March

14, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I rose in the House of Assembly on a point of order related to the

need of the Government House Leader to give notice of which private member's

motion we would be debating today. When doing this, I stated that we would not

want to disrupt the proceedings of the House in the spirit of co-operation, and

we were willing to offer the Government House Leader leave in order to make

right his omission to give notice on Monday.

Instead of taking this opportunity and accepting our offer, the House Leader

became testy, Mr. Speaker, and he stated twice

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - not once, Mr. Speaker, but stated twice that he had stood and

indicated which motion would be debated. Mr. Speaker, I did not challenge him on

it at the time because I did not have a certified copy of Hansard. I waited

until I had received a certified copy of Hansard and I did get an opportunity to

check it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a certified copy here, it is actually signed and

certified on the bottom. It indicates, Mr. Speaker, the two times that the

Government House Leader stood. The first time he stood he said: "I stood up, I

indicated that there would be a Private Member's motion; the Member for St.

John's West just read that motion into the record." He went on, Mr. Speaker, to

talk about how I was raising a foolish and stupid point of order in the House of

Assembly. Then he went on to say again: "Well, Mr. Speaker, I stood up, I said

we are going to call the private member's motion; it was then read by the Member

for St. John's West."

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity now to get a certified copy from

Monday to be able to review that copy, and the only people who gave any notice

of motion was the Minister of Finance on that day of a bill. Mr. Speaker, the

MHA for St. John's West did read his private member's resolution into the record

for the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that there was no notice given on Monday as per

section 63.(3) of our act, which I will read, it says, "On the Monday before the

Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's motion is to be debated, the

Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be,

shall announce to the House the Private Member's motion to be debated on that

Wednesday."

Mr. Speaker, I have also had an opportunity to not just review Hansard but we

also had an opportunity to review the tapes of the House of Assembly and at no

point did the Government House Leader stand in his place and give the proper

motion. Mr. Speaker, this is not to embarrass the Government House Leader but to

ensure that we have proper process, and that process is followed and proper

notice is given.

Mr. Speaker,

section 63.(3) is a mandatory piece of our Standing Orders. It

is not optional. It is a substantive requirement of the House of Assembly and

notice shall be given is what is stated in our Standing Orders. It does not say

that it may be given or that it could be given, it says it shall be given.

Mr. Speaker, when the MHA for St. John's West stood, he moved the motion and

he read the motion for the record, but he did not give any notice either. It was

not appropriate for him to give notice because that is not what our Standing

Orders request. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have that on record, that no notice

was given, although it would not have been expected at that time from the Member

for St. John's West.

Mr. Speaker, in the ruling on Monday it was questioned as to whether I raised

this point at the earliest possible time. As I indicated, I could not verify

until I received an official, certified transcript of Hansard. Although I had

reviewed the Hansard on-line, it is late in the afternoon before the transcripts

are delivered to the House of Assembly and that is the only certified transcript

which we can follow.

So, Mr. Speaker, I did raise the point of order yesterday at the earliest

convenience that I could. I took the minister's word when he stood and said that

he had stood and gave notice of the motion. I then took the opportunity, after

receiving the official, certified copy of Hansard, to review that, and I noted

that proper notice was not given. Then I had someone review the tapes just to

ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we did not miss anything. That was done this morning.

It was the earliest possible time that we had to be able to do that. Again,

there was no notice given, and that is the reason I am rising again on this

point of order.

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a point of order because it is in violation of

the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly. If proper notice is not given,

then we cannot debate the motion today, which clearly, Mr. Speaker, we know now

that proper notice was not given. Therefore, there is no motion to debate today.

The motion that was put by the Member for St. John's West is no different than

the motion that sits on the Order Paper that was put last week by the Member for

Burgeo La Poile. Without

section 63.(3), we would never know in this House

what motion is to be debated on Private Members' Day, and that was the purpose

of that Standing Order: to give notice. In the absence of that Standing Order

being substantive, each side will be able to call the motion that they chose at

3 p.m. on Wednesdays, without any notice to the House of Assembly or to the

other members who are here.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader, as I see it, he can get up, he

can just ask for leave which we would happily give him to give the proper

notice, but when we offered that to him on Monday he clearly refused. He stood

up, he insisted that he had already done that practice, which he clearly did

not, and the transcripts and the video proves that. So, Mr. Speaker, if the

House Leader wants to get up and ask for leave to give his notice today, we

would certainly grant him that leave and allow him to do it. If not, I would to

ask for your guidance on how we would proceed if we are not going to follow the

Standing Orders of the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, if I understand correctly, the argument on behalf of the Opposition House

Leader is that this hon. Assembly should be guided by form over substance. Now,

my understanding of a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it should be raised at the

earliest possible opportunity. On Monday, the Member for St. John's West read

the motion into the record. At that point in time, the motion is before this

Assembly. If you look at the

section and what the rules are, they guide us.

There is no question that the mandatory shall is used here. What does it say,

"On the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's

motion is to be debated, the Government House Leader or the Opposition House

Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House" shall announce to

the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen Hansard and, obviously, Hansard, I have no

reason to doubt the veracity or what is in Hansard, but let us look at what took

place. The member gets up and says this is the motion we are going to debate. We

debate the motion, it is put there, and it is on the Order Paper. It is not

raised on Monday. Mr. Speaker, we come before this Assembly yesterday, the

argument was put forward. Again, I do not remember if there was a ruling on it

yesterday, if there was a point of order that was ruled on but if

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember if there was a ruling

yesterday but if there was, you cannot revisit the ruling of the Speaker. Once

the Speaker makes a ruling that is it, that ruling is done. That is the way this

House operates.

Mr. Speaker, in my submission, notice has been given to this Chair in

accordance with the spirit and intent I am not going to repeat everything I

said yesterday. This is just another attempt to circumvent procedure. I

indicated yesterday: If this is the way they want to play, we will play.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has no argument, and he knows that. There are Standing Orders

of the House of Assembly that must be followed. The Standing Orders says that

notice shall be given, not maybe or could be but they shall be. In the absence

of meeting the substantive clause that is outlined in the Standing Orders of the

House, there is no proper notice given of a motion and therefore it cannot be

called for debate. It is clearly very simple to anyone who wants to read it,

look at it, and make a judgement on it.

In terms of raising this at the earliest possible point, I did raise it at

the earliest possible point I say to the Government House Leader; I raised it

yesterday. When I raised it, it was the Government House Leader who stood in his

place twice and insisted that he had given proper notice. I did not think it was

incumbent upon me to dispute what the gentleman was saying but, Mr. Speaker,

since that time I have had an opportunity to look at the tapes, to look at a

certified copy of Hansard, and I now know that what he had spoken yesterday was

certainly not transcribed into any documentation of the House of Assembly and

was not visible on the tapes. This is now the earliest possible time to raise

that point of order again. I can only ask, if we are not going to use the

Standing Orders of the House of Assembly in giving proper motions for debate

here, what does it mean in terms of

section 63(3) of our Standing Orders? Does

this now mean that we will no longer be considering that a substantive part of

the Standing Orders of this House? In doing so, what direction do we take and

will there be another process for calling motions? Or will we just do it

Wednesdays at 3:00 o'clock, and that is when we will all be notified of the

motion that we will be debating on that day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills has indicated to me she was

House Leader for, I think it was, a number of years here during the last

sessions. She indicated that the standard procedure at that time if you want

to go to Hansard, go back and look is that the member would announce the

motion. If you are going to use Hansard one way, you can use Hansard the other

way.

When you really cut through the

MS JONES: There is a ruling in this House, when notice is not given, that

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the notice has been given; that is the spirit and intent. I come

back to, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to deal with the rules, well, let's deal

with the rules. One of the issues is that there is not to be any reflection or

appeal of an order by the Speaker.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker I am looking at Hansard you stated, "Points of

order on a procedural issue [technically] need to be raised at the time of the

breach. So, in terms of its pure technical

interpretation, the appropriate

time"would have been on the day it happened, on Monday. "It appears, though,

that there is a motion on the floor, and I think the Opposition House Leader has

indicated that it is not the party's intent to disrupt the activity of tomorrow

andthe government member introduce the private motion as already read into the

record...So, there being no point of order, we will proceed with today's"

motion. There was a ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

If you are going to get technical, as you have indicated yesterday, the point

of order should be raised on Monday, but you made a ruling on this yesterday,

Mr. Speaker. There is no revisiting or appealing a ruling of the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not challenging any ruling of the Speaker; I am raising a point of order

with regard to the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly not being followed

appropriately. I am asking for direction, or I am asking the Government House

Leader to follow those rules and to give proper motion of which we are more than

co-operative to give him leave to do so.

Why he chooses not to, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question. Yesterday,

he thought our Standing Orders were foolish, Mr. Speaker, and indicated as much

in the House of Assembly. He stood in his place and indicated to me that he had

given notice twice when clearly he did not. Now today he is trying to stand in

his place and say that, Mr. Speaker, we do not need rules in the House; we can

do whatever we like.

It does not happen that way. This is very substantial; it is the Standing

Orders of this House of Assembly and if we are not going to follow them, what is

the point to have them what is the point to have them.

Mr. Speaker, we need to get some direction on where we are going with this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have no dispute with what the hon. member is saying in terms of the

need for Standing Orders to apply. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, as we did

yesterday afternoon, when the member opposite stood up and did not realize he

had gone over his time the Member for the Bay of Islands went over his time

and did not realize he had done it we made sure the rules were applied, Mr.

Speaker; at 5:30 and we came back that night.

Mr. Speaker, what happens is that the rules have to be applied. They are

there for a reason and I can assure you that I will be ensuring, the best I can,

that the rules are applied. You will see that as we move throughout the day, Mr.

