early summer, we

should be able to go to tender on that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

I say to the minister: Too bad that paper cannot float; they would have a

good ferry, so many designs.

Mr. Speaker, the Nonia has been taken off the Bell Island run and sent

to replace the Beaumont Hamel on Fogo Island leaving Bell Island with

only one ferry: the Flanders . The provincial ferry service has become

totally unreliable. The Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island must agree

with me.

I ask the minister: Why has your vessel replacement strategy announced in

2003, nine years later, fallen off the rails leaving residents who depend on the

service without reliable vessels and no firm commitment of a new replacement

date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite

would mention 2003, because that was the year that we took over from the

previous Administration. It is also interesting that he mentioned the Nonia

because in the fifteen years that they were in, that was their vessel

replacement strategy fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are dealing with now, but I would reassure the

people who we serve through our ferry services that our vessel replacement

strategy is moving along as expected, and that we will continue to provide what

services are necessary in order to keep those services going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, earlier today when I questioned the Fisheries

Minister in the Estimates Committee on how many fish plants he foresaw in this

Province five years from now. The minister responded that there would likely be

20 per cent fewer plants than the current 114.

I ask the minister: Is government consulting with processors, and is there a

comprehensive strategy to address dying plants in vulnerable communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we had a great discussion in Estimates this

morning as a matter of fact. The short answer to the question is yes, we are

absolutely consulting with the industry; we consult every single day. I spent

fifteen minutes or so yesterday reminding the minister of our view of

consultation with the industry versus his view of simply writing a report and

writing a plan and telling people what is going to happen. We do not operate

that way on this side of the House.

We are consulting; we will continue to consult. As a matter of fact, I left

Estimates today and had a meeting with a processing operator in the Province to

talk about their plans for the future, and we will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, also in fisheries Estimates today the minister

stated that a multi-species model would be ideal for the plants of the future

something that I had proposed as a fishery development tool.

I ask the minister: When will his department produce a multi-species strategy

and action plan to facilitate and support processors and help move this industry

forward?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the critic opposite wants to take ownership for

the idea of the multi-species plan, then he better be sure to own the kipper

plan for the Province too that he proposes as a salvation of the fishing

industry.

I say to the member opposite, first of all the fishing industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador is a business. It is a business operated by

independent companies that have quotas and they go out and harvest the quotas

and they bring them to market and they market it.

Mr. Speaker, our role, as I explained as clearly as I could to the member

opposite this morning, is to support the industry. We do that in a lot of ways.

One of which is our Fisheries Technology Program. We are investing in companies

all the time, Mr. Speaker, to put in new equipment to help them better their

operations and improve the product that goes to market. Perhaps, with another

question, I will tell you some more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been five years since the government announced the

construction of the Corner Brook hospital. Your government has committed $1

million for the planning for the Corner Brook hospital in this year's Budget. I

asked the minister yesterday and the minister would not answer. The people of

Corner Brook want to know and deserve to know.

I ask the minister: Will the $1 million be sufficient to complete the design

work of the hospital so that construction can begin on this hospital in the next

construction season?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the design work is ongoing. We are committed to seeing that all

of the design, all of the functional planning, is done and we will pay the cost,

whatever those costs are going to be. I do not have an exact figure as to what

those costs are going to be, Mr. Speaker, but I know we are committed to getting

that design work done and I know that is going to happen. We have spent, to

date, $17.7 million. We are committed to this hospital in Corner Brook. We are

going to have the best hospital we can possibly have out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills said she

was not aware of any penalty low-income recipients who applied for CPP at the

age of sixty would face if they wanted to take advantage of the new rule by

rescinding the CPP application they were forced into making. There is in fact a

penalty. People have only a six-month window to opt out of CPP after they make

application at the age of sixty. As well, they have to pay back any money they

received during that time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Did she not study the potential implications

of the new regime they have put in place and plan for such a contingency?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government, as part of our Budget process and

part of our Poverty Reduction Strategy, has developed a policy that people who

are receiving Income Support will no longer have to apply for CPP when they turn

sixty. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that on a go-forward basis people who

collect their CPP when they turn sixty-five as opposed to sixty will have 30 per

cent more of their pension, their CPP, as they retire.

This is a penalty that was imposed on people when they applied for Income

Support, and based on our Poverty Reduction Strategy, to try to meet the needs

of people between sixty and sixty-five, and into their older years, Mr. Speaker,

we felt that they would no longer be required to apply for their CPP. However,

it will still be their decision if they wish to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The minister said yesterday that if there were a penalty creating financial

hardship for individuals wanting to rescind their CPP benefits until they reach

the age of sixty-five, they could expect her and her department to do due

diligence in assisting them.

Mr. Speaker, what is the minister's plan for helping people face the

financial hardship that would be caused by the payback that is part of the

federal procedure?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills,

and in our Income Support Program, do due diligence every single day when we

deal with individuals who receive Income Support. A lot of times there are

anomalies, situations, or circumstances that nobody has planned for and they

have to deal with their case workers on a case-by-case basis to deal with these

issues.

Mr. Speaker, this policy we brought in is to address people who are sixty

years of age and older who no longer will have to, as a requirement of receiving

their Income Support, apply for their CPP when they turn sixty. Mr. Speaker,

this policy we felt would address poverty issues for people in their older

years, and something I am sure benefits Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is

also an investment of $500,000 that we have put into our Poverty Reduction

Strategy to assist these people, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Cold comfort, Mr. Speaker, cold comfort.

Mr. Speaker, all Legislatures in Canada have permanent, all-party standing

committees that deal with serious public issues. Newfoundland and Labrador does

not. Standing committees through public sessions and other consultation give

people the opportunity to have input on policy changes and legislation, whether

it be something like Muskrat Falls or changes to income assistance policies.

Consultation is a basic component of democracy in every other Legislature in

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When will this

government begin the process to bring the democracy of this House of Assembly up

to a national standard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the member, the Leader of the Third Party, when will her questions

come up to a national standard, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, we have committees in place, Standing Committees in this House:

we have the Resource Committee, we have the Social Services Committee, and we

have Government Services Committee. They meet, they go through the Estimates,

Mr. Speaker, and they deal with these issues. There is the House Management

committee that governs the House.

We then have, in our Cabinet procedures we have Treasury Board, we have

Social Policy, and we have Economic Policy Committees. Those are the committees

where Cabinet papers and Cabinet decisions are looked at, Mr. Speaker. For

example, if there is going to be an expenditure of money it goes to Treasury

Board and or Economic Policy, Mr. Speaker. We have those committees. They inform

the government process. They make recommendations, and Cabinet then considers

those recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, standing committees also give all parties in the House of

Assembly time to examine and discuss legislation before it is presented for

debate. All-party standing committees across the country regularly seek input

from people about draft legislation and policy changes through public sessions

and real consultation. This government only gives Opposition MHAs a cursory look

at bills before they are presented to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: When will government

catch up to the basic democracy that other provinces have and let our all-party

standing committees do what they are supposed to do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here in the House since March 5 now. A number of

bills have come before this House. There are various stages, Mr. Speaker, with

the bill. After second reading there is debate and that debate can go on

forever, Mr. Speaker, as long as the Opposition wants it to go on. So there is

lots of opportunity for discussion, but the main process in determining

government policy, having been elected as the government in an election that

took place in October of last year, Mr. Speaker, is to determine where we are

heading as a government. As I indicated, we have main committees that look at

all of our policies and our economic spending.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are quite welcome to form coalitions and to

have whatever policies they want. We see, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for St.

