PDF Version

December 2, 2013 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 38

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

On Thursday of last week the Leader of the Third Party and Member for Signal

Hill Quidi Vidi stood in this House and raised a point of order with respect

to the proceedings in the House at the close of Wednesday's Private Members'

Day. I have reviewed her argument as laid out in Hansard and have also reviewed

the video clip and Hansard for the relevant time.

In order to rule on this I would like to address the major points that were

raised by the member.

Firstly, the member indicated that the Speaker ruled twice that the vote on

Wednesday's motion was defeated and that he then adjourned the House. The member

quoted from O'Brien and Bosc with respect to a need for decisions of the

Speaker on the vote and the adjournment to stand.

Hansard, which is the official record of our proceedings, and the video clip

both show that the Speaker declared the motion defeated and that immediately a

Division was called for and acknowledged by the Speaker. It was after this

acknowledgement that a second statement respecting the defeat of the motion and

the adjournment of the House was made.

It is clear that, in the following order: the question on the resolution was

put to the Assembly; there was a voice vote on the question; the Speaker voiced

the carriage of the decision; and then a Division was called.

As this was a Private Members' Day motion, our practice for Wednesdays must

be considered. It is usual for the Speaker to call the vote, the ayes and nays,

after the question is put, at or before 5:00 on Wednesdays. It is only then that

Division is called for. Frequently the Speaker states his opinion as to the

decision expressed by the House. One does not have to search far for this

record.

I would direct you to Hansard on April 24 of this year, 2013. The Speaker

declared, on a voice vote, that the resolution was defeated. After this

decision, which is the Speaker's opinion of what he had heard, Division was

called and a recorded vote was carried out.

Standing Order 16 requires that a record of the vote cannot be entered unless

Division has been demanded by three or more members. The Speaker acknowledged

the request when this number of members arose and called for a Division.

In our House, a call for Division is a call of three or more members to

record the vote of all members on a question and is the means by which we

confirm the decision of the House. In fact, the bells are rung to ensure that

all members able to vote can be called into the Chamber to do so. It is a right

of all members to call for a Division to have their vote recorded.

Calling for a Division after having heard the Speaker rule that a motion is

carried or defeated does not mean that the Speaker is reflecting on, rethinking

or reversing a decision. It is the Speaker expressing the will of the House that

each member has his or her vote recorded.

As was quoted by the member from O'Brien and Bosc on pages 567-568, "The

Speaker listens to both responses, judges the voices and the sense of the House,

and states his or her opinion as to the result." The actual decision of the

House is the recorded vote. The proper course of action of the Speaker after

hearing a call for a Division is to ensure that a recorded vote is carried out.

Secondly, the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi referred to Standing Order

9 which states in part, "At the hour of 5 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon the

Speaker adjourns the House without question put."

Also, the member referred to Standing Order 33, which says that a motion to

adjourn is always in order. There was, however, no motion to adjourn, so

Standing Order 33 is not relevant.

The member went on to say, as well, there was a reliance on O'Brien and Bosc

with respect to not reopening discussion and not "reflecting upon a vote".

I must state that under Standing Order 63(4) at 5 o'clock on Private Members'

Day the question being debated must be "put". Therefore there are two

responsibilities for the Speaker. One is to put the question on the debate by

5:00 p.m. and the second is, if the debate has continued until 5:00 without the

question being put, then the House is adjourned without a vote.

The question was, though, put before 5:00 p.m. Debate was not continuing. The

only matters continuing past 5:00 p.m. were procedural in nature in order to

accomplish a proper conclusion to determining the decision of the House.

O'Brien and Bosc, on page 401, states, "The House may continue to sit beyond

the ordinary hour of daily adjournment prescribed in the Standing Orders."

In addition, MacMinn indicates on page 7-8, "Upon interruption of proceedings

by the clock, certain routine matters may be completed by the House prior to the

Speaker. leaving the Chair. The general rule is that opposed business cannot be

taken after the hour of interruption."

The hour of interruption in our case is the 5:00 o'clock stated in our

Standing Orders. The foregoing citations indicate that a vote, as a routine

matter, could continue past 5:00 p.m., but further debate by members could not.

Hansard reveals that there was no reflection upon the vote and no opening of

discussion or debate. This was a recording of votes only.

Ultimately, it was unfortunate that the Speaker said that the House was

adjourned because the first and primary call upon the Speaker was to call for

Division, when requested to do so. This slip was corrected immediately. The

Speaker is clearly elected to preside over debate and to enforce and interpret

rules and procedures. Embedded in the Speaker's role is that he or she shall

follow the will of the House.

Erskine May, 19 th edition, states on page 228, "The Speakeris the

representative of the House itself and its powers and proceedings and dignity."

Beauchesne's 6 th edition, on paragraph 167, would state, "The

essential ingredient of the speakership is as a servant of the House."

Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Speaker to follow the will of the

House in this instance. The will of the House was to have a Division, and to do

otherwise would have placed the Speaker in a position that was clearly contrary

to the will of the House.

There is no point of order.

Statements by Members

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

the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of Bonavista

South; the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District

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

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

The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this hon. House to

congratulate the City of Mount Pearl on receiving Municipalities Newfoundland

and Labrador's Torngat Award for Excellence in Governance at the recent MNL

Convention and AGM.

Municipalities NL's Torngat Awards program recognizes the exemplary efforts

of member municipalities in serving their residents and improving quality of

life in their community.

This year's Award of Excellence in Governance recognized the City of Mount

Pearl's achievements in its efforts to minimize risks and challenges associated

with information management. The city has developed a comprehensive information

governance framework which incorporates information management in all the city's

core functions, supports cutting-edge technology, accelerates decision making,

minimizes compliance risks, privacy risks, and achieves efficiencies.

I would ask all members of this hon. House to join me in commending the City

of Mount Pearl for their progressive initiatives, ongoing commitment to

continuous improvement, and excellence in municipal governance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize and congratulate a team of twelve students from

Heritage Collegiate in Lethbridge, Bonavista South, for their recent success in

an International Robotics Competition.

On May 3-4 of this year the team participated in a Marine Advanced Technology

Education competition held at the Marine Institute. Of the twenty-four schools

being represented at the event, Heritage Collegiate came first for the Remotely

Operated Vehicle that they built.

In June, the students travelled to Seattle, Washington, to compete in the

Ranger Division of an International Robotics Competition. Thirty-one teams

participated in each division, representing over 600 teams worldwide. The

competition was judged on various categories: mission score, technical report,

engineering, poster, and safety.

Our students of Heritage Collegiate finished second overall in their

division. Their success can be attributed to countless hours of hard work and

dedication, as well as the guidance of their teacher mentors, Lyndon Williams

and Sue Strong.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in congratulating Gregory Ash,

Jenna Blagdon, Laura Blundon, Braden Chaffey, Zachary Chatman, Sebastian

Greening, Patrick Holloway, Spencer Holloway, Arne Maeland, Magdalena Maeland,

Macailyn Pitt, and Lucas Strong, some truly bright and talented individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in this hon. House to recognize seven young women from my

district who recently received their Girl Guides of Canada, Canada Cord, the

highest honour for Pathfinders in the country. Girl Guides of Canada is proudly

the organization of choice for young women aged five to eighteen in this

country.

The Canada Cord is awarded upon completion of a three-year program. In total,

over twenty diverse badges, a leadership project, community service, first aid

training, and a citizenship challenge must be completed. The girls explore their

communities through active involvement and volunteer service. There is also an

emphasis on global and environmental awareness and developing outdoor skills

through camping and hiking.

Each challenge is relevant to young women of today, encouraging them to tap

into their talents, develop confidence to face the challenges of life, and to

get along well with their friends and families. Emphasis is placed on leadership

skills, decision making, and, most of all, fun!

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Taylor Petten, Julia

Petten, Megan Nolan, Gabrielle Neil, Makayla Mugford, Shelby Caravan, and Shelby

Batten on this significant achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

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

I am fortunate to represent a colourful and diverse district with a piece of

history on practically every street corner.

In Quidi Vidi Village, for example, you will find Mallard Cottage, an

Irish-Newfoundland vernacular style cottage, recognized as a National Historic

Site of Canada and one of the oldest wooden buildings in North America.

After a century and a half as residence for the Mallard family, who fished

and farmed in the area, Mallard Cottage spent more than two decades as a popular

antiques shop.

In 2011, the cottage was purchased by Chef Todd Perrin, Kim Doyle, and

Stephen Lee. The building was lovingly restored, hard work that was recognized

in June this year when they were honoured with the Southcott Award.

Todd and his team had a setback in July when an electrical fire damaged parts

of the building, but I am happy to report they persevered and on November first,

they opened for business and are already well-established on the local dining

scene with their unique twist on traditional foods.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Todd Perrin. His creative

vision and perseverance mean the continued existence of a unique piece of this

Province's history.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to recognize three

Randell brothers of Bide Arm, Ralph, Kevin, and Keith, crew of the White Star

I , for their daring sea rescue.

On November 18, Tom Fillier and Graham Hancock departed Conche harbour to go

turr hunting. Despite promise, the two lost their gearbox, leaving them stranded

at sea. They did not worry at first, as it remained fair and there were others

on the water. Deteriorating weather conditions prevented paddling to safety,

fires were set, and ammunition fired. With no sign of a rescue, a graplin' was

thrown to prevent them from edging into cliffs.