Speaker; I will have motions on orders, points of order, next week in relation

to the way things have been conducted during the first couple of weeks.

Mr. Speaker, we all want this House to work. We want to get on with the

business of the day. The member opposite is the one who raised the points of

order yesterday. She went on and on and on about the points of order. There was

a ruling made on this same issue. The same issue was raised yesterday. You ruled

on that, Mr. Speaker. That issue, as far as I am concerned, is finished. I would

suggest to the Speaker that you have ruled on this particular point, that it is

over, and it cannot be revisited.

As for discussion on the Standing Orders, the rules, and how we are going to

apply those, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with that. We can discuss certainly

at any time. We can certainly talk about we are going to be talking about

petitions, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be talking about Question Period as we

move along. We are going to be asking that the Standing Orders be strictly

interpreted.

I am very glad to hear the Opposition House Leader say that the Standing

Orders have to be strictly applied, interpreted, because that is what we are

going to be asking for, Mr. Speaker, in terms of moving this House along, in

terms of ensuring our fair-handedness and evenness, Mr. Speaker; there will be

no problem with that. But, when we get to, Mr. Speaker, the issue that was

raised yesterday

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is speaking to the point of order?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, when we get to the issue that was raised

yesterday, it is the same issue. You ruled yesterday, Mr. Speaker, there was no

point of order. You cannot come back the next day if you are going to apply

the Standing Orders, one of the most basic principles of sitting in the House of

Assembly, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to respect the rulings of the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of rightness or wrongness when it comes to the

rulings. There is no appeal. That is the way it is set out, that is a basic

parliamentary rule of procedure, and it is perhaps one of the most basic.

Essentially, what the Opposition House Leader is coming back to you and saying:

I have discovered new evidence; there is fresh evidence here. I want to have

another go at this. I want to have another appeal. I want to appeal to you to

overrule yourself.

That is essentially what is being asked here, Mr. Speaker. There is nowhere

that I am aware of where it says we have new evidence or new information. The

bottom line is you ruled yesterday, Mr. Speaker, again, I quote technically,

if you are going to be technical about this, it should have been raised at the

time. It was not raised at the time. That is it, Mr. Speaker. You ruled that

there is no point of order. Now she is asking you again today. As for the wider

discussion of the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with

discussing the Standing Orders. We are going to be discussing them in detail as

we move along; so no problem with that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the House Leader, who is now the

Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, what she said. She indicated that for

the last four years or three years that she has been the House Leader this is

the way things were done. So, Mr. Speaker, what takes place in this House is a

combination of rule, tradition, and there has to be a flexibility to ensure that

the House proceeds, because there has to be common sense, Mr. Speaker. That is

what it is all about. We are here to do the people's business, we are here to

get legislation through, and we are here to make sure that things take place.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem, I will argue points of order and Beauchesne and

O'Brien and Bosc until the cows come home. No problem, it is what I have been

doing all my life, but what we have to do here is to ensure that time is not

wasted.

She cannot go getting sooky because you ruled

against her yesterday, Mr. Speaker. That is what is going on. She is not doing

very well; she is 0 for 3 or 4 yesterday. One of these days she will win a point

of order if she keeps it up, but good luck to her. Mr. Speaker, at the end of

this, you made a ruling yesterday, that ruling still applies. There is no

recourse to appeal, Mr. Speaker. There is no avenue for you to review your own

ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order?

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand and speak to this point of order again because the

articulation and the language that is used by the House Leader, Mr. Speaker, is

absolutely appalling. Yesterday, the man's vocabulary could only speak to

foolishness and stupidness', and today, Mr. Speaker, he likes to look across

the House and call me sooky because I want to raise

the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only thing

here is the stubbornness of the hon. Member; the stubbornness in knowing that he

is wrong, in knowing that he stood in his place yesterday and provided

information to this House that took us in a direction that was not appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask hon. members, if you are speaking to the point of

order have your comments speak to the merits of the point being raised and let's

not let the debate and discussion be reduced to some personal attacks on each.

Stick to the points that have been raised in the point of order and let's have

the further discussion and debate, if necessary.

MS JONES: By all means, Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just add a couple of points. First of all, the

Government House Leader likes to indicate that this is an appeal of a ruling. It

is not, indeed. It is asking for direction in terms of the Standing Orders of

this House. The Standing Orders of this House has always been what has governed

the parliamentary sessions here, I say to the House Leader, and if you want to

throw those out or cast those out, well you do not have the option to do that.

That is the decision of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we did give accurate notice. We did raise it at the first

opportunity, and we firmly believe the Standing Orders of this House are what

should govern the procedures. I beg to differ that proper notice is never given

on Private Members' Day. I have been in this House more than sixteen years and I

can tell you if there were opportunities when that was done it was not

challenged or ruled upon, that I am aware of. The times that it was challenged

and ruled upon - I remember on one particular occasion where the motion did not

even get debated because government had not been given proper notice, Mr.

Speaker.

That was the reason we had raised it, because we knew there was precedent for

it and we were doing the courteous thing, the co-operative thing, Mr. Speaker,

even against the stubbornness of the Government House Leader in insisting that

he had given notice, we gave him the benefit of the doubt. We went back and

checked Hansard to see if he was giving us the proper information, and Hansard

did not indicate that. Then we went and checked the videos, because why would

the member stand and insist that he had given notice when in fact he had never

done so? We went back, Mr. Speaker, and we checked that. Out of respect for the

House of Assembly I might want to add, that the hon. Government House Leader

might want to withdraw the comments that he made yesterday knowing factually,

Mr. Speaker, that they were not so.

MR. KENNEDY: I have no problem, Mr. Speaker, if I made a comment that was

not accurate, I certainly did not do that intentionally. I have no problem

withdrawing that. My understanding of what took place the day before was I, in

fact, introduced the motion by passing it over to the Member for St. John's

West. If I did not use those words, certainly I will correct that at any time.

MR. SPEAKER: The member in her point of order I think has raised three

separate issues. Firstly, the Opposition House Leader made a reference to the

fact that there was a statement made in this House yesterday by the Government

House Leader that he in fact made a comment on the day before and you are

pointing out the fact that it was not recorded in Hansard as he described it

having been, and I just heard the member apologize and withdraw that comment if

that is the case.

The second point I heard is with respect to whether or not today there has

been appropriate notice given to debate the private member's motion that is in

Hansard today. I ruled on that yesterday, and the ruling was clear. There was

not a point of order, and today we will be debating the motion as put forward by

the Member for St. John's West.

The third issue that I believe you raised in your point of order is what

guidance should the House be using to actually deal with private members'

motions. After yesterday's point that was raised by the member, I reviewed

Hansards from last year, so all of 2011 Private Members' Days, and very clearly

all but two cases, notice of motion was not given. The House appears to have

acquiesced and is not being guided by the Standing Orders as outlined, as you

pointed out, appropriately so, that the Standing Order 63.(3) is pretty clear:

notice has to be given.

If you reflect on Hansard for the last year, you will find not only has

notice not been given, but the matter in which the notices are read into the

record, they are read as if the motion is being dealt with that day, notice of

motion is not even being filed. There are a number of things with respect to the

guidance questions you posed.

I think we will all agree that the Standing Orders were intended and we use

them to guide the proceedings in the House. With respect to your question about

how should we be guided, I think we should all be guided by the Standing Orders,

and discontinue the practice we had all of last year and maybe the year before,

because obviously the House has ignored the Standing Orders and it has gone

unchallenged. There may have been previous challenges to the issue, but as my

review of Hansard of last year at least, the House seems to have acquiesced.

My direction to the House is that Standing Order 63.(3) needs to be used.

Appropriate notice has to be given on the Monday of the motion to be called on

Wednesday. Then the member entering that motion needs to enter it as a notice of

motion and not read it as a motion if it is to be debated that day.

We have, for example in 63.(3), the people who wrote the Standing Orders,

have never envisaged having a Third Party in this House. In fact, if you read

the Standing Order literally the Official Opposition's House Leader would need

to introduce and serve notice of a motion to be introduced by the Third Party.

There is no provision for the Third Party to introduce a private member's

motion, but this House in the past has allowed the Leader of the Third Party to

stand and introduce their own motions for Private Members' Day.

I think the House has used 63.(3), in fact all of 63, all eight articles in

63, to guide the proceedings of the House and have been very content in knowing

that as long as forty-eight hours notice was given, the House was accepting of

the motion entered on Monday. In my review of Hansard, it appears that is what

the House has accepted, at least for all of 2011.

I want to repeat, with respect to guidance for the House, we will be guided

by 63.(3), which will require the House Leaders to stand on Monday and give

notice of the motion to be introduced on Wednesday and to be debated on

Wednesday. Then the member who is introducing that motion introduces it as a

notice of motion and not moving it and indicating who is going to second it

you deal with that on the day you deal with the motion. I would ask also and

the Speaker will take some liberty here the Speaker will also take a liberal

interpretation of 63.(3) so as to allow the Leader of the Third Party to stand

and introduce the motions to be introduced by the Third Party, which 63.(3), in

a very literal sense, does not now permit, but it will be my

interpretation that

we will permit the Leader of the Third Party to introduce the motions for that

party and expand the definition of 63.(3) to that extent.

Now, today we will move to the proceedings.

Statements by Members

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

District of Lewisporte; the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the Member

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

Member for the District of Terra Nova; and the Member for the District of Port

au Port.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to

a recently deceased veteran of World War II, Mr. Frederick Thoms of Boyd's Cove.

Mr. Thoms was born on August 27, 1921. At the age of nineteen he was serving

as a leading seaman in the British Royal Navy. He served this Province and our

country from August 1940 to January 1946 in the World War II conflict. Upon his

return to civilian life in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Thoms worked in the

fishery, the logging industry, and also in the construction industry.

