May 29, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 35

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for

the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port;

and, the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge a National Day of Action in

support of First Nations people which is taking place all across the country and

is organized by Canadian students.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the efforts of Aboriginal youth at

Memorial University for organizing a call for action on this date as well.

Mr. Speaker, I was proud to attend a breakfast this morning that was hosted

by the Canadian Students' Union in collaboration with the Aboriginal Resource

Centre, in an effort to raise awareness of issues facing Aboriginal people and

communities. I was delighted with the great turnout as well as the demonstrated

commitment and spirit of the Aboriginal youth and students that were in

attendance.

Mr. Speaker, today is meant to acknowledge the First Peoples of our land. In

this Province we have about 24,000 Aboriginal people. It is an important day to

show our support and to stand united to draw attention to their issues.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the second

annual National Day of Action in support of all Aboriginals and to offer

congratulations to Melissa Penney and Daniel Smith of the Canadian Federation of

Students for their efforts in organizing this event in Newfoundland and Labrador

today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in this House

today and to ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Captain Gladys

Osmond of Springdale, who was awarded an honourary Doctor of Laws Degree by

Memorial University at its convocation on May 27.

From working the counter of the Manuel Family Bakery in 1941, to receiving

the Canadian Forces Medallion for Distinguished Service in 2006 from General

Rick Hillier, Captain Osmond is a well-known and loved humanitarian.

She is best known for her dedicated letter writing to men and women in the

Canadian Armed Forces, which she has been doing tirelessly for the past

twenty-one years.

Her career as a teacher and a Salvation Army Officer began in Monkstown in

1944. She settled in Peterview in 1947, where she raised five children. After

her husband's death in 1980, she began working with the Evangeline Centre in

Toronto, a refuge for the homeless, psychiatric outpatients and battered women.

She retired and returned to Newfoundland and Labrador in 1988, settling in

Springdale's Valley Vista Long-Term Care Facility, but when a chance came to

write to the soldier son of an old friend, the Granny Brigade of Valley Vista

was founded - an initiative which sent hundreds of thousands of individual

letters, postcards and notes to Canadian soldiers.

Both General Hillier and former Lieutenant Governor Edward Roberts travelled

to Springdale to present Captain Osmond with well deserved awards for her

efforts.

Last December, Marie and I were privileged to visit with Captain Osmond at

her residence in Valley Vista, Springdale, and to hear from her first-hand her

countless stories of communications with Canada's soldiers, airmen and women,

both overseas and at home.

As the MHA for Baie Verte-Springdale, I was pleased to join with many other

community leaders in Springdale in nominating Captain Osmond for this

well-deserved honour. I compliment all of them for their foresight and their

spirit of community generosity.

Congratulations and best wishes to Doctor Gladys Osmond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and recognize Janet

McNaughton and Bernice Morgan, two wonderful authors who won top prize in this

year's Newfoundland and Labrador Book Awards sponsored by the Writers'

Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Janet McNaughton won in the Bruneau Family Children's Literature - Young

Adult Book category for her book, Raintree Rebellion .

Bernice Morgan won the Downhome fiction prize for her novel, Cloud of Bone .

These awards were presented at Government House in St. John's this past

Tuesday. Each author received $1,500. Both of these writers have added greatly

to the canon of literature in Newfoundland and Labrador, something of which we

are all so proud.

Bernice Morgan is best known for her novel, Random Passage and its

sequel, Waiting for Time . Janet McNaughton is known for many of her young

adult novels, two of which are Catch Me Once Catch Me Twice and To

Dance at the Palais Royal.

I ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating Janet McNaughton

and Bernice Morgan on their awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to congratulate the winners and

nominees at the recently-held Premier's Athletic Awards ceremony here in St.

John's. These athletes were recognized for outstanding accomplishments in

sport.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the fact that three athletes from

Stephenville were honoured and recognized for their success and achievement. I

would like to congratulate Jenelle Hulan for her dedication, hard work and

excellence in the sport of ice hockey. Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate

and applaud Crystal Miesseau and Garret Benoit for their commitment and

endurance in the sport of wrestling.

As everyone knows, it takes a lot of professionalism and athleticism to excel

in your sport, but it also demands enthusiasm, perseverance and stamina. They

must also have the training opportunities to allow them to perform to the best

of their abilities.

Mr. Speaker, these athletes and all athletes, have certainly done us proud as

a region and as a Province, as they make their way and their mark on being the

best athlete that they can be.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to join

with me in congratulating Jenelle, Crystal and Garret and all the award winners

and nominees of the Premier's Awards, on their invaluable achievements in

sport.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this great House today to recognize the 4-H movement of

Newfoundland and Labrador. This program promotes the development of individuals

to become a well-balanced, responsible member of society. Members work within

the organization of a club, participating as a group in activities.

I would like to commend the leaders and members of the Summerside 4-H Rockets

Club and the Provincial 4-H Council on their successful 4-H competitions held in

Clarenville this past weekend. These competitions are held annually and members

of the various 4-H clubs across our Province compete in competitions such as

Demonstrations and Public Speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the dedicated leaders and members we have in

these clubs. I would also like to congratulate winners of the Summerside 4-H

Rockets who participated and won in the following competitions: Wilfred Bellows

won the Junior Single Demonstration. Bradley Wheeler-Park and Kendra Wheeler won

the Junior Double Demonstration.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to congratulate all the members who

participated in the competitions and wish the clubs many more successful years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time and attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Government House

Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, for the past four days, thirty-seven high school

and post-secondary students have been in Calgary participating in the national

Skills Canada Competition. I am pleased to report that ten of our students

received medals at the competition this year.

It is extremely encouraging to see this level of interest and success by so

many of our Province's young people. It is an indication that we are making

great strides in promoting skilled trades to our young people through

initiatives like this $11 million high school skilled trades program, and $1.5

million in funding to double the number of seats in skilled trades programming

at the College of the North Atlantic.

Most recently, Mr. Speaker, we have invested $200,000 to support a request to

employers and unions to pilot initiatives aimed at females and the trades. Their

proposals will test new approaches to increase the number of female apprentices

in the workplace.

I have made it a priority to ensure that as a government, we take all

necessary steps to break down barriers in the skilled trades, a sector

traditionally dominated by men. I am pleased to report that since 2004, the

number of women registering for apprenticeship programs in non-traditional

trades is up by 35 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: In addition, Budget 2008 is allocating $1.3 million annually to

support the hiring of apprentices in government boards and agencies. This builds

on more than $2.3 million over the past two years to hire apprentices across

government. I am pleased that as a government we are making a very practical

contribution to help build our skilled labour force and I encourage other

employers in our Province to do the same.

It is evident from the results of the Skills Canada Competition that our

youth are recognizing the opportunities that exist in the skilled trades. Their

individual success, Mr. Speaker, will translate into success for our Province

overall. An investment in this area is certainly money well spent.

I offer my congratulations to this year's winners and best wishes to all who

competed at the Skills Canada Competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement, and to

say that we in the Official Opposition want to congratulate those people.

Unfortunately, I have not seen it in the media but I would love to see the list

because I think some students from my area, as well as many others, took

part in

this competition. I am wondering how many of them made it into the top ten.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it just goes to show that it is great to see that we are

doing wonderful work for the skilled trades of our Province and to know that the

numbers of women have increased taking

part in those different initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to - I guess on the side of caution, it is wonderful,

we know we have the young people, we know we have the skilled trades, but I

guess the big thing to look forward to, and I am sure government is working on

this, is to see that those young people can find the employment that they are so

skilled to partake in, find the jobs here in our Province and will not have to

leave for other areas in our country.

Mr. Speaker, today we want to congratulate all those who took

part in the Skills

Canada program and we look forward to seeing the list, and we want to compliment

the minister on her statement.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

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

I am pleased to join in congratulating the ten students who received medals

at the Skills Canada Competition this year. It is an extremely important

competition. I was pleased once to be able to be at one of the competitions and

see how exciting they are.

I would also like to note that the minister is quite right; numbers are

improving for involvement in skilled trades, especially for women apprentices. I

think it has been extremely important that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has worked closely with community efforts around getting women into

skilled trades.

In particular, since 1999, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

worked with women in resource development and with the College of the North

Atlantic in promoting the orientation to trades and technology program for women

on several campuses of the college. I would just like to encourage the minister

to make sure, and also the Minister of HRLE to make sure, that support for the

OTT continues because it is so crucial to the figures that the minister has put

forward today.

Once again, I congratulate the students. I am delighted with the direction in

which we are going, but in terms of numbers we all know we have a long ways to

go especially with regard to women in skilled trades.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since Tuesday, after receiving the legislation on Bill 36, we

have had a number of discussions and consultations with the legal counsel for

the Innu Nation and also with the Metis Nation. They have indicated, Mr.

Speaker, that legislation such as that being tabled in the House of Assembly at

this time would normally contain standard provisions and include non-derogation

clauses to protect Aboriginal rights.

I ask the minister today why her and her government have not provided for

those standard conditions within this legislation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I stated here in the House yesterday, the only way that Aboriginal rights

can be extinguished is through voluntary surrender or an amendment to the

Constitution of Canada.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Premier spoke with Mark Nui this

morning, from the Innu Nation, offered him the legal opinion from our Department

of Justice that confirms what I have just said, and also gave him his own

personal commitment that there would extinguishment of Aboriginal rights.

