June

2, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 36

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to recognize Ms Carolyn Morgan, an employee of the

House of Assembly who will soon be retiring. Ms Morgan is retiring after

thirty-four years service with the House of Assembly, thirty-three of which have

been spent with the Legislative Library. She has served the Legislature under

ten Speakers and eight Premiers and takes with her an irreplaceable knowledge of

our House, its workings and the political history of our Province.

I know that all hon. members will join with me in wishing Ms Morgan - Carrie

to her friends, clients and co-workers - a healthy and happy retirement. I thank

her, on behalf of everybody here, for her faithful and diligent service to the

House of Assembly and its members over the years.

Carrie will certainly be missed and I wish her all the best in her

retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard today

from: the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the

hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the

District of Lewisporte; and the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's

East.

The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform my hon. colleagues of a significant achievement of a

well-known resident in the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

Mr. Michael Snelgrove, a music teacher at Exploits Valley High in Grand

Falls-Windsor, has just won the international competition "Making

Overtures" for a piece he composed for the Hannaford Street Silver Band

entitled " Frolic No. Two With Lullaby" .

Mr. Snelgrove was one of three finalists who headed to Toronto recently to

have his composition performed by the Hannaford Street Silver Band. When he was

announced as the winner of the competition last Sunday, he was beyond ecstatic.

He said, "You would have to be in my shoes to feel what I'm

feeling."

Mr. Snelgrove won against some very strong competition, Mr. Speaker. The

other two finalists were Stephen Bulla, who is in his third decade as staff

arranger to The President's Own U.S. Marine Band and the White House, and

Marcus Venables, a composer in his mid-twenties.

In addition, this past week, Mr. Snelgrove also won a Newfoundland Arts and

Letters Award in the Musical Composition category for his piece, Beware the

Shrouded Moor.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this hon. House, I offer my sincere congratulations

to Michael Snelgrove, a truly remarkable and accomplished Newfoundland musician.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 31, I had the pleasure of

joining Fire Chief Clarence Russell of Bay Roberts, along with representatives

of other fire departments and municipal leaders, during the official opening of

the Conception Bay North Regional Fire Rescue and Training Centre.

This Rescue-Training Centre provides the Towns of Salmon Cove, Victoria,

Carbonear, Harbour Grace, Upper Island Cove, Spaniard's Bay, Cupids, Brigus,

and Bay Roberts, a facility to enhance and expand their training skills; skills,

Mr. Speaker, that are required to better prepare them as they volunteer their

time in protecting the lives and property of their residents.

The facility was named the North Laing Wood in recognition of Mr. John

North, Mr. Allan Laing and Mr. Eric Wood, the first three fire chiefs in the

Town of Bay Roberts; all three of whom are now deceased.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

to Mr. Clarence Russell, Bay Roberts Fire Chief, and all fire fighters in the

Conception Bay North area, and also to thank the families for allowing the names

of their loved ones to be used in the naming of this new facility.

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: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize the 617

Dambusters Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron of Lewisporte.

On Saturday, May 31, I attended their 52nd Annual Ceremonial Review, held at

Lewisporte Collegiate. The reviewing officer for this occasion was Lieutenant

Colonel Richard Alexander. In the Colonel's words after completing his review,

he said, "I am not sure you realize what you have here. This is a very

remarkable group and one of the best, if not the very best in the

Province." These high accolades from such a qualified individual speak to

the dedication, talent and commitment of the cadets, their officers and also to

the sponsors in our area.

The 617 Dambusters began in February of 1955 and they have grown in quantity

and quality with each new member. Congratulations to commanding officer Captain

Shirley Gignac, past commanding officers Mr. William Mouland, Captain Norman

Forward, Mr. Goward Heath, Major Edward Vatcher, Major Peter Seaward, Major Eric

Anstey, Captain Judy Seymour and Captain Daphne Anstey. Also, congratulations to

Captain Ambrose Patterson who will assume the position of commanding officer

this coming fall.

I wish to congratulate all cadets for their great performance. Special

congratulations to graduating cadets: Pamela White, Norman Porter, Heather Brace

and Megan Roberts.

Members of this House, please join me in proudly acknowledging the great

accomplishments of the 617 Dambusters Air Cadet squadron of Lewisporte.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, as I listen to members' statements over

the last number of weeks I can only come to one conclusion: we have to stop

sending our young people to the Mainland for competitions, if for no other

reason than to give the Mainlanders a chance to win some of the medals.

Gonzaga High School, in my District of St. John's East, is the latest

importer of bulk precious medals, an inventory I suggest they may have to

register with the Department of Natural Resources.

A large contingent of students from the Gonzaga music program recently

returned from a Heritage Music Festival in New York City with gold awards for

the jazz band and the chamber choir, a silver award for the concert band, and

the choir was also awarded the Most Outstanding Choral Ensemble.

The full school group won the Festival Sweepstakes Award for having the

highest average competition scores and also the Spirit of New York award for the

group who best represented their community and school.

Congratulations are extended to the music teachers, Jacinta Mackey-Graham and

Doug Vaughan for their commitment to excellence in Gonzaga's music program,

and to the parents and chaperones who were no doubt instrumental in making the

trip a success.

Mr. Speaker, today I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing

Gonzaga High School for their outstanding performance on the international

stage.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge that Newfoundland and Labrador has

recently signed the Climate Registry. This registry sets consistent and

transparent standards for the measurement, verification, and public reporting of

greenhouse gas emissions throughout North America in a single unified registry.

It is a non-profit organization that supports both voluntary and mandatory

reporting programs, provides meaningful information to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions, and embodies the highest levels of environmental integrity.

All provinces, Mr. Speaker, made a commitment to join the Climate Registry

under the resolutions made by Premiers at the Council of the Federation meeting

in the summer of 2007 in Moncton, New Brunswick. Joining Newfoundland and

Labrador on the list of provinces which have fulfilled this commitment are

British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island

and New Brunswick. To date, Mr. Speaker, approximately forty American states

have also signed the registry.

Climate change is an extremely serious long-term issue facing the globe, and

we all need to do our

part if we are to make any advancement in terms of

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The impacts of climate change on a

resource-dependent Province like Newfoundland and Labrador are much greater, Mr.

Speaker, as we are likely to see impacts on forestry, wildlife, agriculture,

fisheries and aquaculture. The rising cost of energy and the impact of energy

consumption on greenhouse gas emissions has renewed and strengthened our

collective focus on energy alternatives and energy efficiency. Our government

has focused its efforts on green energy such as hydro and wind, as outlined in

our Energy Plan. That is why, Mr. Speaker, signing the Climate Registry will

help us ensure we take our place alongside the others who are dedicated to

sustaining our environment for future generations.

From a regional perspective, the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian

Premiers had committed to a reduction target of 10 per cent below 1990

greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2020. I am proud to report, Mr. Speaker, that

the latest data from Natural Resources Canada shows that Newfoundland and

Labrador achieved 1990 levels in 2006.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we do indeed have particular strengths that

will enable us to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. We have a history

of resiliency, our small communities are very close knit, and we have indeed a

vested interest in seeing our communities thrive. Signing the Climate Registry

and continuing to work toward limiting our carbon footprint will go a long way

in helping us to achieve this important goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased to see that Newfoundland and Labrador has signed on

to the Climate Registry, joining with the other provinces across Canada and many

states across North America.

Mr. Speaker, while climate change may be global in nature, it requires all of

our efforts at a local level to ensure that we reduce any environmental damages

in our society, especially with carbons and greenhouse gas emissions, but it

also challenges us, Mr. Speaker, as governments and as individuals, to be

proactive in any new developments that we may launch within this Province, so

that we ensure that there are limitations placed upon any negative impacts that

could be seen from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective.

It also requires us, Mr. Speaker, to look at new technologies and to

implement new environmental standards within our own provinces to ensure that

projects, on a go-forward basis, will garner against any negative impacts that

we could see in forestry developments, fishery developments or other aspects of

our environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that while we may have met the 1990

targets in 2006, greenhouse gas emissions have gone up in Newfoundland and

Labrador. In fact, by the Sierra Club's own report on climate change, they

have indicated that we have gone from a B last year to a C-minus this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MS JONES: That in itself is not acceptable and we should all be more

cognizant of those ratings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Quidi Vidi.

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

I am quite pleased to respond to the Premier's statement today.

The announcement that he has made is a good announcement and I am really glad

to see that we have joined on to the Climate Registry. The Premier knows, we all

know, that we still have a ways to go to undo the damage that has been done

since before 1990, and I would today use the opportunity to encourage the

Premier to think about the importance of having a subsidiary company of the

Energy Corporation that would deal specifically with climate change and energy

efficiency. I think it is so important that we need so much research and

development and concentration in the area that a subsidiary dealing specifically

with that would be very important.

Once again, I call on government, as I have done many times in the past, to

reconsider the scrubbers, putting scrubbers at the Seal Cove hydro station,

because no matter what happens with the Lower Churchill, it is still so far in

the future that there will still be more damage done there in spite of the

cleaner fuel that they are using.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, Island Aggregates recently ceased operations

impacting 150 of its employees. The company has three divisions, a construction

division, a ready-mix cement division and a limestone operation.

I ask the Premier today: is government considering any loans to any part of

this operation or this company at the present time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the company has four divisions as I understand it, the other being

a trucking division.

Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the company. As I said last week,

we had senior officials in my department meet with the company. The Member for

Humber Valley has met with officials from the company and workers. We have been

looking at the situation to try and determine if we can be of any assistance to

the company in the form of offering advice and guidance to help them get through

this situation. We are particularly concerned about the loss of 150 to 200

positions in this region.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would have to say that from a loan or loan

guarantee perspective we think it would be very difficult to go down that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are aware that the Department of Transportation and Works last year let

two particular contacts to this company, one for roadwork on the Trans-Labrador

Highway, the other one for some work on Riverside Road, I think it is, on the

West Coast of the Island.