When darkness fell, Ralph Randell contacted Coast Guard radio, St. Anthony,

and then JRCC Halifax requesting to join the search. The brothers in adverse

weather conditions scoured the coastline with no success. Hours later the crew

spotted a glimmer off Conche. The experienced crew used their resourcefulness to

get both men safely on board by casting a float on a rope to secure the

speedboat. Their sound judgement and bravery brought the pair home to their

families.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Randell brothers for

using their extraordinary skill to save human life. They are true heroes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this year the students at Rennie's River Elementary School have

something new to enjoy, and they have it because of their own hard work.

On Friday, September 6, students, staff and parents celebrated the launch of

their brand new playground. They took an unused and deteriorating former parking

lot and transformed it into an inviting green space full of play opportunities.

The students played an integral

part in this project. Not only did they spend

the better part of a year working hard to raise the $45,000 that the new

playground cost to build, but the students actually decided, through a vote,

what the components of that playground would be. They have new basketball nets,

new hopscotch grids and square ball courts, and even a reading area especially

for those who want to sit and read.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the student, staff and

parents of Rennie's River Elementary. They taught us, as they said in their

school newsletter, "that anything is possible when you set a goal and work hard

to achieve it and that more things are possible when we work together."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I want to make mention of a couple of

special guests in our galleries today. We have joining us from the Combined

Councils of Labrador, President, Tony Andersen, representing the North Coast,

and Mr. Alton Rumbolt, a representative from the South Coast.

Welcome gentlemen to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, child care plays a vital role in the healthy development of

children, families and communities, as well as provides essential support to

parents engaged in the labour market. Under our government's 10-Year Child Care

Strategy, Caring For Our Future: Provincial Strategy for Quality, Sufficient and

Affordable Child Care in Newfoundland and Labrador improvements continue to be

made in child care with the introduction of new initiatives and improvements to

existing programs and services.

Now in its second year of implementation, Caring For Our Future is

demonstrating our government's ongoing commitment to strengthening regulated

child care services. This strategy allows us to not only promote healthy child

development, but to contribute to building a skilled future workforce as we

improve the quality, sufficiency and affordability of our child care system.

In Budget 2013: A Sound Plan, A Secure Future , our government

allocated an investment of $31.1 million for child care, with a focus on

continuing the implementation of Caring For Our Future. To date, significant

progress has been made under the strategy and that includes: creating 465

additional regulated spaces in twenty-one child care centres under the Child

Care Capacity Initiative; developing over 400 regulated spaces in two years

under the Family Child Care Initiative, bringing the total to 754 spaces in 133

regulated family child care homes.

It includes implementing a revised Early Learning and Child Care Supplement

Program based on a position held in a child care centre. Now eligible early

childhood educators working in a child care homeroom receive $6,660 annually, an

increase of $3,330; and eligible early childhood educators working as program

operators receive $10,000 annually, an increase of $3,400.

It also includes awarding Requests for Proposals to develop an operating

grants program for commercial and non-profit child care centres throughout our

Province, and to review the Child Care Services Subsidy Program; and also

includes reviewing the current Child Care Services Act and Regulations, and the

inclusion supports program.

Mr. Speaker, addressing quality, sufficiency and affordability of child care

services remains a key priority for our government, and we have seen almost a 70

per cent increase in the total number of regulated child care spaces since 2003.

Currently, we have 7,787 regulated child care spaces throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador and we are very excited about the direction that child care is

continuing to take in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Creating new child

care spaces in this Province is certainly good news. Parents are struggling all

over to find spaces all across this Province. I hear regularly from parents and

care givers dealing with this issue. Supporting these parents and the children

is important, not only in the development of the children but also in supporting

the parents.

The minister talks about the importance of promoting healthy child

development. While this is a good step in supporting our children, CYFS has a

significant amount of work to do to ensure that our most vulnerable are

protected.

In the spring the Child and Youth Advocate released three reports, all of

which contained recommendations to help our most vulnerable. The CYFS system is

still fragmented; departments and agencies are not working together as they

should be. Our children deserve to be protected. Right now they are not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

accessible, and affordable child care is a basic program in a healthy economy.

It is an investment in early childhood development and an investment in young

working families.

The creation of more regulated child care spaces is a good thing. There are

many parents across the Province who cannot afford daycare costs for some, it

is $800 to $1,000 a month per child. There are 50,000 children under ten years

of age and 30,000 working mothers in Newfoundland and Labrador, so 7,780 spaces

is not meeting the demand, nor is our child care program doing enough for

parents with modest incomes.

Many mothers cannot work outside the home because they cannot afford child

care. We all know the incredible barriers to employment due to the lack of

accessible, affordable child care for many young working families. We need a

Made in Newfoundland and Labrador universal program to bring

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time has expired.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's North have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Government's 2012 increase in the subsidies paid to ECE applies only to Level I

ECEs working in child care homerooms and Level II ECEs who operate child care

centres.

I have been presenting a petition for some time now on behalf of ECEs to get

a change there to have that enhancement apply to all ECEs; but I would say also,

Mr. Speaker, ten years is a long time to wait for these changes. I have said a

number of times now it is more like a grandchild care program than a child care

strategy.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

to recognize this week as National Safe Driving Week, which officially began on

Sunday, December 1.

With winter approaching, we need to be prepared for winter road conditions.

National Safe Driving Week provides a valuable and timely opportunity to raise

awareness of potential road hazards and the need to cultivate safer, more

defensive driving habits.

Mr. Speaker, this government is always reviewing the Highway Traffic Act for

opportunities to enhance road safety in Newfoundland and Labrador. Recently, I

was pleased to bring forward amendments to the act to protect enforcement,

emergency and service personnel at roadside. Under the changes to the act,

drivers approaching these workers must slow down and move over to give a wide

berth. This will have a major impact on the risks faced by these individuals.

In addition, we also brought in amendments to prohibit backhoes, front-end

loaders and other slow-moving vehicles from travelling on highways where the

speed limit is greater than eighty kilometres an hour, reducing the occurrence

of potentially dangerous scenarios caused by interrupting the flow of

faster-moving traffic. We also included amendments that will enhance enforcement

of laws surrounding school zones and passenger seat belt use.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we all take responsibility and adjust our

driving to weather conditions. I urge all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

plan your routes, and allow enough time to avoid rushing to your destination. As

the holiday visiting season begins, please take care to never drive when

fatigued or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

National Safe Driving Week is from December 1 to 7. As we move into 2014, I

urge all members to join me in advocating road safety in our Province, and to

encourage everyone to please drive defensibly, wear a seatbelt, and eliminate

distractions and aggressive driving behaviours behind the wheel.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, we too would like to recognize National Safe Driving Week. As

weather conditions change and we settle into driving winter conditions, we need

to be more aware of the hazards and the challenges that come with it. Many of us

have been involved in a vehicle accident and it is not something that we would

like to see on our roads and highways.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see legislation coming forward that will

hopefully improve safety of our highways and mitigate the potential for tragic

automobile accidents. Now if we could only bring forward legislation that

protects other modes of transportation, like ATVs, snowmobiles and, yes,

bicycles. The need for this legislation has been raised by my colleague, the

Member for Burgeo La Poile. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about bicycle helmet

legislation to protect our young people. We are only one of three provinces that

have yet to enact bicycle helmet legislation.

National Safe Driving Week is from December 1 to 7, but we also encourage our

drivers to drive safely and obey the rules of the road 365 days a year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

here today.

It does concern Safe Driving Week, this week of December 1 to 7. Government

has been passing along some very forward-looking changes to the legislation in

the Highway Traffic Act. I was absolutely pleased to have government pay

attention to the simple fact that we needed move-over legislation for the

protection of highway workers in this Province. I was only too glad to sit down

with the staff and give them my views as regards to move-over legislation and

how it can be enacted to help protect our highway workers. So I was very pleased

with that.

Government does listen from time to time, but I am particularly glad they

listened to that one. I would also like to thank government as regards to its

announcement here when it talks about the simple fact that we are dealing with

harsh weather conditions. If there is any one important piece of advice to give

any driver out there, with all the experience that I have on the roads, about

twenty-four years of commercial driving

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I would just like to point out that legislation will only go so far.

Government needs to make more practical action when it comes to looking at

expanding winter snow clearing, doing proper brush clearing, more twinning of

highways, the implementation of more rumble strips, as well as improving

communications so that we can have enhanced safety on our highways.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Budget day, 2012, government projected a deficit of $258 million. At

mid-year the deficit was projected to be $726 million, and at the end of the

year that was $431 million. Today we have learned that the audited actuals have

the deficit at $199 million.

I ask the Premier: Between the year-end reports and the audited actuals,

where did the extra $232 million come from?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give some actual numbers for

2012-2013 today and also the mid-year for 2013-2014.

For 2013-2014, we are finding an improvement of $113 million to what we

projected to be the bottom line at the end of the year, a deficit not of $563

million but down to $450 million. We found that our revenues have actually gone

down by $94.4 million and our expenses have gone down by $270.6 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With all due respect, my question was about the $232 million from last year's

Budget. There was $232 million when we left there in April of basically on

last year's Budget. There was a difference of $232 million that was mentioned

this year at the briefing session.

