PDF Version

April 11, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 10

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER

(Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have

Members' statements from the Members for the Districts of Topsail

Paradise, Torngat Mountains, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main,

Harbour Grace Port de Grave and Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

I recognize the Member for the District of Topsail Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge April 10-16 as Volunteer Week,

a time to recognize and celebrate the incredible contribution of our

volunteers. Volunteers are the roots of strong communities. Just like

roots are essential for trees to bloom, volunteers are essential for

communities to bloom.

Volunteers are the backbone of our communities, from those involved

through youth groups to seniors associations, from those who support

healthy lives to healthy environments all are essential to the

continued social, cultural and economic development of our province.

Thanks to volunteers, our communities grow strong and resilient.

Volunteers are crucial to many great causes, and also, the

not-for-profit sector of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's estimated there

are approximately 3,600 volunteer and not-for-profit organizations in

our province and over 200,000 active volunteers.

Seniors are helping to actively engage and inspire our youth our

province's next generation of leaders and volunteers. With shifting

demographics, it is more important than ever before for young people to

be engaged in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in offering

our thanks and appreciation to volunteers throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for

the District of Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, I

rise in this hon. House today to recognize John Christian Erhardt

Memorial School and the community of Makkovik for hosting the winter

sports meet in March that united athletes from across Northern Labrador

in the spirit of friendly competition.

Athletes from Nain, Hopedale, Natuashish, Postville, Makkovik and

Rigolet came together to compete in a wide range of sporting events,

including native games, badminton, ball hockey, cross-country skiing and

the Labrathon.

Congratulations to the Nain Huskies for taking first place at the meet.

They will go on to represent Northern Labrador at the regional and

hopefully provincial championships.

Two participants deserve special recognition, Mr. Speaker. Edward

Tuglavina from Hopedale and Chaim Andersen from Nain won the prestigious

awards for sportsmanship.

Events like this sports meet are so important to an isolated region in

the province because they bring communities together, preserve

traditions and promote physical activity.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the participants of

the Northern Labrador winter sports meet.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, the Bishop Feild School community celebrated a major musical

achievement the Juno Award for Children's Album of the Year went to

the Swinging Belles for their album

More Sheep, Less Sleep .

The Belles are primary school teachers Laura Winter and Erin Power, with

guitarist extraordinaire, Duane Andrews. They call themselves a swing

band for children, but you'll hear overtones of all kinds of genres, as

you'd expect from such a multi-talented trio.

The polka dot celebration at Bishop Field last week was a big one, as

the three band members are all well-known to the school.

Laura is Mme Winter, a teacher on staff. Erin and Duane are both

Feildian parents, with Erin also serving on the school council.

The Belles discovered they had won the award at a gala Juno dinner in

Calgary, Saturday, April 2.

They were surprised, but local fans familiar with their blend of good

time music, interactive storytelling and dancing were not.

Mr. Speaker, I won't ask any hon. Members to show off their own dance

moves here although you could give that permission but I will invite

them to join me in congratulating the Swinging Belles, the only 2016

Juno award winners from Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to celebrate the heritage of a steadfast

organization in the District of Harbour Main.

The Star of the Sea organization in Holyrood has been a social gathering

spot for 114 years.

As a longstanding community hub, the Star of the Sea organization has

yielded the opportunity to draw friends and relatives closer, to turn

acquaintances into friends, and to inject more friendship into business

relationships. In short, this gathering spot has provided its community

with the opportunity to practice that magic human touch that means more

in life than most of us realize.

Such a long and rich history is a complement to the membership, the

executives, presidents both past and present, and to the heritage of our

province.

Today, there are only two Star of the Sea Associations sill vibrant in

our province one is in Freshwater, Placentia, and the other one is in

Holyrood.

Mr. Speaker, today let us send from this hon. House of Assembly our

congratulations to this wonderful organization for the tremendous

contribution it makes to this community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I'm very proud to stand in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate

the under 12 Female Cee Bee's Ice Hockey team of Harbour Grace.

On March 20, this team took home the provincial title, which was

captured in Corner Brook. The Cee Bee's defeated Mount Pearl in the

championship game with a shutout score of five to zero. Yesterday in the

Town of Harbour Grace there was a gathering and a motorcade to celebrate

the victory.

These young ladies practiced hard all season, and their dedication has

paid off. Along with the win, they have also made history. It is this

female ice hockey team who will hoist the final championship banner in

the S. W. Moores Memorial Stadium.

The historic arena will soon close its doors, as construction on our new

Harbour Grace stadium is currently underway. The under 12 Cee Bee's is

the only all-female ice hockey team in Harbour Grace. This is their

third banner in three years. I encourage them to play hard, play safe

and keep their sticks on the ice.

Colleagues, please join me in congratulating the team.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Bay d'Espoir Academy Senior Boys

Softball Team who captured the 2015-16 2A School Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador Provincial Championship in October 2015. This was the Predators

third Provincial Senior Boys championship in the past four years and

they certainly have earned recognition as one of the top high school

teams in the province.

It is an honour to recognize the following members of the 2015-16

championship team. Players: Kyle Barnes, Preston Collier, Stephen Cox,

Luke Fowlow, Mark Fowlow, Gudmund Hepsoe, Ethan Lawson, Dylan Northcott,

Jesse Organ, Michael White, Matthew Willcott and Mitchell Willcott.