Mr. Thoms was known in his hometown as a very hardworking, unassuming man

with a great sense of humour. I visited Mr. Thoms in his Boyd's Cove home in

July of last year. In his failing health, he still managed to tell me several

stories about his life overseas and to also crack a few jokes.

Mr. Speaker, Frederick Thoms passed peacefully away on February 6, 2012 at

the age of ninety years. He left to mourn his wife Shirley, six children, and a

wide circle of relatives and friends.

Members of this House of Assembly, would you please join with me in

recognizing and in thanking Mr. Frederick Thoms for his life and for his years

of service to our country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to recognize the Pasadena Lions Club and their

successful Snowarama they held on March 3 in aid of Easter Seals. This

fundraiser was the twenty-seventh annual event that they have sponsored.

In particular, I would like to congratulate the Chairperson Mr. Wayne Smith,

and his committee for raising nearly $23,000 for the Easter Seals program. I was

fortunate to attend the full-day event, which saw eighty-four pledgers and 100

riders take

part in the 140 kilometre snowmobile adventure.

Mr. Speaker, the unselfish contribution by organizations like the Pasadena

Lions Club makes a tremendous difference in many of our lives. I ask all members

of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the members of the Pasadena

Lions Club for their successful Easter Seals fundraising campaign.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday and Private Members' Day and the

private members' debate is supposed to start at 3:00 o'clock, we have a

half-hour Question Period. So, we will have to start Question Period and forego

the other members' statements and ministerial statements for today.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier stated that she was seeking to lay off up to one third

of all temporary government employees. Outside the House, the Premier said she

was pursuing two streams of cuts: the 3 per cent to government programs and a

two-year attrition program. That brings the number of stories to five. Every day

the Province hears a new and different answer.

I ask the Premier: Will you finally provide a clear and consistent answer and

tell the people of the Province what austerity measures will be included in this

year's Budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite used to having to repeat over and over and over again

the simplest of messages to the Opposition. I cannot be held responsible for

their inability to understand. As in times past, I will try once more.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked all departments within government to review their

core mandates, to enter into a reduction exercise in spending where we will try

to achieve up to 3 per cent in savings in government. As part of that exercise,

I have clearly stated that some temporary and contractual positions may be

affected. Mr. Speaker, I also stated quite clearly that by the time we bring

down the Budget we will be able to give a definitive answer to the number of

positions affected. I have never talked about the number other than to say there

was a cap and we certainly do not expect the number to be large.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. I do not have any problem

with the repeating; that is what we want to hear, a repetitive message so that

we can clarify indeed what the answer is.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Natural Resources stated the Province

would provide $2 billion in equity to the Muskrat Falls development, and that

Nalcor would take a $3 billion loan for the project.

I ask the minister: If the project goes over budget, where will the extra

cash come from and is there a cap on how much Newfoundland and Labrador would be

on the hook for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition last week, Nalcor is in the

middle right now of finalizing its Decision Gate 3 numbers. The Decision Gate 3

numbers will give us a better idea of the capital cost of the project and also,

Mr. Speaker, the federal loan guarantees; once that is finalized, we will be out

in the markets looking for the money. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, we

will have the final numbers and we need to have those final numbers before we

will know the full cost.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the question, last night I indicated that the $1

billion of interest during construction that was referred to last week is built

into the $232 per month that I have been referring to, which includes capital

cost, operating expenses, debt servicing charges and other costs.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The truth is, once the money gets transferred from government to Nalcor there

is very little accountability from Nalcor.

I ask the minister: How can the people of the Province see where the money is

being spent even if the Auditor General cannot report on the financial records

of Nalcor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the Auditor General does report to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council if there are aberrations. Mr. Speaker, I want to

repeat one of the points that was raised by the Premier yesterday when she spoke

about this. This questioning of Nalcor and Nalcor's expertise is really quite

unfortunate. We have a budget of our native Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

are giving their heart and soul to this project, Mr. Speaker, people like Mr. Ed

Martin, who are working on this, who have nothing but the best interests of the

people of our Province at heart, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: To make them out then as if they are going to do something

reckless or negligent is not appropriate, Mr. Speaker. What we should be doing

here is debating the merits of the project, not debating the personalities of

the people involved. Ed Martin, Mr. Speaker, is a very capable and competent

individual who can get a job anywhere in this world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: With all due respect to the minister, we are not talking about

the individuals at Nalcor. What we are talking about is the accountability for

the money that is spent in this Province. We see that every year, so let's

include Nalcor.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier spent considerable time talking about the

great arrangement and the great relationship with Emera and Nalcor. She did not

say that there is an indefinite delay in finalizing the term sheet, as well as

Emera is delayed in providing the federal government with project information.

I ask the Premier: Would this project go ahead without Emera?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I can safely say to the Opposition House Leader there is no indefinite

delay. Things are moving along quite nicely. I have met with the Minister of

Natural Resources in Ottawa to talk about the federal loan guarantee. The

Premier has met with the minister to talk about the federal loan guarantee. We

are moving ahead, Mr. Speaker, prudently and cautiously, towards our decision on

sanction. Mr. Speaker, we see the Maritime Link as a great opportunity to gain a

billion-dollar asset for our children and grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, an asset

that will continue to produce revenue, which opens up the ability to move power

when needed, Mr. Speaker, to the Maritime Provinces, but also it allows us to

bring power back; that is something you can never forget here, when you talk

about the integrity and reliability of a system, is that certainly helps us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked the Premier if she was prepared

to immediately table a contract and the terms of reference related to the

employment contract with Mr. John Noseworthy. The question was not answered.

I ask the Premier one more time, I ask again today: Will you table those

documents in the House? If not, why not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills is at a point

where we are reviewing and updating the core mandate of a new department that

came together as a result of the former Department of Human Resources, Labour

and Employment and a division of the Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, it is

our intention to make sure that we review every program and service that we

deliver through that department to ensure that they are updated and provide the

most updated services, so that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have

every opportunity to participate in the emerging labour market in this Province,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government, through the

Labour Market Development Agreement, contracts out various employability

services to seventy-one community organizations around the Province. These

contracts are due to expire at the end of this month, yet our information is

that no formal or informal negotiations have taken place.

I ask the minister: Can you explain why the department has not renewed or

extended these contracts at this date?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly looking at all the services that we deliver

through the Department of Advanced Education and Skills to ensure, as I had just

said, that they are up-to-date and they meet the demands of our present labour

market, so that people who use the services get the best results.

We have significant funding under the Labour Market Development Agreement. We

have $153 million from the federal government to assist the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador in skills development. We want to make sure, Mr.

Speaker, as we move ahead, that the money is used to ensure that the people of

this Province have the opportunity to avail of skills development and training

to ensure that they are able to take advantage of the opportunities that lie

ahead in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, seventy-one community organizations

providing employability services are left in limbo over the total lack of

communication from government on these contracts, which expire March 31. To

comply with labour laws, these organizations will need to issue layoff notices

this coming Monday.

I ask the minister: Can you advise whether these seventy-one organizations

should be issuing layoff notices on Monday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all the services that we deliver through the

Department of Advanced Education and Skills, whether they are delivered under

the LMDA or through the core functions of the department. As we move through, we

will make sure that the programs and the services that we provide meet the needs

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Labour are condemning government's recent dismissal of their nominee for the

Labour Relations Board. Instead, government has appointed Grant Barnes, a former

member of the executive board of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

this, just days after a failed Tory candidate received a six-figure job without

competition or tender.

I ask the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations: How can the public feel

confident in government appointing a member of the PC Party executive in

representing the interests of union members and workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations

Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, it is a little odd that this is coming up today.

The last round of appointments were months ago, actually. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the

gentleman he refers to brings a great deal of knowledge to the board and my role

as minister is to bring a balance, to represent both sides, labour and

employers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important that we talk a little bit

about the qualifications of the member. He has worked on many grievances and

arbitrations. He has been a union member for thirty years. He was president of

the local union for ten years, Mr. Speaker, plus he has held other positions. He

was the vice-president of the Atlantic Provinces union association, Mr. Speaker.

He has been the Newfoundland rep on the international union association. Last

but not least, he has been a member of the Federation of Labour for fifteen

years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at 5:00 a.m. there was a fire in the community of Black Tickle

which the hydro plant burned out inside. The people in this community are

currently without power. I know that Hydro has sent staff in there today to try

to deal with the situation.

I would like to ask the minister because prior coming to the House of

Assembly I could get no new update to tell my constituents as to what was

happening there. I would like to ask if there are going to be portable

generators moved in there today to try to restore power to the community, or if

at some point they are going to be able to do some repairs on the system to

ensure that people will get some electricity.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this causes us concern. The information I understand that the

member opposite was speaking to Nalcor. Mr. Speaker, there is a Hydro group from

Happy Valley-Goose Bay currently on-site to assess the situation. Also, Mr.

Speaker, in the event that the diesels cannot be restarted, Hydro is working on

relocating other generation to the site. As the community is on an island and

there is no road condition, there will have to be transportation by air.

We are waiting to see what will happen; hopefully, it can be fixed up. We are

currently assessing the current diesels, Mr. Speaker, to determine if they are

operable. As of this point in time, just before me coming into the House and

giving an update, we do not know that yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the question because it is getting late in the day to be able to

mobilize equipment.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education reported to the House yesterday that

the Western School Board had independent consultants carrying out tests for

mould on the Charlottetown school.

My question today is: If he can tell us what the results of those tests are

and if he is prepared to release those results to the parents and the students

in this community who have been asking for it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed, the tests have been conducted. They are presently being analyzed. I

can assure everyone in this House, and I will assure the parents there, that

once these results are finalized we will indeed report them to the parents.