John's North had a travelling sideshow earlier this year and they can all do the

same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Last month the Minister of Education attended the Federation

School Councils AGM where he asked school councils to help his department to

make our schools safe and positive learning environments. Mr. Speaker, despite

the fact that school councils are established through legislation, this

government provides no direct annual funding to them.

I ask the minister: How does he expect school councils to carry out their

statutory responsibilities and help his department when they are not provided

the basis resources they need to operate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

School councils are established so that we can have more of a parental role

in the school system. We work very closely with them, Mr. Speaker. As a matter

of fact, I have a request from the new executive to have a meeting with them; I

am in the process of setting that up now. We will work jointly with the school

councils to see what it is we can do to strengthen their role, Mr. Speaker, that

role which is very, very important in our school system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that many school councils do not

have funding for basic supplies like paper and photocopying. They have no direct

funding that is provided by government. The Federation of School Councils that

the minister referenced has not seen any increase in funding in over a decade.

This year's Budget also directs school districts to trim tens of thousands of

dollars from their operations, so that bodes poorly for school councils.

I ask the minister: How does he justify this lack of funding for school

councils? Why are school councils such a low priority for this government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I can assure that member there has not been a

government who have committed more to education than this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you would be up and having me sit down before I

could get through one tenth of what we have committed to in education. I can sit

down with him anytime and list them out, because as far as I am concerned, he

has not done enough research to find out what we have invested in. I can assure

you, Mr. Speaker, school councils, I will commit to meeting with them to see

what it is that we can do to further their cause so that their role is

strengthened within our school system.

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, the 2011 Budget promised to provide more staff so the St.

Anthony dialysis unit could operate five days a week. Now, more than a year

later, there is enough trained staff, but the unit has not been expanded and

people are waiting to get into this unit.

Could the minister tell us: Why the delay in expanding the St. Anthony

dialysis unit, where the staff are trained and are ready to go?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the dialysis unit is very important right across this Province

and that is why we have expended so much money into dialysis right across

Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, in this Budget we expended another $1.9

million to improve dialysis services, Mr. Speaker. The services that are offered

in that particular community are up to par for the time being; we are looking to

do more work in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out as well that the member opposite asked me

that question in another setting here in this House, and I did invite him to

give me some opportunity to arrange a meeting. That meeting time is still open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the news this morning, a retired public servant was quoted raising

affordability issues, along with concerns that any further increases to her

municipal taxes will create severe hardship for her and other seniors on fixed

incomes. Such increases are likely, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this

government is delaying negotiations on a new municipal funding arrangement, even

a short-term arrangement to rebate the provincial portion of the HST, as

Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador requested in January.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell this House when we can expect to

see a new funding arrangement with municipalities, so that they do not have to

pass on these extra costs and financial shortfalls to their taxpayers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to know that the hon. member is not

connected to MNL and not connected to municipalities in Newfoundland and

Labrador at all, for the simple reason that they are in the media saying that

they do not expect a new fiscal arrangement for at least a year-and-a-half, if

not two years. I have made a commitment to MNL to review the formula, develop a

new formula when it comes to MOGs, which is a component of the fiscal

arrangement, by this November to inform next year's Budget. If you were

listening to the news at all or connected to MNL, you would have had that

information before you came into this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here again today on a petition that was sent up from the Ferryland

district, Mr. Speaker, concerning the Animal Protection Act. I will read the

petition:

WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully

inadequate; and

WHEREAS it has almost been two years since the Animal Protection Act was

passed in the House of Assembly but yet not proclaimed; and

WHEREAS the inadequacy of the current animal protection law is of grave and

immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe

punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

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

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

immediately proclaim the Animal Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am after standing here numerous times on this petition. I urge

the Speaker to urge the government to get this done, because we are all involved

with the protection of the animals that cannot speak for themselves, that cannot

stand up for themselves. It is a big issue all across, and we see it.

I just want to give an example, Mr. Speaker. Years ago, probably about a few

years ago, just down my way, there was an animal that was tied on, on a regular

basis. It was out mostly twenty-four hours a day, wintertime, it was not fed

properly, it was very small and lost a lot of weight, and it was not getting a

lot of water.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people around the area used to come in and feed the

dog, and we used to get told off. I was one of the people who used to come on

the property and feed the dog and give him water, and I would always be told

off. You would stay long enough so you could feed the dog, and you would get

told off.

It was a husky mix, and a lot of people used to think the dog was a bit wild

and a lot of people were scared of it, but it was just not used to anybody.

The SPCA called upon the people on many occasions, but it was just to the

point where they never had the legislation to do much. It was right at the point

where if you did not feed it, it would be a bit too hungry, or a bit too small.

You would have to take it, or you do not feed it.

Mr. Speaker, I saw that day after day, week after week, month after month,

just down at the bottom of my road.

This dog, eventually, because of other circumstances, has found a home. It

has been given a home now. This dog is a very loving husky mix that sits down

with the cats, lies down with the cats. Mr. Speaker, I know personally why we

need this legislation, because this dog, Kilo, lives at my house. We need to

bring in this legislation so we can stop other animal abuses like Kilo went

through for two-and-a-half years of his first three-and-a-half years of life.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to urge the government to proclaim this act,

so we can all get what we need to get done to protect the animals of the

Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today with a home care petition.

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

in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain

within the comfort and security of their homes, home care also allows people to

be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many families find it difficult to recruit and retain home care

workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011, as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne,

committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people

the option of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to

implement paying family caregivers;

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

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

implement a new home care policy to cover family caregivers.

In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is from people from the Towns of Port Saunders and Port au

Choix. This is a really difficult issue for people who find themselves

particularly in a rural setting. I am certain it is similar in urban settings,

but in rural settings where communities are small and the number of people who

they can select from is rather limited, it is difficult to get home care in the

first place. To have trained family members who are properly trained, equipped,

and able to care for loved ones who are elderly, infirm, and unable to look for

themselves is critically important.

Mr. Speaker, just to give you an example, earlier this year a gentleman was

telephoning my office and really hoping to get additional home care. This is a

man who did not get enough work this year and who is working on a project in

another town. He is able to get home care to look after his wife when he is

working on a project. When he comes back home, he cares for her himself, which

he is happy to do, he can do that; however, this is a man who is pleading for

more home care so he has an opportunity to go and cut firewood. He needs extra

time to cut firewood while he is caring for a wife who has had a stroke and is

infirm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, these are difficult situations and tragic

situations. It would be so easy for the government to make such a difference.

This petition is from my district asking for the same.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a petition I have spoken about a couple of times before in the

Legislature regarding needed changes to the Department of Education's school bus

transportation policies. This is a petition that has been circulated throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, and there are thousands of people who have responded

to this petition. It reads:

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

Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times

and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, shouts are coming across from the other side,

from the Government House Leader with regard to the fact that our person here is

standing and presenting a petition on behalf of people of this Province. There

is nothing in the Standing Orders that says how many times petitions can be

presented as long as they are new petitions, new sheets presented. I really ask

you, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling on what is happening here in the House at this

moment.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I ask the Member for St. John's North to continue with his petition.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just start the petition from the beginning, I think, because of the

interruption that is coming from across the way.