Their coaches: Shawn Fowlow as head coach, Nathan Gidge and Nancy Oliver

as assistant coaches.

Thank you to all of these individuals who have invested countless hours

of practice to build a strong softball program in the Bay d'Espoir area

and we commend their tremendous sportsmanship which is a great source of

pride in our school and community.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the Bay d'Espoir Academy

Predators for bringing home the gold and the coveted 2A Slo-Pitch

Banner. I wish them the best of luck as they prepare for next season and

defend their title.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we move to

the next item on the Order Paper, we welcome to the gallery former

Member of the House of Assembly for St. John's East, Mr. George Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

The Commemoration

of the First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:

For Honour 100

today, I recognize the Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

I will now read into the record the following 40

names of those who lost their lives in the First World War in the Royal

Newfoundland Regiment, the Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve, the

Newfoundland Mercantile Marine, or the Voluntary Aid Detachment. This

will be followed by a moment of silence.

Lest we forget: Herbert Denty, Aiden Devereaux,

Andrew Devereaux, John William Devereaux, William Devoe,

Joseph Dewey, George Dick, Ethel Dickenson, Stephen

Dicker, Almer Dicks, Benjamin Dicks, Henry Dicks, Joseph Dobbin, Michael

Dober, Peter Dober, John Dodd, William Patrick Dohaney, Harry Dominy,

James John Donnelly, Jeremiah F. Donnelly, William Donnelly, William

Donohue, James Doody, James Dooley, Michael Dooley, John Doran, Joseph

Doran, Aaron K. Douglas, Henry Dowden, John Thomas Doyle, James P.

Drake, Andrew Driscoll, Arthur Driscoll, Kenneth Driscoll, Thomas

Druken, Albert Duffett, John Duke, William Duke, Lionel Thomas Duley and

George Dullanty.

(Moment of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister

Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.

MS. COADY:

I rise in this

hon. House today in recognition of the incredible hard-working,

dedicated volunteers in our communities.

This week we honour those who give so much of their time and talent in

the service of others. Over 3,600 volunteer and non-profit organizations

in Newfoundland and Labrador, with over 200,000 active volunteers,

provide incredible service to the people of our province.

Indeed, 46 per cent of our residents volunteer, at an average of about

151 hours per year.

From the dedicated people who help our seniors to those working to

welcome newcomers from other countries, volunteers are essential to the

province's continued social, cultural and economic development.

This year's Volunteer Week theme is The Many Faces of Volunteering,

which highlights the diversity of volunteers and the lives they touch.

The faces of our volunteers are not one age, gender or colour. They are

as varied and diverse as the landscape of our beautiful province.

As I learned first-hand, volunteering is worthwhile, fulfilling,

engaging and affirming. I encourage you to be a volunteer and enjoy the

experience of giving back.

As I look around this hon. House, I see many volunteers and colleagues

who support and recognize the contributions of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians on a daily basis.

I ask citizens to join us in celebrating those throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador who so generously volunteer their time.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

today. We join with the government in recognizing Volunteer Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Volunteers are the backbone of the community

sector. They work behind the scenes; they also work on the front lines.

They contribute so much to our communities. For that reason, they

deserve our acknowledgment and appreciation not just during Volunteer

Week, but every week of the year.

From volunteers involved through youth groups, school boards and

religious organizations, to those working with our most vulnerable

populations, all are essential to the continued social, cultural and

economic development of our province.

As the minister noted, there are approximately 3,600 volunteer

organizations in the province. Charitable giving and volunteering are a

significant part of the Canadian economy, with combined value of over

$53 billion. We rank very high in our charitable giving in this

province.

I want to join with everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador in

recognizing Volunteer Week.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister also for the advance copy of her statement. I'm

pleased to join with her in recognizing the benefits of volunteering and

the people of this province who are volunteers. We know that our people

are very generous with their time when it comes to donating time to make

their communities richer and more vibrant.

I join in celebrating the diversity of our volunteer sector. But with

Thursday's budget looming, I caution the minister not to cut resources

to volunteers who need the support and not to divest responsibilities,

which are government's, onto the backs of these generous, hard-working

and very dedicated volunteers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Mr. Speaker,

having worked for 30 years as a wildlife biologist, I am pleased to rise

in this House to recognize April 10-16 another week as National

Wildlife Week. This year's theme, Giving Wings to Wildlife Conservation,

encourages us all to consider the creatures that inhabit our skies.

This year, National Wildlife Week also begins on the birth date of Jack

Miner. Through his pioneering work with waterfowl, Mr. Miner was

instrumental in changing North American attitudes about wildlife

conservation.

This year we also celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Migratory Birds

Convention between Canada and the United States. This is the first

international treaty to conserve wildlife.

Mr. Speaker, we began celebrating this past weekend at our newly opened

Discovery Centre at Salmonier Nature Park. Teachers can also invite an

interpreter from the park to their classroom this week for a fun

presentation about bats.

In our province there are 54 animal and plant species, subspecies and

populations of wildlife and plants that are currently listed as

endangered, threatened or vulnerable. My department is undertaking

valuable work towards creating a natural areas system plan and a

provincial wetlands strategy both of which will help to ensure that our

wildlife species are protected.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to celebrate National Wildlife Week and engage in

activities all year round that protect and support our wildlife species

for future generations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Our caucus

would also like to recognize April 10-16 as National Wildlife Week.