This is very satisfactory to Mark Nui, Mr. Speaker, and we will table such a

document here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the minister is: If she feels that the legislation provides

for the safeguards, why would you not go the extra step and put the

non-derogation clause into the legislation, which is a standard across the

country?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not in the bill because it is not necessary to be in the bill. This has

been tested in the Supreme Court of Canada. There are only two circumstances

under which Aboriginal rights can be extinguished. As I have said before, Mr.

Speaker, that is by voluntary surrender or by an amendment to the Constitution

of Canada. It is not necessary to protect Aboriginal rights in this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister again, in reference to Bill 36: Does

that bill increase the catchment area originally given to the Lower Churchill

Development Corporation; and, if it does, by how much or how many square

kilometres?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, there is a real confusion with the Opposition

about what this bill is and what it does.

The only mechanism we have to award water rights on the Lower Churchill has

to come through this Legislature. Right now, under the Lower Churchill

Development Act, the only option we have is to award the water rights to LCDC,

the Lower Churchill Development Corporation.

We have decided that the Energy Corp. is going to be the lead on the

development of the Lower Churchill. Therefore, we have to come back to this

House to provide for a mechanism for us to award the water rights, and that is

what this bill speaks to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We understand perfectly what the purpose of the bill is, Minister.

My question is: Has the catchment area that has been referenced in this bill

increased from the original catchment area as was awarded to the Lower Churchill

Development Corporation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: No, Mr. Speaker. The only thing that this bill speaks to,

instead of having the option only to award water rights to LCDC, we are now,

through this Legislature, allowing the Cabinet to award the water rights to the

Energy Corp.

That is the only change, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, under the proposed amendments in Bill 35 I asked a couple of

questions on this yesterday and I just want to seek some further clarification

the Energy Corporation will be exempt from the Securities Act.

I ask the Premier: How can that be justified, exempting the Energy

Corporation from legislation that would govern every other private sector

corporation in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In our due diligence in preparing this legislation to come before the House

of Assembly, we have looked at acts such as the Securities Act. Mr. Speaker, it

does not work for the Energy Corporation; however, we have taken the major

disclosure tools that are in the Securities Act and included them in the

legislation for the Energy Act.

We will have an annual consolidated report. We will have annual consolidated

financial statements. We will have an annual general meeting for the people of

the Province, the shareholder of the Energy Corp.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that, in this legislation, the Auditor General will definitely be

restricted. For example, in the course of an investigation, if he finds evidence

of criminal wrongdoing that involves so-called commercially-sensitive

information, he will be forced to report to the Cabinet; but, Mr. Speaker, the

Cabinet will act as judge and jury on these matters.

I ask the Premier today: Will the Auditor General have the authority to

report criminal matters directly to the police upon their discovery within the

Energy Corporation or any of its subsidiary corporations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Auditor General finds what he believes to be wrongdoing in terms of

the executive of the Energy Corp., he will then report back to the Cabinet, Mr.

Speaker, that is right, but he will also, in his report to the House, reference

that he has raised such an issue with the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, this

House will know and the public will know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: The minister knows that several months could pass from the time

that an incident is reported to the Cabinet to a report being tabled in the

House of Assembly that would only make mere mention of the fact.

I ask the minister: Why would you not allow for the provisions within the act

for the Auditor General to report directly to the police, as well as to the

Cabinet, any wrongdoing or any criminal activity that might be found?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the only concern that Cabinet would have with

regard to reporting what might be felt to be illegal behaviour or wrongdoing is

the protection of commercially-sensitive information. This Cabinet is here, and

any Cabinet is here, to protect the best interests of the people of the

Province, and they will act accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has also stated that subsidiaries of the Energy Corporation will

act as non-Crown agencies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think, in essence, it will

not be controlled by government and it will not place liabilities on the people

of the Province.

There is still some uncertainty as to whether this can work. The only

existing example, when I had the briefing with the minister's officials - that

they could provide to me - was that it had been done with the boxing commission

of the Province; and, from what I understand, there has been no case within the

boxing commission that has ever been tested in the court system.

I ask the Premier: How can you be certain that the courts would uphold this

legislation and agree that these subsidiaries are non-Crown agents in the case

of some major liability issues that would occur within that particular project?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In establishing this setup of the Energy Corporation, there has been

extensive consultation and review of corporate structures in other countries

throughout the world, and also in relation to Quebec.

What we are trying to do here is establish it like a private company, try to

set it up so that the Energy Corporation would then oversee, as outlined in the

energy plan, but that the subsidiary companies can be set up in a way that

allows them to operate without exposing government to liability. For example,

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will still operate the way it does.

The subsidiaries are set up in a way, Mr. Speaker, that has been suggested,

based on what we consider to be good, sound, legal advice and we are going to

follow that advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the government stated yesterday in questioning

that the board of directors for these subsidiaries would be appointed in

consultation with the CEO, the Energy Corporation and also by the Provincial

Cabinet.

I ask the minister: How can they be viewed independently by the court? I

guess my question is: What guarantees do you have that these subsidiary

companies will indeed be independent in the eyes of the court system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, we have had some very bright lawyers look at

this, and we have also sought opinions in relation to the best practices that

can be utilized in setting up this corporate structure.

With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, her legal opinions, or

the legal opinions of the Opposition really do not mean a whole lot to us. What

we are trying to do here is what is best for the people of this Province and the

Energy Corporation. The set up of the Energy Corporation is one that we are

confident in and one that will meet the tests that are outlined in the various

case laws. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, again, we have acted on legal advice

that has been given to us. We have looked through this legislation, and we are

satisfied that this company will be ran as it should be, or the set up will be

like a private corporation or like the companies, I think, in Denmark and other

companies throughout the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think there is any need for the minister to be insulting. These are

very straightforward, detailed questions that the public deserves to have

answers to.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister: Has he cases that he can

site for us in which there is a board of directors appointed by government, but

yet they are supposed to be seen as non-Crown agents in which there will be no

liabilities held for the people of the Province? Is there any cases?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will endeavour to satisfy the Leader of the Opposition's curiosity with

regard to this matter. We have looked at state-owned corporations around the

world. In fact, 80 per cent of natural resource development that takes place in

the world takes place by state-owned companies. We particularly looked at

Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands. We have looked at CHHC and what goes on

there. We have looked at Hydro Quebec and we have looked at British Columbia

Energy. We have done our homework on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, if the subsidiary companies are government run,

who will the independent subsidiaries report to and what reporting mechanisms

will be in place and, I guess, how will that information be reported, would be

the question?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, these are complicated issues to try to

address in a one minute response. That is a significant part of the reason why

we did a technical briefing with the Opposition and with the members of the

media. This is a corporate structure that is used by StatoilHydro, by Hydro

Quebec, by BC Energy, it is used in the private sector. What better example that

I could hold out for you in terms of corporate structure but our own Fortis.

Mr. Speaker, the way this is structured, these subsidiaries report to the

Energy Corp., the parent company. In terms of their activities, the legislation

protects the people of the Province from liability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I guess I want to remind the minister that the

reason for all of these questions is that we do not have $900 million in the

Fortis company but we do within this new Energy Corp. through the borrowing

power of legislation we gave them in the House of Assembly, as well as the $300

million in the last Budget.

Mr. Speaker, should any of these subsidiaries decide to sell any of its

assets or shares in the projects, what public disclosure will take place under

this current legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we welcome questions from the Opposition. My

only observation was, we gave quite an extensive technical briefing yesterday

where we could give fuller explanations to these questions than is allowed for

in a one-minute response in Question Period. We are coming up for a debate here

later today, Mr. Speaker, and I will be glad to engage further then. We will

stay here for as long as they want, to ensure that their questions are answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister brings up the technical briefing and I thank you, Minister, for

providing that. Obviously, we did not get all the answers that we needed, and

that is why we continue to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Accord and the C-NLOPB have a vigorous process in

place to ensure that tendering and local benefits are accrued to people in the

Province. Any time that an oil company awards contracts outside of that process

they have to report it to the C-NLOPB for a review. By removing the Energy

Corporation from the Public Tender Act, government is effectively removing this

oversight, and many local suppliers will be left out of the bidding process.

I ask the Premier: How can all local companies have confidence that there

will be an equal and competitive competition at winning contracts under the new

regime for awarding contracts within the Energy Corporation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to point out that the Energy Corp., in terms of its oil and gas

activities, will be subject to all the rules and regulations of the C-NLOPB.

That is to start with, Mr. Speaker. This company, as the Premier said yesterday,

is not going making widgets. We are talking about large projects, large oil and

gas, the development of the Lower Churchill and large wind. One of the reasons

that we want to ensure that we can protect adjacency, that we can protect local

procurement, where we can ensure that the benefits come to the people nearest to

the resource, is the reason why we are asking for removal of the Public Tender

Act in this instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that the subsidiaries could

very well be making widgets before it is all over. We cannot project what this

corporation is going to do, but we are giving them legislation to do it before

it even starts.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, yesterday government stated that one of the major

reasons to exempt the Energy Corporation from the Public Tender Act was time

considerations.

I ask the minister today: Why not consider building in provisions in the

Public Tender Act to protect against this, and to have a mechanism by which you

can report back to the House of Assembly any exemptions that are granted either

through yourself or another ministerial department that may govern that

particular corporation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I explained yesterday, the Public Tendering Act is not a suitable vehicle

for us in terms of the kind of work that is contemplated under the Energy

Corporation. It just does not work in that kind of a circumstance where you have

very large projects.