The petition reads as follows: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer

bus travel times and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all

ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres

of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in

the walk to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting

children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and

directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noontime routes, causing

hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student

transportation policies have not been reviewed through public consultation since

1996; and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for more flexible policies for

student transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of

school children.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to

conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring

to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have these petitions coming in on a weekly basis

and I continue to get up and read out the petition on behalf of constituents

from across the Province who are petitioning the government. I had a call this

morning from a constituent of mine who is having some difficulty getting busing

for the fall for a child who is moving from child care to daycare. The other

night I had an open house in my district where I had a parent who has three

children, in fact she has triplets, she has had difficulty getting child care;

two children in kindergarten in the morning now in the fall, and another one is

in the afternoon. She is having difficulty having them bused to child care

facilities in my district. These are serious problems and I urge the government

to look at this before long.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Your time is up.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I now call upon

the Member for Burgeo La Poile, if he would introduce the motion that stands

on the record in his name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand today and speak to this private member's resolution

which I will read into the record:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon government to

provide for a fixed House of Assembly sitting

schedule by introducing amendments

to the House of Assembly Act as follows:

Section 3 of the House of Assembly Act is amended by adding immediately after

subsection (2) the following:

(3) In 2012 and every following year, except years

in which there is a general election under subsection (2), there shall be a

sitting of the House of Assembly (

a) commencing on the second Monday in March

and adjourning on the Wednesday before Easter Sunday; (

b) commencing on the

third Monday after Easter Sunday and adjourning on the Thursday before the

Victoria Day holiday, and (

c) commencing on the third Monday in October and

adjourning not later than one week before Christmas Day.

Subsection (4) In years in which there is a general election under subsection

(2), there shall be a sitting of the House of Assembly (

a) commencing on the

second Monday in March and adjourning on the Wednesday before Easter Sunday; (

b) commencing on the third Monday after Easter Sunday and adjourning on the

Thursday before the Victoria Day holiday, and (

c) commencing no later than 30

days after the general election day and adjourning not later than one week

before Christmas Day.

Subsection (5) Nothing in subsection (3) prohibits the House of Assembly from

sitting. Subsection (6) Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council intends to

adjourn the House of Assembly earlier than the sitting dates referred to in

subsection (3) or to cancel a sitting referred to in subsection (3), the

Government House Leader shall (

a) table a report in the House of Assembly

stating the reasons for the early adjournment or cancellation, and (

b) on the

first day of the next sitting of the House of Assembly, give notice of a motion

to debate the report referred to in paragraph (

a) and this motion shall have

precedence over all other substantive motions on this Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to stand and speak to this first private

member's resolution that I have had the honour of entering into this House. It

is a bit different in how it is laid out compared to the normal private member's

resolutions in that we are urging government to take action here but we have

laid out specifically what we would like to see government do in the form of a

bill. The fact is that in this jurisdiction

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: as a private member we do not have the opportunity to

introduce bills for debate, whether they could be passed or denied. In this

case, the only thing we have is a private member's resolution that I can urge

the government to pass this bill. Again, there is one reason here, and that is

for a fixed House of Assembly

schedule that will have some stability and some

semblance of regularity.

I guess the reason for this comes back to the election on October 11, Mr.

Speaker. Again, all of us were very happy on election night. We all won our

seats and were very happy to have this position, but there was another

announcement that night we had not heard of before. That was when the Premier

announced that the House would not be opening in the fall. That was a bit of a

shock to just about everybody. Again, this was an issue that was talked about a

lot all throughout this Province. You had protesters talking about it; you had

media talking about it. Certainly, a lot of us new members obviously wanted the

opportunity to get in this House and be able to do our job and represent the

people that put us here in this great House.

I guess one of the reasons for that, Mr. Speaker, is that as it stands there

is no legislation governing the House of Assembly in terms of when it shall sit.

What we have are Standing Orders, Standing Orders that give out sort of a what

we should do', but there is nothing to stop the Premier from not following those

Standing Orders. It is a thing where it is honourable to do so, but you do not

have to do that.

What I would say is that in many cases, if it was not for us having to pass a

Budget in the spring of every year, perhaps the House would not sit. There was

an announcement. The Premier was on the media saying why she was not opening the

House of Assembly. One of the main reasons was there was no legislation ready to

pass and therefore there was no need to open the House.

I have not sat in this House as long as Mr. Speaker, and certainly as long as

many members in this House, but I have been here long enough to know that

legislation is just one important aspect of what we do here in this House. There

are many, many other issues and applications that this House has, which is why

we need to have a regular House schedule.

One of them is the thing that we go through every day: Question Period. That

is just one aspect of how important this House is. There may be some arguments

that Question Period is not long enough. Certainly, when I hear the groan from

the members opposite every day when our questions are done, I think that perhaps

they would want some more questions asked every day, but we have thirty minutes

and we are stuck at thirty minutes.

Again, in some provinces actually, I believe there is one province that has

twenty-five minutes, unfortunately. There are many provinces that go up to sixty

minutes for Question Period. That would just be hard to imagine, doubling this

here, how much fun I do not know how the media would handle that every day,

having a full hour of Question Period to try to listen to and get ready for the

media that night and for the next morning.

Question Period, I think, is of prime importance, because it is our

opportunity as members in the Opposition our job as Opposition is to hold the

government accountable for their actions. One way we do this is by questioning

the members of government that are helping make these actions happen. This is

how we do that.

It was suggested, I believe, at some point, that there is plenty of debate on

the go otherwise, other than the House of Assembly. I think there has been some

suggestion well, listen, there are Open Line shows every day that you can get

on and talk about. Now, what I would say is that in this Province, obviously,

there is a keen interest in politics; there is no doubt about that. We have

three Open Line shows; we have the other talk shows, the morning shows. The

media are very interested in it. We have the House of Assembly channel, which is

watched by a number of people; certainly in my district I know they watch

AN HON. MEMBER: Joe and Martha.

MR. A. PARSONS: Uncle Joe Chesterfield is watching us every day to make

sure that we are asking the questions, Uncle Joe Chesterfield, but you know

what? There are people that are taking advantage of something that was not there

before. Technology allows us this opportunity to see what our members are doing

in the House every day; wait until I get cellphone and broadband, that is going

to be a whole different world there. Anyway, I digress, Mr. Speaker.

What I would say is that Question Period is essential to the proper

functioning of a democracy. Question Period is fundamental to that. Now

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I am going to get to petitions, I would say to the

member. That is just one aspect; I am going to cover them off today. I know the

Government House Leader is not going to be happy to hear about petitions. He

does not like to hear the petitions, but again, I feel that I must address that

while we are talking. I guess we are going to have an opportunity to talk about

the House of Assembly in general, so I am going to use my seven-and-a-half

minutes that I have left to address these issues.