This year's theme, Giving Wings to Wildlife Conservation, is appropriate

as Mr. Jack Miner was born on this day in 1865. The founding father of

the wildlife conservation movement contributed greatly to his work on

waterfowl.

Keeping with the theme of Giving Wings to Wildlife Conservation, I'd

like to encourage all members of the public to pay special attention to

our birds and waterfowl this summer. It's important that we keep

preserving their environments when going about our summer activities.

I'd also like to recognize the Canadian Wildlife Federation on their

activities and awareness campaigns associated with National Wildlife

Week. I also look forward to reviewing the natural areas system plan and

the provincial wetlands strategy which this government has committed to

releasing.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

like to take this opportunity to commend wildlife officers across the

province for their tireless work in preventing poaching and protecting

wildlife habitat. I also congratulate the staff at Salmonier Nature Park

for their innovative programs. We look forward to attending some of

those.

Wilderness and Ecological Reserve Advisory Council, which has played a

vital role in establishing protected areas, was finally brought back to

life in 2014. It's good to have their expertise back and, hopefully, the

council will be front and center in the long-overdue creation of the

natural area system plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further

statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural

Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to welcome

to the province a delegation of 15 of our friends and colleagues from

Nunavut. The delegation, made up of officials from both inside and

outside government, is here this week to meet with provincial government

officials and industry representatives to further solidify the work that

commenced with the signing of last year's memorandum of understanding

between our two jurisdictions.

Our province has been working in Arctic-like

conditions for centuries, developing mining operations in Labrador, oil

and gas reserves in harsh environments and throughout our history, going

north to fish. We share many of these circumstances with the people of

Nunavut. Our historic MOU has been a significant step toward formalizing

mutually-beneficial partnerships between our jurisdictions because,

together, we are stronger.

As geographic neighbours, Newfoundland and Labrador

and Nunavut share a strong sense of culture. We also share a like-minded

approach to safe and sustainable development that respects the

environment and traditional ways of life. With so many opportunities on

the horizon, in the coming week we will continue to build on the work

that began at our initial meetings at the Northern Lights Conference in

Ottawa, continuing to work together to ensure future development is safe

and sustainable for the people of the North.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance

copy of his statement. We also would like to wish a warm welcome to the

delegates from Nunavut. I'm pleased to see the minister has referred to

the MOU as historic. Our government was proud to have initiated it. We

certainly should be uniting with our neighbours for the benefit of our

people.

This agreement was designed to build upon the

history of successful collaboration that already exists between Nunavut

and Newfoundland and Labrador, and encourage increased collaboration as

both jurisdictions prepare for future development and increased economic

activity in the Arctic. The partnership was, and is, a landmark

agreement that aims to maximize co-operation and shared interest for all

parties involved. It marks both a new beginning and an acknowledgement

of long-standing history of co-operation between our two governments.

I'm pleased to see the Department of Business,

Tourism, Culture and Rural Development is continuing with the Arctic

opportunities initiative. I offer my full support as critic as it

pertains to this initiative as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm very

pleased to join with him in welcoming the delegates from our neighbour

to the north. I do hope that their time here will be a productive one.

I'm sure that's their goal.

In addition to exploring opportunities, I hope the Nunavut delegation

will work with our province to examine how to meet shared challenges. As

a government who faces distributing services over a vast geographic area

to a widespread and small demographic on a limited budget, I hope our

guests can exchange ideas and experiences with our government who face

similar challenges.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

We're all very much aware today that a state of emergency has been

declared in Bay de Verde. A large part of the community has been

evacuated due to a fire that is ravaging the local fish plant. It is

becoming more apparent as the day goes on that the plant will be out of

commission for some time.

We know that 700 plant workers will be impacted. We know that harvesters

are on the water as we speak and they'll be impacted as well. I do

appreciate that it's very, very early. I do appreciate the complexities

and the potential enormity of the impact on the community and on the

province, but I ask the Premier if he could give us an update on the

status of the situation.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I certainly join with all Members in this House of Assembly and, indeed,

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, our thoughts are with the people

in Bay de Verde. First of all, I want to commend the local residents and

the local fire departments and the neighbouring communities for their

quick response in the work that they've done so far in responding to

this tragedy in Bay de Verde today.

The Leader of the Opposition is correct; there are about 700 jobs that

are attached to that plant. We were already in contact with the

processors and with the members who make a living in that plant. This is

very early in the season for them right now.

I can tell you right now that this government will do everything it can

to make sure there is continuity both for the harvesting sector and for

those who work and make a living in the processing plant in that

community. I've already had discussions at the department level and at a

personal level with people directly impacted with this. I can assure you

we will make effort we can for this to be seamless even though this is

a tragedy that we speak of today, it would be seamless and that we can

get these communities back to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you,

Premier; I appreciate the update. I'm sure you'll keep the House posted

in the days and weeks to come.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated that there's not one

single choice in this budget not one that will be a happy one. She

went on to say that every decision we make will impact somebody

somewhere and probably not in a good way.

I suggest to the Premier that there are many current important and good

beneficial programs that if funding is maintained on those programs

would be good news for the people of our province. Programs such as the

Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, the Home Support

Program, insulin pumps for children all programs that are about people

and for people.