We have nothing to hide in this, Mr. Speaker. We want to do what is best

here. I am asking that the parents and the students to co-operate with us and we

will find our best way forward here. We will provide a safe, learning

environment for these students, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No one is insinuating to the minister or his government that there is no

interest with regard to this issue. Mr. Speaker, we are going into week four now

where students in this community have not had a suitable arrangement for

classroom space. I ask the government today: As a short-term measure, are you

prepared to move mobile classroom units into this community so that we can get

these children back in school in a proper, safe environment?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that arrangements had been

made and the students were in fact being accommodated in some of the buildings

and facilities that were in the community. If we were to move with portable

classrooms, that is not something you can do at the snap of a finger; getting

portable classrooms in there and this kind of stuff could take weeks or months.

Now I do not know if that is where we will go, but one thing is for sure, Mr.

Speaker; we have to have cooperation from the community and get students back

into a learning environment. That is what I am asking for the cooperation of,

and we will move towards finding a permanent, safe solution here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing skilled trades people in the news

every day unable to find work and talking about moving to Alberta. Meanwhile,

Exxon Mobil and Vale are currently looking outside the Province for workers.

I ask the Minister for Advanced Education and Skills: When is government

going to get its act together and intervene to ensure that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador get the work on these massive projects?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the most unfortunate part about this question is I

only have a few seconds to answer it. I could speak all afternoon about what we

are doing and where we need to go as a Province. This government, Mr. Speaker,

started the new Department of Advanced Education and Skills and it is primarily

set up so that we can look at the labour market gaps that we are going to

experience in this Province and make sure that we train Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians so that they are prepared for these opportunities as they arise.

Mr. Speaker, it is just today we have a symposium on down at the Sheraton Hotel,

which is for pre-apprentices, apprentices, journey persons, union people and

employers, as well as the Department of Advanced Education and Skills, to ensure

that we work together to find solutions to the answers.

Mr. Speaker, this government thank you, Mr. Speaker, hopefully I will get

another question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Premier

reassured workers at Marystown that she believed their plant had a future; in

fact, she promised that she would help keep the plant open.

I ask the Premier: Has she found a way to enforce the 2007 agreement that was

intended to keep that plant operating?

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

quick answer, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Marystown fish plant was always very important to this government, Mr.

Speaker. That is why, first of all, when we negotiated the transfer from FPI to

OCI, that this government ensured we had the only agreement in the country that

provided for a nine-year agreement with a landing requirement that fish must be

landed in this Province, Mr. Speaker. It does not exist anywhere in the country.

It was because of this government that was negotiated.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, after many attempts by Ocean Choice International

to work with the workforce in Marystown, it was this government, and a number of

members of part of this government, who worked hard to ensure that there was an

offer of an eighteen-week, three-year offer on the table, Mr. Speaker. This

government pushed the ball as far as it could. It was the leadership of the FFAW

that advised workers to reject that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, another day, another program introduced by the Premier through

the media. Yesterday, the Premier mentioned, in addition to 3 per cent cuts,

mandate reviews and the review of the role of temporary and contract employees,

a two-year program to manage growth through attrition the first time we heard

there was an actual program, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Does she have any more plans or programs regarding cuts up

her sleeve that she has not told us about yet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my practice with the Third Party as I have with

the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting one of these days if the

Leader of the Third Party would share with us where she was going to get the 1

per cent cut that she announced in her platform $80 million. She was not going

to cut programs; she was not going to cut jobs. It would be really interesting

to see where she would have found that money.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is reviewing core mandates. We are looking for

a 3 per cent savings in government, Mr. Speaker. We have ring fenced important

services provided to the people who will not be affected. I was asked in that

process, would some jobs be affected. We have clearly said permanent positions

will not be affected. There may be some effect on temporary jobs and contractual

jobs. We expect that effect to be minor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What I am pointing out to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is that she talked about

an actual two-year attrition plan.

I am asking her: Did she tell the public service sector about this latest

plan before announcing it to the media yesterday? If not, when was she planning

to let the public service sector know they have a two-year plan for attrition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, she obviously has the same issue with hearing as other members

on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I talked about attrition from the very first day, and the fact

that we would try to manage growth in the public service through attrition. You

have to manage it some way, Mr. Speaker. Our public service has grown by 2,100

people in the last eight years. We have over 9,000 people now working in the

public service. Good people. Very good people, I might say, particularly to our

friends in the Opposition, very good people who work hard on behalf of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Whatever we do in government, it has to be sustainable, and that kind of

growth in the public service is not sustainable. We have to manage it. How are

we going to manage it? Not by throwing people out the door, we are going to try

to manage it through attrition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, an attrition process, such as the one the Premier is suggesting

and suggested yesterday in the media, will be particularly harmful to services

delivered in rural areas where there are fewer people providing government

services, and where I would like to suggest there are positions gone because of

attrition in the past.

Mr. Speaker: What is government going to do to protect these services in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did an On Point interview, which was the very first

time we discussed this issue publicly, and I was very clear. I was asked the

question, are we just going to go, when one position goes - when somebody leaves

are we going to take that position away? I said absolutely not. That is not the

approach of government, because the person going may have a key role within

government and may need to be replaced, Mr. Speaker. What we are going to do, as

we review core mandates, is have a look at attrition and to have an ongoing lens

on that part of the public service to see if we cannot manage growth in the

public service. That is much better than doing a large-scale layoff down the

road because we have allowed growth to go unrestrained.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As I have said before, a job cut or a job lost by attrition is all the same.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention today that government has appointed

to the Labour Board someone who was not a nominee of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Labour. The practice has been in the past that government

accepts federation nominees to the board. This time it appears they have

appointed someone who was a member of their provincial Progressive Conservative

Party executive board and ignored recommendations from the Federation of Labour,

Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, heading into negotiations with the two largest public

sector unions: Why is government deliberately trying to antagonize working

people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations

Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, again I refer that this is something that

happened months ago. I am glad they brought it up, Mr. Speaker, because it gives

me a chance to explain to them the way this works. The way it works is I openly

ask for nominations, of which

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - the Federation of Labour were good enough to provide two

names for members and two for alternates, Mr. Speaker, of which we did take one

of the names they gave us and are very active members on the board. Mr. Speaker,

it is all about balance on the board and we try to have turnover. The two names

she had provided for us had over ten years of experience on the board.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have a little bit of turnover. The person, I

listed their credentials earlier, has lots of it. When it comes to the political

piece of this, Mr. Speaker, I believe there was someone very heavily involved

with the labour movement who stood up holding hands with the hon. member

shouting, open up the House, there a little while ago. Obviously, when it comes

to politics they sit on both sides of this House

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much. I cannot answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like the hon. member who just spoke to tell this House what is the

same? I am sorry; an appointment to an official board of this government by this

party and appointing somebody from their provincial body from their executive

board is quite different than a union person

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - showing that they are a member of another party. It is

totally different.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Why would you use that as an example?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, let's talk a little bit about credentials. The

hon. member refers to different things that the new appointee has been in. Mr.

Speaker, he might bake cookies for his church bake sale as well. I do not know

if I should hold that against the man, as well. There are a number of things

that man is involved with in his lifetime. He has been an active volunteer and

obviously very involved in the labour movement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say this slowly and get it right for the hon. members

opposite because maybe one of them sitting next to her might want to Tweet it

later on. I would like to go through this very slow, Mr. Speaker. This man has

been involved with grievances and arbitrations for years. He has been a union

member for thirty years. He has been president of his local and other things for

ten years, Mr. Speaker. He has represented us nationally and internationally on

unions and, Mr. Speaker, he has been a member of the Federation of Labour for

fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, in 2010, government relocated the air

ambulance service from St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, the same report that

recommended the relocation also recommended government provide a second medical

flight specialist team to be stationed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to accompany

air ambulance aircraft to be located there, in order to provide sufficient staff

for a 24-7 level care of service. Mr. Speaker, two years after this

recommendation, Eastern Health is advertising eleven vacancies in this area open

until filled.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health: Why was a properly working service

removed from St. Anthony before any planning regarding human resources evident

from eleven unfilled positions since the relocation and other associated costs

in its new location were placed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province, I am proud to say, we have a very robust air

ambulance service. We have three King Airs; we have access to six helicopters.

We are, in fact, at this point in time, retrofitting one of those helicopters so

that we can provide even better service. We have a wonderful medical flight

team, and we are hoping to enhance that by having a second medical flight team,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when we moved the air ambulance, we moved it

because it was the right thing to do. We moved it because the people of Labrador

deserved to have had that King Air in Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health: Why has

government not hired this medical flight team, as promised in the budget of

2010?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have enhanced the service that we are

offering. We are better serving the people of Labrador. We are still recruiting

for a medical flight team, Mr. Speaker, and we hope to be able to have that

medical flight team, but in the meantime, our service is better than it ever was

in Newfoundland and in Labrador as a result of what we are doing. We always had

only one medical flight team. We are attempting to have two medical flight

teams, Mr. Speaker, and we will. We will continue to enhance that service so

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are very, very well served.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and it is now

3:00 o'clock, we will now move to Standing Orders.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Member for St. John's West if he would

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, by leave under Notice of Motion, I give notice

that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2012 and further, I give notice, Mr. Speaker, that

under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.,

Thursday, March 15, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's West; I ask him to introduce his

motion that is standing on the Order Paper in his name.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I did not think the Government House Leader could introduce the motion

without leave of the House and I just need to get clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader does need leave of the House to

introduce the motion.

When the member spoke, he asked with leave'; is there an objection to the

leave?

MS JONES: No, no objection. I just know he asked for leave and

(inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege and honour to introduce this private member's resolution,

seconded by the Member for Mount Pearl North.