Now, again, I would come back to what I was talking about, which is Open Line

substitute to democracy. It is great that there is so much interest. We know

there is a lot of interest out there on Twitter, but again, we are not going to

allow Twitter to run our Province. That is just not going to happen. That is not

going to happen. I would say that there are members on all sides here that have

used Twitter back in the period leading up to when the House actually opened to

convey their thoughts, perhaps convey their policies. There are some members

that do not, and I am just wondering if they have broadband.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would go back to a background on why we are here in the

first place and that is to talk about parliament in general. Now, the fact is,

parliament comes from the French parler ,

to speak. Parliaments as political institutions have developed over hundreds of

years. Again, we are very lucky to live in a part of the world where we do have

a democracy that is we have evolved over time and we have gotten better.

Now, the Westminster system, which we have here in Canada again, we come

from the British system of which we evolved there. We have a series of

procedures that are characterized by an adversarial procedure. We have a

government, we have an opposition; the opposition has to question the

government. Sometimes the government does not like answering those questions,

but that is just the nature of the game. That is the nature of how our system

works. What I would say, though, is that there are other practices in many

legislatures, some of which we have, some of which we do not have. This

Province, Newfoundland and Labrador, we are often at odds with the rest of

Canada in that we do not have functioning aspects of democracy that other

provinces do have, Mr. Speaker. I am going to get into that a little bit later.

We are lacking in certain areas and there have been questions on these areas

where we are lacking.

One way in which the government can limit the role of an Opposition is to

limit the time in which a Legislature is open. The fact is the Standing Orders

are there to provide us a forum which grants us certain rights and privileges.

When we are outside the Legislature our abilities we are severely

disadvantaged and we are limited in our resource, in our ability to challenge

government. The fact is when the Legislature is open we are more able to do our

job effectively, which is another reason why we need the House open and why we

need it open on a regular basis.

The House of Assembly should not be closed on the whim of a Premier or a

government; it should be there. This is what my private member's resolution is

suggesting. It is suggesting that, look, if you do not want to open the House,

you are going to have to stand up here and explain to the people why you chose

to close the House. Not just a case of we are going to close it, you have to

stand here and table that and show why you did it.

What we will go to next, Mr. Speaker, is we have taken the time to look at

the amount of time that different Parliaments and Houses of Assembly and

Legislatures are open, which would involve an examination of the number of

sitting days that the Legislatures are open. I have a little table that we have

compiled here to compare that; compare when there was an election and then when

the Legislatures actually reopened.

We had a number of elections in the year 2011 in different provinces and

certainly the House of Commons had their election. They had an election on May

2, 2011. They opened June 2; one month later they opened. In PEI, they had an

election on October 3; they were open less than a month later. Ontario had an

election on October 6; they opened November 21. Manitoba, October 4; they opened

October 20, so it did not take long for them to restart. Saskatchewan, November

7; they opened the House December 5. In Newfoundland, we had an election October

11; we did not reopen until March 5. Actually I am sorry, we opened for one day

so we could all sit and be sworn in. Actually, some members stood and said we

are going to adjourn the House until March. If we get rid of that ceremonial

day, the fact is our Legislature has sat shuttered since October.

I am going to continue on, Mr. Speaker. I am not getting into party politics

here. I think that we have a duty together to work constructively to make our

democracy better so that we can better represent all the people of this

Province, no matter where they reside. The thing is we just cannot accept or

settle on what we have. Democracy can always work better; we can make things

better. We need to look at a number of things: how questions are dealt with in

this House. We have put questions on the Order Paper; they have been there for

over a month. We have laid them out, put them there, and they have not been

answered. In some provinces they actually have legislation and rules to say you

must answer those questions. We do not have that in this Province. They have sat

there for a month. Every day, they are not getting looked at and they are not

getting answered.

Committee structure the Government House Leader actually stood up and

answered a question in the House today and said we do not have a need for

committees here, but my point or view, my opinion, is that I am in disagreement

with that 100 per cent. I think a committee structure could help us do our jobs

better, each and every one of us

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: A committee structure allows us sometimes the

Legislature in trying to discuss certain issues it can be very cumbersome and

allowing committees made up of all the parties to sit and look at these issues

can help everybody to have constructive input on the different issues, whether

it be social services, whether it be legislative. It is a good chance for

everybody to get together. At the end of the day, the government has the

majority. They are going to figure out what it is they want to do and not do.

Again, a committee would allow us the chance to all get together in a smaller

setting and look at these things and dissect and analyze them, especially when

it comes to legislation. Now, again, we have had legislation in the past. We get

a chance to debate that, no doubt. I think that we would bring a better piece of

legislation forward if we sit down and give it some analysis and perhaps hear

what some of the other members of this House have to say.

Again, another issue of democracy is we have members' statements. The

practice in this here

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member that his resolution deals with the

parliamentary calendar and not the Standing Orders. The member is starting to

examine Standing Orders, so I remind the member of the focus of his motion and

if he could make his comments relevant to the motion.

MR. A. PARSONS: Certainly and I digress, Mr. Speaker.

Let's come back to the big issues. Maybe we will look at these small issues

later on; let's get rid of the big issue here first. Again, I see some nodding

over there. They are saying: I like what you are saying. I like that.

What I would say is we have a system where we have to have checks and

balances. This is a government that ran on transparency and accountability. One

way to maintain transparency and accountability is to have an open, functioning,

effective Legislature, a House of Assembly. If we have the ability to close the

House or keep the House closed without having to provide any explanation

whatsoever, then that is not just good enough, Mr. Speaker, is what I would say.

My time is running short. I am very much looking forward to hearing what the

other members of this House have to say, and I will have another opportunity to

speak to this. I am hoping that members will take the opportunity to speak to

this, and give me your points of view on this. Perhaps we can form a committee

and we can discuss this, if you want. I see the Member for Terra Nova likes what

I have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the next opportunity to speak

to my private member's resolution.

MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

First, to the point of order, the member opposite referred to something that

the Member for Terra Nova had to say. He has no way, Mr. Speaker, to answer at

this point. Essentially, what he is doing is attributing comments to the member

that there is no way to verify or to establish.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I ask the member to continue with his comments.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since there is no point of order, what I would say to the member opposite is

that we were not agreeing with you; people were laughing at you.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution presented by the Opposition proposed scheduling

that is actually weaker than what we have now. What you are doing, Mr. Speaker,

we have a member opposite who wants to bring in a piece of legislation that

would restrict the sitting of this House. For example, Mr. Speaker, the member

opposite has suggested that we not sit after the Victoria Day weekend. That is

what his proposed legislation says, Mr. Speaker.

If you go back, this government has sat, Mr. Speaker, after Victoria Day, at

least for the last number of years, and up until June 24. This year, Mr.

Speaker, we will sit longer. The member opposite has suggested that we only sit

until a week before Christmas in December. I think the wording is actually the

last week before Christmas. We would not want to interfere with his Christmas

vacation, Mr. Speaker. What the member opposite is proposing is restrictive

legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the number of sitting days, which I will do

in a second, as will my colleagues, you will see that the shortest sitting

schedule, other than an election year, was in 2000. Who was in power in 2000

when they sat a total of thirty-three days? That is how long they sat in 2000.

Mr. Speaker, another aspect of this is that this government, there are a lot

of night sessions. For example, in 2004, 2005, and 2006 the night sessions were

fourteen, eleven, and ten nights respectively. So you are getting a minimum of

three hours in a night sitting. That is equal to a day.