I ask the Premier: Will your budget focus on people? Will it also

include hope and vision as part of your plan for the future?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

What our plan will focus on is good management, good planning and

thoughtful management. Keeping in mind that every decision we make there

is a family, there is a senior, there is some young person behind those

decisions and the impacts that are associated with the difficult choices

we have to make.

I do have to remind the Leader of the Opposition, though, why we are in

this position, as he has often spoke on the campaign trail and to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about having a plan in place. Well,

what we see in that plan is the debt servicing level in our province

would be the second largest budget line in our province right now,

outpacing what we spend on education for our children.

Even though he talks about maintaining and talks about carving out areas

that would not be impacted, we will make the tough decisions that are

made, keeping in mind, thoughtfully, the impact it would have on

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I remind the Premier the debt servicing level today is half of what it

was a decade ago, and we have more programs and services that benefit

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians much better than we've ever had in

the history of our province.

During the campaign trail the Premier, also, himself talked about the

future of the province and their vision as well.

I ask the Premier: Will your plan uphold your campaign promise of no

layoffs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the

Member opposite would want to go back to 2003 and just a reminder, the

debt of our province right now will surpass that in 2003 as a result of

the inactions and the poor planning of his government. That is a result

of the poor planning and mismanagement we have seen from the Members

opposite.

It's important for us that we make sure we carve out a path to the

future of sustainability for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and we can protect the core services we need to offer to Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. These services must be sustainable, they must be

affordable if we indeed are going to protect the future for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, protect the future of our next

generation.

We will put a thoughtful plan in place, keeping in mind that behind

every decision we make there's a family and there are Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians that are impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, I appreciate the response from the Premier. I remember very

clearly in 2013 when we cut public servants and the Liberal Opposition

was heavily critical of us when we did so.

Mr. Speaker, during their campaign this past year, their candidates

tweeted and touted that cutting jobs was not part of their plan and

under a new Liberal government public sector jobs are safe. Now that

they have been elected and ready to take what they call expenditure cuts

or expenditure actions is what they are referring to it.

So I ask the Premier: Will your government wait on public service

negotiations to determine employment and public service impacts? Will

public sector employees know where they stand this week, on Thursday,

when the budget is delivered, when budget number one is delivered, or

will they have to wait until the fall for budget number two?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition why there is a need for

budget number two, because their budget of last year this time, which

was their first budget, didn't work. It got this province in trouble.

Let's not forget that.

The decisions that we make as a government will be based on evidence. It

will be based on research and the analysis of the situation.

Right now, attrition for us, we maintain that is the best way forward

for us. We've also maintained that there will be a fair negotiation, but

the tough decisions that we have to make, we will make those tough

decisions and in some cases people will be impacted. We know that, Mr.

Speaker.

So these are tough decisions that no one likes to have to make but in

order to protect the future of our province there is no choice, based on

the mismanagement that we've seen from the Members opposite for the last

12 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

There's a lot of reminding going on back and forth from both sides here

today, but I also remind the Premier what the bond rating agency said

just as recently as November, during the writ period, when they

maintained confidence in the plan that we had brought forward, a

significant contrast to what we heard from the bond rating agencies in

January.

Mr. Speaker, as the budget process continues we are starting to see a

pattern of some mixed messages from the Premier's office and also from

ministers. We know that direction for the Minister of Finance seems to

change from time to time.

I ask the Premier: Is this lack of consistency the reason that we are

only going to see half measures come on the budget this week, on

Thursday, with additional measures coming in the fall? Will your

government kick some of those decisions down the road until the fall and

postpone what really needs to happen today? How much are we going to see

this year in budget number one? How much will we see in the fall in

budget number two?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

There are two things that the leader just spoke about, and I would love

to have 10 or 15 minutes, if you would allow me the time to speak about

it. Because right now, what I just heard, he is actually speaking out of

both sides of his mouth. A few minutes ago he was talking about are we

going to make the tough decisions. Now he's telling us to take a

different approach.

Number one, when he talked about the bond rating agencies let me make

it very clear. The information that they needed to have, this former

Premier did not share with those people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER BALL:

He also talked

about his five-year plan. So is he saying today that his five-year plan

that would lead to record levels of debt, record levels of debt

servicing is he saying now that his plan is what they thought would be

the best way forward? I doubt it because the message that we got when

the information was shared was quite different than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The federal government released its budget recently and we all saw it

included increased spending. What was left out is what is being

questioned by many Canadians and certainly the people for Newfoundland

and Labrador. There was very little information given on the new Health

Accord. In fact, no money was set aside for this. Mr. Speaker,

Newfoundland and Labrador have one of the fastest aging populations in

the country.

I ask the Premier: What steps have you taken to ensure that much-needed

health transfers and quality health care are secure for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians this year and for the years to come?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

In respect of the Health Accord, there were discussions at the health

ministers' meeting in Vancouver between myself and my counterparts, and

the federal Minister of Health. We talked specifically about new monies

outside of the health transfer for home care, for mental health,

palliative care and addictions.