I ask the minister: The $232 million, where did it go or where did it come

from?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to tell me what $232

million he is referring to, which numbers he is referring to.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the opening of today's briefing session there was mention about last year

at the end of the year the deficit was projected to be $431 million based on

2012 numbers. Today we started out by mentioning that it was $199 million after

the audited accruals were done.

Where did the $232 million come from?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the oil production has come back. I think in

2011-2012 oil production was 97 million barrels, the next year in 2012-2013 it

dropped to 70 million barrels. Now it has come back to 83.25 million barrels. We

are getting a bump in production, and therefore a bump in revenues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We found out this morning that not only is this government bad at budgeting

but they really cannot even spend the money that they budgeted in this year's

Budget. So, $270 million was budgeted last spring for infrastructure and

programs that will not be spent this year.

I ask the Premier: What infrastructure was planned and budgeted for and is

now being delayed?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition fails to

appreciate what was actually said. In a Budget, we plan for the spending and the

spending is approved here in this House. The spending is legally authorized and

we want the spending to go forward.

We would be very delighted if every cent that was approved was spent; but

what we know that happens, by looking at historical information, is not every

dollar approved, in fact, gets spent. Sometimes they are trying to fill a

position that does not get filled until next year. Sometimes they order a piece

of equipment that does not come in until next year. It happens every year; it is

called lapsed balances.

We would be delighted if every cent could be spent. We want every cent to be

spent; but, looking at historical numbers, it just does not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we know the historical information, but we also know that this

government last year, last spring, promised a family caregiver program. Besides

the family caregiver program, which was a budget of over $6.2 million, which we

have yet to see announced, what other programs that were promised last year have

not been delivered?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is still not

getting it. What we do at mid-year, we go to everybody who is spending money and

we say: Are you going to spend everything that was in the Budget for you to

spend? The answer, mostly, is: Yes, we are.

We know, based on historical numbers, that it just does not happen certain

things, for different reasons, do not get out the door. The department has made

an estimate it is an estimate. We have not told anybody don't you spend here

or don't you spend there. We have told them to spend. We would be delighted if

they spend every penny, but we know it does not happen. We have made an estimate

it is just an estimate. It is like an allowance of bad debts same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you get up in the House of Assembly and you announce programs like a

family caregiver program, there is an expectation, when that money is allocated,

that the program will be delivered.

What other programs, except for the family caregiver program, have this

government delayed or plan to put on hold?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the year is not over. Programs will continue

to roll out until the end of the fiscal year. We want them rolled out. We would

be delighted if they were rolled out.

Mr. Speaker, I have numbers here for a number of years, drop balance is

current:1.41 per cent, 1.11 per cent, 1.59 per cent; and these where when your

party was in office. It happens to everybody, Mr. Speaker and I will table

them, by the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Privacy Commissioner today released a report on an ATIPPA request to the

Premier's office to release records relating to search and rescue operations. He

concluded that the Premier's office has improperly withheld these records.

I ask the Premier: Why do you continue to withhold such important information

and why be so secretive about such important issues, such as search and rescue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Advocating for improved search and rescue services in this Province is a high

priority. We also recognize and respect the role of the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner. We are going to do our best to comply with

the Privacy Commissioner's recommendation. We have fifteen days to respond to

that request. We intend to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, a high priority is one thing, but when you think about it, this is a

request that has been ongoing for some time.

I ask the Premier: Are you prepared to release all the information that was

requested and recommended by the Privacy Commissioner? Will you do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, ensuring that people's privacy is protected while

also ensuring that the public has the most possible access to information is a

high priority for this government. As I said previously, we will do our best to

comply with this request where we can. It is important to note that at the time

of this request we were involved in high-level national negotiations. There was

information contained in the documents that were requested that were sensitive

and would have impacted those negotiations.

At this time, we certainly respect the role of the Office of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner. We will respond within the time frame that is

required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to the House of Assembly being opened, the Premier made a commitment to

release all the documents around the CETA negotiations. Of course, my previous

question was about search and rescue, which is a different issue.

So I ask the Premier: When will you table all of the documents related to the

CETA discussions that were held?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is a commitment that I made when we announced the

conclusion of CETA and particularly around the announcement of the $400 million

transition fund. It was not something that I was asked to do; it was something

that I volunteered to do and I am going to be very happy to do that within the

next few days here in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the UARB in Nova Scotia confirmed that residents of Nova Scotia are

protected from any risk of the Muskrat Falls Project. Nova Scotia's Energy

Minister specifically said that Emera and Nalcor will bear the project risk.

Now, of course, Nalcor is us. That means that ratepayers in Nova Scotia will not

assume this risk.

I ask the Premier: Why have you opened up our Province to yet more risk so

that Nova Scotians can be better protected?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Friday was a great day for Atlantic Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: The UARB completed its work in Nova Scotia, Mr.

Speaker, and resoundingly approved the plan between Nalcor and Emera to supply

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador with the cheapest possible power

available to its residents. This is a really good thing supported by the federal

government in the loan guarantee.

This is a very good project for the people of the Province on a stand-alone

basis. Now we are able to commercialize our excess power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To use the word that they resoundingly approved this deal is not the case. As

you know, if you look at the UARB report it was marginally accepted. The

minister has said that the amount of power we give Nova Scotia would depend on

hydrology and our provincial needs. The UARB decision clearly states that

regardless of what Nalcor does with the excess energy, residents of Nova Scotia

will be protected and kept whole. This means that the people of our Province,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are on the hook for those risks.

I ask the Premier: What small hydro and wind projects have you considered to

meet this new commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The UARB certainly did not describe the

project as marginal. What they did say was that Nova Scotians' price that they

would be paying for the power from Muskrat was only marginally better than they

could get elsewhere. That must be a surprise to our friends opposite who have

been trying to convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that we have been

giving them free power. In fact, we are giving them just less than they could

have bought the power from any other market.

The bonus for Newfoundland and Labrador and the bonus for Nova Scotia, Mr.

Speaker, is that we now have more than one route to bring power to our

provinces. That is as valuable as anything else we are doing in this deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I will remind the Premier one more time that on July 22 at that

point the UARB definitely said without the market-priced energy it would not be

the lowest priced option.

I ask the Premier again, Mr. Speaker: The small hydro and wind that she has

been in the media and said they would construct to meet this need, where is it

and what was the price of those projects?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are developing Muskrat Falls and using only 40 per cent of

the power. That is still the least-cost option for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is taking 20 per cent of the excess power,

and for 20 per cent of the cost of building and transmitting Muskrat Falls, we

are giving it to Nova Scotia. We are selling it to Nova Scotia; 20 per cent of

the electricity, 20 per cent of the cost. On top of the 20 per cent of the cost

they are paying, they are giving us a corridor to take our power through

Atlantic Canada and down into the Eastern Seaboard. We have 40 per cent of our

power left to bring to the marketplace until it is needed in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very surprised with that answer for what it was because we do not know

the cost for a start. We do not even know the cost of the Maritime Link. The DG3

numbers are not released as we know of yet, and getting the power out of

Labrador into the US, I can tell you, Nova Scotia has something to say about

that, too.

If construction costs go up our ratepayers will be charged more, but Nova

Scotians will get the same cheap power. If Nalcor pulls back the excess power

our ratepayers will be on the hook to supply Nova Scotia. That is the commitment

that we made.

I ask the Premier: Why did you put us in this weak bargaining position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition,

this far into the debate you ought to know how utilities work in this country

and in the United States. There is a thing called Open Access Transmission

Tariff that allows us to take electricity through Nova Scotia. That does not

have anything to do with the Nova Scotia government. This is infrastructure

owned by Emera, a publicly traded company in which we have negotiated rights as

part of this Muskrat Falls deal.

Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the Leader of the Opposition that we are an

energy super warehouse. We have 5,000 megawatts of wind to develop in Labrador,

more here on the Island, and lots of small hydro projects. We will make our

living and our fortune off renewable energy here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier forgets one thing, that Nova Scotia has the first right of

refusal here.

Will the Premier finally answer the question? She just mentioned about the

wind projects and the small hydro. What is the cost of developing those small

hydro and those wind projects that you talk about, because we have now taken on

the risk for Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I correct the Leader of the Opposition

again. We have not taken on any risk for Nova Scotia. We have not.

Mr. Speaker, we do have transmission rights. We have transmission rights

right into Maine, because of this deal that we have made with Nalcor and Emera.

Mr. Speaker, this is a really great project for Newfoundland and Labrador. It

is a great project for Nova Scotia. Not only are they getting electricity

marginally cheaper than they could get it from anywhere else in Atlantic Canada

or on the Eastern Seaboard, but it gives them the flexibility to be able to

negotiate better energy prices down the road. The same as it does for us, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Education

introduced his new Safe and Caring Schools Policy. I say to the minister: Great

announcements do not make for great government, but implementation does and

implementation costs money.

I ask the Minister of Education: What is the budget that he set aside to

implement the new Safe and Caring Schools Policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing the member can say today to

dampen my day, I have to tell him. What a launch this morning with the

stakeholders at the table.