WHEREAS the provincial government laid out its long-term vision for social

housing in 2009 in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's ten-year

Social Housing Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador entitled "Secure Foundations"

and supported this strategy with a significant investment in 2011; and

WHEREAS key investments by the provincial government to provide housing

assistance to those with the greatest needs include: 5,573 rental units

province-wide through the NLHC; rent subsidies for people living in 1,732 rental

units; capital funding for approximately 1,100 new affordable housing properties

in the private and supportive living sector in dozens of communities throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador; financial and training support to 1,026

partnered-managed units; over $16 million annually to help close to 3,500 people

with low incomes stay in their own homes through the various programs for

homeowners such as the Provincial Home Repair Program, the Residential Energy

Efficiency Program, and Home Modification Program; and an investment of $4.8

million per year through the Supportive Living Community Partnership Program to

provide operational funding for community-based organizations that create

housing supports for people with complex service needs;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House expresses its support for the

Provincial Government's ten-year Social Housing Plan for Newfoundland and

Labrador entitled "Secure Foundations" and the investments it is continuing to

make to provide assistance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the greatest

housing needs.

Mr. Speaker, as the newly elected Member for St. John's West, I made a

commitment to work hard on behalf of all my constituents. As I went door to door

during the campaign I listened to each and every concern. As I continued to

speak and meet with people I heard over and over again that programs and actions

of our government, when it comes to affordable housing, was improving the lives

of many. Our government's 2009 document, a Social Plan for Newfoundland and

Labrador, Secure Foundations, is truly inspiring in the quality of the analysis

and recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everyone that a tremendous amount of work has

already been done by this government. A tremendous amount of invest has already

been made. Mr. Speaker, this did not start in 2009. It started much, much

earlier. Our initiatives and programs are further enhanced

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CRUMMELL: - with the introduction of our 2009 plan. Let me also

remind everyone that this is only the third year of our ten-year social housing

plan.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my privilege and honour to introduce this

private member's resolution expressing support for the provincial government's

social housing plan and the investments it is continuing to make to provide

assistance to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the greatest housing needs.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking all members of this House to join me in support

of this plan. More than once I have heard members opposite criticizing this

government's efforts with regard to housing. Our government has a long-term

vision and a comprehensive plan, and in fact, it has been executing a host of

initiatives since the introduction of our Secure Foundations in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, our government has spent tens of millions of dollars in a wide

variety of programs to help alleviate the problems low and moderate-income

families have been experiencing in recent years when it comes to affordable

housing.

Mr. Speaker, before I outline some of these initiatives I would first like to

provide some background to the 2009 Social Housing Plan, Secure Foundations.

Government recognizes that housing is a basic necessity of life and works to

provide safe and affordable housing. Reducing poverty, accessing education and

employment opportunities, and improving the overall health of individuals and

families are intricately tied to adequate housing. By assisting low and

moderate-income households, these goals can be achieved.

Mr. Speaker, in 2009 following a very extensive process, our government

introduced our ten-year Social Housing Plan. Eighty-seven organizations

participated in meetings held right across this Province. These included: tenant

associations, community centres, non-profit community-based housing providers,

government departments, municipalities, housing developers, private sector

landlords, community-based social service delivery organizations, and social

advocacy groups.

Mr. Speaker, the Social Housing Plan has strong linkages to many key social

initiatives. It includes: a mix of housing policies and programs from

investments in new and existing housing stock, to promote housing

sustainability, and to help prevent homelessness. The extensive consultation

resulted in the initiatives and investments outlined in the plan. Mr. Speaker,

this ten-year plan will be updated regularly to respond to changing needs.

Mr. Speaker, the development of our Social Housing Plan also involved a

ministerial committee which included at the time: the Minister Responsible for

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; the Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment and the lead minister for the Poverty Reduction

Strategy; the Minister of Health and Community Services and lead minister for

Provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework and Provincial Policy Framework for

Mental Health and Addiction; and the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, stakeholders' comments during these extensive consultations

focused on four broad themes: one, renewing social housing policy and programs

and the existing social housing stock; two, the role of the private rental

market in delivery of social housing assistance; three, the housing needs of

specific populations; and finally, the need for supportive living options that

mix housing and supported services.

Mr. Speaker, issues and challenges were identified through the consultation

process including: significant housing needed; demographic change, particularly

in rural areas; increasing demand for housing with integrated support services;

the capacity of the private rental market to meet the needs of low and

moderate-income households; and finally, an aging social housing profile.

Mr. Speaker, there are challenges to providing secure and affordable housing.

Key stakeholders, individuals and government departments all agree that there is

work to be done to help alleviate this very complex issue. Mr. Speaker, our

social housing identifies a vision, a mission and a strategic direction to do

so. Mr. Speaker, the overriding vision is, "That Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have access to secure and affordable housing." The mission

statement is, "To provide housing solutions for low and moderate-income

households with the greatest need." The strategic directions are, "Working with

partners to ensure housing assistance is part of an integrated approach to

well-being and community building; allocating resources to assist those with the

greatest housing need; providing housing assistance that is responsive to client

needs".

Mr. Speaker, these initiatives are reflective of the direction from

stakeholders during the consultation process. Goals and objectives that have

been set for the next ten years are the basis for this government's decision

making and resource allocation when it comes to our Social Housing Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the priorities from the Social Housing Plan include: "preserving

privately owned homes by assisting with the cost of essential repairs; providing

quality, affordable rental accommodations through direct delivery programs and

partnerships with non-profit and private sector housing providers; promoting the

development of more new affordable housing; supporting home modifications to

promoting renovations by lower-income homeowners to improve energy efficiency

and conservation; preserving NL Housing homes to ensure they meet current and

future needs while improving overall energy efficiency during renovations; and

working with government and community partners in the development of a range of

housing options which prevent homelessness by integrating housing with other

services to promote housing stability."

Mr. Speaker, this is just a

summary of the content found in our government

Social Housing Plan and I would encourage all members and any interested

individuals to go on-line and download this document for more details.

Mr. Speaker, our government has worked hard and invested millions prior to

and since this plan being introduced. Despite changing demographics and the task

of maintaining an aging housing portfolio of over 5,000 units province-wide, our

government through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation is achieving

many of the goals of our provincial Social Housing Plan.

Mr. Speaker, here are just some of the highlights in following through on the

initiatives. With regard to modernization and improvement, since 2009, $68.5

million has been spent on renovation, modernization and improvements of NLHC

units. Approximately 3,500 of our 5,500 affordable rental units have been

upgraded; this is quite a feat when you consider the many years of neglect by

previous governments. In Budget 2011, $22 million was committed for

modernization and improvement, an increase of $1.4 million from the previous

year.

Mr. Speaker, there is no denying our government's commitment to providing

safe and affordable social housing. Affordable housing next on the list

since 2005, a total of $65 million has been invested under the Affordable

Housing Program resulting in the creation of approximately 1,100 new units, and

including nearly 150 supportive living units.

In August 2011, the Governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador

announced a combined investment of $52 million under a new Affordable Housing

Agreement; 245 new affordable housing units are constructed throughout the

Province. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing requires one in every

ten units built on the Affordable Housing Program to be fully accessible. The

goal is to make access more convenient to as many people at as many stages of

life as possible.

Let's talk a little bit about the Provincial Home Repair Program. In

2011-2014, the Affordable Housing Agreement also provided $24 million in equal

cost-shared funding to extend the longstanding Provincial Home Repair Program.

Our government, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, is

investing another $12 million in the Provincial Home Repair Program for another

three years, doubling its contribution of $4 million a year, and increasing the

total PHRP budget programs for 2011-2014 to $36 million. In 2011-2012, PHRP

provided 2,500 homeowners with low incomes $9.8 million to upgrade their homes,

and PHRP primarily serves mostly seniors with low income living in rural areas

of the Province.

Rent Supplement Program: Currently, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation has 1,732 rent supplement units in the private sector to assist

people with low incomes to find rental housing in the private market. This

includes 130 special rent supplements through the Stella Burry Community Centre

and the Canadian Mental Health Association to help persons with complex needs.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many other initiatives that this

government has undertaken to provide assistance to those with the greatest

housing needs. I wish I had the time to talk about the Residential Energy

Efficiency Program, which is REEP; the Home Modernization Program, HMP; the

Provincial Homelessness Fund, PHF; the Heat Subsidy Program; the Research and

Development Program; and the new constructions that are happening. Hopefully,

some of our members will get up and talk about that a little later on.

This government recognizes both the need and complexity of providing safe and

affordable housing to people on low incomes, and Mr. Speaker, it is clear from

these initiatives outlined, this government is also doing something about it.

There has been an unprecedented level of investment and growth in social housing

in this Province in recent years. Key housing programs have been expanded, new

ones have been created. There have been major renovations and improvements to

thousands of housing units. There is now more affordable housing for seniors,

individuals, persons with disabilities, and persons with complex needs. There is

more coordinated support housing and support services, a key recommendation of

the social housing stakeholders.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that while we recognize that

there are still challenges before us, we must also acknowledge the tremendous

amount of investment and good work that has been done, is being done, and that

will continue to be done by this government, providing safe and affordable

housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: We will continue to provide real assistance to those

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with the greatest housing needs.