Those discussions are still going on with the department. Hopefully I

will be able to report back, in due course, to the House on their

successful conclusion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last week the C-NLOPB issued calls for bids for offshore

parcels. Exploration of our offshore industry certainly has now expanded

outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

When oil is pumped from these sites, a royalty of 7 per cent will have

to be paid to the United Nations. In the past, our administration

advised the federal government that we would not pay the royalties from

the provincial royalties as this is a federal government responsibility.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: What is the position of the

current administration?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MS. COADY:

Thank you very

much for the question. I appreciate it.

As the Member opposite noted, we have gone out for bids. The C-NLOPB has

gone out for bids and we're quite confident we're going to have another

good bid year.

As the Member opposite did suggest, some of the parcels are outside the

200-mile limit. We are working with our federal counterparts.

There is only one ball of value for the entire offshore. This particular

government is looking at what our royalties will be, what our benefits

will be. They are also taking into effect what the benefits will have to

be to the United Nations as per the requirements of outside the 200-mile

limit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Just to clarify, the hon. minister, are you saying that the position

taken by the former government, you've rescinded that decision and now

you're negotiating in terms of that 7 cent, or do you expect the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to pay that royalty or the federal

government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Perhaps the hon.

Member does not understand the ball of value. There is only 100 per cent

that we can look at in terms of the value on discoveries in terms of

production. These are either carved into benefits or they are carved

into royalties or their carved into equity investments, which is the

full ball of value. Now, because we're outside of the 200-mile limit,

there is a requirement for unclosed United Nations.

We are looking at the entire ball of value, we're looking at the percent

that is required, once we have discovery, moving towards production of

the percentages required for this province under benefits, under

royalties and under equity.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a recent media report indicated that there may be

challenges in regard to the operating partners of the Come By Chance oil

refinery.

Can the minister update the status of the refinery and the operations?

Is there actions being taken to make sure those 600 jobs are secured at

the refinery?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

As the Member opposite indicated, there are challenges between what I'm

going to call partners within the North Atlantic refinery. These two

partners are in negotiations and discussions right now. In arbitration

in one, and there are court cases in others. These are going on between

the two partners.

I have been speaking with both of these partners. They both reassure

this government and the people of the province and the Members opposite

that they are both committed to the refinery, both committed to

continuing the work there. This is a dispute between two partners and

they are working through their differences.

I have been assured and we are following it closely and keeping in close

contact with both partners to ensure that this refinery continues to

provide tremendous economic benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

According to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the cost for

preparing for the new federal waste water regulations by 2020 this

will mean that municipalities will have to put infrastructure priorities

on hold while they invest in expensive waste water systems.

I ask the minister: As these are federal regulations, what funding was

included in the federal budget for Newfoundland and Labrador? Where is

the new funding to address these federal regulations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'll just give the Member an education on the program and the

regulations. What happens is a municipality has to do a flow test. Once

a flow test is completed and is submitted to the department of

environment in Canada what they do, they offer a permit. The permit will

inform the municipality of when they need this waste water.

Mr. Speaker, the conception is given that everybody has to be ready by

2020. It is not correct. There are some that are going to be upfront,

the major ones, not all.

Just for the record, he's asking what (inaudible) the federal

government. I can tell you that we just had a meeting with Minister Judy

Foote on a lot of the municipalities and waste water. The federal

government is not only saying we inherit these regulations from the

previous government, we're putting up money to help Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians with waste water, and I'm very proud of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I remind

the minister also, there are communities that have to have this done by

2020, and there are communities in my district. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, there are communities with a cost up to $12 million to $15

million that they're going to have to come up with for these expensive

systems. So I do remind the minister it does have to be in place by

Mr. Speaker, municipalities experienced great improvements in

infrastructure and services in the past decade, and they cannot run

deficits in their budgets. They have aging infrastructure and limited

resources. Some in this province have suggested they just can't afford

to implement these waste water treatment centres and in my district,

the same thing, they just can't afford to do it.

I ask the minister: Where is the money going to come from to pay for

these expensive systems?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I don't want to be critical, because I love getting along with the

Opposition to try to make improvements to the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. I just find it strange, Mr. Speaker, that these

regulations have been in place for four or five years, and all of a

sudden they're asking all these questions.

I asked a question, Mr. Speaker: Where was the previous government

asking their federal counterparts about money for waste water? They had

to go to New Brunswick to get a meeting with the federal counterpart.

Minister Judy Foote was sitting in the Premier's office discussing how

we can get through this waste water/water quality for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. They're not up there Judy Foote and the

federal ministers aren't up there saying here's what you got to do.

They're down here in Newfoundland and Labrador saying how can we help,

and they're putting money into it to help out. So congratulations to the

federal government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Three weeks ago the Minister of Transportation and Works announced

tenders for the 2016 roadwork projects. Our office has asked the

department for evidence-based decision making which resulted in the list

of projects, and we have been denied this information.

I ask the minister: Will he immediately make public the process and

results of how these projects were determined?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you to the Member for the question. We have certainly been doing a

lot of work when it comes to preparing for this year's tenders for

roadwork.

One of the things that we've done differently this year, Mr. Speaker, is

the fact that we are basing our decisions on evidence. Contrary to what

the previous government has done, we have removed the politics of it.

This is the first time that I know in the history of this province that

this government has delivered on providing tenders for roadwork in the

amount of $10 million without political interference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

This is the first

time, Mr. Speaker. My officials within my department we worked closely

on that and they provided the information to us.