I ask the minister today: What impact will the financial difficulties of this

company now have on these particular contracts getting completed in this season?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, they do indeed have two contracts with

Transportation and Works. We have with that company an insurance called

Performance Bond, and we have notified those people and the projects would have

no impact. They will be done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are also aware that the provincial government

has a five-year agreement with Island Aggregates' agriculture division to

supply farmers with agricultural limestone. I think in the media today we have

heard of a number of farmers who are looking for limestone in the Province.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What were the terms of that

particular contract and how much of the money in that contract has already been

let to this company?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have that information at my fingertips here in the House, but I

would like to share, now that I am on my feet, that we have not been able to

identify another source of limestone for farmers within the Province, but we

have been able to identify another source in the Maritimes. That limestone will

be moving tomorrow to Newfoundland and should not hang up at all farmers'

preparation for this growing season. We are looking at ways that we can deal

with the additional financial impact this might have on farming operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the minister's answer because we were looking to see

what emergency measures would be in place.

We understand that there are about 75 to 100 farmers who may be impacted

immediately by this, and we also understand from our discussions with them that

importing limestone from one of the other Atlantic Provinces - primarily the

example they used was Nova Scotia - they could see a jump of about six times the

cost to them to acquire that particular product.

I ask the minister today: what programs will you put in place to offset this

additional cost knowing that it will not make their operations viable if they

have to pay six times the cost for that product?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been working on this problem over the weekend. The cost is actually

closer to three times the cost. The limestone from the Maritimes will cost about

three times more than the limestone purchased here on the Island. We already

have almost $500,000 in our Budget, Mr. Speaker, that we use to help subsidize

the purchase of limestone by farmers here in the Province. We are now looking at

ways to increase that budget to cover off deficiencies that might occur as a

result of this situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past few weeks I presented numerous petitions from residents in the

Torbay area related to the new proposed route for the Torbay Bypass Road.

I ask the minister: have you examined this proposal and are you willing to

make any of the changes that they have requested?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I have met with a committee from the Torbay area

that have expressed the concerns to myself and my officials, and we have made a

commitment that we will review that file again. That file has been ongoing now

for thirty years and we have heard many concerns from the area. Right now the

best route that I have been told is the route that is now proposed, but we are

indeed reviewing that file again.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for her answer to that question.

I just ask her: have any timelines been established as to when you may be

able to get back to them with any recommendations if that is the route they will

travel?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, right now that file is still being reviewed but

we will follow up with the committee when I am in a position to give them some

more answers that they asked me in that meeting.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the current route proposes a five-lane highway

through a part of the Town of Torbay, and the major concern the people have

there is that school children may have to cross this highway to get to the bus

stops.

I ask the Minister of Education: Is there a policy in your department

regarding situations like this, and would children be expected to cross such a

highway, or have any plans been considered in that particular case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the school board who would provide the busing

services, whether it is through the board or through a private operator, would

certainly review the distance that needs to be travelled by students, because we

do have the 1.6 kilometre radius for students who receive busing.

I would think that once the highway is in place, based on the situation where

the bus stops would be, that, between the busing company and the boards,

depending on who operates the bus, they would certainly look at what would be

the most appropriate place for bus stops at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks our office has received numerous

calls from residents in Green's Harbour, New Harbour and Hopeall concerning

the status of the tender for removal of contaminated soil from the New Harbour

Barrens landfill.

I ask the minister: Have the bids for this tender closed at this particular

time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information readily available

but I certainly will get it and table it for my colleague.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the tender - and I just ask

the minister if she could follow up on this as well - was to remove two tandem

loads of contaminated soil from the hot spots at this landfill. The residents

have major concerns because the contractor - back when the transformers were

buried there were hundreds of them - has major concerns that only two tandem

loads being taken from the landfill will not correct the problem.

I was just wondering, Minister, if you could check that out and see why the

limited number of contaminated soil was considered to be removed from that site.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we would be in consultation with the Department

of Environment with regard to the contamination of soil, and we will take every

measure to make sure that it is safely removed.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in relation to the same situation, the community

surrounding the New Harbour landfill saw that the department's decision to

allocate Crown Land for cabin lots on Dennys Pond as a direct attempt to

minimize the concerns about the pollutants in this landfill. That is what the

residents are saying.

I ask the minister: Did the department follow AMEC's 2006 recommendation to

collect and test water and sediment samples from Dennys Pond for heavy metal

content? If so, could those results be tabled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say if they have taken recent samples

or not, and it is something that I will follow up with my colleague, the

Minister of Environment & Conservation, but I will tell you one thing: that

extensive work was gone in - the committee had met with department officials,

because I recall that in my previous capacity, they had gone in and at the

request of the committee they wanted some more test holes drilled, and they

were, and the samples were collected and the results were given, so extensive

work was done. Whether it fully satisfies the people of the area or not, I

cannot say for sure, but I know one thing: extensive work was carried out to

make sure that there were not contaminants drenching down to the rivers.

That is were it is, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the department's plan for

closing the New Harbour landfill involves placing a multi-layered, graded cell

cap over the entire site, and that was confirmed by the minister during the

Estimates this year.

I ask the minister: Do you plan on holding some type of information session

so that the residents can feel secure about the science behind this plan of

action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will bring forward the question you

have posed as to where the minister intends to go, but he is right in that if

you are going to close a landfill site then it has to be recapped to a certain

standard, and I would anticipate that is what will be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have some questions with regard to Bill 35, but I am going to hold them

for debate, seeing as we have extensive time to do debate this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister of Health

& Community Services.

We have been contacted by an individual with a major disability known as

osteogenesis imperfecta, which leaves her prone to fractures of the bone. Mr.

Speaker, this individual has experienced great difficulties in finding quality

home care and has requested that her husband be hired as a home support worker,

but was denied by the Department of Health & Community Services. We raised

this issue with the department on three particular occasions and, Mr. Speaker,

just recently the individual has suffered another injury.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister today: Why is it that individuals with special health

needs, that have been documented by their physicians and are being requested to

hire family members, are being denied within the department?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a provision in our home support policy framework to be able to allow

health authorities, under very unique circumstances, a special circumstance, to

evaluate individual requests from clients, to consider family members providing

paid support to care for them while they are in their home. That follows an

evaluation by clinical individuals who would be prepared to do that assessment

or be available to do that assessment within the health authorities, and the

health authorities are in the best position to make that determination. That is

not a determination that we make within the department.

What we have done is, we have created a policy framework to provide guidance

to the health authorities, and it is through their evaluation and clinical

assessment, and they make that determination. That is exactly what happened in

the case, I believe, that the member may be referring to; that, that evaluation

was done within Eastern Health after a clinical assessment, I say, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: So, it was not the department because we provided the policy

framework that will allow individual consideration, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, the minister is talking about

section

7.3 of the Home Support Program which does allow exceptions for these

individuals whereby they can hire family members; however, this individual spent

a number of years going back and forth to the Department of Health and Community

Services and not being aware that there was a special circumstance available.

I ask, Minister: How is this being communicated to these individuals, that

after several years they do not know that there are policies that exist which

can provide for these services? This is a case where this individual is still

not accessing it, however.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Just so that the member opposite fully understands, and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the regional health authorities deal

directly with individual patients and clients in the system, Mr. Speaker, so

when individuals approach the department with a particular question or looking

for a resolution to a problem that they may have, one of the things that we try

to do is work with them in connecting them to the appropriate people within the

health authority, because they are the people who have the clinical expertise,

they are the people who have been mandated to provide the services and programs

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a department, our role and responsibility is to create the regulatory and

the legislative and the policy framework that guides our health authorities in

the delivery of programs and services, so we would have, Mr. Speaker, directed

this individual and others to one of the respective health authorities who would

have dealt directly with the individual patients and their families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a case that is very serious. This person has a brittle bone disease;

they have to be handled by people who are very knowledgeable about their

condition. Whether it is Eastern Health or whether it is the Department of

Health it is a government policy in which they should have been receiving an

exemption.

Your department is well aware of this, there are a number of members in this

House well aware of this particular case, and I ask again: will an exemption be

granted for these individuals in circumstances like this, to be able to access

family members to provide their care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I am delighted that the member opposite, that anyone in this

House, would advocate on behalf of individual constituents in the Province, but

I think it is inappropriate to stand and make a pronouncement as if you have the

medical knowledge to make a determination that this person will get or should

get or is entitled to.

What I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, is that the policy framework established by

the Department of Health and Community Services is there to allow a special

consideration after one of the health authorities, whoever is responsible for

that particular region of the Province, after they have provided the appropriate

clinical assessment.

In this case and others like this, there will be clinical individuals who

would have made an assessment, made a determination of the individual's needs,

their requirements for home support and the kind of training and special skills

that might be necessary for home support workers, and ensure that that level of

training and direction is provided so that the individual gets safe and quality

care while they are in their home.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am assuming in this particular case that she is referencing here, because I

have had some discussion around cases similar to this, that this would have

happened. I say, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case Eastern Health would have

done just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, we can only base our information on what the doctors

and the patients give us.

Mr. Speaker, this individual as well, has had trouble obtaining medications,

Peridot and Lozac'h, under the Prescription Drug Authorization Program, which

she requires because of her illness. In order to get this, according to

departmental policy, these individuals have to have an upper and lower GI

performed. Her doctors are advising that she not have these particular tests.

Because she cannot have these tests, the department is saying that she is not

meeting the guidelines, and therefore is not approving the medication.