Mr. Speaker, when you add that on to the actual sitting days, what you will

see is it increases the number. I can assure the members opposite, if you want

to sit, you will have the opportunity to sit in the next month, there is no

question about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: We will be sitting in the nighttime as soon as the Estimates

Committees finish, Mr. Speaker. My guess is that we are going to set a record in

this session in that we are going to be here longer than June 24, which we were

here last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to interfere with the

Member for Burgeo - La Poile's Victoria Day weekend. Maybe he has a reservation

at Butter Pot Park, I do not know. I will say, Mr. Speaker, make no plans for

the May 24 weekend, as he suggested legislation would allow.

Mr. Speaker, since 2004, we have sat beyond the May 24 weekend every year. In

2010, we sat on June 24, Mr. Speaker. As I have indicated, this sitting of the

House a session is a number of sittings we started on March 5, a week before

the member opposite would have us sit, and we will sit, Mr. Speaker, until at

least the middle or end of June. It will probably be the longest, single sitting

of this House in more than twenty years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: What we have is a government that is open to sitting, that

wants the House open, and, Mr. Speaker, we will keep the House open. We have to

remember one basic principle in keeping the House open, it is the Opposition who

keeps the House open, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition do not have to agree to

legislation. When we get into debate on the second reading, Mr. Speaker, they

can go, they can ask questions, and they can continue.

Last year or the year before, Mr. Speaker, we sat through the night. There

was one session we sat through the night. I have not seen the members opposite,

other than the Member for the Bay of Islands who kept it open one night, Mr.

Speaker, according to him, by speaking beyond 5:30 o'clock. If they want to do

that, we will sit every night also. Mr. Speaker, if they want to come back next

week after Estimates, we are willing to do that, too. You can do your Estimates

and if you want to come back 10:00 o'clock at night, no problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have, quite frankly, is that this resolution is a

bluff. It is a bluff on the part of the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, trying to

make it seem that he wants to keep the House open. Well, what it really is, Mr.

Speaker, he wants to close the House. He wants to close it on the May 24

weekend, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to you that is not the way that this

government is going to operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the proposed legislation, he

would commence on the third Monday in October and adjourn not later than one

week before Christmas. Because I guess he has Christmas shopping to do. I am not

sure why one week before Christmas. There is no minimum session, but not more

than one week. So if you sit a week, you will be happy with that?

Mr. Speaker, then he would break on the Thursday before the Victoria Day

holiday. Now, there is a catch-all phrase there that says, well, it does not

interfere with sittings. Why identify the Victoria Day holiday? What do you need

that at all for if you are going to sit?

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills will look at

part of this, as will the Minister of Fisheries. As I said, it is up to the

Opposition when to close this House. All they have to do is, to 5:30 every day,

keep on their feet, and this House will stay open. So I welcome them to it.

Mr. Speaker, the length of debate is dictated by the members opposite, but we

cannot simply bring in legislation for the sake of keeping the House open.

Legislation has to be focused; legislation has to be on issues that are relevant

to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Come the first of June, Mr. Speaker, we will see what the

member opposite is made of when we bring in the ATIPP legislation. There will be

amendments in relation to Nalcor and Muskrat Falls. There will be significant

bills here. They will have the opportunity to go right into July if they want.

We will see if they will do that.

Mr. Speaker, also, it is not enough for the House to be open. People have to

participate; people have to be in the House. They have to participate in debate.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a matter of we want the House open. The Third

Party were the ones that wanted the House open. Well, what have we seen from the

Third Party today? What have you seen?

AN HON. MEMBER: The same petition.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, what have we seen? That is right, Mr. Speaker. What

have we seen? A petition on school bus safety, twelve times. That is the Member

for St. John's North; that is his claim for fame in this House of Assembly in

this sitting so far, except if he is on the Twitter box, as the Member for

Gander would say.

Now, let us just look at some of the details of the sitting days, Mr.

Speaker, from 1995 to 2011. If you go back, and we are looking at what we have

in terms of the sitting days, in 2007 we left this House on June 14. In 2008 we

left the House on June 4. In 2009 there was a short sitting in September, and in

November there was a three week sitting, and from March 25 to May 28; in 2010,

from March 22 to June 24, and December 6 to December 16; in 2011, from March 21

to April 21, and May 9 to May 31.

Mr. Speaker, in each one of these sittings we have gone until the end of May.

We have Budget debate and Estimates. Then, if you look at the actual sitting

days, there will be reference again by my colleagues in terms of the actual

number of sitting days. One striking and I do not know if we can set this

record; I am certainly going to try, Mr. Speaker - the longest night sittings we

had were fourteen in 2004. I am going to do what I can to make sure the Member

for Burgeo La Poile is here more than fourteen nights in this next two months.

He will be very happy that we are sitting every night and that he is able to do

his job, because that is the way we are going to approach this.

In 2005, there were eleven sitting nights, but there were fifty-nine sitting

days in 2004, Mr. Speaker, and fourteen nights. If you add the nights, let's say

they are a minimum of three hours. They could have been through the night, if

you come here at 7:00 o'clock and if you stay beyond 10:00 o'clock, but 7:00

o'clock to 10:00 o'clock is usually a night sitting. I can assure the members

opposite, if they want to be here, we are going to be here, because this is

something we are going to do. The members on this side of the House are anxious

to speak; they all want to get up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: They all want to get up, Mr. Speaker. We have a good story

to tell and they want to tell it. The members opposite, they will all get their

chance on the sub-amendment, the amendment, and the motion in relation to the

Budget. They are going to run out, Mr. Speaker, and then get ready, because we

are going to go down these roads one after another; everyone is going to have a

good story to tell about the Budget and how it affects them and their districts.

What are you going to have, Mr. Speaker? There will be times when there will

be three and four hours of nothing but members on this side of the House getting

up twenty minutes at a time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: If they want democracy, they are going to get it, Mr.

Speaker: the people in this House standing up for their constituents, standing

up for the people of the Province, and telling the good story that we have as a

government to tell, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I will say to the Member for Burgeo La Poile, I will offer

him his first sitting through the night session next week or the week after when

Estimates finish, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to sit through the night, all he has

to do is let me know and I will make sure that we will sit right through the

night for him if he wants to get a taste for that.

The former Member for Burgeo La Poile could do it. Does the new member have

it in him, I wonder?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a lot younger.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, well, certainly not as experienced. Mr. Speaker, what

we have here is a situation where the member, in trying to make a point, trying

to be a lawyer, trying to use legislation to his own advantage, did not think it

through. That is the problem with lawyers who do not think things through: they

make mistakes.

Whether that is a lack of experience as lawyer, whether it is a lack of

experience as a politician, I do not know. What he is trying to do is embarrass

the government, and all he has done is embarrass himself. He has embarrassed

himself, because he wants to get home for Christmas and he wants to get home for

the May 24 weekend, Mr. Speaker. Well, we are going to make sure that he is not

able to take advantage of that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am hearing echoes in the Chamber or if it is

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair. Mr. Speaker, when you go to the

appendix there are practice recommendations that deal with sittings of the

House. Those practice recommendations, Mr. Speaker, are essentially the same

the pot calling the kettle black. The pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Is that you flapping your gums over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, you go to the appendix and the practice

recommendations there is a parliamentary

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has recognized that the Government House Leader

has the floor and I would ask members if they would refrain from making

commentary across the floor of the House of Assembly.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, in the appendix there are practice

recommendations. The practice recommendations outline the proposed schedule.