I look forward to the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): I recognize the hon. the Member for the Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my good friend for the amendment and for bringing forth this very

important issue. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on it.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of the workers who

work with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. Out in Corner Brook, out my way, I

deal with them on a regular basis. I know a lot of them personally. I would just

like to acknowledge their commitment to the social housing problem and the

people who work at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that do a great job. They

are very much connected to the community. They take a lot of their work

personally because they know a lot of the people that they are helping are very

much in need. I just wanted to recognize the workers. I respect and admire them.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing that the last two elections of course, I spoke

about it and I had to bring it up Len Simms, the leader of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. I am not talking about his qualifications, but I am talking

about how Newfoundland and Labrador Housing could take this man aside for six

months, then Newfoundland and Labrador Housing can go ahead and let him run an

election. Somewhere along the line it does not make it just does not fit, that

if you are committed to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, you take the CEO, put

him aside so he can run an election, and then put him back in. I am not

attacking his qualifications, or I am not attacking him as a person, but I am

talking that if you are going to have a commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing, you have to have 100 per cent commitment keep the CEO in place to

follow it through. That is all I am saying. This is not an attack on his

personally, it is not one bit. I think it is just a political decision that I

totally disagree with. I said it publicly before and here is the first

opportunity for me to say it in the House of Assembly. I just want to express

that, Mr. Speaker.

I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that every Member of this House, every member

from all parties, has a vested interest in ensuring that anybody who needs

social housing will get it. I mean, we may have different opinions on how to go

about it, we have different opinions on some of the things that are happening,

some of the policies, some of the procedures, but I am willing to state in this

House that every member in this House, from all sides, from all parties, would

like to see every person who needs social housing to have it, every person who

needs any needs in a residential assistance program have it. I am very confident

in saying that, and I can just assure the people that we may differ sometimes in

how to go about it, but I feel confident that we are all trying to work for the

same goal to end it all in Newfoundland and Labrador and do our best in doing

that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the big concerns and I know the minister is well aware

of this and what to do with it one of the big concerns, especially out our

way, and I am sure it is all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, is the

three-bedroom apartments. That is a major issue, Mr. Speaker. Probably in the

past, the three-bedroom apartments for the larger families, that was the need at

the time; the need at the time was the three-bedroom units. What we find now is

70 per cent I am not sure, I think it is 70 per cent are three bedrooms. The

majority of requests that are in for units, are for one to two bedrooms. That is

the concern, because what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that people then have to

take the three bedrooms if they are single or only have one sibling, and then

they have to pay for the heat and light for the bigger units, which is another

burden on them. So that is a major concern, and from my understanding, come

2015, 50 per cent of those three bedrooms are going to be sold off, from my

understanding. Is that the plan, that by 2015 a lot of those three bedrooms are

going to be sold off?

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: It is not? Oh, well that is good. I hope they are going to be

modified somehow, minister. I hope that they are going to be modified some way

to suit the needs of the people that will need it. I know with the

federal-provincial agreement that is in place, is that every province and

territory does their own design of the delivery of the program. So, you can suit

what you need; I am sure there are some specifications from the federal

government how the money has to be spent, but the design for each province and

territory is up to the province. So I urge the Province to look at this here,

because it is a major concern out on the West Coast, and I am sure it is for all

Newfoundland and Labrador. The major concern about the design of the whole

program itself, within that program is the design for the one to two-bedroom

apartments and if there is some way that we can use those three bedrooms much

more efficiently.

Another concern, Mr. Minister, out on the West Coast, and I am sure it is all

throughout the Province in Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand some of the

issues that surround this, Mr. Minister, is that when a unit becomes available -

for example, if it is available today, the time that it takes for that unit to

be available and the time for it to be ready to occupy again is an extended

period of time, up to six, seven months at times. I understand the concern that

you have through unions; I understand the concern you have where sometimes there

is a backlog of units that need some repairs or some unit that needs some

maintenance. If you find especially, and I am speaking on behalf out on the

West Coast you can see units up to four, five and six months vacant, waiting to

get ready for someone else to come in and occupy it, Mr. Speaker. That is a

major concern. To a lot of the residents around that is a major frustration when

they drive by and see a unit that is vacant, but yet they know someone should be

in it. They have their application in and they are looking to see: well, why

can't I get in there? There is no one living there, I should be able to move in

that unit. That is a major concern for a lot of people who are seeking units.

We also need, somehow, Mr. Minister, more units for the disabled. I know

there have been major steps made. I know there have, and I will acknowledge

that. I can go back fifteen, twenty years when we were involved with some units

for people with disabilities. I know it, but the demand has increased over the

last number of years also. Somewhere along the way the demand has increased, but

yet the housing itself that is needed has not increased with it. That is a major

concern all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador I am sure. It is through proper

planning, having the funds of course proper planning to ensure that people

with disabilities have units where they can live in comfort, they can live in

dignity and they can become contributing people in society. I know a lot of

units around have changed and have been adapted for that. Again, I just bring it

up to the government and to the minister, if there is any way that you can look

at additional units for people with disabilities I am sure it is not just the

West Coast, I am sure it is all around the Province, and I am sure it is a

concern for a lot of us.

Also, Mr. Minister, as we hear, there are a lot of women who are in abusive

situations who just cannot find housing somehow. Again, it is a major concern. I

am not trying to point a finger at anybody; I am just raising this concern

because it has been raised to me. We all hear about it. I know the Member for

Humber East, and I know the Member for Humber West have dealt with this also. I

know they have expressed concerns also. This is another big concern, that the

demand has increased but yet the units for that demand - we have to find some

way to follow suit because it a major concern of all of us. This is in no way

trying to put the government on notice. This is just raising some major concerns

that have been brought to my attention, Minister, that I am sure you are aware

of, I am sure you are aware of them. I am sure all members here are aware of

them but I think the more we talk about it, the more discussion that we have,

the better educated we can become and the better educated we all will be, and

that is going to help in the long run for all of us.

Mr. Minister, I read the motion that was put forth by the member. There are

two things I would bring to the minister's attention. One of the things is that

you are looking at a ten-year strategy plan, 2011. It is a great idea but the

funding is only good until 2014. We have to find some way beyond 2014, so if we

make a strategy beyond 2014 there is funding in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. JOYCE: The federal-provincial funding for housing, 2014.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) every three years.

MR. JOYCE: Three years, but we have to make a plan that is sustainable.

The minister mentioned every three years. I understand, Minister, but if we make

a plan for 2021, a ten-year plan, we have to ensure that the funds are in that,

because it is no good to set up a plan for Newfoundland and Labrador for housing

if we cannot attain that plan. That is the second part of this, Mr. Minister,

and it is not in the motion. How can we become accountable - that if we reached

our goals? That is the issue that we need. What level do we have that we can say

yes, we have reached our goals or we attained those goals? There is no outcomes

within the motion itself to say that okay, here are the goals that we are trying

to attain, but here are the goals that we did attain. I will say to the

minister, every two or three years, or three or four years, I am sure this plan

is revisited, and how can we set the goals a bit higher or change the goals for

whatever the needs are. We need to put outcomes so that we can find some way

that we have the outcomes. That is one thing I would like to see put in, Mr.

Speaker.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, is the, as we call it, the RRAP, Residential

Assistance Program. I think it is a great program. Then again, I just want to

put forward to the government that if there is any way that you can increase

this program somehow, enhance this program I think it is a great program,

minister. I notice that the member had it included in the statements and I just

want to say personally that I know of many people who have benefited from this

program. I know it kept a lot of seniors, a lot of people with disabilities, and

a lot of other people in their own homes. I think it is a great program; we need

to find some way to enhance this program.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just like to make an amendment to the motion

that was put forward. I will read the motion, and it was seconded by the Member

for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair:

That the motion be amended by adding the following words at the end of the

motion: "while recognizing that further action on this issue is necessary"; and

That the motion be further amended by also adding: "Be it further resolved

that this House of Assembly urges government to seek input from concerned

citizens and groups in relation to the serious housing crisis in this Province."

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the motion for the Chair and the Government

House Leader that they can read over. All this motion is saying is that there

are a lot of people out there with expertise in the social housing in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that there are a lot of people who are willing to

help out, to start a plan. There are a lot of people out there, a lot of

concerned groups who will have a lot of positive input on how we can develop a

housing strategy for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and my motion

here we are supporting the motion, Mr. Speaker. We will be supporting, but my

motion is just to try to get as many people as we can that have the expertise in

social housing across Newfoundland and Labrador

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Somebody just mentioned that I had to read it. I already read

it. I already read it into Hansard.

Just that we bring as many people as we can into the mix, that every person

that has the expertise may be able to add and I am sure they will add some

small thing that we may have missed or something that we can enhance the program

because

Once again, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I feel confident that all members of

this House would love to see a program that will improve all lives of people who

need social housing or anybody who needs the Residential Assistance Program.

Mr. Speaker, I table the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have an amendment put forward by the Member for the Bay of Islands,

seconded by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, and the House will now

take a brief recess to consider whether or not the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

I have considered the amendment as put forward by the Member for the Bay

Islands, and I have ruled that the amendment is indeed in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House today on the important issue

of housing and, in particular, social housing in Newfoundland and Labrador. So,

I am pleased to second the private member's motion today. I certainly want to

commend my colleague, the Member for St. John's West, for his comments today and

for bringing forward this important issue for debate in the House of Assembly.

I would like to begin my remarks by addressing some of the comments by the

previous speaker, the Member for the Bay of Islands. I was pleased to hear him

recognize the efforts of the staff of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I echo

that sentiment because the amount of progress that has been made in the last

number of years in this Province, in terms of improvements to social housing,

has been remarkable. The team at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are

definitely to be commended. It is unfortunate that then he went on to question

the credibility and the commitment of one of the senior executives at

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing who has provided

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands, on a point of

order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I did not question his credibility or his

competence. I did not do that. I said it right from day one, this is not an

attack on him. I did not attack him personally. I did not attack his

credibility. I did not say it. I was just saying that they would remove him for

six months at the helm at the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the member to state his point of order.