I ask you, minister: are there provisions provided for exceptional cases like

this, based on doctors' or physicians' recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is difficult to stand in the House and deal with very

specific cases. I am not prepared to talk about an individual's circumstance,

but clearly, I say, Mr. Speaker, within our Prescription Drug Program there are

mechanisms, through the involvement of family physicians and other treating

specialists together with the people who work in our Medical Service Division,

people who work in our Prescription Drug Program, to look at exceptional

circumstance, and if there is a body of clinical knowledge out there or clinical

expertise or clinical opinion that is suggesting something contrary than what

might be existing in the policy itself, there is always an opportunity to have

that kind of discussion and it happens each and everyday. Family physicians and

treating specialists alike deal with our Medical Service Division and our

Pharmacy Division on a daily basis to deal with exceptions like the ones being

described now, I say, Mr. Speaker., It is not an unusual event to deal with

exceptions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 17 we asked the Minister of Justice if he was aware that inmates at

Her Majesty's Penitentiary were being denied access to their psychiatric

medications and sent to segregation. His answer at that time was: he did not

know where we would come up with such a thing.

Recently the media reported a situation of a mother whose son actually was an

inmate at HMP. She actually ended up at court proceedings and asked the judge if

he might intervene, because he in fact has been taken off his medication and

placed in segregation.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of this circumstance and is there anything

being done to check out that particular individual's concerns?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remember that question being asked and I would have to see Hansard, but I

thought that my answer was relating to other parts of the question that had been

put before me.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member has missed it, there is a

prison review ongoing. One of the issues in the prison review is to look at the

provision of health treatment at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. This prison

review is being conducted by individuals outside of the Province. They will look

at all aspects of what is going on at Her Majesty's Penitentiary at present.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not lost on myself or on this

government that when there is a suicide at Her Majesty's Penitentiary and then

we have an individual who dies in custody, that there are issues that have to be

examined, especially when issues are raised in relation to the provision of

medication.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware, as the minister indicated, that there is an ongoing review that

is going to take some time at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, but in this

particular case involving this individual and his mother, the individual in

question attempted to commit suicide twice in a period of five weeks and the

parents were not notified until more than a day after the second suicide attempt

had taken place.

Aside from the review that you have ongoing, Minister, I ask: Is there any

specific investigation ongoing at this time with regards to this particular

incident and can you find out why the parents were not notified and why this

individual was not, in fact, sent to the Waterford Hospital rather than being

kept in HMP?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to that incident being referred to by the hon. member, in fact,

on the day after this incident occurred, I stated to the media that if the

parents of that young man wish to contact me directly I would ensure that they

were put in contact with the people conducting the review, or they could contact

the people conducting the review themselves. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am

staying away, as the Minister of Justice, from the investigation that is

ongoing. However, we are indicting issues that we wish to be looked at. This is

an issue that, if the parents request, can certainly be looked at.

In terms of why the individual was in Her Majesty's Penitentiary as opposed

to the Waterford Hospital: Mr. Speaker, when a person is arrested there is a

provision for psychiatric treatment, then there is a bail hearing and there is

counsel involved. If an individual ends up at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, then

one can only assume that neither the lawyer or the police or no one recognized

the need for treatment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the unfortunate realities of Her Majesty's Penitentiary is that

people with mental health issues end up in the prison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, it is quite clear here that this individual did go through the

thirty-day assessment, was placed on medications at the Waterford, went to the

HMP, had the medications removed by another psychiatrist and made two attempts

at suicide and ended up staying at HMP.

The parents have made this known to the judge. You are aware of it. Rather

than being reactive and asking the parents to come, I am asking you: don't you

consider this serious enough to find out what are the policies down there and

were they properly followed? Something obviously went seriously wrong here with

this individual?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member's

opinion, his conclusion that something obviously went wrong will be examined by

the individuals, if requested, who are conducting the review.

At this present time, Mr. Speaker, we have numerous complaints coming in from

individuals at Her Majesty's Penitentiary. Like the hon. member across the

way, I do not set myself up as judge and jury. What will happen is that the

issues will be examined, a report will be provided and we will take the steps

that are necessary.

I will concede, Mr. Speaker, that there is an issue as to whether or not the

provision of medication at Her Majesty's Penitentiary is being continued or is

being administered, but that is again an issue that will be examined by these

very experienced individuals, and once we have received the report we will

action the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite clear from the Terms of Reference, which I read, issued by the

minister with regards to the review that is taking place, that it is generic in

nature and that this particular incident was not referenced to be looked at. I

guess we will wait and see if they do take the latitude to look at it. As of

now, it has not been directed to be looked at and I think the minister ought to

do so.

My next question is for the Minister of Health.

Recently, we have also heard an outcry about treatment of young offenders

with psychiatric needs. Currently, young offenders in need of psychiatric

assessment are sent to the Youth Detention Centre at Whitbourne, ninety

kilometres away. We do have, as I understand it, a secure unit at the Janeway

Hospital, which was intended to be used for young offenders with psychiatric

needs. Albeit we have the physical structure there at the Janeway, we do not

have the support personnel necessary.

I am wondering: Is the Minister of Health aware of the situation and what

does he intend to do in terms of providing the funding and the support

mechanisms and personnel

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. PARSONS: Yes.

What is the minister intending to do in terms of finding the funding and

providing support personnel, so that the secure unit for young offenders at the

Janeway can be properly utilized?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for raising the question.

It is an issue that has surfaced very recently. As the member would also be

aware, some of our other health facilities have units that were designated as

such: St. Clare's, and out in Central Newfoundland and Western Newfoundland.

The Janeway was intentionally excluded on the advice of individuals who would

provide psychiatric intervention for young offenders.

It is an issue that is currently being evaluated by officials. The initial

thinking was that individuals who find themselves in this age group would either

be referred by someone who is either a part of the - in the custody of the

Director of Child, Youth and Family Services, or would be someone in the

immediate family. That was the initial thinking, and that designated the site,

but I have asked officials to re-evaluate that whole question that has arisen

very recently; and hopefully in the next week or so we will be able to have some

greater insights and better insights that might reflect a change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, cancer patients in our Province suffer from not just their

illness but also from the financial burden of having to travel for medical

treatment. A February 2008 study revealed that one in three rural patients pay

more than $200 per trip to see an oncologist, one in eleven pays more than

$1,000, and some pay up to $5,000 when coming from a remote area. Mr. Speaker,

as well, the Medical Transportation Assistance Program does not help to cover

the financial burden of cancer if patients use their own vehicle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Will this

government reimburse gas and mileage costs for the use of personal vehicles

under the Medical Transportation Assistance Program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members opposite, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, would

recognize that in the last two years we have made some major enhancements in our

medical transportation budget; enhancements not only in the dollar amounts we

have invested, Mr. Speaker, but we have made some major improvements.

We have changed the deductible, increased the limits that are available,

increased limits for the accommodation side, increased limits for the meals and

accommodations piece, made some changes in the deductible, some major

enhancements, Mr. Speaker, and it is one of these programs - I think I answered

a similar question in the House one day last week or the week before last - it

is one of these programs that are subject to continuous review. We have looked

at it this past year as part of the budgetary process, as we did with many other

programs, and once again this year coming, I say, Mr. Speaker, we will also be

reviewing this program, as we will with others, to look at opportunities for

improvement, opportunities for enhancements.

One of the things I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the only Province in Canada that has a medical

transportation program that is not means tested. It is available to every single

person in the entire Province, regardless of income.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I tell the minister that I do recognize the improvements that have been made,

but people continue to come to us with the difficulties that they continue to

face. I am glad the minister mentioned, at the end, the thing about no needs

testing, and that is true, but, Mr. Speaker, for people suffering from cancer,

paying for travel costs up front before getting reimbursed can be very

difficult.

I ask the Minister of Health: With the things that you are reviewing, will

your government remove the deductible to ease the financial burden for those who

incur high costs of travel to access treatment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have also done, in

addition to making it universally available, we have not discriminated on the

basis of a diagnosis. Regardless of whether it is treatment for cancer, or

cardiac treatment, regardless of the diagnosis or disease or disorder, it is

available to all individuals, and I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that on a go-forward

basis, as we continue to make improvements in the program, we will make it

generic across all diseases and disorders.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things, in looking at programs such as these, we

acknowledge, too - and I want to point that out very clearly, we acknowledge -

that there are many people who travel frequently in the Province to access

whether it is dialysis services, treatment for cancer and many others, so the

issue of transportation, and having access to services, is a critical issue for

us. That is one of the reasons, I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have made a major

investment in providing dialysis services outside the St. John's Region;

because the government, I think, since we have been in power -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think since we have been in power we have had

about five or six different sites where we have introduced dialysis service with

a view of making services available closer to home. Cancer treatment in Central

Newfoundland is another example

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, under Standing Order 11, I

shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

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

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), I give notice of the private member's

motion for the forthcoming Wednesday, which is an Opposition day, moved by the

Member for Port de Grave, seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair:

WHEREAS the provincial government retired pensioners have sought an increase

in their pensions because increases in the cost of living have diminished their

value and many pensioners live in dire financial circumstances; and

WHEREAS the provincial government had an established practice of granting a

pension increase to coincide with or follow public sector pay raises, thereby

creating a reasonable expectation that this would continue to be a feature of

their pension entitlement; and

WHEREAS this practice was discontinued after 1989 due to the severe financial

constraints at that time, thereby hurting all pensioners but especially those on

low fixed incomes;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the government to

resume the practice of matching increases for public service pensioners to wage

increases for public sector employees.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of the residents, not only in my area

but throughout the Province, with regard to a petition on doctor shortages.