There is a parliamentary calendar during a session of the House of Assembly. As

I have indicated, we have not been following that calendar because we have been

sitting longer than what the calendar requires. The practice note is not

something that we have followed because we want to be in this House to raise the

issues, but it is up to the Opposition to raise the issues and keep the debate

going. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen much of that so far. Other

than the one night when they had an audience here is the only night that there

seemed to be any will to debate into the night. That quickly ended when we

started speaking one after the other.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to bring in a piece of legislation, then the

legislation has to be enforceable. All of a sudden, we are in the middle of a

piece of legislation and the Member for Burgeo La Poile's legislation requires

us to leave: We have to go now. Sorry, cannot continue it. The twenty-fourth of

May is here and we have to go celebrate the Queen's birthday. That is

essentially what he is asking. That is not the way this government is going to

operate, Mr. Speaker. What we are going to do, we will bring in the legislation

that is required by this House

MR. BENNETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe, on a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: The Government House Leader has spoken in what I would say a

very contemptuous manner toward the Queen's birthday. I would like a ruling as

to whether it was parliamentary or unparliamentary for him to say that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The Speaker acknowledges the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: My contemptuous comments are not directed towards the Queen,

Mr. Speaker; I can assure you that.

Mr. Speaker, if you look now at what this motion is really about. It is about

sitting after an election. The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills will

deal with that issue. I cannot see what else it could be about here when we

already sit longer than the proposed legislation. It is about sitting after an

election. My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister

of Advanced Education and Skills, will certainly outline in detail their

perspective on this.

The best I can say, Mr. Speaker: If you want to sit, we are here. If you are

ready to go, then we are more than ready.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we are truly the most favoured forty-eight

people in this Province and I say that truly. We are the most favoured

forty-eight people in this Province because we have been elected by our fellow

citizens to govern them for a four-year period. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the people

of our Province have said to us each and every one of us by marking an X,

that I trust you to represent me to my government. I want you to listen to me,

to advocate for me, and even govern me. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and it is

an awesome responsibility. I am not sure all members share my view, but I

certainly hope they do.

Now, how did we get to this situation whereby fellow citizens say to us: I

want you to govern me? Mr. Speaker, the Greeks got it started a couple of

thousand years ago. The Greeks are not doing so well right now economically, but

the Greeks started democracy. That is why we call it democracy, because it is

from a Greek word.

Mr. Speaker, the Romans followed up. The Romans had a representative form of

government, but not a democracy. The Roman Republic was not a democracy; it was

a form of republic. Then the Roman Republic fell and then for a millennium there

was a dark age. For a whole millennium, people had no way to govern themselves.

People were governed basically by the rule of force.

Mr. Speaker, even when people were governed by the rule of force, they had an

opportunity to go before their monarch for a boon. Mr. Speaker, that is a

petition. When I hear commentary that petitions should not be heard in this

House or maybe it is enough of petitions, are we saying to the people of the

Province you cannot have your elected representative come before this House and

present a petition? Mr. Speaker, as long as petitions are always of an

acceptable format to the Officers of the House, then clearly our petition should

be heard by this House.

Mr. Speaker, in 1215 we decided to get back on track with democracy and we

had the Magna Carta. It was a representative form of government but it was not a

democracy. In 1215, we tried to get back on track. I would say that at that

point they were probably governed by

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: - an individual, Prince John and then King John who may have

had some of the attributes that we see regrettably displayed sometimes by

certain speakers. However, after another few hundreds years, in the eighteenth

Century democracy began to take hold again. We saw a series of revolutions. We

saw a period of time when people wanted to be able to govern themselves. We saw

it in the United States. We call it their revolution because they rebelled

against what was our monarch. They call it their War of Independence. We saw it

in the French Revolution. We would certainly hope the attitude that says do not

bring a petition for home care, do not bring a petition for people who are

advocating for animals that are being treated cruelly, do not bring petitions

for school buses, do not bring petitions because people have needs and wants. I

hope that never evolves into a situation displayed by a French queen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, relevance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has recognized the Member for St. Barbe, if you

would continue, please.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there have been statements made of an alleged democratic

deficit. I do not agree that there is a demographic deficit. People have the

right to vote and people can elect the people who they want to elect.

This is a motion which has been brought, not to shorten the sitting day. I

know the Government House Leader, probably one of the first courses that he took

in law school was on statutory construction, and the law students struggle and

try to figure out: What did the Legislature mean?

Under sub (5) it says, "Nothing in subsection (3) prohibits the House of

Assembly from sitting." In my

interpretation it would mean that we can sit for

as long as we want but we cannot sit for less than is set forth in the private

member's resolution. What the Member for Burgeo La Poile has set forth is the

minimum sitting days for the House of Assembly. I am encouraged to know that the

Legislature over the last several years has had night sittings and that the days

have been longer than it appears to the public, because, Mr. Speaker, there is a

perception that we are only working when we are here. All of us know that we are

working other than when we are here; we are working for our constituency work.

In fact, I think that a person needs to be an elected representative, a member

of the House of Assembly or of any Legislature to get a real feel for the whole

myriad of concerns and issues and wants and needs that people have.

People generally only see us when we are here. They see us on the House of

Assembly channel and they see us in the Legislature. When a whole season goes,

when a fall goes, whether it is an election year or not an election year and

they see us not in the House, clearly there is commentary. People feel they are

being neglected, and there are talks of a democratic deficit. If people believe

there is a democratic deficit, then there may well be. I do not think that there

is.

Mr. Speaker, this Province began its own self-government more or less around

1832, and we have a wonderful Confederation Building with all sorts of

photographs. Yesterday, when I was having the skin cancer checkup, I looked at

the old mace, the very first wooden mace that we had here. It is with a deep

sense of honour that I realize the place that we occupy, and maybe it is because

I am really new here but, Mr. Speaker, I hope that never goes. I hope that never

leaves, whether it is one term or more than one term.

We have been given a great trust by our fellow citizens, and this is the only

democracy recorded that ever gave up democracy. We willingly gave up democracy

from 1934 to 1949 and allowed ourselves to be ruled. We allowed ourselves to be

ruled and governed by others. We got back our democracy in 1949 and we voted to

join Canada. We have been self-governing ever since, and hopefully we will

continue to be self-governing.

Mr. Speaker, whether we have evening sittings or do not have evening

sittings, some of the commentary that I thought I picked up from the Government

House Leader was that if you think we were not keeping you in long enough, we

will stay longer. In my view, we should work when there is legislation, but if a

government is going to be elected in the fall of the year and now we have

fixed-term elections, and I am pleased that we have fixed-term elections because

that takes away some of the uncertainty. It is a four-year term and that is it.

If a government is going to be elected, they generally campaign on a platform.

If they campaign on a platform then clearly that must mean that they have some

legislation in mind.

So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that we cannot sit in an election year; we

certainly should sit in an election year. If it is an abbreviated session of

only three or four weeks, then so be it. An election year is when people have

elected us, they have gone through an election campaign, many of them have voted

maybe not enough have voted, but enough have voted that we are here and we are

elected, and they expect something. They expect us to come here, they expect

legislation, promises are made, and then the people who have elected us in our

Province say you said you were going to do such and such, now you did not go

into the House until March and we elected you in April. Mr. Speaker, it

certainly causes a lapse in the way that we are viewed. So, clearly, we should

have a fall session, even in election years, and maybe we should have a fall

session certainly in election years.