We have put in place the protocol and the documents now that teachers and

schools can use. What this will do, in fact, is standardize a process. We will

work with the school boards and schools now to see the implementation of this

plan.

This is another part of the implementation that shows that there is no

government in this Province's history that have invested more in education.

Today is another example of leading edge, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the

member to join me in sharing that sentiment with all of our stakeholders

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it was a simple question: How much? How much

money did the minister set aside to implement this policy?

I remember when he collapsed the boards he said he would save $12.8 million

and would give us that in a spreadsheet; he must know something about numbers.

So, I say: How much money has he committed to implement the new Safe and Caring

Schools Policy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the first part of this work was to do exactly

what we have done. We had Goss Gilroy that went out and completed their report

and came back with recommendations. We have now done work and developed this

document.

Mr. Speaker, we will work with all the stakeholders that sat around the table

this morning, from the law enforcement agents, to the NLTA, to the Federation of

School Councils. Mr. Speaker, the important component of this morning was that

we had students sitting with us. We will work with those stakeholders and

agencies, and we will see this program implemented to the fullest, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: I am not debating that it is a good program. In fact, Goss

Gilroy said it was a good program. They said that they needed district champions

to implement this. Nobody really knew what was going on and there were no funds

allocated.

I ask the minister for the third time: How much money has he set aside to

introduce the Safe and Caring Schools Policy? He has had more than a year since

the report came in.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the man an actual number. We are

going to work with our partners, all of those agencies from school councils to

the NLTA. We work to now implement this program. There has not been a stronger

program in the school to counter bullying and to seek out appropriate behaviours

before. This was a consultative process that we arrived at in partnership. This

is not something that was dictated to.

Mr. Speaker, the pleasure for me this morning was to have a student walk up

to me and say: Thank you for what you are doing for us as students. That speaks

to all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, 40,000 artifacts have already been discovered

at the Muskrat Falls site while traditional areas are being destroyed by

development. Under the Historic Resources Act, there are a number of options,

including a thirty-day temporary stop order to salvage historic resources and

conduct archaeological investigation.

I ask the minister: What options have you considered to ensure all historic

resources are properly investigated and recorded?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me an opportunity from the hon. member's question to highlight some

of the work that has been done on the whole Lower Churchill Project, Mr.

Speaker. Since 1998, there have been numerous permits given out by the

Provincial Archaeology Office and to date there have been 311 sites discovered

really detailing the history of our Province and great for the Aboriginal people

in particular.

Of those 311 sites, 245 of them are ethnographic sites, meaning in the last

fifty years, but we have sixty-six sites with significant discoveries. Two of

them for example, Mr. Speaker, have outlined the old Hudson's Bay trading post,

while we have also discovered pre-contact materials that go back hundreds and

thousands of years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not debating what has been discovered. I am just trying to get the

minister to ensure that the history is preserved, and that includes working with

Aboriginal groups in the area to determine the origin of these artifacts.

I ask the minister: Since three Aboriginal groups have frequented this area

and the research on these artifacts is not complete, why are officials at Nalcor

suggesting that these artifacts only belong to one group?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there has been significant consultation done

between the provincial archaeology office, and as well as the archaeologists

with Stantec. Just a couple of weeks ago, for example, the lead archaeologist

was actually in Sheshatshiu doing a presentation on the 40,000 artifacts.

Mr. Speaker, from a provincial archaeology office, we even have an agreement

with the NunatuKavut to share the actual footprints and where these sites are.

So this is open. The agreement has been signed between the NunatuKavut and the

provincial archaeology office. We have an annual report that comes which we also

share with the Aboriginal groups of Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say that we have not been including the Aboriginal groups

is certainly not true. The provincial archaeology office has been involved with

Stantec on behalf of Nalcor right from the very beginning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South for a quick

question.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government just entered into an agreement with Damen shipbuilders of the

Netherlands to build a ferry for Fogo and Change Islands. Vessels built in

Europe, Mr. Speaker, are subject to a 25 per cent tariff.

I ask the minister: Is the 25 per cent tariff included in the $51 million

figure to build this vessel, or is the 25 per cent on top of the $51 million?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I announced a couple of weeks ago the $51 million contract

that includes the tariff charge. In saying that, we will be working with the

federal government to have that reimbursed to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In its fiscal update released today, government says spending is down by

$270.1 million due to delayed infrastructure and program spending.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What projects are not being done, and what

services are people being denied?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, expenses will be down

$207.6 million. There are no specific programs that we know of that are not

going to be completed. We have asked the people who spend the money and get the

programs out, we have said, is there anything you are not going to be doing this

year? They have told us they are going to be doing everything. That is what is

in the Budget.

We know based on past experience that sometimes they do not get it out. It is

an estimate. It is no specific program. No program has been cut. No one has been

told not to spend the money. We would be delighted if they would get it out. We

want them to get it out, but we know based on past experience that sometimes it

does not all get out. So there is no specific one, it is just an estimate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier then: Is the delay in projects due to the government

cutting 2,000 public sector jobs and we do not have enough people to do the work

in a timely way?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: No, Mr. Speaker.

While I am up, I think I did not answer the question from the hon. Leader of

the Opposition. He asked me a question on 2012-2013. The answer to his question

is that revenue is down $182 million, program expenses are down $191 million,

and debt servicing expenses for 2012-2013 are down $50.9 million. I believe if

he does the addition and subtraction he will get his answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I note the way in which the minister ignored the question that was put to

him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, government's boasting of sound fiscal management

and responsible decisions is cold comfort to the nearly 2,000 people summarily

fired last spring to deal with a deficit government had been warned about for

years.

I ask the Premier: How much did government save on the backs of those fired

workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government is very proud of its record of investment in the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a different world today in

Newfoundland and Labrador than it was in 2003. That is because of incredible

investments in hospitals, in schools, in roads, in our public service too, I

might say.

We have just negotiated great agreements with our unions, Mr. Speaker. There

is no government before or will ever be any prouder of its public service than

this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the government's so-called Sustainability Plan, in year two they called

for reviews of post-secondary education, regional health authorities, and

unfunded pension liabilities.

I ask the Premier: Can she tell us what cuts are they expected to make in

post-secondary education and health?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I understand Memorial University is undergoing

a review. They are trying to find efficiencies. We expect government departments

and we expect entities to be as efficient as they can be and to spend the

taxpayers' money wisely. In the case of Memorial University, any efficiencies

they find they can keep them and put them into other areas and programs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will her government

commit in this House to protecting the Defined Benefit Pension program of

government employees?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think one thing that all of us recognize,

including members of our own party, is that our pension plans are not

sustainable. The math is changing, and people are finding that throughout the

world.

What we want to do is work with our unions. I met with them last year. Mr.

Kennedy met with them this year. We had experts meet with them again. We want to

work with them in a co-operative and collaborative way because they have a lot

of expertise they can bring to the table with respect to this. We have to fix

these things because they are not sustainable as they are right now, and working

together I am confident that we can do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, today government is praising itself for sound

fiscal management, last week for giving low-income seniors an extra six cents a

day in tax benefit, yet we have more seniors slipping into poverty with the

highest percentage in the country needing OAS and GIS. Growing numbers of

seniors cannot afford housing. This is not prosperity.

I ask the minister: How many seniors are on the wait-list for Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, we have

reduced the wait time in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing down to about 800 on

the wait-list across Newfoundland and Labrador, down from about 1,300 only a

couple of years ago to this date.

In saying that, this government has invested in seniors in various programs

heavily since 2004-2005 when we brought down our first Budget. As a matter of

fact, 86 per cent of the people who avail of the Provincial Home Repair Program

are seniors, Mr. Speaker. Also, there are 358 seniors who avail of the Home

Modification Program, along with the rent supplement as well. There are also

5,556 units in the Province

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the benefits for the Adult Dental Program was

reduced this Budget. Seniors are calling my office in distress. They can only

have their top or their lower dentures, or they need other dental work done and

cannot. Seniors without teeth is not prosperity.

I ask the Minister of Health: Will she restore the Adult Dental Program so

seniors can get the work done that they desperately need?

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.

On several occasions last week I corrected the member opposite and I am going

to do it again, Mr. Speaker. We have not reduced the Adult Dental Program. It

was $6.7 million; it is still is $6.7 million. In no way have we reduced the

program.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have tried to make it available to as

many people as we possibly can in the Province. In doing that, we have offered

up a different way of administering the program; but we certainly have not cut

the program and people continue to avail of the program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Report by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 2013.

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

not adjourn 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 2013.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have a private member's resolution for this

week:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to considering

following the recommendations of their own consultant, Mr. John Noseworthy, and

implement a rental rate structure for Income Support clients based on regional

market rates.

This is seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair.

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

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

Pursuant to Standing Orders,

section 3, the notice of motion just entered by

the Member for St. John's South is the private member's resolution to be debated

this week.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a response to the

Member for St. John's North and his question about an analysis completed by, or

for the provincial government about the impact in terms of costs, programming,

and employment on the Province as a result of the federal government's planned

implementation of the Canada Job Grant.

The Department of Advanced Education and Skills was created in the fall of

2011 to help meet a growing demand for skilled labour. In order to meet those

labour needs, we are working to maximize the number of people graduating from

our post-secondary institutions, with a view to ensuring they are trained in the

occupational growth areas of the future.