We know, over the past several weeks, I have been presenting those petitions

because it is a major issue, Mr. Speaker. It is a major issue. A lot of people

in my area and other areas do not have a general practitioner, and I guess the

workload is falling down on the emergency units in our regional hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, we have support from the joint councils, all of the mayors and

municipalities. We hear residents; we read their letters in the papers from time

to time. Mr. Speaker, it is a major issue, and hopefully the day will come when

we will see general practitioners in our area.

I cannot help but note the letter that was in the paper this week - I think

it was on the thirty-first by one of our general practitioners in the

Placentia area. It just goes to show how serious this particular issue is. He

was referring to how I guess the minister looked at it when someone said

that our health care was in a crisis. This is what he referred it to, Mr.

Speaker. He said: It reminds me of Lord Nelson at the Battle of Trafalgar,

holding his telescope to his sightless eye and saying: I see no ships. I am not

saying the minister has a sightless eye, but I just want him to keep his ears

and eyes open to the concerns of the people, more so now that we hear it from

our general practitioners themselves. They are crying out for help too, Mr.

Speaker.

On behalf of all of those people, I want to present this petition, and

hopefully the government will continue on with their recruitment and retention

program for all our residents when it comes to our general practitioners.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move motion 1, pursuant to Standing Order 11,

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 2, 2008; and I further

move motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at

10:00 p.m. on today, Monday, June 2, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock

today, being Monday, June 2.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock today,

Monday, June 2.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35.

Further, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the suspension of the rules that we had

on our last parliamentary day, again this day, by mutual consent with the

Opposition, we would like to suspend the rules for second reading and continue

our debate in second reading.

In order to have a full open debate on Bill 35, to ensure that all members in

this hon. House are able to speak to the issues, ask their questions and receive

the answers that they so request here in the House, that we would suspend the

rules for today, by mutual agreement. What that would mean is that any speaker,

any person in the House who would like to speak, can continue to speak for their

twenty-minute timeframe. If we stuck to the rules, once somebody spoke in second

reading they would not have the option to speak a second time. So members can

speak more than once, and they would keep within the twenty-minute timeframe.

Again, the Premier has not yet spoken at second reading, so if the Premier

chooses to speak he would retain the option of speaking for one hour. If any

member wanted to speak more than twenty minutes, they could certainly speak a

second time during second reading, or else by leave.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: All members, I would assume, are in agreement with what the

Government House Leader has put forward with the way that we will proceed in

second reading of Bill 35.

Are there are objections?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: I just want to confirm, Mr. Speaker, for the record, that

that is the agreement between the Government House Leader and the Opposition,

and we certainly have no problem with that.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I want to address some of the questions that our colleagues opposite

have raised during debate on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill for the Energy Corporation and for the

people of the Province. What we are doing is giving the Energy Corporation the

tools to do the job that we are asking it to do on behalf of the people of the

Province.

As a government, we have directed the Energy Corporation to pursue energy

development on behalf of the Province and to manage our equity and participation

in these developments. We want the corporation to be as open and accountable to

the people of the Province as it possibly can, while still being able to operate

in a competitive and commercially sensitive environment which is critical to its

success. This is what we are trying to achieve with this bill.

As I said during my opening remarks on Thursday, we have done a significant

amount of research on state-owned energy corporations elsewhere in the world. We

have engaged national and international analysts and we feel we have developed

the appropriate balance. That is why I feel it is so important to address, at

this time, some of the questions and concerns brought forward and put greater

explanation and clarity around why this bill takes the approach that it does.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have been listening very closely to the

debate and the suggestions from members opposite and we are open to any input

that will strengthen this bill. The spirit and intent is to be as open and

accountable as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to go through some of the questions that were raised

by the members opposite on Thursday evening and provide as much context around

these pieces as I can so the members opposite and the people of the Province

understand what it is we are trying to achieve with these amendments.

We are proud of this bill and I have no problem defending it, as well as

being open to suggestions from the members opposite for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I was asked last week in Question Period why the Energy

Corporation is exempt from the Securities Act and why, if it is exempt, is it

referenced in the bill?

The Energy Corporation is not being exempted from the Securities Act. The

Securities Act provides guidance to companies that offer shares for the general

public or companies that trade in shares, mutual funds or bonds. It is not

anticipated that the Energy Corporation would do that. With that said, should

the Energy Corporation ever decide to engage in these activities, it would be

covered by the Securities Act like any other company in that line of business.

The reference to the Securities Act in the bill is only intended to provide a

reference point for the type of information that will be required by the Energy

Corporation to include in its annual report. The annual report, prepared by the

Corporation, will be consistent in form and content with annual reports that

will be required of the Corporation if it was engaged in an activity that would

make it subject to the Securities Act. This means, Mr. Speaker, that even though

the Energy Corporation is not engaged in an activity that would bring it under

the Securities Act, the information provided in the annual report will be

consistent as if it were. We are using the high standard under the Securities

Act for translating information and we are using it in the Energy Corporation

Act to do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, last week questions were also raised around the business plans

of the Energy Corporation. At this time, I just want to remind the House that

the Province's Transparency and Accountability Act applies to the Energy

Corporation. Under this Act, the Energy Corporation will provide its business

plan to me, as minister. I will table this plan in the House for anyone to see

and we, as a government, will be able to monitor and assess compliance with this

plan. The Corporation will also hold an annual general meeting where the public

will have an opportunity to question the Corporation on its activities,

including its business plan.

Also, in relation to a question last week as to what are business activities

as it relates to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I direct members to

section 5 of the

Energy Corporation Act. In relation to the definition of commercially sensitive

information, activities are defined as any activity undertaken as part of a

commercial enterprise.

Section 5 of the Energy Corporation Act clearly lays out

the scope of activities that the Energy Corporation can engage in within the

energy industry. It states, the Energy Corporation can invest in, engage in, and

carry out activities in all areas of the energy sector including the

development, generation, production, transmission, distribution, delivery,

supply, sale, export, purchase and use of power from wind, water, steam, gas,

coal, oil, hydrogen or other products used or useful in the production of power;

exploration, development, production, refining, marketing and transportation of

hydrocarbons and products from hydrocarbons; the manufacture, production,

distribution and sale of energy related products and services; as well as

research and development. The Corporation may also engage in those other

activities that Cabinet may approve.

Mr Speaker, much of the debate last week focussed around the Auditor General

Act and the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act and how these

two pieces of legislation apply to the Energy Corporation. As I said last week,

these pieces of legislation do apply to the Energy Corporation, however we are

taking the necessary steps to ensure that commercially sensitive information

cannot get into the hands of competitors through these acts. Protecting against

the release of this information is critical, Mr. Speaker, to the success of our

Energy Corporation. We are writing in the appropriate checks and balances to

ensure the greatest level of accountability and transparency appropriate for a

Crown corporation operating in a competitive environment, and, Mr. Speaker, we

realize that we are breaking new ground with this Energy Corporation and this

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity now to address the specific

questions that were asked.

It was asked on Thursday night: why does the CEO of the Energy Corporation

have the final say on the release of information under the Access to Information

and Protection of Privacy Act? He does not, Mr. Speaker. Under no circumstances

does the CEO have the final say on the release of information under this

legislation. We have provided in this bill, a clear process for addressing

Requests for Information. This process involves the CEO, the Privacy

Commissioner, the Corporation's Board of Directors, or that of the subsidiary,

and, if necessary, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial

Division.

Mr. Speaker, all of these players could be involved in a Request for

Information. All we are doing in this bill is ensuring that commercially

sensitive information cannot be released under the Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act. The role of the CEO in this process is to determine

whether the information that is requested is commercially sensitive and can harm

the corporation or one of its subsidiaries or a third party. Should it be

necessary, the decision on whether this information can be released will go to

the Board of Directors of the Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we do not feel that the determination of what constitutes

commercially sensitive information can be made by the Privacy Commissioner. That

is no way meant to be disrespectful of this office. We feel the decision must be

made by a person who has a full understanding of the information and the impact

that its release could have on the company and its partners. Our partners demand

this, Mr. Speaker.

We have taken a great deal of care to bring into the corporation this kind of

expertise, because it does not exist within government. It is a special

competency to understand the global economy and the impact on a corporation or

its partners, of the release of certain information at delicate stages within

the commercial and global environment.

The ill-timed release of information could jeopardize an entire deal, such as

Hebron. These are nuances and special circumstances that require the commercial

sensitivity and expertise that the individuals in our Energy Corporation hold.

It would be very difficult for someone outside the corporate world to fully

appreciate the impact on a company, or an extended negotiation, or a stock

market, for that matter, of what they may be holding in their hands.

For these reasons, we have put this initial decision in the hands of the CEO

of the Energy Corporation. However, we have not left this decision to him or her

alone. We have included the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that there

is transparency, accountability and an ultimate test that the information is

indeed commercially sensitive.

We have made provision for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador

Trial Division to make a ruling on the corporation's decision not to release

the information. The CEO does not make the final decision.

Mr. Speaker, there has also been some suggestion in the last week that we are

attempting to exempt the corporation from the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. That could not be further from the truth, Mr.

Speaker. We are very open and transparent in our intent here, which is to

protect commercially sensitive information and the corporation's ability to

operate in a competitive, global, energy industry.

Mr. Speaker, I was also asked why the definition of commercially sensitive

information is so broad in this bill. This is a fair question, Mr. Speaker. The

definition contained in the bill is designed to cover any potential area of the

Energy Corporation's business activities that could be exploited to harm the

corporation's competitive position or that of any third parties with which the

corporation is engaged. This does not mean that all the information captured by

the definition of commercially sensitive will not be disclosed.

section 5.4(1)(

c) of the bill we have laid out five specific tests

governing the release of information. These tests are designed to measure

whether the information being requested will harm the corporation, its

subsidiaries or a third party.