I signed off on it. It went to the Premier. He did not make any changes.

For the first time we have non-political interference in roadwork.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank the minister for his answer. It's nice to know it went up to the

Premier's office, but there's no political interference. That's subject

to one's opinion.

Mr. Speaker, the minister announced on March 21 that assessments had

been completed. Some MHAs have contacted the Department of

Transportation and Works asking for a list of projects under

consideration in their districts only to be told the work was not

completed. I'm just being told it was completed and it was an

evidence-based decision, but we were told it's not completed.

I ask the minister again: How can this list not be ready if tenders have

been already announced, which I stated, and priorities already been set?

Will the minister table a list of projects under consideration for each

district?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank the Member for the question. I find it a little bit odd that he

would make the comment that there was no political interference. All he

has to do is turn to his Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune who came

across and congratulated me because of the fact that we provided funding

for her district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

That's the first

point, Mr. Speaker. The second point is for the $10 million, to my

knowledge, if you wanted to check on the website I think we do have the

list of all of the projects that we have out there for the $10 million.

The second phase of that we are going to be working closely with the

project managers within our department to determine on evidence based,

what are the next series of roads that we're going to be providing. So

it's very transparent, it's very open and we're hiding nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

I thank the

minister for his answer. I want to remind him that the road that the

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune thanked him for is actually in the

Minister of Transportation and Works's district. It leads to her

district. Just for a little clarification, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board, which

includes recycling depots in rural parts of the province, will be cut in

the upcoming budget.

I ask the minister: Will the MMSB be eliminated in budget number one on

Thursday or budget number two in the fall?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very

much for my first question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. TRIMPER:

I must say a very

simple answer. As the Minister Responsible for the MMSB, I have no idea

at all what he is speaking about.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The federal government announced funding of new spending over the next

five years for such things as Aboriginal programming, including

education, water and waste water infrastructure and child and family

services.

Can the Premier given his responsibility for the Aboriginal file

tell us if this is a per capita funding for the province or are we

receiving additional funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I did have the privilege last week of sitting down with Minister Carolyn

Bennett whose responsibility is this, and the parliamentary secretary,

MP Yvonne Jones, who also obviously, as you know, is from Labrador. We

had a great discussion on the opportunities that we would have to make

improvements and some new money to our Aboriginal communities.

I am happy to say, if you stay tuned over the next few weeks you will

see some advancements on a number of different files as related to

Aboriginal communities in terms of housing, in terms of family supports

and so on.

There is a great working relationship right there now. As we work

through this with the federal minister, I would say in a few weeks we

should have some more good news on Aboriginal affairs within the

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

As we are all aware here, per capita funding for a province that has a

small population puts us at a disadvantage.

I ask the Premier, will he be lobbying his Liberal cousins in Ottawa to

put a more equitable funding arrangement in place for investing in

programs and services to service the Aboriginal communities in this

province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

We have a number

of concerns, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to per capita funding. We've

made those concerns known; not only when it comes to Aboriginal affairs

but also as it relates to health care as well. There is no question, per

capita funding in a situation like Newfoundland and Labrador does not

necessarily reflect the concerns that we have to deal with.

It's ironic that we get this from the Members opposite. I guess the fact

that they have never made any suggestions to their federal colleagues. I

know they've met with them lately in St. John's. So I'm not so sure

where they come from on this because for 12 years there was no

advancement on any of this.

Right now we are making significant advancements with as you call it

our federal cousins. What they are, are federal MPs working with us here

in Newfoundland and Labrador advancing issues like Aboriginal affairs in

our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

I thank the

Premier, but I also remind him that we lobbied consistently. It's your

cousins that are in Ottawa now. You're saying that there are all kinds

of new investments there but we're not seeing any new money for the

Aboriginal communities.

Mr. Speaker, Thursday, March 31, marked the 42nd anniversary of the

Labrador Flag. Our administration proudly raised it on the courtesy pole

on the grounds of Confederation Building on its anniversary. Mr.

Speaker, we're all too familiar with this Liberal government's record on

flag raising; however, with the Labrador flag they chose not to fly it

on flag day as was done last year and expected again this year.

I ask the Premier who is responsible for Labrador Affairs: Can you

explain why the Labrador flag did not fly this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well the Member opposite, when he talks about proudly flying the

Labrador flag; in all due respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a group, this is

a former administration that fought tooth and nail not to have it,

against it on the entrance and the exit points in Labrador just last

year. Just prior to the election they made a decision out of significant

pressure from MHAs in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair that we see here and

other people in Labrador that made a significant effort as a matter of

fact, stood at those sites to get those flags erected.

I have to remind the Member opposite, when he talks about proudly

defending this flag; I would have to say that his history speaks to

otherwise.

When it comes to the Labrador flag, we consider the courtesy pole as

the Member knows, we will put in place, through the Management

Commission, what will happen with the courtesy flag in the future. That

will reflect then the flags that are flown on the courtesy pole on

Confederation Hill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

engaged in the school closure process based on questionable reasoning

that does not appear to involve the education outcomes of the schools in

question or the welfare of the children in these schools; however, the

minister responsible was mandated by the Premier to pay a special

attention to improving education outcomes.

I ask the Premier: How does the closing of well-functioning,

community-based schools and busing children who currently are within

walking distance of their school result in positive education outcomes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Education.