What we are concerned about, when we go to develop the Lower Churchill, we

have a larger consideration than the lowest price, Mr. Speaker, which is the

main element of the Public Tender Act; however, we are listening to what our

friends across the way are saying and we will be proposing an amendment in

Committee that says if we ever get to making widgets the Cabinet will have the

authority to put the subsidiary under the Public Tender Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board 2007-2008

Strategic Plan outlines a commitment to a culture of openness, but we have

learned that environmental groups and media have had difficulty obtaining

information from the directors of MMSB.

I ask the minister: Why is the MMSB making it difficult to obtained detailed

information regarding its programs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is referring to some of the reports

in the media yesterday.

I spoke to MMSB this morning. I understand MMSB has offered a full briefing

on the issues and the facts around the Waste Management Strategy and the trust

fund to CBC, and certainly that offer is wide open.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the MMSB has collected 1.5 million tires since

2002 and has yet to execute a plan for their actual recycling. Through that

collection, they charge a $3 levy on every average sized tire purchased in the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, given the absence of a tire recycling program, I ask the

minister: Where is the MMSB stockpiling the money collected from those tires?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of tires is not an issue just for us here in

Newfoundland and Labrador; this is an issue for all of North America. We are

trying to deal with the tire situation.

The MMSB has worked very diligently, and the member opposite would know

exactly how difficult it is to come up with a solution because they did provide

some solutions in the past that certainly did not work, and we had an

environmental mess to clean up ourselves because of the program that they put in

place when they were there.

We are diligently working with this. We are engaged with an organization, and

we do hope to make an announcement in the very near future; but, Mr. Speaker, it

is very important that, when we do this, we do have a proposal that is

sustainable for the future so that future governments will not have to deal with

the mess that we had to deal with when we came in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I say to the minister, she

has had five years in her Cabinet now looking at the same mess that they are

referring to, that they inherited.

Mr. Speaker, surplus revenues from the collection of levies on the sale of

recycled products are funnelled into the waste reduction fund currently in the

order of $11.6 million.

I ask the minister: Why is there $11 million sitting in a bank account when

we have problems with recycling programs, such as for tires, e-waste and paper?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member would know, we announced the Waste Management Strategy in

May 2007 and at that time the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs announced $200

million, Mr. Speaker, for the Waste Management Strategy.

Having said that, in the interim, if there were organizations or

municipalities that wanted to implement programs sooner than those

implementation dates then we are very supportive as a government to provide

funding. That funding would come from the trust fund that the member is

referring to, and there are so many other programs, great work that we are doing

in terms of household hazardous waste, backyard composting, advertising, public

information, our Let's Get to Half campaign, supporting the fifteen management

authorities, and so on and so on, and I can give you some more information

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, as a result of an answer that was given by

the Minister of Natural Resources earlier in Question Period today.

The minister referenced a phone conversation that took place between the

Premier and Mark Nui, the President of the Innu Nation, this morning. In the

interest, probably, because this is going to be a matter of intense debate, I

would think, for the next while in this House, I am wondering if there is

anything the Premier can share with us, as a result of that conversation, that

might enlighten and add to the level of knowledge we have, before we go forward

in that debate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sure, Mr. Speaker, I would only be too delighted.

We had a Cabinet meeting this morning. We decided at Cabinet that it would be

appropriate if I gave President Nui a call, just to give the Innu people a

reassurance that there is nothing underhanded, through the back door, being done

here, or that there is anything they should be concerned about.

We had a very good discussion along the lines of what the minister has

already answered with respect to the inability to extinguish Aboriginal rights.

It can only be done through an amendment to the Constitution, or if those rights

are actually surrendered. As the hon. gentleman opposite knows, through the

Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada, those rights have been very, very

firmly and clearly established.

During the course of that conversation, I assured Mark Nui that he would have

a letter from me forthwith, which I am not certain was to be countersigned by

the Attorney General, whether that was actually done or not. I know, I signed

off on the letter, it is gone. Whether it was countersigned or not, that letter

has actually been completed, and if it is not going to be countersigned then it

will have gone under my signature to President Nui as recently as half an hour

ago.

He has a letter from me -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He has a letter from me and he seems to be quite comfortable with the answers

that he received this morning; absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: The reason for our asking, Mr. Speaker, is because we had

correspondence from legal counsel for the Innu yesterday saying that they wanted

an amendment put forward under the Act so that the protections would be built

in.

I am just wondering if we can have a copy of that letter. That might save a

lot of trouble in terms of debate and amendments and so on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we would be only too delighted to provide

a copy of that letter.

I want to assure all members of the Opposition that this is a collaborative

process, that we see real value in debate here. I am not just saying this for

political purposes, I really mean it. If hon. members opposite have constructive

amendments that can strengthen this legislation with a view to making it even

better, providing, of course, it meets the objectives of the minister and her

department, we would be only too delighted to see them. Obviously, that goes for

all members.

We look forward to a good debate. I hope it is not a political debate,

because it certainly shouldn't be. Well, if I speak there is going to be a

little politics go into it. Having said all that, I found in the past when we

were in Opposition that I think it can strengthen legislation, so we certainly

welcome any amendments and we are certainly prepared to entertain, obviously,

any amendments that come forward.

The letter will be provided and if there is any feedback or anything that

comes from the Innu Nation we will certainly keep you informed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources said, in response to a question

about placing adjacency in local benefit clauses in the Public Tender Act, that

the Minister of Government Services is conducting a review of the Act.

I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the minister could give us details today

about what this review will entail.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, government is always evaluating their

processes, especially in regard to purchases and procurements. When I was

assigned the Department of Government Services I initiated an RFP in regard to

hiring a consultant to review our procurement practices and also to review the

Public Tender Act, with a view to enhancing it if we possibly can, or if it is

fine well then that is fine, as it is today. In the meantime, if it does need

enhancements, or any of our procurement policies need enhancements, then we are

open for that particular piece.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last time there was a full review of the Public Tender Act was, I think,

ten years ago in 1998, and at that time there was broad consultation with public

and private interests.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether or not this time in the review, that

you have hired a consultant for, there will be a public consultation that will

be part of the review and what it will consist of?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, as shown in the past, this government is always open to public

consultation and input from the public. As we go through this process, if public

consultation is required, I am certainly open to it as a minister. We have an

open door policy in the department and in this government in regards to that

input. So, we will research that, too, as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, I take it then

there is not a plan in place yet and you are still at a planning phase, is that

what is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services, responsible

for the Government Purchasing Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as we go through the proper process, in

regards to the report itself, the report is not available at this particular

time, so we have to wait for that report to come forward first and then we will

formulate a plan. We have to look at the recommendations that would fall out of

that report, evaluate it, and then we will see. If it is needed, well then - the

consultant may very well come back and say, no, there is no problem with your

procurement process or your Public Tender Act. In that case, no consultation is

needed, but if there is consultation needed, I will certainly entertain it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia plans to introduce a sustainable

government procurement policy by 2009. A government working group will hold

public consultations this summer to get input on what this policy could include.

Is the minister open to a review of the Public Tender Act, including

consultation with environmental industries and groups with a goal of introducing

a green, sustainable procurement policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to evaluate the report itself

and look at the recommendations that were made by the particular consultant and

then we will move forward on that, but we are always open to other jurisdictions

in regards to what they are doing. We are always evaluating across Canada. We do

not want to reinvent the wheel if we do not have to reinvent the wheel, and

certainly, we will look at other jurisdictions and make a decision accordingly

on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is still not clear to me if this consultant actually held consultations,

and if the consultant did, how broad were those consultations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, that was not a part of the RFP in regards to

that piece of work that was required by the department for the consultant to do.

It was a review of our procurement process, also a review of the Public Tender

Act. So, consultations would not be a part of that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for Questions and Answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week in Question Period the Leader of the Opposition asked me to provide

estimated profits by Hydro Quebec from the Upper Churchill in 2007. Mr. Speaker,

I have that information, $1.4 billion was earned by Hydro Quebec in 2007 from

the Upper Churchill, $67 million by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

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

shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 2, 2008.

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

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 2, 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: 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 Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I have some information here that I would like to

table regarding some questions from the House during this session.

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

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 1, to move, pursuant to Standing

Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Thursday, May 29.

Further, I also move Motion 2, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that

the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on today, Thursday, May 29.

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

today, Thursday, May 29.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The second motion, number two, is that this House do not adjourn at 10:00

p.m. today being Thursday.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, upon coming into force of clause 2 of Bill 32, An

Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration

Act, the Public Accounts Committee shall consist of: the Member for Port de

Grave; the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans; the Member for Placentia

& St. Mary's; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for

Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and the Member

for The Isles of Notre Dame.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the structure of the Public Accounts

Committee signify by saying aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House resolve itself into a Committee

of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order please!

We are now ready to debate Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth

Advocate Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act." (Bill

33)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried - or I'm sorry.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will not belabour the issue on this Bill 33 in committee, but I would like

to reiterate a couple of comments that I made regarding this bill when it was in

second reading, and in particular, some thoughts, I guess, of the Child and

Youth Advocate herself as to the propriety of this bill.