For the benefit of members, Mr. Speaker, the information must be applied

against five tests to determine if the release of information would harm the

competitive position, interfere with a negotiating position, result in financial

loss or harm of the corporation, the subsidiary or the third party, that the

information is treated consistently in a confidential manner, or is customarily

not provided to competitors. Those five tests, Mr. Speaker, have to be applied

against any information that is being considered commercially sensitive. If they

do not meet that test, Mr. Speaker, then the information can be disclosed. Mr.

Speaker, while the definition is broad, and it is necessary for it to be broad,

the test for release is specific.

We are not attempting to exempt the Energy Corporation from the Access to

Information legislation; nor are we attempting to muzzle the Auditor General. We

are being very open and transparent in our attempt to protect commercially

sensitive information. Protecting against the release of this information is

critical to the success, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, of our Energy Corporation;

and, as I said last week, we want this corporation to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, much has been made by members opposite also about why the CEO

has input into the information that the Auditor General can release. The Auditor

General's office, Mr. Speaker, has access to all information within the Energy

Corporation to which it would normally have access from any other department or

agency in completing its work.

This is a very important point, Mr. Speaker. We are not muzzling or

restricting access by the Auditor General. We are ensuring that commercially

sensitive information does not get released.

If there is a request by the Auditor General to release a report that the CEO

has determined contains commercially sensitive information, then the Auditor

General can provide this report to the Cabinet. The Auditor General can also

note the existence of this report in his annual report to the House of Assembly.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet knows and the members of this House will know,

and, because the members of this House know, the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador will know.

Again, there are checks and balances in the system that clearly demonstrates

that the CEO of the Energy Corporation does not have the final say on the

release of information. We are very open and transparent in our intent and

approach to protecting commercially sensitive information. This protection

against the release of this information, again, Mr. Speaker, is critical to its

success. If the Auditor General's report does not contain commercially

sensitive information, then the report can be released in its usual manner.

Mr. Speaker, I was also asked last week: How do we ensure that there are no

improper contracting practices at the Energy Corporation and that there is full

competition for Energy Corporation work?

These are good questions, Mr. Speaker, and ones that we have taken very

seriously. As I indicated last week, we have undertaken a great deal of research

on state-owned energy corporations and how they are structured.

The Energy Corporation has also reviewed the best practices that are in place

for procurement policies and contracting practices in the global oil and gas

industry.

Our new Energy Corporation is staffed by extraordinary people with global

experience in megaproject contracting, and we are very lucky to have them, Mr.

Speaker. We are confident that the procurement and contracting practices

developed at the Energy Corporation will compare with practices in place with

the major oil and gas corporations. These practices will address the principles

of best value, open competition, and appropriate monitoring and reporting.

Over the last week, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the concerns raised about the

need to ensure that these procurement and contracting practices live on beyond

the current government and current CEO. That is a legitimate concern. We agree

there must be appropriate monitoring and reporting on the Energy Corporation's

procurement and contracting to ensure openness and transparency.

We have heard a lot of debate as to why we just could not make amendments to

the Public Tender Act to accomplish the contracting goals of the Energy

Corporation. Mr. Speaker, this government prides itself on being open and

accountable. We do not want to be trying to come up with amendments to skirt the

Public Tender Act, or to circumvent it, and then go out and say the Public

Tender Act applies to the Energy Corporation. It does not apply, Mr. Speaker,

and we are saying that very clearly.

The Public Tender Act does not allow the corporation to get the best, most

competitive and most qualified contractors for very, very specific, specialized

and large pieces of work, if it is restricted to the lowest bidder.

As I said, we want the Energy Corporation to be able to consider key

initiatives in our Energy Plan when going forward with these projects, which

includes the principles of adjacency, use of Aboriginal contractors and local

benefits.

During the debate, Mr. Speaker, two sections of the Public Tender Act were

brought forward by the members opposite as possible measures to accomplish the

contracting objectives of the Energy Corporation. These are sections 3.2 (

j) and

section 12. We have looked at these, Mr. Speaker, and the exclusions identified

under

section 3.2 (

j) are far too restrictive to permit the flexibility needed

on major projects. Using this

section will require government to provide

exemptions for each individual contract awarded by the corporation. This is not

reasonable, Mr. Speaker. The Lower Churchill Development alone could result in

hundreds of required exemptions under this approach.

Section 3.(2) (

j) permits Request for Proposals, or RFPs, instead of tenders,

on Cabinet approval. If this approach was employed, each use of an RFP would

have to be approved by Cabinet again, not reasonable. This could result in

hundreds hundreds, Mr. Speaker - of required exemptions for major projects.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS DUNDERDALE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MS DUNDERDALE: The Public Tender Act also outlines the regulations for

conducting an RFP process. These regulations would severely restrict the

flexibility required in arranging and running an RFP process for a major capital

project, and therefore are not appropriate for the Energy Corporation given the

scale of projects that they are dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, another

section that was raised,

section 12, relates to the

authority of the minister to make regulations under the Public Tender Act. This

approach would require government to make exemptions under the act to cover the

Energy Corporation. There is nothing in this

section to permit partial

exclusions, expanded exemptions, or anything else likely to avoid problems under

the Public Tender Act - again, Mr. Speaker, not reasonable in this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, we greatly appreciate the efforts from the members opposite to

seek approaches within the Public Tender Act to accommodate the flexibility that

the Energy Corporation requires. We looked at them ourselves, and we re-examined

them when they were raised here in debate in the House; however, as I mentioned

earlier, we are interested in accountability and transparency in these

amendments. The approaches raised here are nothing more than a means to seek

exemptions or to work around the current act, and we are not interested in doing

that.

In the same line of questioning last week, comparisons were drawn between our

bill and legislation in place in other provinces such as British Columbia and

Quebec. Specifically, I was asked: Why are the Public Tender and Auditor General

Acts okay for BC Hydro and Hydro-Quebec, but not for the Energy Corporation?

Mr. Speaker, I remind members of the House that not all pieces of

legislation, even if they carry the same name, are the same in content from

province to province. Therefore, it is like comparing apples to oranges, to

compare a piece of legislation in this Province to a piece in another province,

without doing the work to find out how they differ.

In our assessment of how other state-owned energy companies are operated, we

undertook significant analysis and engaged external analysts to ensure that the

approach taken in this Province for the Energy Corporation was consistent with

international best practices.

In so doing, Mr. Speaker, guidance was taken from Norwegian and Danish

state-owned corporations as models for ensuring meaningful public accountability

requirements, while ensuring commercial competitiveness and effectiveness.

These jurisdictions have different legislative processes than our Province.

The processes that are used in these countries, in terms of accessing

information and public tendering, are not equivalent to the processes and

procedures we use here. Therefore, when conducting our analysis, we focused on

the result of the legislation to ensure that the process and procedures we chose

provided us with the same results.

This is also true for the analysis we conducted of Hydro-Quebec and BC Hydro.

For example, Mr. Speaker, while it is true that BC Hydro is subject to the

Procurement Services Act, this legislation cannot be compared to our Public

Tender Act. The legislation in British Columbia does not require that a specific

process be used in tendering; rather, there is only a general policy regarding

procurement, with a requirement to use best practices. It states that goods,

services and construction must be awarded using a competitive process that is

appropriate to value, complexity and profile of the business opportunity. These

processes include an Invitation to Tender, a Request for Proposals, a Request

for Quotations, an Invitation to Quote and so on.

In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec must only issue tenders with respect to

supplying electricity, as required by the principles of its open access

electricity market. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec follows its own

procurement policy for acquiring goods and services.

With regard to the Auditor General Act, Mr. Speaker, in both British Columbia

and Quebec, this act applies; however, again, we must ensure that we have a

proper comparison. In both of these Provinces, the Auditor General can review

and report on any aspect of BC Hydro and Hydro-Quebec; however, both of these

are regulated utilities and are subject to oversight by their respective public

utilities board. The same is also true for this Province, where Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro is regulated by the Public Utilities Board and is open to the

Auditor General.

The difference we are operating under here is that our Energy Corp. is a

fully integrated energy company that is competing in a commercially-competitive

business environment. In this context the Public Tender Act in this Province

does not provide the flexibility required to complete large construction

projects; and, because this corporation will be competing in a

globally-competitive business environment, it must be able to protect against

the release of commercially sensitive information in order to protect its

competitive position.

In addressing corporate governance and protection of commercially sensitive

information issues for our Energy Corporation, we have looked more to the

international jurisdictions I referenced earlier for guidance, than Canadian

jurisdictions. The state-owned energy corporations established in these

countries provide for a much more comparable model to our Energy Corporation

than the utility-based Crown corporations that exist elsewhere in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are breaking new ground in this Province

with our Energy Corporation and we are following the many examples worldwide of

state-owned energy companies that have returned significant value from the

development of their energy resources.

It has always been our expectation that the contracting and procurement

process will be open, transparent and competitive. To ensure that this intent

and these processes are clearly reflected in this bill, I will be introducing

two amendments to this bill to bring clarity to this piece.

The first will require the Energy Corporation to submit to government, for

approval, procurement principles that follow best industry practices for

procurement and contracting, including transparent supplier, development,

monitoring and support.

Mr. Speaker, this ensures that the process that the Energy Corporation

follows will have to be clearly articulated and publicly available for scrutiny.

This provides an open, transparent and accountable process that is consistent

with the way this government does business and our principles outlined in the

Energy Plan.