Under the potential changes to the Canada Job Grant program, the federal

government would divert as much as $600 million in funding from existing

programming to the Canada Job Grant. Employers are telling us there is no

flexibility in the program. There is a further concern that a requirement of

businesses to contribute to the proposed Canada Job Grant in order to

participate would leave the majority of small and medium sized businesses

excluded.

Mr. Speaker, there are more people working in Newfoundland and Labrador now

than ever before and we must ensure our labour market programs continue to help

employers and businesses maximize the tremendous opportunities we are seeing.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has invested heavily in skilled

trades programming over the past several years. Over $98 million in funding has

been committed to support initiatives outlined in 2007 Skills Task Force report:

All the Skills to Succeed.

Through Budget 2013, $2.8 million of new funding is supporting the following

initiatives to advance apprenticeship opportunities and support women and other

represented groups in skilled trades in Newfoundland and Labrador they include

the introduction of a Journeyperson Mentorship Program and the expansion of the

Apprenticeship Wage Subsidy program.

Mr. Speaker, this Province is once again leading the way to make

post-secondary education more affordable and accessible. Post-secondary

education students in Newfoundland and Labrador continue to have the lowest

tuition fees in the country. Budget 2013 provided approximately $75 million to

reduce student debt by continuing the tuition freeze; up-front, needs-based

grants; interest free student loans; and debt reduction programs, Mr. Speaker.

On April 19, 2012 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador released

Access. Inclusion. Equality. a strategy for the inclusion of persons with

disabilities, a first for Newfoundland and Labrador. The strategy is a framework

to support action towards inclusion, making everyday activities accessible and

inclusive.

Budget 2013 workforce investments included efforts to increase labour force

participation particularly amongst underrepresented groups, including Aboriginal

people, persons with disabilities, and women. This includes $800,000 supported

with $7 million in federal funding for the continuation of the Apprenticeship

Wage Subsidy program and $2 million to continue the Journeyperson Mentorship

Program.

Mr. Speaker, there is also over $8.6 million in funding for the labour market

agreement for persons with disabilities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time allocated for his response has expired. If

he wishes to table the remaining documents, I would leave that to him.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table it for the hon.

gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

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

undersigned humbly sheweth.

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an

enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors of Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday

living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and

residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;

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

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

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne

National Park, and the enclave community of Trout River.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, recently this government introduced or made mention of the fact

that they were considering introducing 911 emergency service. A 911 emergency

service is very important, it will be very useful, and it will be a benefit to

all residents of the Province who can participate in it.

You need two things for a 911 service: You need a phone and you need an

address. If people in many rural communities do not yet have the numbers on

their homes, clearly that is going to be maybe a cultural shift that is going to

be required that people have to put numbers on their homes, and I see that

happening. Maybe a lot of their names that have never been properly named will

need to be named in order to co-ordinate this initiative. Another thing they

The residents of Trout River themselves have telephones generally; however,

what about emergency responders who are going to the town called to an

emergency? If the ambulance is going to Trout River, if the police officers are

going to Trout River, if the Woody Point fire department is going to Trout

River, anybody who is going to Trout River will want to be able to use

cellphones, in addition to knowing street numbers.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to have cellphone service. This

petition does not ask the government to spend any money. It simply asks

government to be the catalyst. This is one of the easy things that government

can do. One of the things government can do without spending public funds is

simply be the catalyst to co-ordinate the private sector and people in the Town

of Trout River to be able to get together to introduce cellphone service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS violent workplace incidents involving convenience store clerks and

gas station attendants are a serious health and safety issue; and

WHEREAS many public and private sector employees are being left in vulnerable

situations, especially in the opening and closing of their buildings and

establishments; and

WHEREAS all workers deserve protection from danger and harm; and

WHEREAS current government regulations are woefully inadequate in providing

even basic protection for these vulnerable workers; and

WHEREAS it is the responsibility of employers to keep workers safe and the

responsibility of government to ensure employers adhere to regulations;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to immediately enact legislation and

regulations to protect workers

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: in hazardous workplaces including late night shifts in

convenience stores and gas stations. This legislation must direct employers to

have a minimum of two workers on site after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m., or

have a secure barrier between the worker and customer in place between these

hours.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to bring this petition on behalf of the people who

have signed it. I would like to note that the Federation of Labour of

Newfoundland and Labrador supports what this petition is calling for. They, too,

have been "calling on the provincial government to implement an inspection blitz

targeting retail workplaces where workers are likely to be working alone." The

Federation says, "this should be the first step in a more broad-based action

plan to ensure the safety of lone workers, many of whom are young workers." We

all know students work in the retail sector as they are studying.

We should be bolder and demand immediate change to regulation and/or

legislation to stipulate that the employers do what this petition is calling

for, Mr. Speaker. We have spoken to a worker in particular who works in a gas

station for one of the major oil companies, and this worker points out that oil

company refuses to make any accommodations for late-night workers. There are all

kinds of examples like that, as the petition is pointing out, and without

legislation and government stepping up to the plate there will be no protection

for these workers.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Route 430, the Viking Trail, is the primary highway on the Great

Northern Peninsula; and

WHEREAS the current road condition of approximately sixty kilometres between

Plum Point and Eddies Cove East have sections that are in dire need of

resurfacing and/or repaving; and

WHEREAS it is government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS an improved road network on this primary highway is needed to enhance

road safety and help with local commerce as well as deal with increasing

passenger traffic levels in this

section of highway;

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

allocate funds under the provincial roads program to pave this

section of Route

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this

section of the highway is indeed in very bad condition.

There are a number of residential communities through this area. There are close

to twenty communities along this highway as well as the Muskrat Falls Project

that is happening, taking place in Shoal Cove in terms of a lot of heavy traffic

that is coming through when it comes to the Strait of Belle Isle cable that is

going across the Straits region.

The Strait of Belle Isle ferry service, servicing Labrador travels, have

almost 80,000 passengers from May to October beyond the shoulder seasons. As

well, the St. Anthony area is a major growth centre and government service

centre for the Northern Peninsula. L'Anse aux Meadows has a UNESCO World

Heritage Site with 30,000 annual visits.

It is quite significant that this highway see improvements because it has

quite an impact to the overall economy, the goods and services, and the multiple

districts that are impacted when it comes to this

section of the highway. I urge

government to allocate funds under the provincial roads program to see this

section of highway paved in the coming year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the lack of services and supports in the school system is a serious

obstacle to learning for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder; and

WHEREAS long wait lists for paediatric assessment and diagnostic services are

preventing many children with autism spectrum disorder from receiving needed

early diagnoses; and

WHEREAS the Intensive Applied Behavioural Analysis Program is currently not

available for children after Grade 3; and

WHEREAS applied behavioural analysis has been shown to be effective for many

individuals beyond Grade 3; and

WHEREAS there is a lack of supports and services for children and youth with

autism spectrum disorder after they age out of the Intensive Applied Behavioural

Analysis Program; and

WHEREAS it is unacceptable to expect parents in Newfoundland and Labrador to

pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to cover the costs of

privately delivered applied behavioural analysis after Grade 3;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to extend eligibility for Intensive Applied

Behavioural Analysis beyond Grade 3, in consultation with parents, advocates,

educators, health care providers, and experts in the autism community.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have presenting this petition now since the day the House of

Assembly opened a number of weeks ago, and they continue to come in from people

from all across the Province. Ultimately, I do recognize, and I think parents of

children with autism do recognize that we have made great advances in the

provision of ABA therapy in this Province in recent years. There is no question

about that. There are significant issues with the provision of this service. It

was improved upon in the last Budget.

We are not talking about a large number of people here. I was asked on Open

Line this morning, how many children with disabilities do we have in our school

system? I did not have the statistic in front of me but basically it boils down

to this. The number is sufficiently small that we would have absolutely no

problem extending this ABA program to additional students beyond Grade 3.

We should try to have this program throughout the school system. We could

phase it in year after year incrementally, to make sure that we can prioritize

this amongst other things. I think it would be a great idea to work on this for

the next budget. Move it to Grade 4 or Grade 5, just move it up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided a comprehensive

approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully understood and dealt

with the complex issues of domestic violence; and

WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the most serious issues

facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of domestic violence is

great both economically and in human suffering; and

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by

all aspects of the Justice system including the police, the courts, prosecutors,

defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as well as victims,

offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and

WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through the court was 10 per

cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and

WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent of the entire budget

of the Department of Justice.

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Family Violence

Intervention Court.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, once again I stand to present this petition. People who work in

the area of family violence, of domestic violence, are still wondering why the

court was closed. They are still wondering why such an effective tool, which

really helped families, why it would be taken away when its cost compared to

other programs in the justice system was so minimal.

The internal review, if only the minister would table that internal review

which shows that the court was so effective. As a matter of fact, it was a

leading edge program, Mr. Speaker. Nova Scotia modelled their court on this

particular court.

In speaking with people working in this area, and we see that the Evening

Telegram is filled with articles about the prevalence of domestic violence in

the Province, and

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: - there is lots of awareness about the issue. There has been a

lot of discourse, a lot of dialogue, but programs that actually work, Mr.