Again, for the record, for the record, we dealt with this on the board of

management yesterday in a meeting. I was concerned about the fact that we were

dealing with it in the House before it had been dealt with by the board of

management, and again I reiterated that at the board of management meeting

yesterday morning, because I do feel it is necessary that we do this thing

appropriately. I can confirm now that the board of management has dealt with it

and it has been properly sanctioned by the board of management now and they have

agreed that this should come to the floor of the House to be finished in terms

of debate.

I would also like to say for the record that, as a member of the board of

management, I voted against that decision and my reasons have not changed from

second reading, or to the board of management, as to why I will not be voting in

favour of Bill 33.

My reasons, as I outlined earlier, were not because of the subpoena powers. I

think that is quite evident and quite clear, and I think that is quite necessary

on the part of the Child and Youth Advocate, that she needs to have that

authority in order to properly and efficiently and effectively do her job, so I

have no problems with that piece of Bill 33.

In fact, at the board of management meeting, I read the letter from the Child

and Youth Advocate. Again, anybody who reads it, she is pretty clear that she

has no problem with Bill 33 vis--vis the subpoena issues. She does not make

any comments about what she thinks of the other provisions of Bill 33. She says,

you know, I have no problem with Bill 33, and then she goes on to elaborate and

say yes, I asked for these subpoena powers and they are in there and they are

quite adequate and it is going to be great.

I want to make it quite clear that I do not believe for a moment that the

correspondence from the Child and Youth Advocate addresses the particulars of

Bill 33. It address the particulars vis--vis the subpoena powers, but not the

overall import of it.

Again, regardless of what the Child and Youth Advocate thinks, it is my

position as a legislator here that it is improper and it is unnecessarily

restrictive, and somewhere out of the blue all of these provisions, except for

the one about subpoenas, ended up in this Bill 33. I am wondering where they

came from, because they did not come from the Child and Youth Advocate. So,

somebody outside of the board of management, somebody outside of the Child and

Youth Advocate, brought forward all of these amendments, and they are very

restrictive in nature. They talk about the minister deciding what is appropriate

in certain cases, and what can and cannot be investigated. They talk about

decisions to investigate, what she can and cannot. She cannot do anything that

involves the House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor, a committee of the

House of Assembly, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Executive Council or

a committee of the Executive Council.

That is pretty restrictive stuff, when you are telling a Child and Youth

Advocate that you cannot go to any of these public institutions and bodies, and

then 15 gives the Justice Minister carte blanche in overruling whenever he feels

he wants to, and that was never the intent of a Child and Youth Advocate, to put

restrictions on that person of that nature.

We see it again, another example, and we are going to get into this later in

the day, about a government that does not mind just pulling the blanket down and

saying, nobody is going to see what goes on in behind, or restricting what these

House officers are allowed to do.

We see it in the case of the Energy Corp. that we are going to debate later

today, and now we see it here again in the Child and Youth Advocate. The

government is saying we, and in this case one individual, are deciding what the

Child and Youth Advocate can and cannot investigate.

That was never the intent of the Child and Youth Advocate, to have those

kinds of limitations. That is why we wanted someone who operated independently

of government to be in that position, the same as we have an Auditor General. We

wanted an individual who, once appointed by government, had carte blanche to do

what he or she felt was appropriate, vis--vis the children of this Province,

to act as an advocate for and to investigate issues that concern children.

Here we have gone back now, again, we are gone back, after creating that

proper institution, that independent body and that independent person, which we

took so much time and effort to do, four or five years ago, here we are now, we

are going to put a blanket on them again and put shackles on her. I see and have

heard no justification for it.

We cannot, on the one end, be preaching that we want to be independent

and, by the way, the Minister of Justice did not create the Child and Youth

Advocate. The legislation was created, and it was specifically created as an

officer of the House. The Child and Youth Advocate does not operate as an office

of the Department of Justice, or an office of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, no more than the Auditor General does, or the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, or the Elections Commissioner.

Here we are, again, we have taken these very restrictive, draconian measures

now to limit what a Child and Youth Advocate can do. I will go on record as

saying, again, this will come back to haunt this government, and I do not mean

just this government. It will come back to haunt governments, because there is

going to be a situation where the Child and Youth Advocate wants to do something

and this piece of legislation is going to restrict her, bar her hands, and there

is going to be hell to pay from somebody, saying why did we ever put ourselves

in this situation, to do this?

You cannot preach independence on the one hand and, on the other hand, put a

shackle on somebody, and that is the contradiction that we are creating here.

Again, I ask, where did it come from? The Child and Youth Advocate, to my

knowledge, did not put forward these propositions here, other than the piece

about subpoena power. That is the only one that she put forward, and that was

what the board of management was dealing with. That was why the ball got rolling

here, and I do not know why government because it obviously had to be

government, if it wasn't the board of management that did it, which is the

House, and if it wasn't the Child and Youth Advocate who did. Somebody came up

with these reasons to put this into Bill 33, and I think that is inappropriate.

Again, I think it is draconian, it is unnecessary, it did not come from the

proper source, and for those reasons I think anybody who votes for this, they

have gone way beyond. It is unnecessary, it does not need to be there, and this

member certainly will not, under these circumstances, be voting for Bill 33

unless the provisions of the subpoena were severed out of it, and then I would

have no problem with it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I must say, I am very disappointed in the approach being taken by

the Opposition House Leader. It is one thing to have a lack of legal knowledge;

it is another thing to display your ignorance before a TV audience out there

that is looking at this House to take a mature approach to the law.

What we are trying to here is protect the most vulnerable in our society. We

are trying to assist the Child and Youth Advocate, and we are trying to do it in

a very positive way. For this member to vote against this bill, I would suggest,

Sir, shows either a lack of understanding, a lack of caring, or simply an

opportunity to grandstand because there is someone out there listening. Either

way, Mr. Chairman, that kind of behaviour on the part of a member who has been

in this House for quite some time, I would suggest to you, demonstrates why

there are three of them over there and the rest of us are over here, because the

public sees through this, Mr. Chairman. It is what they did in the last

Legislature.

What they have to do - and I remember starting my comments the first time I

stood up here - when a good piece of legislation comes in, as this piece of

legislation is, as the energy bill is, they should be supporting us, not using

words like draconian. There is no need for hyperbole, Mr. Chairman, when we are

talking about the protection of the most vulnerable of our society.

The Leader of the NDP asked me a question the other day, and I went away and

hopefully found an answer which addresses that, Mr. Chairman, and that related

to the question of

section 15.1 and the question of the Child and Youth Advocate

not being able to review the order, decision or omission of a court.

For the reference of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, at pages 7 to 13

of the Turner report, Dr. Markesteyn reviews the constitutional limitations upon

the Child and Youth Advocate Act and the principles upon judicial independence.

Mr. Chair, Dr. Markesteyn, at page 7, says, "Secondly, I have been

advised that I cannot, in my Review, make an assessment of the proceedings

- the manner in which proceedings were conducted (the process) and resulting

decisions - under (

a) the Extradition Act, (

b) the Criminal Code, or (

c) the

Children's Law Act because of the principle of judicial independence."

This

section is in there because of the legal limitations placed on the scope of

review.

Obviously, Dr. Markesteyn, from my read of the report, certainly would have

engaged upon the review of what took place, but when we look at the principles

of judicial independence, as outlined there in the report at pages 7 to 13,

there is good reason why this

section is in there.

Mr. Chair, sometimes I wish the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile would read

between the lines. He is an experienced lawyer and he is experienced in this

House of Assembly. I gave him the answer last week but he was not, obviously,

listening to me in terms of why the Minister of Justice needs powers in certain

circumstances. There can be an opportunity for parallel investigations to be

ongoing.

We know in this case, for example, in the Gregory Parsons murder

investigation that resulted in his wrongful conviction, it commenced in 1991. It

was close to 2001 or 2002 before it was finally resolved. We know that there

have been investigations - there was a recent investigation in Gander that went

on for three years. What happens, there is a possibility that if the Child and

Youth Advocate could embark upon an investigation that could endanger a very

significant police investigation. It is not a matter that the Child and Youth

Advocate will never review. It is a question of the timing of the review.

Mr. Chair, I would assume that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile knows, and

I do know that we - I am continuously, since I have been here now, trying to

correct some of the mistakes that were made by this Liberal government as

indicated by putting the right to counsel of choice back into legislation. That

was removed by the Liberals, for whatever reason. You talk about draconian, that

is the kind of legislative behaviour that is draconian.

Again, I am being quite frank here, there has been a measure of inflammatory

comment and hyperbole on the part of the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, but

his knowledge, or lack of knowledge of criminal law is obviously showing

through. It is so obvious as to why the Minister of Justice - one circumstance

where the Minister of Justice has to have a certain power. All the Minister of

Justice is doing is certifying. Then, speaking to whoever he says is out there,

is it Joe or Mary out in TV land? Well, do not be fooled by what the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile is saying, because what he is showing is an abysmal lack of

knowledge of at least the criminal justice system, and here today, in terms of

this system, in terms of the Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Chair, he voted against the amendments to the Provincial Court Judges Act

the other day, the per diem judges, where we are trying to improve the system.

So what is it that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile wants? Does he want the

status quo to remain, or does he want improvements to be made? Because that is

what we are trying to do, we are trying to improve the system.

As indicated on previous occasions, the Minister of Finance, when he was in

the position of Minister of Justice, he started the improvements in terms of the

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary; the implementations of the Lamer Report. He

looked towards improving the system. Now we are at the stage where we are

looking to the prison review. We are looking at the efficiencies in Provincial

Court. I was before the Senate yesterday dealing with the need for more judicial

resources to implement Family Justice Services.