The members opposite did raise concern related to Public Tender Act exemption

for subsidiaries that have not yet been established. My second amendment

provides that Cabinet may declare that a subsidiary is subject to the Public

Tender Act where it is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates that we have been listening to the debate.

This amendment looks to the future and, if a subsidiary of the Energy

Corporation ever does get to the point where it is making widgets, Cabinet can

make the determination whether the Public Tender Act should apply.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased last week when the issue of energy efficiency was

raised in relation to the Energy Corporation. This is an important issue for us

as we outlined in our energy plan. It was asked last week if the Energy

Corporation will be establishing an energy efficiency subsidiary. Mr. Speaker,

we have committed on our energy plan to establishing an energy conservation and

efficiency partnership to develop a coordinated and prioritized five-year energy

conservation and efficiency plan. We have also committed to an initial

investment of $5 million to this partnership to coordinate and assist with

energy conservation and efficiency initiatives. We are continuing to develop

this five-year plan and will be announcing a number of initiatives in the near

future. This partnership will identify initiatives, as well as the best approach

to move them forward and implement them, Mr. Speaker.

With that said, we feel that the suggestion brought forward by the Leader of

the New Democratic Party for the corporation to consider an energy efficient

subsidiary certainly has merit and we will pass this suggestion along to the

corporation for consideration. I thank the Leader of the NDP for that

suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, an important issue was raised in debate in regard to what

happens if there is fraud and embezzlement at the Energy Corporation. Mr.

Speaker, this corporation will manage billions of dollars of investment and we

want to ensure that our investment as taxpayers is protected. We have not

limited the Auditor General's office from conducting its reviews of the Energy

Corporation's operation and management in any way. We strongly believe that

the Auditor General's office should continue its oversight role in regards to

government investment in the Energy Corporation.

If the Auditor General becomes aware of an improper retention or

misappropriation of public money, or another activity that may constitute an

offence under the Criminal Code or another act, the Auditor General can act. If,

in his report of this activity, the Auditor General plans to disclose

commercially sensitive information then this report must be provided to the

Cabinet as opposed to released publicly. In this event our proposed bill states

that the Auditor General must provide notice to the House in his annual report

that he has submitted such a report to Cabinet.

We have heard the concerns in debate over the time lapse between the Auditor

General submitting a report to Cabinet and notice being provided in his annual

report. We acknowledge this concern and I will be bringing forward an amendment

that will require the Auditor General to immediately provide a report to the

House including a general description and the date it was reported to Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, for the Energy Corporation and the CEO we mirrored the

accountability placed on MHAs in regards to improper criminal conduct found by

the Auditor General. We lifted this

section directly from the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, which came out of the report

of Chief Justice Green. But, Mr. Speaker, with this amendment we actually went

beyond the Green report, what the Green report requires from members of the

House. We are now requiring that the Auditor General immediately provide his

report to the House. In regards to MHAs, as my colleague should know, the

Auditor General reports any findings in his annual report.

Mr. Speaker, last week debate also went into the area of what authority

government has to ensure that the Energy Corporation or its subsidiaries do not

sell off significant assets including shares in subsidiaries that the taxpayers

have paid for. The purpose in creating the Energy Corporation is to receive a

greater share from the development of our energy resources for the people of the

Province, Mr. Speaker. Whether the development is hydro, oil and gas or wind we

want to return greater benefits from the development of our resources to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intent to establish this

company to develop our natural resources and then sell parts of the company to

the highest bidder. It is not our intent to privatize it like the former Liberal

Administration attempted to do with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: If we were to sell off parts of the corporation to the

highest bidder we would no longer be in control of our resources and that is

absolutely and totally contrary to our intent and purpose.

Section 14.1 of the bill states that the corporation shall not dispose of or

deal in shares of a subsidiary or of another company without the prior approval

of government. It also states that a subsidiary may not do the same without the

prior approval of the Energy Corporation. In this context there is protection

against the sale of all or part of subsidiaries. During the course of debate,

however, we heard the significant concern in regards to protecting against the

corporation or subsidiaries from selling off significant assets without prior

approval. We share this concern and this was not the intent of the bill.

To provide the greatest protection possible, we will be bringing forward an

amendment that will require the Energy Corporation to obtain shareholder

approval for the sale, lease or exchange of a substantial portion of an

undertaking, property asset or business operation.

Mr. Speaker, with this amendment we are ensuring that in the case of the sale

of an asset by the Energy Corporation, government, as shareholder, must provide

approval. In the case of subsidiaries, approval must be given by the board of

directors of the Energy Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, we have established our Energy Corporation to lead this Province

into a new era of resource development, an era where we become the developers of

our resources and the recipients of the greatest return. With this bill we are

providing the Energy Corporation with the tools it requires to succeed.

I have appreciated the issues that have been raised by the members opposite

and we have listened to them, and will continue to listen to them through debate

as we go forward today. I have had my officials review all the suggestions for

improvement that came forward, and I hope that the amendments to this bill that

I am bringing forward in Committee certainly address many of those concerns.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing forward six amendments in

Committee, two of which are housekeeping and four that reflect what we have

heard on the floor of the House over the past week. I believe, Mr. Speaker, this

shows that we are listening to and value the input of our colleagues opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling those amendments now for review by Members of the

House of Assembly, and I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for the record, I did not mean to usurp, either, the speaking of the

Leader of Opposition, but she got called away from the House for a few moments

so that is why I am up ahead of her.

First of all, I would like to say right off the top that I am very pleased

with the approach that we are going to take here in second reading, because it

is possible, under the rules of the House, to get so bogged down in procedural

manoeuvring that we lose focus on what we intend to do here, which is to deal

with this very important and significant Bill 35.

I appreciate the minister, for example obviously, last Thursday our

speaking was not in vain. In fact, some politicizing and people who see the big

picture, I guess, from a lot of people, we did get drilled down into some of the

detail last Thursday in this House and pointed out what we felt were serious and

significant concerns with this piece of legislation. I am pleased to see that,

contrary to some people who just close their eyes and might think that we did

not have anything worthy to say, the government is coming forward with six

amendments, and that is good to see.

Now, whether or not we are going to end up on all fours in agreeing with all

of those six amendments we will see as the debate goes on; because, obviously,

up to now, the time of the tabling of these amendments, and the bit of context

that the minister just gave us, which we have not fully digested yet, we have

not had an opportunity to read the amendments and see exactly where they are

going to take us compared to where we were last week, but I certainly appreciate

the fact that we are taking this approach to things.

Just for the record, too, to put this in a bit of historical context, I went

back and just checked out some of the news clippings from 1968 to 1969 in The

Evening Telegram of the day. Sure enough, you say history repeats itself,

there was no House in session at that time, by the way, so I guess we have made

a significant advance in this bill versus back then in the Upper Churchill

contract because the House was not even in session back then.

By the way, for the record, I don't believe there were forty-eight members

but there were three Opposition members at the time. The numbers were pretty

well skewed like they are today in terms of majority versus minority. At the

time in The Evening Telegram all of the clippings were: A great deal for

the Province.

First, there was all kinds of confusion leading up to the deal of the Upper

Churchill. Then, a gentleman, a staff writer, by the name of John Carter in The

Evening Telegram says: A great deal, everybody wins. Quebec wins,

Newfoundland wins - because they did not call it Newfoundland and Labrador back

then; they just called it Newfoundland - Newfoundland wins, Quebec wins.

That was the headline in The Evening Telegram . Notwithstanding that,

if you go to the editorial sections, there were all kinds little letters to the

editor saying: How does John Carter know we got a good deal? History is going to

prove us wrong; we did not get a good deal.

Even then, everybody thought they were right then. We had a government then

of, whatever, forty-seven people who thought they were right. By the way, the

Opposition members of that day voted for it, when it had to be voted on. There

was nobody, there was absolutely no dissent in the House of Assembly to the

Upper Churchill deal.

Our word of caution, when we at least ask for - and, by the way, I appreciate

the opportunity that the Premier, the Government House Leader and the minister

here have taken in allowing us to have the time to bring these things forward,

because I think it is important. History has already proven us once to be wrong;

something was wrong. Maybe it was nobody's fault, but it happened. That is why

it pays to take the time.

If we throw out one nib of information in the course of this debate - and we

have already thrown out six nibs, because obviously there are going to be some

amendments here offered by the government - that helps improve this deal, we are

all better off for it, and that is the purpose and focus of where we are coming

from. I am pleased to see that we are heading down a road today of being

focused. Instead of having treetop discussions and debates, as I call it, where

everybody says this is a great piece of legislation and we do not really drill

down, I am very appreciative of the minister having listened to us on Thursday,

having gone and analyzed what we said, and come back now and put in the context

why we were right or why we did not have a full picture to give us a better

understanding of where we are going here.

We also have proposed and, by the way, anybody who reads this, it is not

a long bill. It might be complicated, I guess, in a lot of respects, and we will

find that out as the years go on, but Bill 35 is not a big, long bill, but the

very issues that the minister hit on is where our amendments are. By the way, I

am going to table the same - we have six amendments as well. One of them, I

think, is broken up into two parts of it, but basically six amendments.

We had concerns about the application of the Securities Act, or the

non-application of it. We had concerns about access by the Privacy Commissioner

and the members' interests and so on. We had those concerns. That is where one

of our amendments is directed to, the appeal process that would come into play

there. We had a concern about what is revealed - and I do not think the minister

alluded to this. This is another one we have a concern with, and that is the

nature and type of information that comes from the annual reports filed by the

corporation and the subsidiaries. We will get into that. There is an amendment

that we are putting forward here to suggest that the current reporting content,

shall we say, that is being put forward does not go far enough and we would like

to address that in debate and make a suggestion as to how it could be

strengthened. That is included in ours.