MR. JOYCE: My point of order is that the member should read Hansard or

get a copy. I did not attack him. I did not attack his credibility. I said he

was a competent person.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, thank you, Sir.

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is indeed unfortunate.

I want to address a couple of other comments made by the hon. member. He

talked about units with multiple bedrooms that are in need of renovations, and I

would like to tell the member that in Corner Brook, very near his district I

believe, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing remodelled a duplex recently on

Wheelers Road into three one and two bedroom apartments. These reconfiguration

projects were undertaken in low-density neighbourhoods with consideration for

suitable parking and access.

That is not the only example, Mr. Speaker. I can think of another one. On

Mundy Pond Road, in St. John's Centre I believe, a six bedroom duplex was

remodelled into four one bedroom apartments for single adults who are living on

low incomes. This was done through provincial-federal funding, about $500,000

and it helps address the changing demographics of social housing tenants.

We are well aware of the changing demographics, and Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing has been working hard to address those trends. In fact, our government

has invested $1 million to research and develop options to address changing

demographic needs for social housing. The goal is to restructure underused units

into homes that meet the demographic need for smaller homes. This is real

progress in the area that the member referenced.

The member raised a couple of other noteworthy issues, one related to delays

and the wait for people to get into Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units. He

also talked about those in abusive relationships and the urgent need to provide

adequate housing for those individuals. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would provide a

couple of examples from my own district in recent years where these issues have

emerged. I know of one lady it is about two years ago now who left an

abusive relationship. She was living in another province at the time. She

decided to come home to the safety of her family. Through Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, she was able to find housing in Mount Pearl; she still resides

in my district. She contacted Newfoundland and Labrador Housing in February of

2010 and she was placed within two months, Mr. Speaker, which I think is good

news that we were able to respond so quickly.

Another resident, just this past fall, she moved back to Newfoundland and

Labrador from Alberta. She, too, was fleeing an abusive relationship, a single

mother with two children. She applied for housing just before last summer I

believe it was around May or June and she was accepted and moved into a unit

in August of last year. Again, we are responding quickly and we are moving

quickly to meet the needs of those who are in the greatest need of finding

adequate housing, based on their individual circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bay of Islands also talked about addressing

outcomes, and I hope, in the few minutes I have left, to talk about some of the

work that has been done over the last few years since we have initiated our

social housing plan. We are certainly measuring the outcomes, and I am sure the

minister will have an opportunity today to speak to some of those as well.

We hear from members opposite, both from the Third Party and the Official

Opposition, time and time again about the need for social housing in this

Province. Affordable housing for low-income families, seniors, and other

individuals is definitely a priority for this government, and it has been a

priority for this government for the last eight and a half years. We have

invested millions of dollars over the past number of years into upgrades of the

aging infrastructure that was desperately in need of upgrading, and into new

housing developments as well. It is good to see that the Liberals are now

concerned about it, and finally talking about it in the House, and following the

Third Party in at least bringing this issue to the attention of members. I hope

today we can focus on some of the things that we are doing in this area, because

we have made major progress.

The investment that we have made in recent years has been absolutely

necessary due to the lack of investment and attention by previous governments,

and we are forced to clean up the mess that has been left behind from past

governments, including the one that the Member for the Bay of Islands was part

of. Simply throwing money around is

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. KENT: I am, and hopefully the Opposition House Leader will allow me

to continue, Mr. Speaker. It is a little hard to hear when she continues to

banter as I am making my comments.

So, we have had a plan. We have made major progress over the last eight

years; in fact, then in 2009 we built on that by laying out a new long-term

vision for social housing, a comprehensive ten-year social plan, Secure

Foundations. Numerous investments supporting this plan have already been

implemented. We are already seeing outcomes, and we are seeing the benefits in

this Province.

The Member for the Bay of Islands talked about the need to provide housing

for people with disabilities. Well, just a few short weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing announced $1.5

million in funding toward the construction of six new affordable housing

projects for seniors, for persons with disabilities, and for other families and

individuals living in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is in line with our plan;

it is in line with the mandate of our government. We are investing in new

affordable homes for our residents, especially our aging population, and

especially persons with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition members and those of the Third Party

would have people in this Province believe that there is nothing happening. In

fact, that is one of the reasons I cannot support this amendment that has been

brought forward. The hon. member suggests that there is a major crisis and we

are not paying attention. Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that is accurate at all.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands, on a point of

order.

MR. JOYCE: I just want to let the member know obviously, he never read

the amendment. My amendment does not refer to any crisis in Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing. You should read the amendment. If you are going to say the

amendment I put forth

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: say what the amendment was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Thank you.

I would like for you to state your point of order, I say to the Member for

the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: My point of order is that the member just said that he cannot

support my amendment because in the amendment it says we have a crisis. My

amendment does not state that. It does not. All I asked in my amendment, Mr.

Speaker, is that we bring all interested bodies, all of the people who have

expertise in the housing in Newfoundland and Labrador, bring them together to

see how they can help. That is what my amendment said, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I go back to the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is disappointing to see that the members opposite do not take this issue

seriously. The Member for the Bay of Islands has risen twice on frivolous points

to simply chew up my limited speaking time this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. It is

shameful and I hope that other members in this House will take this issue far

more seriously than he is.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, reads: "Be it further resolved that this House of

Assembly urges government to seek input from concerned citizens and groups in

relation to the serious housing crisis", so I would suggest that the hon.

Member for the Bay of Islands read his own amendment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: If I can get back to a few more points I would like to make on

this important issue. Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Liberals that would like

to suggest that the sky is falling. We have seen fear mongering as well from the

Third Party. In fact, I saw a news release from the Third Party on February 21

that talked about the fact that we need a strategy, even though we have had a

strategy; we have had strategic plans for many years and we have released a very

comprehensive, progressive ten-year plan as of 2009, which I would like to talk

a bit more about today.

I know some members are new to the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind all

hon. members that we have had strategic plans for years and we have implemented

them. Now this ten-year Social Housing Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador is

already making a remarkable difference in communities throughout this great

Province.

In the motion today, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's West noted

all kinds of things that this government is doing to address the greatest needs:

5,573 rental units Province-wide; rent subsidies for people living in over 1,700

rental units; capital funding for over 1,100 new affordable housing properties,

partnerships with private sector and with the supportive living sector in dozens

of communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; over 1,000 partner-managed

units with financial and training support; over $16 million annually to help

over 3,500 people with low incomes stay in their own homes through various

programs that this government has initiated, Mr. Speaker.

While there are challenges and while there are still needs out there that

need to be addressed, I am pleased to say that we have a plan, we are making

real progress and we are making a considerable difference in the lives of those

in need in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me give you a few examples. Mr.

Speaker, the Third Party would say that we are not addressing the needs of the

aging population or people on low incomes. In our Budget just last year our

government invested an additional $12 million to extend the Residential Energy

Efficiency Program for three years. This program provides energy upgrades to

homeowners specifically with low incomes. Like the Provincial Home Repair

Program, this program is also a vital service to seniors living in rural areas,

Mr. Speaker. The Member for St. John's West referenced this program.

When the NDP say that we are not dealing with the needs of seniors and people

on low incomes, I wonder if they are aware of the Provincial Home Repair

Program, the Residential Energy Efficiency Program and other initiatives that we

have undertaken that are making a real difference in people's lives. The NDP

would also tell you that we are not concerned about accessible housing. Just

Program that assists seniors and persons with disabilities with low to

moderate-incomes to make changes to their home so that they will better suit

their needs. The initial provincial government $1 million Budget investment was

further enhanced with another $2 million, Mr. Speaker, from the Provincial Home

Repair Program, bringing the total of home modernization program funding to $3

million annually.

The members of the parties opposite would also tell you that we do not

understand homelessness and we are not doing enough about it. Mr. Speaker, the

Provincial Homelessness Fund was created in response to requests for more

wraparound housing services for groups helping persons with complex needs.

Another reason I cannot support the amendment that has been put forward, Mr.

Speaker, it suggests that we are not taking action; it suggests that we are not

seeking input from concerned citizens and groups. Where the reality is, Mr.

Speaker, many stakeholders have been a part of building the social housing plan

that our government is now implementing.

In 2011-2012 we invested close to $1 million to help fifteen non-profit

groups address homelessness in their communities. This brings the three-year

provincial homelessness funding to thirty-three grants, totalling nearly $3

million, to twenty-three non-profit organizations throughout the Province. I get

the sense, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition parties either do not understand or

do not value the work of these community partners that are really making a

difference in the lives of those in need in communities all across Newfoundland

and Labrador.

The news release I saw on February 21 from the Third Party also implied that

apartments have not been constructed in decades. Well, Mr. Speaker, since 2009

the provincial government has provided $2.4 million for construction of new

affordable homes in Nain and Hopedale, Labrador, for instance. Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing also provided a total of $5.2 million to the City of St. John's

for the construction of thirty-five new affordable housing units in the city's

Pleasantville project. Mr. Speaker, I could go on all day about the initiatives

of this government, the heat subsidy program, the research and development we

are doing to address changing demographics.

I realize my time is about to expire. I am grateful for the opportunity to

participate in this debate today on an important issue, despite the fact that

the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair and the Member for the Bay of

Islands continue to talk over me and not pay attention to this important issue

in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have looked at the amendment, and I feel agreeable to the amendment. I

would like to commend the team at the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation for the work they do to assist folks with housing needs. The

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has created some very good, some

very concrete programs to provide affordable rentals and to assist low-income

earners to stay in their homes, and I would like to commend them for that. I

have had the pleasure of meeting with staff at the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation. I also, in my work with my constituents, have interacted a

lot with the staff there, and I am impressed with their commitment, with their

dedication, and with their expertise in this area of affordable housing and

social housing.