What we are continuously doing is trying to improve. Yet, what do we get over

there? What do we get? We get a member who - and I am assuming now when he

practiced law, I am assuming that he would have practiced in the criminal

courts. I think he did some work as a prosecutor. Well, there are very sensitive

areas, Mr. Chair. In fact, under

section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act is the

one area in criminal law, that I am aware of, that would allow (inaudible) to

appeal when evidence or an issue is of a public interest privilege.

So, there are privileges in law, Mr. Chair. There is informer privilege. We

have talked about solicitor-client privilege in this House, and we have to be

aware. So, do not, I say to the member, leave false impressions with the people

listening out there. Do not count upon the fact, as he appears to do, that they

are nave and they will not see through it. Because what he is doing, he is

attempting to obstruct and obfuscate. He is a double-O legislative member, Mr.

Chair, because that is all I have heard for the last week. I have heard

grandstanding, I have heard preaching, I have heard a condescending attitude,

but what I say to this member, if you do not have anything positive and

constructive to add, keep quiet. Do the public a favour.

Mr. Chair, I will point out, I would like to table, as I have indicated the

other day, the e-mail from the Child and Youth Advocate indicating that she has

reviewed the draft bill and that it will enable her to fulfill her mandate. That

was dated May 5, Mr. Chair. I would like to table that, please.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, my deputy minister spoke with the Child and Youth

Advocate this morning. She read Hansard last week, I am informed, and Mr.

Burrage was informed. She read Hansard and she is happy with the bill as it is.

Now, if she is happy who is the member speaking to? Who is he trying to

impress? Because he is not impressing anyone here. I have not heard anything he

said yet that is impressive. On 15.2, Mr. Chair, well, lo and behold, the

Liberals put that in the Citizens' Representative Act. So, it is okay for this

minister, when he was there between 2000 and 2003, for him to be allowed to

issue a certificate to tell the Citizens' Rep not to investigate, it is okay

for the Liberals to put that in, but it is not okay for us, when we have

offered, as much as I am going to offer, a legal and public interest

justification.

I can assure you, Mr. Chair, that as a Minister of Justice it would be very

rare that any minister personally, that is the only situation I could see

where it is being utilized. I would be extremely surprised, Mr Chair, if any

Minister of Justice will utilize this, but the fact that it is not utilized does

not mean it should not be there.

Mr. Chair, on 15.1(

a) the Child and Youth Advocate indicated that she was not

interested, according to Mr. Burrage, into looking into policy budget, et

cetera. In 15.1(

b) she indicated that she constitutionally cannot look at the

decisions out of a Court of Appeal role as outlined in the Turner review. So

what we have, Mr. Chair, is a situation where she is happy in terms of getting

the powers that she needs, because that is what this is about, Mr. Chair. It is

about protecting the most vulnerable of our society and giving the Child and

Youth Advocate the powers that she needs to properly conduct her inquires.

Now, how could any member in good conscience in this House have difficulty

with that proposition? So, for this member to say that he is going to vote

against this bill, what does that tell you? Obfuscate and obstruct, and I am

sure I will probably find another couple of O words over the next day or so to

add to it.

Mr. Chair, in all of the circumstances, I would suggest to you, this is a

very positive step. The Child and Youth Advocate came to us looking for powers;

she was given those powers. Now what more, Mr. Chair, can a Legislature do? She

is given her powers; she is happy with the act. She has read Hansard.

In all of the circumstances, Mr. Chair, I would suggest - and again I say to

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that it was a very good point that she

raised, and one that we have looked at, and one that I am satisfied is addressed

in the Turner review.

Those would be my comments, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few more words on Bill 33, and in

particular just to clarify a few of the comments by the minister.

I guess so much for our Code of Ethics which we just passed in this House. I

have never witnessed such a personal attack, in my life, as a member of this

House. In fact, included in this is a reference, I would say to the Chair, that

there was a comment made by the minister that I am leaving false impressions -

giving false opinions and false impressions were the words he used - absolutely

unparliamentary, unnecessary.

I am entitled, as a member of this House, to make whatever comments I would

like on the floor of this House, like anyone else. For the Minister of Justice

to suggest, first of all, that I do not care for children, simply because I

enter into debate on a piece of legislation? Absolutely shameful.

I happen to be a father myself, if the minister does not know, the same as he

is, so to suggest that I do not care for children, simply because I am going to

vote yea or nay for a piece of legislation? How irresponsible, I would suggest.

How unnecessary, to have personal attacks because someone voices an opinion that

might be different from the minister.

By the way, you talk about obstructionist. I do believe, if the minister

checks the record, that since this House opened I think this is like our

thirty-seventh piece of legislation that we are passing here, and we have two

more to go. We are going to hit about forty pieces of legislation. Now, I do not

see how that is being very obstructionist, when we are up to about number

thirty-eight and we are entering into a debate, to call that obstructionist,

number one.

I do believe, in fact, that the minister, if you go back and check Hansard a

couple of weeks ago, was very complimentary and said, thank you very much for

your suggestions and, in fact, we are going to bring in an amendment to that -

and they did. So, I don't know; I guess he had something to eat in Ottawa that

did not sit well with him, or he had a terrible plane ride back, because there

is absolutely no reason for him to be in an attack-dog mode today.

This bill, by the way, has nothing to do with the right to counsel. This bill

has nothing to do with privileges in law. By the way, the word draconian, to my

knowledge, and I stand to be corrected again, but draconian, to me, does not

mean anything illegal. I am not suggesting that the government is doing anything

illegal here. Draconian, to me, means that we are going back to the Dark Ages

and I do believe it is not my creation, by the way. You talk about leaving

impressions. Anybody can go on-line and read what this bill says, and get a copy

of it.

My comments were saying that there are restrictive provisions in Bill 33 that

the advocate did not ask to have put there. I asked: Where did these restrictive

provisions come from, and why?

In fact, if you look at the act that is exactly what is says. If you look on

page 4, when it talks about this clause 15, it says, restriction on

jurisdiction. Down again: minister may restrict investigation. If you go to the

next page, page 6, the whole paragraph is summed up with saying, restrictions on

disclosure, application of certain rules. Now, I don't think that has anything

to do with subpoena powers that are necessary for the Child and Youth Advocate.

By the way, I am in favour of that, in case the minister wasn't listening. I

am in favour of the Child and Youth Advocate having the power to subpoena; no

problem whatsoever. The fact that I am in favour of something that is a piece

and a part of a package, and I don't agree with the package, what am I

supposed to do; say, oh, yeah, because I am in favour to the subpoena piece I

have to accept the whole package?

I don't know about the minister and the way he operates but that is not the

way I operate. There are pieces here not my wording, I would say. Whoever

drafted this, the wording is restrictive. That is what I am saying I have the

problem with. We are restricting the rights of the Child and Youth Advocate. You

talk about don't care for children, what a contradiction in statement. How can

you say I don't care about children and I don't want the Child and Youth

Advocate to be able to have an open book and do whatever she feels appropriate,

and here I am arguing that you shouldn't put restrictions on her? It is

inconsistent to even suggest such a thing.

I know I didn't fancy myself any great criminal lawyer or anything, as the

minister alluded to several times, by the way. I happened to be a simple

practitioner of the law in a little rural community in Southwestern Newfoundland

for twenty-odd years. That is all. I didn't claim to be Clarence Darrell or

anyone else, but I think I practiced my craft half decently. I didn't claim to

be any hotshot Perry Mason or anything, and I am not saying he is either, but

you don't need to make personal attacks. I made a living at it until I got

into politics. I think that is allowed. I don't claim to know all. A lot of

times that I why I ask you questions, because you have the resources in your

department to get the information, because I don't have it. That is asking to

be educated. That is ignorance, to ask a question? We are going to be in

terrible shape here if I have to abide by the minister's advice and just

because I disagree with something, sit down and shut up. Those were his words.

Yes, we are going to be in a fine state here.

I tell you, the minister better talk to someone else if he is going to start

telling us to sit down and shut up here. It won't be me, I tell you that. I

have as much right to speak here as anybody else. The people of Burgeo &

LaPoile sent me here, and I will exercise that right, thank you, on their

behalf. That is a draconian statement to make in the House of Assembly, in this

democratic institution, to tell somebody to sit down and shut up, and say

nothing about a code of conduct.

Again, and I refer to whoever drafted this bill, and anybody who is prepared

to open it to page 2 and read the very first sentence right up at the top where

it says Explanatory Notes, the first sentence says, "This Bill would amend

the Child and Youth Advocate Act to enhance the powers of the advocate to

conduct an investigation under the Act." For example, give her subpoena

powers.

That is all this act was intended to do and that is clear even from the

explanation clause. So, I am saying, why do we have all the rest of the stuff in

here, unless somebody decided they wanted to restrict the rights of the Child

and Youth Advocate? That is not proper. It was not proper last week when we

started to do the debate. It was not proper today, and because I disagree with

the restrictions on it, I will have no choice but to vote against it because I

will not vote for the subpoena powers and at the same time compromise the other

authorities and powers of the Child and Youth Advocate. It is not on, it is not

proper, and I will not vote for it. I will continue to express my opinions and

support it, hopefully, with logic and reason in the future the same way I tried

to do here.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Are there any more speakers?

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I just want to take a few moments to ask a question of the minister so that I

have clarification with regard to

section 15.1(b).