We do have a concern about the Auditor General, still, what he can and cannot

do. The nature of our concern, by the way, and the minister alluded to this,

everything under this bill is intended to be done in the context of what is

commercially sensitive information. That is where the bill starts out in number

one. We have no problem with the fact that you need to protect from disclosure

commercially sensitive information. The issue is: What becomes commercially

sensitive information, and what happens to other information that is not

commercially sensitive? Our fear is, if what we read here - and we have put our

heads around this. There is only the three of us. We have gotten some outside

advice from people who we thought might know something about this corporate law

piece and whatever else. The perception of what we are being told, Minister, is

that the bill does not currently go far enough when it talks about other

information. It is like they have given a carte blanche here to this corporation

and its subsidiaries to do what they like not only for commercially sensitive

information but that the process has been restricted for every other piece of

information as well. That is where the concerns lie.

If we are protecting commercially sensitive information only, not a problem,

but if it is other information - and we are saying that Bill 35 does not

properly designate what is and what isn't. You basically start out in number

one and it says that anything that the CEO wants to define as commercially

sensitive, he or she is going to do it. Then we go from there: you cannot have

this, you cannot have that, if it is commercially sensitive you cannot have it,

whether you are a commissioner of interests, whether you are the Privacy

Commissioner, whether you are a trial judge in the Supreme Court or whether you

are the Auditor General. We are saying, whoa, back up a minute. What if there is

information in these subsidiaries and corporations that should be out there? We

do not think the act is clear enough, specific enough, and gives enough comfort

level so that we do not walk down that path. That is where we are coming from on

that one.

We had some issues, again, about non-agencies of the government. We read

through that one. Again, explanation things that we do not have the knowledge

of, but we have some questions of. I am sure as the debate goes on, you have the

personnel who could certainly provide us with some comfort level and

explanations in those areas.

Another big one, of course, is the Public Tender one, which I notice that you

are going to put forward an amendment on, so we will get a chance to look at

that on the Public Tender piece.

At this point, I will just table I have copies here for the Premier and

the Government House Leader and the Minister of Natural Resources and for the

Leader of the NDP as well as for the table officers, so they can circulate them

or whatever. I guess, the next move will be, as we debate we will take an

opportunity to look at each other's amendments if we could and anything we

agree on, obviously we do not need further debate on.

It is not our intention, by the way, to browbeat this thing and be

repetitive. We just throw out what our concerns are and see what government is

prepared to do with it. We can only make our concerns known. We are not so

foolish to think that at the end of the day it is not going to pass. Whatever

government wants to pass is going to pass. We know that. All we are about here

is: let's put it on the table and see how government reacts to it. If it makes

sense, fine, maybe they are prepared to listen to it. If not, that is all we can

do about it as Opposition members here.

I will just clue up my comments at that point with the submission of these

amendments.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It indeed is a pleasure to be able to stand in this House this evening.

This is a piece of legislation that I really, really wanted to speak from a,

I suppose a political perspective but also to speak to it from a personal type

of perspective.

In listening to the Opposition House Leader, when a piece of legislation like

this comes across the floor, it is certainly not something, I do not think, that

anybody on this side wants to, if we can use the analogy, shove through or to

shove down somebody's throat or something of that nature.

This is such an important piece of legislation the Opposition House

Leader used phrases and words such as: he is pleased that we are taking this

approach; that he is putting forward stuff that he wants explanation for and he

has directed some questions to the Minister of Natural Resources that he wants

explanation for, and she is over here saying that certainly she will provide

that; and thirdly, that he is very pleased that we are providing the time here

to have serious debate on this matter.

I think that speaks to, that as a government what we want from this debate

and legislation is to put forward the best piece of legislation that we possibly

can, and at the end of the day get the best possible deal that we can get for

the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, in my five years in this hon. House there have been a number of

occasions that I feel are historical, and the Opposition House Leader went back

to some articles that are 1968: he talked about news items, he talked about

editorials that spoke about good deals and everything they thought was right,

and that everybody in the House supported the piece of legislation that came

forward at the time, but in the end, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are elected to

do here. We have to come to make decisions, and you base the decisions on the

information that is put forward to you, and in the end, you hope that it is the

best decision possible. There are no guarantees, there are no 100 per cents in

these jobs, but you make the decision with the best information that you have

put before you. Then history will dictate whether it is was the right decision

or not.

I know, since I have come in to this House we have had different types of

legislation that go through, and as much as we are always attentive to the

happenings within the House, there are certain pieces of legislation that stand

out more, if I could use that. These are pieces of legislation that everybody is

very keen on getting all of the information about, and are very in tune with the

debate that is going on.

I recall, a few years back, when the Inuit Land Claims Agreement came

through, you knew, Mr. Speaker, that as those documents were proceeding through

the House and the final agreement arrived at, that you were sitting in the

presence of something happening that was historically significant. It was going

to impact very much on the lives of the Inuit who were involved in it, but also

it was an important piece of legislation for the people of the Province. You

knew it, you felt it and you were very proud to be a part of it.

Then there were happenings outside the House, debates go on. The Atlantic

Accord is one that certainly comes to mind. The fact that you can be in a

situation in this House where you are a part of that speaks very powerfully to

me as a member representing a constituency and it also speaks to what will

happen in the future for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this piece of legislation. As I have

said, the Opposition will raise questions about our presentation, the

presentation that they were given. They will throw out things that will raise

doubt in the minds of some people. Certainly, that is their role, that causes

people to think and that is certainly not a bad thing.

I am willing to bet that since this piece of legislation has come forward

this has been debated in kitchens, it has been debated between first and second

periods of Detroit and Pittsburgh games, and it has been debated, no doubt, at

cabins on the weekend past. What we talking about here, I believe, is something

that will impact my children, my grandchildren and it will extend well into the

future and impact many future generations of this Province.

I am looking at this piece of legislation, and I truly do believe this, Mr.

Speaker; this will be another landmark, or if you want to term it a trademark,

of good decisions that will have been and will continue to be made by this

government.

I believe that the premise of this legislation is again in getting the best

returns on our provincial resources. I know I started out in 2002, winning the

election in 2003, and that is one of the things I campaigned heavily on, and I

am certain that a lot of my colleagues on this government side campaigned on,

that we had seen too many giveaways from our resources; we had not reaped the

benefits of our resources.

I come from the Burin Peninsula where fishing was key to our operations, fish

plants on the go, and that was always the thing: We are not getting the benefit

from the resources, our fish, to the benefit of the people of the Province.

This evening I stand here to speak to this piece of legislation that will no

doubt be debated again and again; and, as I have said, history will dictate as

to whether this is the right move. Certainly, personally, I strongly believe in

this piece of legislation and I have been discussing this with people; because,

when you get out in your district and you meet people from your district and you

meet people from across the Province, these are the types of things that they

want to discuss with you. They want to get some of the ins and outs because we,

as members, are involved in this discussion day in and day out. We come into

this House. We were here last week, we are going to be here this afternoon, we

are going to be here tonight, and the discussions are going on, but for some

people out in the Province who are watching this on TV, they may get to see it

periodically, they may read about it in the papers, but they want to ask you

questions about it, and questions about the Auditor General's role, and what

does commercially sensitive information mean? We are the people they look to for

information.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to it, one of the bottom lines for me is

about common sense. They say sometimes that it is not all that common, but this

piece of legislation, to me, speaks specifically to a bit of common sense. I

suppose we could all bring up examples, but in my thinking if I have a company

that wants to come and do business with me, or anybody else for that matter,

they may bring some information to the table sometimes that they would not want

divulged to some of their competitors.

If, for example, one of these companies were Hebron, or some of the other oil

companies - and we will use that as an example - and they stand to lose if that

information is released, well, it is going to do one of two things. First of

all, it is going to cause them to be very, very cautious and, if they are going

to be dealing with government, rather than something happening within a month,

let us say, this might be something that could take six months to eight months

because they are not going to take the chance on having that information

released. So, what they are going to do is, they are going to work with

government but they are going to be extremely, extremely cautious and they are

going to make sure that every base is covered before they move ahead. Secondly,

and worse still, they may renege and pull out from any negotiations or talks

with government. If that were the case then we, as a Province, are losing.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we are no longer a population of 500,000 people who

are confined to the dealings of the people within this Province. One of the key

points I think the Minister of Natural Resources spoke to when she got up

before, she spoke about we are in a global market here. You can be assured that

with the technologies that we have before us today, once we make a decision in

this Province, whether it be in the fishery or whether it be in the oil

industry, it is not within a matter of hours, it is within a matter of minutes

and seconds, that people from all over the world who are involved in that

industry know about what is happening. We are no longer dealing in a very

confined provincial setting. We are now in a global context and we have to be

prepared to do that. We also have to be prepared to participate in that market,

that very competitive global market, and we had better stay on our game. If not,

Mr. Speaker, what happens is that you get left behind.

Whether that is in the oil industry or in the wind industry or if we are into

further development of the Lower Churchill, then we are dealing with major

companies. We are dealing with corporations who want protection through

confidentiality. It provides a business advantage and there is no one can tell

me, whether it be the oil industry or the fishing industry or production of wind

industry or whatever it is, it is all a matter of business, and we are dealing

in that business context.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me just take it to a district level. One of the major

employers in my district is Peter Kiewit Sons, and they are a major

international contracting company who get work through large projects, large

scale projects. A recent completion - it is going on three-and-a-half years now

and it only seems like yesterday - in this industry, the SeaRose FPSO was

constructed in Marystown. That had 1,200 people working there. Mr. Speaker, my

point is that those types of projects are the projects, the deals that exist

between companies in conjunction with, for example, the Province; those are the

types of deals that we come up with. I shudder to think that we might lose some

of these deals and some of these contracts because these larger companies are

kind of hesitant to enter into discussions with us, or that they cannot get

things moving as quickly as they would like to. Therefore, I think the

legislation that we have before us deals directly with that kind of thing. It

allows companies, the Energy Corp. here, to be working with the Hebrons, the

Chevrons and the ExxonMobils to work out the deals and work them out in a

timely, timely manner.