MR. KIRBY:

I thank the

Member for the question and another opportunity to address this in the

House of Assembly.

According to the Schools Act ,

Mr. Speaker and I'll table a copy of the

Schools Act because I know

I've referenced it a number of days now in the House of Assembly. I'll

table a copy of the Schools Act

for the Member's information, because according to the law in

Newfoundland and Labrador the law school districts are responsible

for the administration of primary, elementary and secondary education.

They are responsible for the administration of our schools. The Members

in the House of Assembly don't do that.

I know the question was addressed to the Premier, that's not his

responsibility either. It's not mine as Minister of Education. It is

those individuals who hold office at the Board of Trustee level with the

school district.

Another thing about this is the whole business of respecting

institutional autonomy. It's not our job to meddle into the affairs of

the school district, like the former administration did.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

I ask the

Premier, Mr. Speaker: When he said publicly that everything will be put

on the table when budget cuts were discussed, was he putting the

education of our children on that chopping block?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Education.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm glad to have another opportunity to address this. As I was saying,

it's important that institutions, that agencies, boards and commissions

that have a self-governing authority, that have autonomy granted to them

by legislation, that have statutory responsibilities to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that are delegated to them by legislation,

it's important that we respect that. If we don't have any respect for

that, then what do we do? We meddle in their affairs, tell them what to

do?

We saw so much of that over a 10-year period, or a 13-year period when

the previous administration was in power, whether it was the school

districts, Memorial University, other institutions. That is not going to

happen. We are going to allow the law to stand in this province and for

the trustees to make the decisions that they are delegated by this House

of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the

goal of our education system is simple. It is to give every child,

regardless of socioeconomic challenges, the greatest opportunity to

succeed.

St. Mary's School off Waterford Bridge Road was slated for closure, but

thankfully it remains open. Like Holy Cross Junior High, it is a small

neighbourhood school that serves its students and community well.

In absence of duly-elected school board trustees, I ask the minister:

Why can't the children of St. John's Centre have the same opportunities

to succeed as the children who attend St. Mary's Elementary, and keep

Holy Cross Junior High open?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Education.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

have in the officials at the French School District in this province. I

know how hard they work. I've been trying to do whatever I can to allow

them to carry out their responsibilities that are granted to them by the

House of Assembly in the best way that I can. I believe that all

children in this province deserve to have an equal footing when it comes

to education, and that's just what we're going to do.

We're going to allow the school districts to do their work. These annual

school reviews are not something that's new to Newfoundland and

Labrador. This is a customary thing that happens year to year. This

board of trustees has allowed for a lot of public feedback on the

decision-making process. They initially went out and met with school

councils. They've held public meetings. The meeting that's coming up

this weekend, on Saturday, is a public meeting and interested members of

the public, parents and students will have an opportunity to provide any

further feedback at that meeting.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the

minister knows that the current school board trustees are not duly

elected. There hasn't been a school board election in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador since 2009. He knows that. He's being

disingenuous.

Mr. Speaker, 38 per cent of students at Holy Cross Junior High have

exceptionalities; over 50 per cent are at risk. The exceptionality rate

also very, very high.

I ask the minister: In absence of duly elected school board trustees,

how will closing Holy Cross and busing and combining these high-needs

students into Brother Rice give every child the greatest opportunity to

succeed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Education.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, many

students in Newfoundland and Labrador have exceptionalities that they

need assistance with in schooling to ensure that they are put on more

even footing with their peers in school. No one is talking about

changing the teacher allocation formula as it relates to the provision

of instructional resource teachers, who are also known as special

education teachers. That is not under consideration.

If children move to a different school as a result of any of the

decisions that are made by the board of trustees of the Newfoundland and

manner as they are being met now. When we have the budget, they may be

actually improvements to that, but let's wait and see.

No one is talking about any diminution of the quality of special

education. Children with exceptionalities will continue to have their

needs met as they are being met now with this decision.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act,

2005, I wish to table the annual report of loan guarantees provided to

local governments to enable them to arrange interim financing for

capital projects. I am pleased to report that there were no new

guarantees issued on behalf of local governments during the fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on May 11, 2015,

and included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2014. This

current report covers the period from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling

of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 49(2) of the Financial Administration

Act, I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans that were

raised under

section 48 of the act since the last report to the House

tabled on May 11, 2015.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 55(3) of the Financial

Administration Act, I wish to report that there were no guarantee loans

paid out by the province since the last annual report also on May 11,

Finally, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to

report that there has been no guaranteed debt of a Crown corporation or

agency assumed by the province since the May 11, 2015 report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the Speaker's permission, I would further like pursuant to

section 26(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling 29

orders-in-council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2016-17 to

2022-23 fiscal years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling

of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that pursuant to Standing Order 63(3), the

private Member's resolution for which notice was given on March 21 by

the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune will be the one we'll debate

on Wednesday, April 13.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices

of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will move the following motion: that this House

approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will move that the House resolve

itself into the Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider a

resolution for the granting of supply to Her Majesty, Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices

of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents humbly sheweth:

proposed to close Whitbourne Elementary effective June 2016 and bus them

to a distant school; and

WHEREAS Whitbourne Elementary is an important, accessible and inclusive

neighbourhood school with programs, community partnerships and

extracurricular activities designed to meet the particular needs of the

children who attend it;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure Whitbourne Elementary

School remains open.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand here today on behalf of the school

community and the broader community of Whitbourne in presenting their

petition, which in my hand has been signed by hundreds and hundreds of

people.