We know that there is considerable work that is done, other than the handful

of hours that we spend here in the afternoons. There is committee work there

was committee work for me this morning, and I saw an example of what I felt was

democracy being abbreviated or curtailed or shutdown. In fact, I felt, in

committee, that I was not given enough time to pursue

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of

order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we accept and apply a fair degree of latitude to

the debate at hand. In my view, the member has clearly strayed away totally from

the topic when he is talking about a different sitting of this House. There is

nothing relevant whatsoever to fixed sessions of the House that we are debating

when he is referencing a Committee of the Whole this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but I do remind the member of

the focus of the private member's resolution, which is the parliamentary

calendar.

MR. BENNETT: Yes sir, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That was by way of giving an example when people talk about a democratic

deficit, if we know what the democratic deficit is, if there is such a

democratic deficit. If the people who are watching us can see us only when we

are in the House, we know that in the legislative calendar we have various types

of committee work that fits with the legislative calendar. The legislative

calendar that deals with the Budget, which is what we are dealing with, clearly

falls within the same period. So, it is important for us to have our committee

work, pursue the committee work properly, and it is done within the context of

the legislative calendar.

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing more closely the proposed private member's

resolution, I see absolutely nothing wrong that this Legislature would actually

say to the people who we govern, who have elected us to govern, that we give you

a commitment and we give you a statutory commitment that we will sit not less

than these days. The days that are put forth in the private member's resolution

by the Member for Burgeo La Poile says that we will sit these days in every

year, these days in an election year, and then it goes on to say nothing in

subsection (3) prohibits the House of Assembly from sitting that is at any

time.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, we can sit as much as we wish, but the Member for

Burgeo La Poile has put forth a private member's resolution which I am sure in

the public at large, the people who have elected us and the people who are

concerned that they live in a healthy democracy, would be encouraged if this

House of Assembly said we agree, we hear you, we will sit not less than these

days, this will be an absolute minimum, and we will sit for as long as it takes

to get the job done because we are here working for you. We are the most

favoured forty-eight people of the Province. We are honoured that you have

elected us. We accept an awesome responsibility and we are here to do the job.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Like previous speakers, it is indeed a pleasure for me to have a few moments

to speak to this important motion that we are talking about today, which is

really whether or not we move off from a current practice, as defined in

Standing Orders that govern the House of Assembly around the opening and closing

dates of this particular Legislature, or move towards a fixed date, fixed

schedule I should say, as outlined in the member's motion. I would like to make

a number of points, as I see it that are relevant to this particular motion, and

highlight some concerns that I have with the motion as presented and why I do

not feel that I can support it.

By way of overview, Mr. Speaker, I see three points outlined very clearly as

the intent of this particular motion. One, as I said a few moments ago obviously

is to set a fixed

schedule in motion, but perhaps most importantly what we need

to remind people of is that it is a fixed

schedule in law, Mr. Speaker. Once it

passes through the Legislature, it becomes the law of the land, and we can no

longer change it or alter it without changing the law. Mr. Speaker, as I might

say as an aside, the law that is being proposed is not a lot different than what

we currently have in our Standing Orders, which poses the question really of why

we need to even look at legislating something we already have there in the

Standing Orders that govern this Legislature. The Standing Orders governs how we

operate, when we operate, the kinds of things we do, and the kinds of committees

we have.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, there is an expectation in this particular piece of

legislation that the fall sitting of the House of Assembly would start, as I

read it, thirty days after the completion of an election, thirty days after an

election has ended. Mr. Speaker, while I do not think any of us have any great

difficulty with sitting after an election period, it appears to me that the

motion does not consider a number of points relative to a fall sitting of the

House after an election period. For example, immediately after an election

period, there is a time frame in law in this Province that must elapse in order

to allow for the official counting of ballots. All of us, when we run in an

election for public office, hear our results on election night. Some of us

celebrate and others unfortunately do not succeed. Mr. Speaker, those are not

the official results of the election. There is a time period that has to elapse

in order to get the official counting done, and in some cases recounting, Mr.

Speaker.

Secondly, once it is officially determined that a government is to be formed,

Mr. Speaker, you have to allow an opportunity for the newly elected or

re-elected Premier of the Province to select a Cabinet, and that is not

something that is normally done overnight. There has to be an assessment of the

structure of government, the organization, and whether there is an opportunity

or a desire, even, to change the structure of government and to introduce new

departments as this government has done on any number of occasions. Mr. Speaker,

in some cases, as our Premier did recently, it may be an exercise where you are

going to reduce the number of Cabinet portfolios and Cabinet ministers, in which

case there is indeed a far amount more work that needs to be done. So you have

that particular process, and then, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at a Speech

from the Throne.

There is a fair amount of work that has to happen after an election period

before you come into the Legislature. It could be a case that the motion has not

really thought through the implications of that or perhaps in fact had not

anticipated that government will ever change. I am not sure. The fact of the

matter is, as I see it, the particular point on thirty days after an election

might be a rather ambitious statement to put into law, in particular, that we

would be obligated to follow.

The third thing, Mr. Speaker, is it gives some indication that there is

flexibility because as I read it, it indicates that in the event that the

schedule is not followed. I am a little bit confused by that statement to be

honest. It appears that there is a law to be established, but then it says if it

is not followed. I am not sure how you would do that, but it indicates there

would have to be a special debate of the House to talk about why the law is not

being followed.

I see, as an overview, three points to the motion, Mr. Speaker. In

considering whether we move away from the current process as outlined in the

Standing Orders to fixed sittings of the House of Assembly, it is very important

for us to consider the whole purpose of the Legislature and what it is that we

do here, Mr. Speaker. As all of us know or ought to know, the primary purpose

here is to enact laws.

We bring in legislation that will govern many aspects of life for people in

our Province, Mr. Speaker. Many aspects, whether it is to do with animal welfare

or whether it is do with health care services, or education in the Schools Act,

or transportation and laws that govern highway safety. All sorts of things, Mr.

Speaker, we consider on a regular basis in this Legislature. That is the purpose

of the Legislature. When these pieces of legislation are brought forward,

members of the House have the opportunity to debate. You have the opportunity to

ask questions, you have the opportunity to raise points of clarification or

points of order. You have the opportunity in committee stage in particular to

talk at length, Mr. Speaker, and to debate at length.

My point in highlighting the process is that in my experiences in this House,

it has never been the government that has brought in a motion to close the

House. The House is always closed when the debate of the legislation has been

completed, not only by members of government but members of the Opposition party

as well. If it is the desire to prolong debate, Mr. Speaker, as I see it that

opportunity exists. You do not need to make a law saying that you have to sit

starting on this date and finish sitting on another date. The opportunity is

there to sit longer if in fact there is real, meaningful and contributing debate

that will enhance the legislation that is being considered before the House.

I have never seen personally, Mr. Speaker, where debate has been shut down

and there have been members in this House wanting to make a contribution, but

someone said: no, I am sorry, because we have to close today, we are going home.

It has always been by consensus and by bringing a closure to the debate before

the House.