Speaker, are so rare, and this is one that worked. People are still wondering

why. Why did this government at this time cut such an effective program that was

really helping women and children, victims of family violence?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS most communities in the District of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair do

not have cellphone coverage; and

WHEREAS residents of Coastal Labrador require cell coverage to ensure their

safety and communication abilities; and

WHEREAS the opening of the Trans-Labrador Highway has increased our

dependency on mobile communications;

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

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

with the appropriate agencies to support cellphone coverage along the

Trans-Labrador Highway and to all communications in Coastal Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood on this petition a number of times and I will

continue to speak on behalf of the residents of Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DEMPSTER: Since the Trans-Labrador Highway has gone through since

2001, Mr. Speaker, we have an increased need for cellphone coverage. Recently,

with Muskrat Falls in the backyard and all of the extra heavy traffic that is

going through, the roads are busier. The roads, especially in spring and fall,

are in a very terrible state. There are more and more accidents happening.

The last two weekends when I was home in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, there were an

unprecedented number of accidents. I drove on Saturday night 400 kilometres to

Cartwright and back from my community to speak. There was moose, there was

caribou. I was thinking, I am alone at 11:00 o'clock at night on 400 stretch of

gravel road. There is no cell coverage. You may not see anybody come along until

6:00 in the morning if your accident is late at night.

I urge government to look at the need before serious accidents happen. Time

is everything. It can mean life or death. We have had a number of accidents

already, Mr. Speaker, where it has been an hour, an hour-and-a-half before

someone arrived on the scene. We have ambulances, mail trucks, our school kids.

We have people every single day who get on that road and commute from one

community to the next for work. Most of them are travelling alone. It is very

important that cell coverage be included in the Southeast and through parts of

the Labrador Straits as well.

Thank you.

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

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

I have a petition. To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS residents of the Southwest Coast must travel the Trans-Canada Highway

between Channel-Port aux Basques and Corner Brook for work, medical,

educational, and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Marine Atlantic ferries dock at Channel-Port aux Basques at various

hours on a daily basis resulting in extremely high volume of commercial and

residential travellers using this

section of the TCH; and

WHEREAS the world-renowned Wreckhouse area situate along this

section of the

TCH; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a twenty-four

hour snow clearing pilot project in 2008 that excluded the

section of the TCH

from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville;

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

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

the

section of the TCH from Channel-Port aux Basques to Stephenville in the

twenty-four hour snow clearing project.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here again in this House today to enter this

petition on behalf of not only the residents of Burgeo La Poile but residents

of districts all over this Province, people who travel to and from to catch the

ferry. They have to travel through a

section of roadway that is not treated the

same as other sections in that they do not have the twenty-four hour snow

clearing.

The good news is that my continuance of putting these petitions to the House

is that I am getting somewhere with it. I do have a meeting coming up with the

minister's staff and the minister as well to discuss this issue.

I am going to continue raising this because I know that common sense resides

behind what I am trying to do here. The fact is we need to make sure this

section of the roadway is treated the same as the rest of the sections that are

getting twenty-four hour snow clearing. I do not have to talk about the

Wreckhouse, the fact that it was 180 kilometres the other day. It is an

absolutely treacherous spot in the best of times. We should have the same

treatment that is supplied elsewhere.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand and continue. I will be doing so until

this next meeting.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the

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

the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the offshore of the West Coast of the Island of Newfoundland is

recognized as a region containing potentially billions of barrels of oil; and

WHEREAS hydraulic fracturing could be an accepted and effective method of

petroleum discovery and exploration, and is compatible with the protection of

the natural environment and water sources when executed within the context of a

comprehensive regulatory framework; and

WHEREAS the petroleum exploration sector needs the certainty and confidence

of a stable regulatory regime; and

WHEREAS with that regulatory regime, oil discovery and industry development

could provide unprecedented economic opportunity and bring people home to a

currently economically-challenged area; and

WHEREAS the undersigned support properly regulated exploration and

development of an oil and gas resource in the Province;

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

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

introduce a regulatory framework immediately under which hydraulic fracturing

could proceed safely and move this industry forward in Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the people who signed this petition, one is from Cow Head, which

is within Gros Morne National Park, all the others are from Parson's Pond, all

known to me. This is an area that is economically depressed. From the northern

boundary of Gros Morne National Park, the Green Point oil shale deposit extends

northward forty kilometres to Bellburns, forty kilometres outside of Gros Morne

National Park.

The people in this area, many of them go away to work. Many of the towns and

communities have shrunk in size due to the lack of economic opportunity. The

mine all played out in Daniel's Harbour. The small boat fishery is not doing

well. When there was talk earlier on, approximately a year or so ago, about the

opportunity for oil exploration, these people were quite excited. They were

moved. They thought that this was a good chance for us to get ahead, for us to

have some economic development.

For the family members we have sent to Alberta, we have sent to Turner

Valley, we have sent to Drayton Valley, we have sent to Fort McMurray, we have

sent our people westward where they are doing hydraulic fracturing under

perfectly acceptable conditions. They were quite disappointed when the

government said first of all, defeated my private member's resolution our

regulations were fine. When, in fact, they likely were not because they were too

antiquated. They refused to take the lead and now say we are going to have a

moratorium on something that has not even started.

Mr. Speaker, how can you have a moratorium on something that you did not

start yet? They are pleading with government to move forward, put in place the

regulatory framework, and let's get moving forward and see what can be done on

an environmentally reasonable way to support economic development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS government has a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is

broadly available so people have a right to be able to access the Internet in

order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and opinion,

and other fundamental human rights; and

WHEREAS Great Brehat still remains without broadband services; and

WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for education, business,

communication, and social activity; and

WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to provide broadband service to

rural communities to replace slower dialup service;

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

assist providers to ensure Great Brehat is in receipt of broadband Internet

services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I am quite pleased to see the Department of

Innovation, Business and Rural Development has issued their call for the Rural

Broadband Initiative through a news release today. There was over $6 million

earmarked in funds for this particular program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: It would be a great opportunity to capitalize on

underserviced areas using a combination of wired, wireless, and cellular

technologies to ensure that coverage in advanced telecommunications reach rural

communities so that we can take advantage of the opportunities that exist and

that we can provide a fair and level playing field when it comes to education,

business and commerce opportunities.

The residents of Great Brehat are asking for the same type of opportunity: to

have access to high-speed Internet, as other communities in Newfoundland and

Labrador. It makes perfect sense to do so.

I have to say, I had a great meeting with the department officials at IBRD

and discussion around underserviced communities in my particular district. I

will continue to raise ideas and opportunities, work with the providers, and

work with the federal and provincial government to try to find good,

common-sense solutions to provide broadband Internet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2, third reading of a bill, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service

Newfoundland and Labrador, that Bill 21,

An Act To Amend The Insurance

Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 21 be read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And

Brokers Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And

Brokers Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 21)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 1, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education, to ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill 28, and

that the said bill be now read the first.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Education shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act,

1997, Bill 28, and that the said bill be now read the first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 28, and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, aye'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Schools Act, 1997", carried. (Bill 28)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 28)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read the first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow

On motion, Bill 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Labour Standards Act, Bill 17.

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

MR. KING: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, the said

bill be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 17,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act".

(Bill 17)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to take some time this evening to introduce this bill, Bill

17, which is going to bring forward amendments to the Labour Standards Act. This

bill, by way of

summary, will provide unpaid leave to parents in the Province by

way of a modification to our Labour Standards Act, Bill 17. It is focused on two

particular areas, and I want to read into the record exactly what it says in the

bill here before I provide some commentary.

The act will be amended, first of all, to "establish a category of leave

without pay for employees whose child has disappeared or died as a result of a

crime." That is leave without pay for an employee whose child has disappeared

or died as a result of a crime.

The second provision, Mr. Speaker, is to "establish a category of leave

without pay for employees whose child is critically ill." There are two

components to this: There is the critically ill child, and we will talk a little

about that in a few moments, the criteria around that, and the process; and

there is the second provision where we are talking about a child who has

disappeared or died as the result of a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to bring this forward. It is an

extension of a federal piece of legislation that was brought forward in the

House of Commons some time back. A number of provinces, along with Newfoundland

and Labrador, are moving forward.

Perhaps more importantly I want to remind people it furthers our commitment

we have made, particularly in Blue Book 2011 where we are focused on policies

that promote a family friendly Newfoundland and Labrador and that support

parents and families in Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill certainly, I

believe, provides a couple of pieces of further support and protection.

Just to touch very quickly, Mr. Speaker, for the critically ill child care

leave, what is being provided here is up to thirty-seven weeks of leave for

parents. For the second category, where we are talking about crime-related death

or disappearance of a child, there is a provision for up to fifty-two weeks of

leave for the parent. It is up to fifty-two weeks. For a child who disappears as

a result of a probable Criminal Code offence, there is up to 104 weeks. There is

a combination of a disappearance of a child of fifty-two weeks leave provision

and if there is a disappearance where there may be a Criminal Code offence, then

it is up to 104 weeks.

This particular modification to the legislation, just to be very clear for

everyone, kind of dovetails in with the federal legislation. We are now in

Newfoundland and Labrador going to enshrine in law that someone cannot be

discriminated against, or asked to quit their job, or be fired because of the

instances that I have talked about here.