Thank you very much, minister, for getting the information. Your reference to

the Turner Report certainly tells us that

section 15.1(

b) has to remain there,

but not having the report in front of me - I have a question with regard to

implications of 15.1(b), and maybe I am worrying too much about a detail. I know

it has to be in there from what you said, but I am wondering, for example, if

the advocate, in looking at a case that was before her, saw that a decision of

the court had an impact on a child and on caregivers working with that child,

would she at least - I am saying she at this moment because the advocate is a

she, we know it could be he or she. Would the advocate, in making a ruling or in

looking for a change in a decision - what I am thinking about, if there is a

court decision that if it stands it continues to affect the life of the child

negatively. If there is a negative impact of a court decision and the advocate

clearly sees that there is a negative impact of a court decision, what can the

advocate possibly do in a case like that, based on what you have said and based

on the Turner Report, which I do not have in front of me?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, there does not appear, from

what I am reading in the Turner review under the two headings, and I can give

you these copies if you want to have a look at them - but under the two headings

that I am looking at, there is first the issue of - we know, for example, that

with a federal act there is no provincial jurisdiction to review the federal

decisions, and in the Turner case the extradition act was essentially that.

However, it does not appear to be an ability to examine the court decision.

So, the point you raise is valid, but it seems to me what the Child and Youth

Advocate could do and what Dr. Markesteyn did in the Turner review, he examined

the actions of the authorities, in this case I think it was Child, Youth and

Family Services. He reached conclusions as to their actions without getting into

the court decisions. Now, if there is evidence, for example, that affects an

ongoing decision or order - again, I am speculating somewhat, I say to the

member, but if there is an ongoing court order there is always an ability,

depending on the nature of the case but I think in family law, to review a

decision. Normally in a criminal law your rights of appeal go, Provincial Court,

Trial Division, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Canada and then they are over

in the absence of new evidence, but if new evidence surfaces or fresh evidence,

than there are always ways to get into a court.

In this particular case, I would hope that if the advocate uncovers evidence

that would be relevant to an ongoing court matter or court order, that that

evidence could be provided to the lawyer for the child affected and then that

way, hopefully, bring it back into the courtroom. So, I do not think it is as

restrictive in terms of - obviously, as the hon. member is aware, this is about

children. It is about the Child and Youth Advocate being able to do her work and

the courts will be very sympathetic in those circumstances. It is just that the

principles of judicial independence and the division in the Constitution do not

allow for the examination of the orders or decisions of judges.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to be clear now because I think the answer is helping me. Because

that is what I was concerned about, if the advocate uncovers information: What

does she do? Or evidence, what could potentially be evidence. I think I now have

the answer, that her role is then to make that available to the person or the

parties for whom she is advocating, that they then can use it. So, I think that

does cover - that was the nature of the concern that I had and I think that

really does help me, knowing that is potential and that makes sense to me.

Again, to make sure that I am clear from what the minister said, if the

agency, child and youth agency - I forget what they are called. If the

government agency makes decisions based on a judges ruling but it is obvious

that their decision and what they are doing is affecting the child negatively,

then the advocate can deal with that no matter what the judges ruling is. So I

think I have it clearly, if the minister would agree with me that I do have it

clearly, then I am satisfied with the explanation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Just a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I observed the Minister of Justice using a BlackBerry to read from while he

was in debate. I do think that is contrary to the rules of the House. I think

that breaches the rules of decorum and I would ask that in future - I understand

people are pretty tight to their BlackBerries, myself included, but I do not

think it is appropriate to actually be reading your comments from a BlackBerry

here in the House.

CHAIR: The point of order is noted and it will be taken under

consideration.

There being no other speakers, we will call the bill.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive.

Shall these carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 9 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 33.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 33.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St.

Mary's.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them

referred and have directed me to report Bill 33 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the

Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to

report Bill 33 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time

presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 3, third reading of a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 31,

An Act To

Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 31 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the

bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,

1991," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is moved that Order 4,

An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act, Bill 34, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Judicature Act," read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is moved that Order 5,

An Act To Amend The

Liquor Control Act, Bill 37, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 37,

An Act To

Amend The Liquor Control Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act," read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Order 6,

An Act To Amend The Child And

Youth Advocate Act, Bill 33, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, be now read a third

time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act. (Bill

33)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 33 is now read a third time and it is ordered that the

bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate

Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, number

8,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35, be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act.

It is moved and seconded that Bill 35 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy

Corporation Act." (Bill 35)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 35,

An Act To Amend

The Energy Corporation Act.

Mr. Speaker, our government created the Province's Energy Corporation to

ensure that we were positioned to obtain maximum benefits from our natural

resources for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was a

key part of our Energy Plan and a key part of this government's vision for our

Province and for our future.

Last year, we passed the Energy Corporation Act to create the Province's

new Energy Corporation, and today I am introducing legislation that will give

our Energy Corporation some additional tools that it needs to operate

effectively on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Energy Corporation, Mr. Speaker, has a broad mandate to pursue energy

development within the Province. We see this corporation being involved in a

range of energy activities, in addition to its core historical business of

electricity generation and transmission. It will manage and develop our equity

interest in oil and gas development, as well as pursue wind power and other

alternative energies.

To do this effectively and successfully, Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that

the Energy Corporation can operate in a competitive business environment. At the

same time, though, our Energy Corporation has to be fully accountable to the

people of the Province, and that accountability has to be meaningful. We have

worked hard to ensure that the legislation achieves the right balance between

protecting competitiveness and providing accountability.

Mr. Speaker, since the Energy Corporation Act was passed, my department and

the Energy Corporation have undertaken significant analysis to fully understand

how best this company can be positioned for success on behalf of the people of

the Province. In addition to our extensive internal analysis, we engaged

external consultants within the Province, within Canada and internationally. We

looked at best practices for state-owned energy corporations from around the

world, including Norway and Denmark. We also looked at Canadian models, such as

B.C. Hydro and Hydro-Quebec. We are confident, Mr. Speaker, that this

legislation ensures that the Province's Energy Corporation meets best

practices for state-owned energy companies from around the world.

For many nations, such as Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, Mexico,

Brazil, South Africa, and countless others, state-owned or state-controlled

energy corporations are a key part of the model for energy development for the

benefits of their people. As a matter of fact, as I stated in Question Period,

Mr. Speaker, about 80 per cent of the world's oil reserves are controlled by

state-owned energy corporations. These state-owned energy corporations are

powerful players on the world stage.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with an abundance of natural

resources, and we are continuing to position ourselves to obtain maximum benefit

from our resources. This legislation is the next critical step in giving the

Energy Corporation the tools it needs to succeed on our behalf and for the

benefit of us all.

The legislation has three components that I want to speak to today, Mr.

Speaker: public accountability and reporting, the tools the Energy Corporation

requires to operate in a competitive environment, and the Corporation's

ability to create subsidiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I turn first to the important issue of public accountability. As

shareholders, we want to build a successful company. The Energy Corporation's

success will add to the prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador. To achieve

this, our Energy Corporation has to be able to compete in a business environment

but it must also be accountable to the public for its activities. This

legislation establishes a clear public accountability structure for the

corporation.

The Energy Corporation will provide information to the government and the

public through specific reporting requirements set out in the legislation. One

of those requirements is a consolidated annual report. This report will detail

the activities of the corporation for the previous year. The report is required

to include consolidated, audited financial statements for the corporation. This

report will be similar to the annual financial reporting requirements met by

companies listed on the stock exchanges. This annual report will be tabled in

the House of Assembly so this House and the people of the Province will have the

opportunity to review and assess its contents.

The Energy Corporation will have an annual general meeting open to the

public. At this meeting, the company's senior management will report directly

to the people of the Province on the activities of the Energy Corporation.

Annual reports provided by the Energy Corporation will contain the same type of

information contained in annual reports from publicly listed companies.

Shareholders of corporations get annual reports on the activities of the

companies in which they invest. So will the people of the Province. We will get

direct reporting from our Energy Corporation as to how it is managing our

resource investments on our behalf.

In addition, the Province's Transparency and Accountability Act will

continue to apply to the Energy Corporation. The act is an initiative of our

government aimed squarely at ensuring there is openness and transparency in

public bodies.

Under the Transparency and Accountability Act, the Energy Corporation will

provide its business plan to the government. Government will be able to monitor

and assess compliance with this plan. As well, the Auditor General will be able

to review and audit the Energy Corporation and provide recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, each of these steps taken on their own will provide to the

people of the Province a high degree of security that their Energy Corporation

is accountable for its actions. Taken together, these accountability and

reporting provisions ensure that our Energy Corporation sets a high standard of

transparency and public accountability.

Mr. Speaker, the second important component of this legislation focuses on

ensuring that the Energy Corporation has the tools it needs to operate in a

competitive environment. A key element of this is ensuring that strategic

commercially-sensitive information is protected. We need to ensure that the

strategic business information of the Energy Corporation is not used to harm the

Province's interests.

Mr. Speaker, this Province sets an extremely high standard with access to

public information. We have one of the most open information access laws in the

country. In assessing how best to position our Energy Corporation for success,

we had to carefully examine what kinds of information could be subject to

release. We do not want our Energy Corporation hindered in its success. We do

not want our competitors to be able to use information laws to obtain

information that helps them and hurts the competitive position of our Energy

Corporation. This is not in the best interests of the people of the Province.