I think, for the majority of people, they will debate this and they will

raise good questions, but what I have to look to, Mr. Speaker, is being

convinced myself that this is the right deal. The first thing that I have to do

is to understand what the legislation is all about. Then, before making a final

decision, you do some of your own research.

If you look at what has been already spoken about in this House, the folks

who have been involved in this - the Energy Corp. people, government - have all

looked at exemplary models in other places. We have looked at them in Denmark;

we have looked at them in Norway.

Mr. Speaker, the question was asked, I believe, of the Minister of Natural

Resources: Well, have we looked at the examples that have been in the country,

and why aren't we following some of what has happened in other jurisdictions

within the country?

Mr. Speaker, not to diminish the question or anything, I think that we, as a

Province, have taken a lead in the last number of years, the last five years, in

particular, on many fronts within this country. The fact that Quebec may not be

doing something this way, or B.C. may not be doing something this way, or

Alberta may not be doing something this way, certainly should not be an

indicator that we, as a Province, should hold back. In fact, as I have said, Mr.

Speaker, I think this Province has taken the lead on many occasions and in many

files, and as a result of it we are seeing the better benefits to the people of

the Province, and therefore we will see it well into the future.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, very important - and I think this is one of the things

that people would want resolved more than anything as they enter into this

debate, is that they want to make sure there are safeguards put in place here.

The Minister of Natural Resources got up just a few minutes ago and went through

a list of them.

This is not about keeping the AG out. As has already been said, the AG can

get in there. He does his annual reports. Secondly, people who are shareholders

in any companies do so knowing that there are annual reports that are being put

out, that there are annual meetings and that the shareholders have a say in it.

As the Minister of Natural Resources pointed out, and as others have said in

this debate, there will be annual meetings that give the right of people to ask

questions. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, that through that debate the media will

certainly be asking questions. They do not ever seem to be shy about asking

questions about other things that are in the political arena, asking questions

of any groups or organizations, and I would imagine they would have questions of

their own to put before it.

To say that it is confined, I certainly do not see that, and to that fact,

this legislation will certainly ensure that there is an openness and an

accountability and transparency to the degree that it can, but at the same time,

making sure that negotiations that need to happen in terms of the protection of

commercially sensitive information can be carried out, and the dealings of the

people who are involved here would be protected, and we can get on with the

business at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude with these few remarks. Again, as I

started out by saying, I have been in this House now for five years and I have

seen legislation that has gone through here that I think will leave a

significant, positive impact on the people of this Province.

I feel strongly that this piece of legislation will ensure, first and

foremost, that we get the benefits of our resources that allow us, as a

government, to be able to put in place many of the social networks that people

in the Opposition have raised and we, as a government, continue to implement.

Finally, and most importantly, it sets the course for the future. It speaks

to how my children and how my grandchildren and future generations will be able

to live in this Province. This is what this piece of legislation is about. It is

about getting the best deals, getting the best return and making the best that

we can for the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to contribute to the debate that is ongoing today around

Bill 35.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I will agree with that the member did say is that this

is somewhat a historic piece of legislation in that it will establish, for the

first time ever in this Province, an Energy Corporation, a corporation that will

take the investments of public money and invest in deals with private sector

enterprise and be set up somewhat arm's length from government in terms of how

they negotiate, how they report and the types of activities that they will

engage in.

From that perspective, yes, it is historic, but it is also from that

perspective, Mr. Speaker, that we have to ensure that all the safeguards that

need to be put in place to protect the people of the Province, to protect the

corporation that is owned by the shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador, the

residents, and to also ensure that this corporation has full openness and

transparency in terms of how they do business and how they invest the people's

money in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, many people may not realize this, because they often associate

Energy Corporation sometimes even with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but it

is a very different entity altogether. In fact, under the new Energy

Corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro becomes a subsidiary company. They

become only one of the companies that make up this whole corporation or this

whole division within the Province, so it is very different. As you know,

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro falls under its own particular act and is

governed by the Public Utilities Board. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro while it will be one subsidiary of this corporation, they have a different

mechanism, bylaw, under which they report and also by which they are accountable

to the people of the Province. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but their regulatory

regime is set up through a Public Utilities Board Commission of people who are

appointed and who review all aspects of the corporation; everything in terms of

the kind of expenditures they have, the kind of rates that they charge, how they

collect money and so on within the Province. It is done in a very public way and

I know that because I have been involved in that process many times in my

political career representing my constituents on fair hearings related to oil

and gas or hydro rates and diesel generated rates and power within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a Crown agent of the Province

whereas these new subsidiaries that will be setting up will be, first of all,

non-Crown agents which means that they will be removed more from government and

they will fall under different particular laws and legislation which will be

governed through two acts in this House; one through Bill 35 which we are

debating today and the other one through Bill 28 which we passed in the spring

session of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, also, let me tell you, under Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

there is also a public tendering process by which they are accountable under the

tendering act. Now they can file for exemptions on any particular occasion that

they need to and those exemptions can be granted by the minister and council,

but, Mr. Speaker, there is still a mechanism by which they are reported. There

is transparency and there is also a level of accountability that accrues to

them.

The new corporations or subsidiaries that we are looking at establishing in

the Province now will fall under different regulations; therefore they will not

be subject to the Public Tender Act. Therefore, any particular contracts will

not go out to a competitive bidding process whether that be through a Request

for Proposals or through public tendering by notice in the newspaper or online

whatever the case may be.

They are two very separate ways of doing business within the Energy Corp.

Those laws that I outlined that govern the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro which

will be only one subsidiary of the corporation are very different than what

government is asking to implement as rules or legislation that will govern new

subsidiaries in the Province.

For example, Mr. Speaker, while Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, if they are

going to go out and replace transmission lines around the Province or if they

need to hire contractors to do a certain amount of work as we have seen in the

past - before the Energy Corp was set up, they were doing a lot of work on the

Lower Churchill, environmental assessment work and so on - well then a lot of

that work would have been done through a public tendering process or Request for

Proposals. In the future, under these subsidiary companies, the government is

asking that, that not be the case.

Also, Mr. Speaker, and I will get back to that in a few minutes, the other

piece to this is with regard to how they deal with the officers of the House in

terms of other pieces of legislation, such as the Auditor General's Act, the

Citizens' Representative, the Privacy Commissioner, the Freedom of

Information. All of these acts govern departments, corporations, within the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are all acts of this House of

Assembly and they are all approved, Mr. Speaker, and managed through the

Management Commission of the Legislature.

I am a member of the Management Commission, along with seven or eight other

members within the House of Assembly, who make up the Management Commission, and

we, Mr. Speaker, review the work plans, the budgets, the mandates of the offices

of the Child and Youth Advocate, of the Citizens' Representative, particularly

as it relates to this, the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner and so on,

Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we understand what the role and responsibility of these

offices are, and why they were developed.

They were developed, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there was full transparency

of work being done within government departments, anywhere throughout government's

system or Crown corporations or agencies which fell under that act. That was the

whole purpose of establishing it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen that many of these offices work in terms of

doing the job that they have to do. For example, it was the Citizens'

Representative who, upon a complaint being filed with him, took it upon himself

to review the correctional offices in Labrador and to report back to the House

of Assembly that, indeed, there was insufficient capacity, that they were not

being able to meet what the need was, and entailed all of that in a report, a

report that was tabled publicly and which government is attempting to respond

to. Mr. Speaker, that is one particular incident and that came about because

someone had requested that role be taken on and done by the Citizens'

Representative.

The Auditor General files in the House of Assembly each and every year a full

report of government departments, whether that report is and it does not

always have to be things that are negative, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General

reports on all kinds of things that are happening, whether they be exemptions

that were granted, whether it be accounts that were settled, whether it be

misappropriation of funds in some way, whether it be a violation of government

policies, but they also go back and report on government's actions following

that report.

For example, if there was an incident reported within a government department

of which they were administering money under policies that were not in place and

therefore in violation of some law, well, that would be written up; but, at the

same time, Mr. Speaker, a year down the road when he filed his next report, he

may say that he had met with that department or that board, and they have now

corrected that information and now they are reporting in a different way or they

are meeting the requirements of their act or legislation.

I have seen that lots of times, so it is not just reporting on things that

are not going well but also reporting when corrections are made and things are

being followed as per the recommendations within that report.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular act, what we are saying is that the Auditor

General will not have the same authorities right now as they would have within

other departments, mostly because of the fact that government wants to ensure

that commercially sensitive information that could jeopardize the negotiations

or deals that are settled within the corporation could be put in jeopardy if

some of this information is disclosed inappropriately or untimely. Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, they are saying that different rules will apply.

We wanted to point that out, because the rules that are here do not apply,

necessarily, to any other corporations, including the Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro Corporation. Mr. Speaker, that was another aspect of the particular

legislation that we had some problems with and that we are attempting to

address, first of all, by reviewing the amendment that has been put forward by

the government, but at the same time tabling some potential amendments that we

are looking at ourselves. Whether they will reach the floor of the House or not,

I guess, we will determine after we have a clearer evaluation of what is in the

new amendments that will be added to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, our goal through all of this is only to ensure, not to undermine

the government in any way whatsoever as to creating an Energy Corporation within

this Province, but only to ensure that if there is a way to have greater

openness and greater accountability then that