The federal legislation is the piece where compensation can be provided

through the EI program to support these parents who are on leave. This is very

much a complementary bill, if you will, to that provided by the federal

government.

As I said once this is passed today, Bill 17, it will become forever a

permanent fixture in the Labour Standards Act. The effect for those who are

tuning into this debate, it becomes law of the land. It makes it illegal for any

employer to discriminate against an employee or to not follow what is being

brought forward here today.

A couple of common elements for the proposed leave I want to just highlight

for everyone here today. First of all, in order to qualify for the leave, the

employee must be a parent within the broad and inclusive definition. There is a

definition provided here within this bill of a parent. Most of us would

typically see a parent as being one who either (

a) owns a child; (

b) is in the

direct care of a child; (

c) has adopted a child or has a stepchild. I think the

definition of parents for these purposes is probably very standard across a

number of pieces of legislation within government.

The other condition in order to qualify for this is an individual would have

to be under employment with the same employer for a period of thirty days. There

is a qualifying period of thirty days in order to avail of this.

In order to access the leave the employee will be obligated to provide

written notice to the employer seeking to avail of this benefit. In the case of

the sick child or missing child a sick child in particular, some documentation

from a medical doctor, whether that would be a specialist or a family

practitioner, whichever the cast might be. Some supporting documentation would

need to be provided.

The thing about this particular piece of legislation as well, Mr. Speaker, in

the instances where there is any disagreement or any challenge, if you will, to

an employer's decision on how this ought to apply to a particular employee,

those will be directed right through to the Director of Labour Standards within

my department, the Labour Relations Agency.

There will be some official oversight and an opportunity, if someone feels

that they are not being treated fairly as a result of this legislation, to have

the decision appealed and have a second look at it.

The definition of a child with respect to this bill, again, similar to other

pieces of legislation, would be a person under the age of eighteen. A child

would be defined as a person under the age of eighteen.

Just a couple of quick notes; to be eligible, as I said a few moments ago, an

employee must provide the employer with a physician certificate as soon as

possible, which would indicate that their child is critically ill as set out in

a period during which the child requires the care or support.

It is not an open-ended case where someone can go in and simply say I wanted

to avail of the full number of weeks available to me here. It has to be based on

the advice of the physician. If a physician confirms that the child is

critically ill, the physician would also give some indication of how much time

is reasonably required I think the key term would be reasonable here for the

parent to provide care and, therefore, be off work.

Through all of the points that we are talking about here today in this

legislation, I guess the point that I want to make on this is it is another step

that our government is taking to try to support families in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have been doing that now I spoke to this on

Thursday for eight or ten minutes or so when we were into another bill, that in

spite of the challenges that government has gone through we have always

maintained a focus on supporting families.

There are any number of initiatives, through Poverty Reduction Strategy, that

we brought in that supports families and certainly very indicative of our

commitment. In Blue Book 2011, we made the further commitment that part of next

four-year mandate would be to continue supporting families by bringing in

family-friendly policies and legislation that is friendly to families and

supports families.

In my view, this one clearly provides some security to those who are in

employment situations where they may otherwise have to quit their job or be

forced out of their job by an employer, due to no particular fault of their own.

In this particular case we are talking specifically to, as I said, critically

ill children or children who have been abducted or missing, particularly as a

result of a criminal offence.

It is a good policy. I heard a couple of members heckling there a few moments

ago. I am hoping that is all good and that they are going to stand and support

us, because I believe the families in Newfoundland and Labrador and the

hard-working parents in Newfoundland and Labrador deserve our support on

bringing this legislation forward.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I am certainly happy to stand and speak to Bill 17,

An Act to Amend the

Labour Standards Act. I appreciate the time that was given to us by departmental

staff. We did have a briefing on this last week I think it was, or maybe the

week before, and went over this, which again is a well-intentioned bill and

certainly I think it is a necessary bill. I would be happy to stand and support

it.

The reason that I found it a bit amusing is when the minister stood up and

talked about Blue Book commitments. When he stood up and said this was one of

our commitments that we made, with no sense of irony I guess it was funny

because I thought about other commitments that have been made, such as

whistle-blower legislation or family caregivers or a hospital. It was just funny

that I heard this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevance.

MR. A. PARSONS: I hear somebody talking about relevance. You talk about

family friendly, but I would imagine there are a few things here that related to

being family friendly. Again, I invite you to stand up and put your thoughts on

the record at any point during this wonderful debate.

I will go back sorry, again, they are not Blue Book commitments; they are

platforms, I guess, or promises. I get confused. There was a previous minister

who talked about the differences between promises and platforms. So, I guess it

all depends.

When you talk about this piece of legislation, it fits into the theme of this

session of the House of Assembly, which has certainly been very well scripted

and thought out. Each week there has been a press release and it talks about

what are the themes for this week and I have one here on my Blackberry for

this week, where we talked about this week is all about the safety of children

when it comes to the well-being of families.

On Thursday I talked about bike helmet legislation for children. Again, that

was about out of line to ask for something like that, no need of that; but this

week it is all well scripted when we talk about the safety of children and

families. One week it was health and communities. One week it was justice.

It all lines up very nicely. The fact is, I would say, 95 per cent of the

legislation put forward here is housekeeping, well-intentioned stuff, hard to

disagree with any of it. A lot of it is motherhood; it is good stuff. It is hard

to disagree with it. Again, it comes down to the ultimate goal here of this

session, which was the revitalization or rejuvenation of a party that has taken

some tough beats.

They had a bit of good news today when they talked about this mid-year

financial update

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to restrain his comments to the text of the bill that we are

discussing.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: I am very happy to stand and speak to the Labour

Standards Act. I appreciate the attention of the members opposite. I am glad to

see that they are listening, and I will continue to speak about the Labour

Standards Act and all the other good things this government likes to talk about

and promise, but sometimes are a little short on delivery.

Anyway, this legislation is very simple. I think the minister did a very good

job of laying it out. We are amending the Labour Standards Act to establish

categories of leave without pay for employees whose children have disappeared or

died as a result of crime or whose children are critically ill. It links up very

nicely with federal legislation. This was something done in conjunction looking

at the federal departments and when you talk about employment insurance. That

was the gist of what we got from the department when we did our briefing.

So we have added two categories of unpaid leave for parents. When you talk

about these two specific situations, they are obviously very traumatic and

horrible situations for anybody to go through, any parent to go through. If we

can take the burden off them by creating legislation that is going to protect

them, then certainly I am all for it.

We are following the leads of other provinces here. I asked this question in

the briefing. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and the Yukon have done this.

Again, we have seen it elsewhere.

I have just a couple points as you go through the legislation. I appreciate

the fact that the staff were able to answer a lot of the questions that were

asked in the briefing. One of the questions that were raised was about full- and

part-time applies equally.

Now, one of the questions I have and I have talked about this in previous

legislation when we talk about the age - in this case when we talk about a

child, a child means a person under eighteen years of age; however, there is not

a lot of consistency when we talk about the age of majority used in other pieces

of legislation. So there is a difference there, the age of majority being

nineteen. We have a child meaning eighteen years here.

We know that and I had a conversation with the Member for St. John's South

in a lot of family situations once a child hits the age of sixteen it is hard

for many agencies, such as CYFS or other departments, to have any ability to

control or restrain what they do. Once they hit sixteen in many ways they are

emancipated.

So there is a bit of a consistency issue here that I am going to raise and I

will put it to the minister in Committee as well, the fact that, depending on

the legislation, the age differs. This is not going to the goal of the

legislation. The goal of the legislation is very honourable and we are

supportive of it on this side; however, when we talk about a lack of consistency

in the terminology we have to make sure the same terms apply across the board.

When we talk about this it ties right in with a federal taxable grant. There

is a matching up of eligibility between provincial and federal programs. One of

the questions I did have, we talk about the entitlement to leave. The

entitlement says you have to have your thirty days with the employer, which

makes sense, and depending on whether it is clause 1 or 2 it can go up to 104

weeks or up to fifty-two weeks, so either one or two years. Depending on if "it

is probable, considering the circumstances, that the child has died" it is two

years you can get up to. If it is probable that the child has disappeared, it is

up to one year.

Now I am not sure of the logic behind that. I am pretty sure it matches up

with the federal legislation, which is the reasoning. There is an adjudication

process. I like the terminology in 43.24(3) which says: shall limit the duration

to that which is reasonably necessary. I think that allows a wide range of

latitude when it comes to discussing this, because like any situation you have

to be objective here. It is a difficult subject to talk about. It is a difficult

subject to broach, especially in the employer-employee context.

One of the things I noticed, and I did ask questions about, is under the

notice provisions of

section 43.25 it says "An employee who intends to take a

leave of absence under this Part shall give written notice to his or her

employer at least 2 weeks before the leave of absence is to begin of that

intention, unless there is a valid reason why that notice cannot be given."

Again, in writing in theory it makes sense, but then you look at the fact that

if you are going through one of the situations which this legislation is

supposed to cover, it is going to be kind of hard to give notice that you need

to use this provision.