We looked internationally and found that in Norway, for example, where public

accountability and transparency standards and freedom of information standards,

like ours, are very high, access to information legislation does not apply to

their state-owned energy companies. This is because some types of information

are so strategically important to their state-owned energy corporations that

making the information subject to disclosure laws would hurt their companies.

Even with such an exemption, Mr. Speaker, from access to information laws,

Norway's StatoilHydro has been recognized by Transparency International as one

of the most transparent oil companies in the world and a model for a

state-owned, controlled, energy corporation.

We believe we are achieving an even higher standard for accountability in

that we are exempting only commercially sensitive information from access laws,

otherwise the information is publicly accessible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: It is also important for members to understand that the

ability of our Energy Corporation to protect commercially sensitive information

is an issue that our partners have raised as a major concern in dealing with us.

They are reluctant to give us information out of fear that we cannot protect

that information.

To reach commercial deals with our new partners, our Energy Corporation has

to be able to obtain and analyze information from these partners. Even though

many of these companies are publicly traded on stock exchanges throughout the

world, this commercially sensitive information is not publicly disclosed. That

information is strategic and valuable to the companies who hold it.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, even if information were to be ultimately disclosed

by industries through the requirements of the stock exchanges, the premature and

untimely disclosure of such commercially sensitive information through

legislative means could have a significantly negative impact on a company and,

in turn, on our oil and gas industry. Even potential business partners have

indicated to the corporation that the present legislation protecting

commercially sensitive and third-party information does not always meet their

confidentiality requirements.

So, Mr. Speaker, unless we address this issue, our Energy Company will be

hamstrung. It will not be able to effectively enter into business deals to meet

its mandate on behalf of the people of the Province; but, Mr. Speaker, this

issue goes beyond assessing potential business partners and potential business

deals. Once we enter into joint ventures, we want to be able to access the same

data that the other partners can see. If the other partners are worried that the

data in our Energy Corporation's hands will be subject to public disclosure,

our Energy Corporation's access to that information may be constrained. If

partners withhold or otherwise restrict the timely or complete access to

information because of the risk of disclosure, it greatly reduces the value of

the corporation's participation. This does not help our Energy Corporation

achieve its mandate, Mr. Speaker, and it does not set our corporation up for

success.

Our Energy Corporation will be taking on significant projects in the future,

in all aspects of its energy mandate. In pursuing these activities, Mr. Speaker,

they will be planning and assessing many different options and approaches, and

generating their own strategic assessments and analysis. Ultimately, this

information and analysis will be a key asset of our Energy Corporation. Just

like for any company, Mr. Speaker, untimely disclosure of that information to a

potential competitor or even a potential partner could cause significant damage

to our Energy Corporation's ability to carry out its mandate. We cannot risk

having potential partners or competitors use the current legislation to obtain

commercially sensitive information. Can you imagine the damage, for example, if

the economic modelling used by the Energy Corporation for investment decisions

could be accessed by a potential partner or competitor? Clearly, this creates a

risk to our competitiveness.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, creates a clear test as to what types of

information are commercially sensitive. Where information met that test, it may

be withheld from disclosure. The definition of commercially sensitive

information is defined in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, where in response to a denial, a party requests a review under

our Access to Information and Protection and Privacy Act, which we commonly

refer to as ATIPPA. This matter will go to the Energy Corporation's Board of

Directors who are familiar with issues around sensitive commercial information.

If the board determines that the information should be released, it will be

released. If the board sees that the information is strategic and commercially

sensitive, it will withhold that information. Ultimately, a party that is

unhappy with that response will have recourse to the courts, in the same way

now, Mr. Speaker, as they have recourse to the courts under ATIPPA. We want and

need our Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries to participate fully in energy

projects and enter into agreements with its private sector partners. These

amendments position our Energy Corporation to achieve this goal.

As part of our analysis, Mr. Speaker, we also looked at other legislation

that could lead to disclosure of commercially sensitive information. For that

reason, we have modified the application of the Citizens' Representative Act

and the Auditor General Act to ensure that protection of commercially sensitive

information is there. Even so, Mr. Speaker, we have designed this legislation to

ensure that the Auditor General continues to have an important oversight role.

He will be able to review and audit the Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries.

He will report on the results of his work to this House. He will just not

disclose commercially sensitive information.

Mr. Speaker, if the Auditor General has a serious concern of improper conduct

he will report that to the Cabinet and Cabinet will investigate. He will also

advise the House if such a report has been made to Cabinet. In this way, we

provide for continued oversight, but we will provide necessary protection for

commercially sensitive information. By doing this, we ensure our Energy

Corporation's ability, Mr. Speaker, to compete.

We have also exempted the Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries from the

Public Tender Act. This will permit the corporation and its subsidiaries to

follow Global Best Practices for procurement associated with its projects. It

will also allow the corporation and its subsidiaries to include considerations

such as adjacency and aboriginal interests that are not provided for in the

Public Tender Act. The exemption, however, does not apply to procurement by

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, our regulated

utility, has been operating effectively under the Public Tender Act and it will

continue to do so.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the third important issue covered in

these amendments: the creation of subsidiaries. The goal of this government, as

set out in the Energy Plan, is to develop our resources for the benefit of the

people of the Province. At the same time, we also want to provide the greatest

protection possible for the people of the Province from liability or risk

associated with the new lines of business being pursued. Our amendments in this

regard are designed to provide the best possible protection for the public

Treasury and for the assets of the Energy Corporation from unexpected or

unforeseen liabilities. We are legislating that subsidiaries can only be set up

with the approval of Cabinet, and that they will need the approval of the Energy

Corporation for key decisions; however, they will be operationally independent

from the parent company.

The structure put forward in this legislation is a structure that private

enterprise has long used as a means of insulating different parts of its

business from liability, and ensuring that each part of the business can achieve

its own operational efficiencies. In the private sector, subsidiary corporations

are independent entities of their parent organizations and responsible for their

own activities, assets and liabilities. The structure of subsidiaries, each with

their own board of directors, is motivated by a strong commercial reality. We

want these subsidiaries to be competitive in their own right. We want them to be

efficient. A corporate structure that allows for subsidiaries that operate with

some level of autonomy from the parent corporation is a common practice for

business today.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about setting up our Energy Corporation for

success. We believe these amendments to the Energy Corporation Act will ensure

that our Energy Corporation will be able to function in a competitive

environment while also guaranteeing oversight, accountability and transparency

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Without these amendments, we would

be compromising the ability of the Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries to

compete and to deliver on the stated objectives we have laid out in our Energy

Plan. In essence, Mr. Speaker, we would be setting up the Energy Corporation to

fail.

Our government created a plan for energy development in this Province and we

are now bringing that plan to fruition. We want the people of the Province to

have greater control over energy resource development, and we want to receive

maximum benefits from these developments. The legislation puts necessary

elements in place to achieve these goals.

Mr. Speaker, in our Energy Plan we said that the assets of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro will be protected. Government will continue to ensure that is the

case as we build our Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries. We said the Energy

Corporation would be a vehicle to generate returns and value for the benefit of

the people of the Province. We have put those elements in place to achieve that

goal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that we look forward to the debate

and to hearing the comments of our colleagues opposite. Our Energy Corporation

is an entity that we are very, very proud of, as a government, as it pursues and

as we pursue our vision for our Province on getting the maximum return on our

energy resources.

I want to inform the House at this time that in Committee we will be bringing

forward three amendments to the bill. One is to clarify a process issue. The

second is to provide clarification to ensure that the bill clearly reflects our

intention to protect only commercially-sensitive information. Mr. Speaker, as I

said in Question Period, we have listened very carefully to the issues raised in

the House particularly as it relates to the Public Tender Act. As a result of

that debate we have done a thorough review of the issues raised. With our third

amendment, Mr. Speaker, we believe we are addressing those concerns. The

proposed amendment will provide Cabinet with the ability to make a subsidiary

subject to the Public Tender Act if it is appropriate to do so.

Mr. Speaker, our Energy Corporation is a key part of our future prosperity as

a Province. Today's legislation represents important steps forward on our path

to continued prosperity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to have a few comments on Bill 35.

I listened attentively to the minister as she presented the content of the

bill in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation,

probably one of the more serious pieces of legislation that we have had come to

the House of Assembly in this session.

Mr. Speaker, it is

an act that amends the Energy Corporation, which is the

corporation that the provincial government established in the Province back in

the last sitting of the House of Assembly under a piece of legislation called

Bill 28.

Mr. Speaker, in essence what this corporation will do, it will manage,

develop, advise and proceed with a number of developments within the energy

sector within the Province, providing for the interests of government and

therefore providing for the interests of the broader pubic of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it will no doubt deal with all developments relative to energy,

development - whether that be in the oil and gas industry, whether it be in wind

power, hydro power or, I guess, whatever undertakings the corporation would

decide at a future date that they might want to become engaged in.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear for the record that we have been

supportive of the establishment of the Energy Corporation and we certainly see

it as a forward move for government and the people of the Province if we are to

capitalize in major ways on developments of this nature within the Province.

That is why, when we debated, in the last annual Assembly, Bill 28, and I spoke

on Bill 28 two or three times - I may have been the only person who spoke on the

Opposition side - I spoke in tremendous favour of that particular piece of

legislation because it would establish this corporation, one that we saw as

fundamentally being able to manage and advance the interests of the people of

the Province in major developments, and in turn provide for additional benefits

as well. Mr. Speaker, I want to make that clear.