Mr. Speaker, having said all of that, if in fact the legislation that is

before the House is debated and the House is still not sitting long enough, are

we asking in this particular legislation that we artificially generate

legislation? Are we asking, and saying to people of the Province, that while we

recognize all of the work that you do is important as members not just in the

Legislature are we saying through this that we feel, though, that you should

sit in the House of Assembly more? It makes no difference what you do in there,

as long as you sit in there. Are we saying to government, then, that because we

are going to conclude debate on pieces of legislation at a certain time, you

have to sit longer than that?

We want you to generate new laws in the Province. They might not be

important. They may be frivolous, they may be meaningless, or they may be very

serious and have dire consequences for people, but we want you to go away; we

want Cabinet ministers to go away in their departments and tell their officials

to generate new legislation simply because we believe that this Legislature

should sit longer.

Mr. Speaker, I personally have great difficulty with that, because I believe

the legislation that we bring before this House legislation that is going to

have a direct impact, a significant impact on people's lives ought to be

legislation that is brought forward after careful consideration, careful public

input, and a meaningful dialogue about what it means, and ultimately should be

making a contribution to improving the quality of life for people in the

Province. I have great difficulty on that particular one.

Mr. Speaker, it has also been talked about, terms like accountability and

whether or not the Legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador is actually doing as

much as other provinces and other jurisdictions. If we are going to make blanket

statements that compare our Legislature to other jurisdictions across Canada, it

is very important that we consider, or use the analogy, to compare apples and

apples. For example, the number of hours that we sit in a particular day, is it

equivalent what other legislatures across the country sit? We often sit night

times here; is that considered as part of the debating time of other

legislatures? The calendar year, Mr. Speaker; when we talk about the number of

days, are we talking about the calendar year from January to December, or are we

talking about a legislative year, where you start with a Throne Speech and you

end with the Prorogation? It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that we consider

making comparisons that are comparing apples to apples.

I am going to offer a couple of things; on the House of Commons Web site in

Ottawa, they offer some statistics about Legislatures across Canada. I am going

to offer you a couple of numbers. My colleague, when he introduced the motion,

the hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile, shared some statistics, and I am

going to do the same thing.

In 2008, for example there are eight or ten listed here Newfoundland and

Labrador sat, according to these stats, fifty-two days. Now, those higher than

us at the time would have been Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, with the

highest being fifty-seven days. So, we sat five days less than the highest

ranked. Mr. Speaker, below us there was forty-eight, forty-one, thirty-nine, and

thirty-eight days sitting, respectively in the Northwest Territories, Prince

Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Nunavut. Now, I will stop there; I will not go

on. Just to give you that comparison, Mr. Speaker; we are higher than the

average. We are higher than the average of all of those jurisdictions

identified.

If we go to 2009, Mr. Speaker, it is much the same. We sat for forty-five

days, there were two provinces who sat forty-seven and forty-nine, and there was

a thirty-nine and a thirty-two. Finally, not to belabour the point, but in 2010,

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Northwest Territories each sat for fifty-one

days. Below that, we have fifty in Alberta, forty-six in British Columbia, forty

in Prince Edward Island, and thirty-three in Nunavut.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about the number of days that we sit

in this Legislature, versus the number of days they sit in other Provinces, I

think it is very important that we continue to compare apples with apples. Mr.

Speaker, I humbly submit in my comments that the assertion that we are a lot

lower than other parts of Canada is just totally false. Newfoundland and

Labrador is certainly in the middle or above average when you compare the number

of days that the legislature has been sitting.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on a couple of comments presented by a number of

previous speakers as well, before I conclude my comments. There was reference to

the committee structure in the House, and the fact that people are not happy

with the current structure because it does no allow an opportunity to

contribute. Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. JOYCE: We cannot hear, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, very clearly, we have committees of this House;

first of all, in recognizing how government operates in generating work for the

Legislature, you have departments and you have Cabinet ministers, and you have

committees of Cabinet: Planning and Priorities, Treasury Board, Economic Policy,

and so on. That is one level or one structure, but in the House of Assembly

there are also committees for Estimates; Social Services, Resource Committee,

and Standing Orders Committee, those are committees that this legislature has

the full ability to direct to do the work that members opposite are asking for.

That exists, Mr. Speaker. So, to stand up and to make the representation that we

do not have the ability to use committees, I think is not being fair to the

truth of the matter. Those committees exist and this Legislature has the ability

to delegate and to direct those committees to do work on behalf of this

Legislature. I just want to point that out because we have heard on any number

of occasions that there are challenges with the committee structure.

Mr. Speaker, the other comment I want to make just before I conclude is that

one of the members, the last speaker, talked about petitions and talked about

democracy deficit or something along those lines. Mr. Speaker, there has never

been any intent whatsoever in this House to thwart democracy. Debate is alive

and well; we hear it in Question Period. Members have an opportunity at any

point in time sorry, not at any point in time, but a scheduled time in the day

to stand up and present their petitions and to represent the views of

constituents. It is very unfair and a little bit off the truthful track, shall

we say, to stand up and to suggest that that is not happening and members do not

have an opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, mindful that I am down to less than twenty seconds, I want to

conclude by simply saying that I have great difficulty with the motion as

presented. I think it is more about showing a political statement to the public

that we will have fixed sitting dates and less about doing the people's

business, which is bringing in good legislation, developing good, sound, logical

arguments that can be presented before this Legislature to assist all of us in

making the appropriate decisions that we ought to make, as we have been elected

to do on behalf of the people of the Province.

Thank you.

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 very pleased to be able to stand here this afternoon and speak to the

motion which has been put forward by the Member for Burgeo La Poile. I think

it is an extremely important motion. I think it is about time that we have had

this discussion here in the House of Assembly because we have seen this issue

raised by the general public, the issue of how often we sit in the House of

Assembly. We have had the issue raised in the public. We have had the issue

raised through the media. Many times over the six years that I have been here in

this House, I have heard this issue raised many times. That was why the NDP had

as a part of their platform that we would increase the minimum number of days

the House of Assembly must sit each year to sixty. We did not, in the platform,

put in a

schedule of how that would happen, but we believed, looking at the

average of what was happening across Canada, that sixty was a very

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I appreciate your interrupting there so we can get some silence as I

continue. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

It is important that we look at what is happening across the country. When we

chose sixty as part of our platform, it was because that was the average about

of what was happening across Canada. When we looked at our own Standing Orders

because our own Standing Orders do deal with the issue, and our own Standing

Orders allow for four weeks in the fall and then in the winter-spring session

starting on the second Monday, I think it is, in March and going to the May 24

weekend, which is closer to the average than what has been the main practice

here in the House over the last number of years. I am going to deal with that

later: the issue of our own Standing Orders.

What I find very interesting is that when we raise this issue here in this

House, it is like we are raising something that is completely bizarre and

something that just is an anomaly.

Whereas what we are saying is why is it that

we sit so infrequently in comparison with the majority of the other Legislatures

in this country? Why is that? There is work to be done. We are continually

bringing issues asking government to deal with, yet we go year after year after

year with the same issues being on the plate and not being dealt with. If we

were to put in a schedule, as other places do not all have schedules, they

have different ways of dealing with it but quite a number do have schedules. If

we put in a schedule, I thi