We all know that housing is a basic human need, and we all need a place to

call home. Good housing supports healthy, vibrant communities, and it is a

cornerstone to health. Poverty, housing and homelessness is a complex issue and

it requires a comprehensive plan that includes social housing, but much more

than social housing. The issue of affordable housing and housing affordability

is beyond the existing breadth and scope of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation's Social Housing Plan. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation is concerned with social housing and only social housing.

The face of homelessness in our Province is changing and the needs of housing

in our Province is changing because of this time of prosperity, which is so

positive in so many ways, it also brings great challenges in the area of

housing, particularly for our youth. I invite all members to imagine if they

were twenty two years old making minimum wage and just got evicted from their

current place of residence, where would you go? Mr. Speaker, I would wonder

where they would go to get housing.

Seniors: We know that there have been advances in housing for seniors;

however, we also know that with every new housing development for seniors that

there is a waiting list of sixty for a housing development that would provide

fourteen units and the ground, in some cases, has not even been broken on these

new developments.

Families with children: I encourage people to use their imagination and their

empathy to imagine what it is like for a family on a moderate income with two

children who have just been evicted because their landlord is going to renovate

and boost the rent maybe by twice the amount, where will this family go to get

affordable housing? The working poor: People who cannot afford to buy and are at

the mercy of the rental market are very negatively impacted. People with

physical disability, people with complex needs, and single, able-bodied people

on Income Support make only $800 a month, there is not affordable housing

available for them.

In our time of prosperity, the price of housing has skyrocketed, both in the

rental markets but also in the area of homeownership. For many who lose their

current housing there is nowhere for them to go. The vulnerable people who are

vulnerable to the skyrocketing housing markets have nowhere to go. What happens,

Mr. Speaker, if some of our own family, if there is a family breakup and one of

the spouses or the ex-spouses have to find a place to live. It is very difficult

in this current housing market. Aside from the rental units mentioned in the

private member's motion, aside from the affordable units that have been built

through the Federal-Provincial Affordable Housing Initiative, there have been

virtually no development of rental units in the Province in twenty years; yet,

the demand for affordable housing has been growing exponentially.

The Social Housing Plan that has been mentioned here is a good first step,

but there are no timelines and no deliverables. Government has not committed to

yearly action plans. The Social Housing Plan is more like a policy framework

rather than a plan with teeth and concrete steps. Even if they did have those

concrete steps, the problem is growing. The problem is not getting mitigated.

The problem is not being solved. The problem is growing. There is no doubt that

the government has played a role in assisting those in greatest need. Our social

housing has been given an injection of funds to provide badly needed repair and

maintenance, but there have only been twenty-four new units created in the past

decade through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, under their

management, with a waiting list of over 900. The problem is growing.

It is good that the government has raised the rent supplement budget that

is very good and that there are now over 1,700 supplements; however, the

demand far outweighs and outstrips the resources that have been allocated. We

already know that the supplements for this year were gone ages ago. We are the

fasting growing aging population in Canada. Over 65 per cent of our seniors,

their only income is the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Our seniors are so negatively impacted by the housing crisis. There is no

solution in sight. Again, it is such a difficult, costly, complex problem we

all know that and it is a problem that affects us all, whether or not as

individuals, certainly our mothers, our brothers, our nieces, our nephews, our

grandchildren, it affects us all. We know that seniors rental units are booked

up far before they are built. Seniors in many places all over the Province

cannot downsize because there is nowhere for them to go. For our seniors who

desperately need to downsize, there is nowhere for them to go.

The federal-provincial Affordable Housing Initiative has provided 1,100 new

units since it was first signed in Newfoundland. I commend the Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation and its staff for doing such a fantastic job in the

uptake of those programs. Newfoundland and Labrador was one of the provinces

that had the greatest uptake in the programs that were provided; it is

absolutely wonderful. The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness

Network and all the community groups who worked so hard to create the wonderful

projects like Marguerite's Place, Stella Burry, and Choices for Youth these

are absolutely fantastic and very needed programs.

However, we know that in the last call for proposal, over half of the

proposals were turned down; all the federal money has been used. I am hoping,

Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Transportation and Works will consider a

unilateral program from the Province for this fiscal year to assist these

community groups in moving forward with the fantastic, well-thought-out,

well-worked proposals that they had presented in the last round of funding, but

were not funded because there was not enough federal monies. We know we will not

get any more federal money until 2014, so I would ask the minister to support

and push the government to provide funding to address the outstanding proposals

from the last call for proposals.

2011 was a year of deepening housing crisis and growing need for housing in

our Province. There are well over 13,000 tenants and the same number of owners

of houses who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income on shelter, more

than what is advisable through CMHC. That leaves people house poor.

We are in a growing housing crisis; there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

We need to be responsive and innovative in meeting the growing need for housing.

There is no reason why we as a society, as the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, can not make sure that our 500,000 people have a safe, affordable

place to live. In this time of prosperity there is no reason why we cannot come

up with innovative, creative solutions to ensure that all of our people are

adequately housed.

I would also ask the government and encourage the government to strike the

Social Services Committee so that we can discuss the issue of housing, so that

we can bring once again that we can discuss the issue of housing, that we can

investigate the issue of housing, so that we can come up with concrete, working

solutions that work, again, beyond the scope of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation, whose mandate is social housing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: There are housing needs that the government needs to address

beyond the scope of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. It is

time that the provincial government stepped forward to take a collaborative

approach and continue to work with the community to find innovative,

cost-effective approaches that save all of us money in the long run. Poverty and

homelessness are too expensive. If we can lift people out of poverty and ensure

that people are well housed, it will save us money in the long run.

Some of the very concrete things that we can do, that the government can do,

is to invest in affordable home ownership for moderate to low-income people.

Many individuals and families can afford a mortgage, but they cannot afford the

down payment or the closing costs. There are many successful examples of

governments providing assistance to families with down payments and closing

costs so that they can buy homes and in often cases their mortgage payment is

far less than a rent payment.

This adds to family wealth through equity, through homeownership, which means

that we are helping to lift people out of poverty. We have to look at I urge

the government to look at - providing provincially owned land and provincially

owned buildings in a creative and innovative way that we can work with community

groups, that we can work with the private sector and with developers to

repurpose buildings, to repurpose land.

In this, our prosperous economy, this is not the time for cuts in social

programming, nor is it the time to maintain the status quo. We must be

responsive to the housing needs of those who elected us to office. We need a

much larger scale response to fit the large scale of the housing crisis that we

have. We need an actual plan with teeth, with targets that extends beyond the

concept of social housing. Because of this, I will not be able to support the

initial motion by the Member for St. John's West, but I would encourage us once

again, and encourage the government once again, to look at striking the Social

Services Committee to have a collaborative, comprehensive discussion and

investigation on how we as a Province will go forth to address the entire state

of housing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the scope of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and social housing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Minister Responsible for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very appreciative of the motion brought forth by the member with regard

to the social housing plan that has been put in place now since 2009. I am very,

very encouraged by some of the responses of the members who have spoken so far;

put back by some of the comments. As well, the member who just spoke, to talk

about a collaborative approach and everything, and here we as a government

brought forth - a private member brought forth a comprehensive plan today, put

it in front of all members of this House asking for a collaborative approach,

and the last words out of the member's mouth: I cannot support that. I cannot do

it. I cannot do it.

We just had three speakers up who talked very positively about the progress

that has been made in the housing file since this government took over, and

basically looking for support as we go forward with our plan, which is Secure

Foundations. Again, I say to the hon. members, Secure Foundations is a solid

plan. It is a plan that is in place that will have a time frame associated with

it. A member, again, indicates that it is not a concrete plan. I do not know

about housing but I do know about bricks and mortar. There are significant

investments that are being put into making sure that there is available housing

for the people who need it. As well, this plan is about people who find

themselves in very, very vulnerable situations. This is what our prime priority

is, to make sure we have in place the programs, the investments that are needed

in order to take care of that particular situation.

The Member for Bay of Islands talked about people who find themselves in

violent situations. When we look at our wait-list, we make sure that that is

number one. If a situation arises where we have to place someone out of that

vulnerable situation and into a house, they go immediately to the top of the

wait-list. When we talk about an increasing number, again, the facts are there.

Two years ago we had 1,200 people on our wait-list. This year we are down to

under 1,000. That, to me, is a decrease, not an increase. The wait-list of

1,000, as we look at going through that particular wait-list, we know there is

at least an 80 per cent turnover rate of that wait-list in any given year.

People who find themselves in vulnerable situations, whether it is medical,

in which we can make sure they are given priority and they are placed where they

should be.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I look at the work that has gone into this plan. I would

have to, as one of the members over there talked about, both members, and our

members on this side as well, talked about the wonderful work that has been done

in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I take my hat off to the chair, to the

executive, and to the 400-plus who basically are doing the work that is required

in order to go forward in this particular plan.

Secure Foundations came about as a result now, we take ownership of it in a

sense because we were the government that would put it forward, but this plan

did not fall out of the sky. This plan was brought about by consultations with

at least eighty-seven organizations, people who are very much involved in the

housing services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, very much involved with

making sure that all of the issues were brought forth as we put together that

particular plan. That is the consultation.

I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, I cannot support the motion that you

put forward not the motion, the amendment, simply because it does not require

further action because built into the plan is that consultation with groups and

with individuals who have the expertise that we need to tap in to and that is

done on an annual basis. Every year, that same group will be consulted with and

they bring it forward. Of course, when we look at what has been brought forward,

the key issues now there was mention of what we are doing with our stock and

the availability of, I suppose, the one and two bedroom apartments that are

necessary to take care of a lot of the needs on it. A key issue that was brought

forward from this consultation was again to provide more investment in existing

social housing infrastructure. The response that we put in place and