What we are debating today is amendments to Bill 28, in the form of Bill 35,

that would outline and provide for, in much more detail, the disclosure nature

of the corporation as it relates to any of their business dealings both within

their own structure and also with third party companies. It would also outline

the reporting mechanisms and procedures that would take place. It talks about

the disclosures within the company, the accountability measures that are built

in, and it provides for not only the structures with the Energy Corporation

itself but its entire structure, meaning all of its subsidiary companies as

well. Basically, as we understand it from presentations and information provided

in the House of Assembly by the Minister and by the Premier and through the

technical briefing that we did have, every investment that government will make

in the energy sector will be managed through a separate subsidiary company of

the Energy Corporation.

For example, the Lower Churchill project, as I understand it, would be one

subsidiary. The Ramea wind-power project would be a separate subsidiary. The

Hebron oil investments, or equity shares that the Province has undertaken

negotiations around, would become another subsidiary of that company. Mr.

Speaker, who knows, they may make what was it you called it today, wedges?

MS DUNDERDALE: Widgets.

MS JONES: Widgets, Mr. Speaker. If they do, that would be another part of

the company.

Just to understand the structure of this - and, Mr. Speaker, it is an

important piece of legislation, because it not only outlines the process and the

procedures to be undertaken by government investments and interests that will be

ongoing in the Province today, or will be negotiated by the government opposite,

but it also lays out the legislation for other governments to follow in days and

years to come. That is why, Mr. Speaker, while we may have today a tremendous

amount of trust and confidence in the CEO of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

and may, Mr. Speaker, be able to today, without question, without blinking an

eye, give authority to that individual to be able to make investments on behalf

of the Province, to manage those investments, to manage those equities, to look

at where government is best positioned to invest money, that may not always be

the case. Under another government, under another CEO, we do not want to allow

for legislation that may have a loophole somewhere along the line, whereby, Mr.

Speaker, there can be disposals of equity and dismantling of companies, where

there can be bad investments made on behalf of the people of the Province, with

no accountability. That is the reason we have taken this legislation very

seriously; very seriously.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, we ourselves have gone out and engaged legal counsel

and advice around this legislation, to ensure that we, ourselves are not going

to support a bill that could necessarily, in the future, under some other regime

in this Province, allow for the disposal of assets or allow for the expenditure

of money on behalf of the people of the Province, with no mechanism to really

account for it. That is the reason and the rationale behind where we are.

I say to the minister today, that we could have come in here and looked at

every aspect of this bill and got up and asked that shareholders be elected and

all of this kind of stuff be done, but that would have undermined the real

concerns and the real interests that we have here. That would have been for

political propagation I say to the minister. We are not going there and we are

not intending to go there, but we do have some legitimate concerns. Over the

course of debate I am sure today, or tonight, or whenever that might take place,

we will undertake to try and outline to the best extent possible where we are

coming from on this, and hopefully, at the end of the day, we can have something

here that all of us can live with at the end of it.

Mr. Speaker, we understand very well the objective of government here and

also what the objective of the Energy Corporation is, and that is to make

decisions and to enter into negotiations that provide for confidentiality, not

only with the third parties that they become engaged with, but also that they

are able to be competitive within their own right under a corporate structured

society that provides for those kinds of leniencies. We understand that and it

is not our objective to try and undermine that in any way, shape or form. It is

important, very important, that when you entrust any corporation or any entity

of government or even government themselves with the ability to be able to

manage the affairs of the people of the Province and to make investments on

their behalf, then you have to ensure that there are also sufficient safeguards

being taken and that there are accountability measures being put in place.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the briefing that we had with officials within the

Department of Natural Resources and within Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, they

took the time to outline for us the entire structure of the corporation, how it

would work. They also outlined for us their issues around public accountability

and how they felt they were going to be accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I know that annual meetings are in here as one of those pieces.

I am going to talk about each of these pieces as I go through because of the way

the accountability structure is here, not saying that it doesn't provide for a

level of accountability because it does. I want to talk about it because it gets

us to the point where we feel it is isn't enough and that is why there need to

be some other safeguards put in place.

Mr. Speaker, while I know the minister will definitely not agree with me on

all points, I can certainly hope that there will be some levels of this, as we

go through, that they can certainly see. Maybe the amendments that she will

propose herself will take care of most of the issues I am raising here. I don't

know that, but we will see as time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, we know that in corporations there are always annual general

meetings and we know that the annual general meeting is being provided for

within this corporate structure, but also we realize that it will be a little

bit different. The annual meeting in here doesn't really place any kind of

restraint upon the corporation to divulge relevant financial information, for

example. The reasoning for that is because of the clause that talk about

commercially sensitive information, and the fact that that clause is very

broad-ranging.

Now, I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form at this stage, that you

can probably make it less broad and still accomplish the same purpose. Don't

misunderstand what I am saying. Because of the broad nature of this clause and

because almost every other activity and disclosure process refers to that clause

in terms of what they can disclose to the public and what they can't, it

provides very little other information that can be out there until after the

fact, after a deal is concluded, after a negotiation is finished, after a

project is started or finished in some cases, depending again on the longevity

of it, the process of it, how the market conditions of it work and so on.

There could, in essence, be investments of dollars, purchase of equity and

assets and so on, and maybe years and years and years before there is ever any

disclosure of what has transpired here. At any given time, the information may

be commercially sensitive.

For example, if you were looking at selling Lower Churchill power, as I

understand it, and you are negotiating a deal with Nova Scotia or you have

signed an MOU with Nova Scotia so maybe you are negotiating a deal with them,

and maybe you actually sign onto that deal, it still doesn't mean that you are

going to disclose to me or to the public the rate of return that you are getting

on that power. Maybe that agreement is going to expire in five or ten or fifteen

years and then you are going to want to go out and negotiate again with another

partner to try and get a better price, and you don't want them to know what

you are getting from this company and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: From the financial information.

What I am saying, I guess, Mr. Speaker, my point is that it does not mean

that within a year the information is not going to be commercially-sensitive any

more and it can be released. So oftentimes there will be a long period of time,

and maybe for the longevity of an entire project, that you will not be able to

access certain information under this particular legislation because it is

protected by that clause.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the annual report and meeting provisions that are

contained in 5.1 and 5.2, essentially force the corporation to divulge relevant

financial information to the minister at the end of each year, but the reports

are focused on financial reports, business activities, that occurred in the

previous year and not on their current plans or future matters that could be

regarded, Mr. Speaker, by the company.

That is another concern for us because, even though they are reporting to the

minister, some of that information, Mr. Speaker, that will be contained in the

reports well, I think all of it, based on what our

interpretation was here -

would be based on the previous year and not necessarily based on where they are

going in the next year. I guess our concern is, how does the minister, who is

the only authority by which the CEO has to report here, or to the Cabinet, I

suppose, if you want to extend it to the Cabinet

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Okay. I am sure you are going to take notes on all of this, so

when you get up you can respond to it, Mr. Speaker, but I will just raise the

concerns that we have as I go through.

That was one of the pieces, and we wanted to question how you would know what

their current plans are in the next year, what direction they are going to take

the company in. For example, if they decide in one of their subsidiaries that

they are going to go out and purchase some shares in something down in New

Orleans I don't know, because under the act they have the ability to set

up corporations in other jurisdictions and other countries and so on, Mr.

Speaker - but, say, for example, they are going to go down and they are going to

buy shares in a company down there, do they get consent from the minister, from

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, before they are permitted to go out and make

those investments, or do they just report on it at the end of the year, the

minister receives a copy, and all of a sudden they just use their borrowing

power under another piece of legislation that we passed in the House of Assembly

to go out and borrow $400 million last year and invest in this company?

We need to see where the assurance has been given for this, in the act, and

maybe it has to come with an approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

before they can do that, and maybe they do have to submit plans on an annual

basis, have those plans reviewed, have them approved and so on, but under that

particular provision it does not allow for it.

Mr. Speaker, we also had some questions around the Securities Act and, in

consultation with the Premier, he provided to us some explanation, I think, that

was given to him by the Department of Justice on the Securities Act measures,

and the fact that, because of the nature of this corporation, it is defined

differently than it would be under the private corporations act and therefore

would not be subject to the conditions or subject to the Securities Act at all.

I guess our question would be: If that is the case, why is it even outlined

in the legislation? So, we would want to have a further explanation on that,

because if they are really subject to that aspect of it then there would not be

any particular need at this time to even have that particular clause outlined

within the legislation. Because the way it is worded there leads us to believe

that they would normally be, but this legislation is exempting them. So, I guess

it is not really clearly defined and maybe we can get some further explanations

around that.

Mr. Speaker, just to turn over, to look at some of the other clauses within

the bill, I am doing it this way because doing it under this particular process

allows me, myself, as well, to ensure that I do not miss any of the major points

that I wanted to raise here.

Under

section 5.4 (1) - Mr. Speaker, we understand that the chief executive

officer of the corporation should have certain powers and privileges, but there

also should be further accountability measures that are built in. For example,

when it comes to being able to refuse or disclose to an applicant under the act

any commercially-sensitive information to a third party, we have no problem with

that. Most of the third party negotiations that would be ongoing right now

within the corporation, I guess, would probably be with people in the oil and

gas industry, and we can understand why they would not want to have information

released to the public, so we do not necessarily have a problem with that piece