If you think about it, we are talking about children who have disappeared or

died as a result of crime. We are talking about critical illness. Critical

illness is one thing, I mean critical illness, the timelines can differ, but

when you talk about if you go through a traumatic situation that your child has

disappeared or has died as a result of crime, a two-week notice period is not

going to be applicable.

Now, I do like that there is discretion here. It says, "unless there is a

valid reason why that notice cannot be given." I would just hope, and I would

say to the employers out there because it is the employers who make this

decision. I would hope that the employers will not cause any difficulty around

the usage of this discretion right here.

When you hear about it, it sounds pretty obvious that we are going to allow

this. Can you imagine the parent or caregiver who is going through this

traumatic, horrible situation who has to write a letter and ask that this be

taken care of? I understand why it is there. I understand why the discretion is

necessary. I am just putting it on the record as to possible concerns.

Subsection (2) says, "An employee who gives noticeshall include in that

written noticethe length of the leave of absence that the employee intends to

take." Well meaning, but somewhat impossible depending on the circumstances. You

are not going to know how long a break you need to take. You are going to figure

that out over time. I do hope employers will be cognizant of this and work with

parents who are going through these trying and difficult times.

A lot of my questions that I had going into this briefing were answered when

you just read it. What is the definition of critically ill child? It is very

simple. It is what our Employment Insurance, the EI Act of Canada says, so boom,

it is answered right there. I do not think I have had any concerns expressed to

me over that definition therefore that should be fine.

When you look through the rest of the legislation here we talk about the

critically ill children. "entitled to a leave of absence from employment

without pay of up to 37 weeks" I think it ties in with other legislation. We

are not changing how things are done. We are just changing our legislation to

match what is being done. I think you do need a physician's certificate, and

they have wide latitude. We do not need specialists per se. What is the

definition of physician?

I have some other quick notes here, Mr. Speaker. It is a good piece of

legislation. I have talked about my concerns with the notice period. It is the

same as done in compassionate care leave. I am just hoping people do not have to

go through the trouble of hoping that during this difficult time that they have

a difficult employer try to make their situation more difficult. I know why it

is there. I am just putting my concern on the record.

We talk about the physician certificate. It does not need to be from a

specialist. That is good because we all know the trouble sometimes getting a

hold of specialists. If we have to deal with getting a specialist note, this is

never going to work. It will never, ever work, not in this Province. We see it

elsewhere.

I am glad to see it can be your general practitioner, a family doctor, or an

emergency room doctor, depending. It has to be a physician, ideas to make this

program as accessible as possible for parents of sick children. The specialist

part might work well in the Avalon region but it does not work so well out in

the rest of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

One thing I do like is it does not state that the child needs to be located

in the parent's home. Regardless of where the child is the parent can still get

the leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Any parent who has gone

through a period of time caring for a child who is sick knows the difficulties

and the stress that comes with it, especially when it requires travel. You have

to leave your home. You have to be out of your home, out of your community. You

have so many worries, primarily your child, and then to have this other concern.

If we can alleviate that then I think it is step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say in closing is that I am very happy to stand and

speak to this bill. It fits in with the government's mandate, which is popular

legislation at this time. I am fine to stand for that because it is the right

thing. I am just hoping that when we deal with pieces of legislation that come

from Blue Book promises that we move to other Blue Book promises so we can deal

with those as they are also important as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand today and speak to

An Act To Amend The Labour

Standards Act, Bill 17.

Mr. Speaker, as a parent of two small boys, I cannot imagine what it would be

like to have a child critically ill. I have had some experience of knowing of

families in our district where that was just the case. This legislation will, I

believe, ease some of the burden and some of the stress and some of the strain

that these individuals must have to go through in those types of situations.

This bill provides for new unpaid leaves under the Labour Standards Act for

working parents in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is legislation, as my hon.

colleague opposite just said, that piggybacks off federal legislation which

allows parents of critically ill children to access Employment Insurance for X

number of weeks. In the case of a critically ill child it would be thirty-seven

weeks.

This bill also speaks to the unfortunate death as a result of crime. Mr.

Speaker, there are a couple of different things here. It talks about a crime

related death or disappearance. If a child disappears, it could provide

fifty-two weeks of leave for the parent. If the child disappears as a result of

a probable Criminal Code offence it could be up to 104 weeks or, roughly

translated, two years.

Mr. Speaker, this was driven home to me. I was really glad when I had the

opportunity and the Minister of Justice asked me to speak to this, because last

night I had attended the annual tree lightening for the Children's Wish

Foundation in my district. There last night were two critically ill children,

hoping their wish was going to come true.

I can only imagine the stress and the strain that has been going on in these

parents throughout this ordeal. Knowing, number one, that your child is

critically ill must be devastating. I have watched parents go through that, Mr.

Speaker, and it takes tolls on the relationship. Not only on the relationship of

husband and wife, but also within the family and what service you provide and

what happens.

So, this piece legislation, although piggybacking on federal legislation,

will ease some of those burdens. I think that is something that we really need

to support. I think this is a good piece of legislation and based on the

comments from across the way, I believe that my hon. colleague also believes

that it is a good piece of legislation. Other provinces have similar legislation

and, again, I think that this legislation speaks to the reasonableness.

I listened with some intent and there is always a concern, Mr. Speaker,

because when you have to go to an employer and you have to say to the employer,

look, my child is critically ill, or my child has gone missing, we assume that

the employer will be compassionate and giving and right off the bat say, take

whatever time you need.

Knowing the fact, Mr. Speaker, because of this legislation that this

individual now in this situation, this parent, will have their job protected and

can go back to their job, that makes it that much easier. Though it is not a

very good situation, Mr. Speaker, they know once their time has passed and

that is not a good word, but once they get through their trials and

tribulations, probably, they can have a job to go back to. They do not have to

worry about finding new employment.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a great relief. That must be a great relief. We assume

that 90 per cent, 95 per cent, 99 per cent of employers in our Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador are going to allow and going to be compassionate and

understand that these parents need to be away from their work during this

critical time with their children.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have to have faith in our employers that they are going

to do this. I think

section 43.25 outlines that, and the fact that you do not

lose your job must be a great relief. In the cases that I know about personally,

where their children were critically ill, I am sure during that time if the

parents could have accessed the EI program and got unpaid leave and taken time

away, it would have made the job of caring for their children that much easier.

I think that is what this is all about. It is trying to make it as easy as

possible for the parents. This is a very stressful time, a very agonizing time,

Mr. Speaker. Knowing that your child is critically ill must be devastating. I

can only imagine if I went home tonight and my wife looked at me and said that

one of our children was critically ill. I really do not know how I would react.

I do not know what I would say. I do not know what I would do, but this

legislation coming forward today allows me the opportunity to deal with that

grief, deal with that emotion, and deal with that stress.

I am proud to stand here today and support this piece of legislation. I

believe it is good legislation and it allows parents that opportunity to deal

with that situation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak to a couple of things away from the

critically ill child. I cannot imagine losing your child due to crime. I cannot

imagine being put in a situation where someone would do that type of activity,

Mr. Speaker. This allows for a year or two years, depending on the type of

offense or depending on the type of case, that parents and guardians can take

the time to grieve, can take the time to deal with the situation, and can take

the time to get medical help if they need it.

So, Mr. Speaker, in short, this legislation I can support. I think it is a

good piece of legislation. I think, as it was stated by the minister earlier, it

is a part of our commitment in our Blue Book and I would say we are living up to

our commitments in our Blue Book to the best of our abilities.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and I will be

supporting this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am happy to speak to this bill. As has been said by my colleagues in the

House, including the minister in his presentation, it is a bill that is

absolutely essential, I think, to bring into this House, just from a moral and

ethical perspective; but it is also a bill that is required because of some

federal legislation that we have as well. I am delighted that we have this bill

before us today. I will say right upfront that I will be supporting the bill.

Beginning last year in 2012, we saw governments right across the country,

throughout the country, changing their labour codes to provide job security for

parents who have had to take time off from work because of what this bill talks

about, very unfortunate and awful situations, parents whose child has

disappeared, parents whose child has died criminally, or parents whose child is

critically ill. In the definition, of course, it is an under eighteen child that

we are talking about here, children that parents would be responsible for.

The governments around the country, the provincial and territorial

governments, started bringing in these changes to the Labour Standards Act

because of the federal government legislation. In the federal government you

have both paid and unpaid leave allowed because the federal government allows

the paid leave under the Employment Insurance Act. Of course, that is a federal

jurisdiction act. We do not, on a provincial level, have anything to do with the

setting of that legislation. So, we do not have to bring in anything that

relates to paid leave; we just have to bring in legislation that relates to

unpaid leave. That is what we are doing here.

The federal legislation was introduced in 2012 to amend the labour code. As I

said, there many provincial and territorial governments that followed in 2012,

and we now doing it here in this Province.

It is interesting to point out that the federal government did this assuming

that provinces would follow suite with regard to the unpaid leave piece that we

are dealing with, that we would make sure that there unpaid leave protection

laws for people because that was under our jurisdiction. It was pointed out by

the officials that there was no consultation with provinces.

I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because sometimes we stand in this

House and ask what consultation this government has done on a provincial level.

So, they must sometimes be following the lead of their cousins in Ottawa, I have

to say.

To go on with the bill, which I certainly intend