I was really privileged on April 4 to be at the public meeting that was

presentations of the parents and community leaders of Whitbourne and

beyond Whitbourne even presentations from the Mayor of Long Harbour

pointing out how important it is to keep this school in this community.

The thing that struck me was the facts and information that were

presented by the people of Whitbourne to the school district. Facts

which are not being recognized by the school district in the material it

has been putting out. They are using statistics that go back to 2011

that are completely outdated, and it is a shame the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development does not recognize he does

have an ultimate responsibility for how the school board acts.

These people are begging, begging the minister, they've written the

minister, they've written the Premier, they are begging and they are

joined by hundreds and hundreds of people begging that their voice be

heard, because it is one of the most thriving communities in the

province. It has grown immensely since 2011 200 new homes since 2011

built in Whitbourne, Mr. Speaker. These people are not just asking for

something that's not needed; they are being very responsible. The

presentations that were made to the board, I couldn't believe the

quality of the presentations and the information that was presented.

If the minister is really going to do his job with regard to making sure

that educational outcomes are at the maximum for our children, then he

should be reading these presentations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS policing is vital to the protection and service of our

province's communities;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to increase the presence of law

enforcement in the Conception Bay South area.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I presented a similar petition a couple of weeks back and I

plan on continuing to do so as I have a lot of these petitions from the

people in my district, from the Member opposite for Harbour Main and

also my colleague, the MHA for Topsail Paradise.

Right throughout the district there is a huge concern on policing. We

have had an increase in the last number of weeks. I know there has been

an increase in patrol vehicles. The community of Conception Bay South is

the largest town in the province, probably the second largest

municipality, and right now we rely upon two, maybe three police

vehicles.

As it was well published, last week we had an armed robbery every day. A

couple of those happened to be in CBS, and it is not uncommon. It's a

daily occurrence.

During the election it was hammered home to me loud and clear that

people have concerns and they don't feel safe. We don't have a police

presence in the sense you can't go find an office. It wasn't a

dedicated office. It was kind of a satellite. That too has since been

closed down.

I commend the increase in police patrols. There have been some

improvements there but I do lobby the government to give strong

consideration to establishing a dedicated office for the Town of CBS. As

I said, it's a fast growing community. The people are asking for it and

I am advocating on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents humbly sheweth:

Cross Junior High school and send students to a distant school; and

WHEREAS the board has arbitrarily and without consultation reduced the

Holy Cross Junior High catchment area and students will have to be bused

to a far more distant school; and

WHEREAS Holy Cross Junior High is an important neighbourhood school with

programs, community partnerships and extra-curricular activities

designed to meet the particular needs of the inner city students who

attend it; and

WHEREAS the school board trustees are an appointed body and no longer

accountable to the people who elected them;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that Holy Cross

Junior High school remains open and to immediately arrange for a

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever

pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the Minister of Education. For him to

present the education act as if people in the House were not familiar

with it. Of course we're all familiar with it but we're also familiar

with how the school boards should operate. The minister knows that as

well. He knows it's based on a duly-elected process of trustees who are

answerable and accountable to the communities from which they are

elected.

Mr. Speaker, he knows, this minister knows that there are no

duly-elected school board trustees right now. There hasn't been a school

board election since 2009. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. That flies

directly in the face of everything that our school board is founded on.

For this minister to abdicate his responsibility and to say he is not

interfering in that process is absolutely shameful. The decisions that

are being made are very important decisions. We all know that in this

House. We all know how important our education system is. We know how it

affects the future of communities. We know how it affects the lives of

the children in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, this minister has to stand up and do the right thing. He

has to intervene. He knows this is not right. As a Member of the

Opposition, he hammered it again and again and again in this House of

Assembly. How he can stand up and say that it is not his responsibility

is mind-boggling. It is absolutely mind-boggling, Mr. Speaker.

So if he's not going to stand up and do his job, who in God's name will

stand up and take responsibility for what's happening right now in the

school boards in Newfoundland and Labrador? There is absolutely nobody

in charge then, Mr. Speaker. The school boards are able to do whatever

they want and they are not accountable to anyone because they are not

duly elected. We have a minister who is not willing to do his job.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you so

much, Mr. Speaker.

It's certainly an honour and a privilege for me to rise in this hon.

House again today and bring forward my petition which I have brought

forward on a number of occasions as well, Mr. Speaker.

This petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have an interest in

participating in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered

Indigenous Women and Girls;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to press the Government of

Canada to

schedule both preparatory consultations and inquiry sessions

in communities in Newfoundland and Labrador in which grieving Aboriginal

families live.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, in my prelude I said I had brought this petition forward to

the House now the House has been open for three weeks and I'm bringing

it forward at least on a weekly basis. I will continue to do so until

such time as we see results, as we see an announcement from the federal

government that says they are actually going to conduct their

consultations right here in the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador

where people are affected.

We will not quit and we will not sit back and wait idly for them to make

a decision. We will continue to apply pressure. We call upon our Members

in government, sitting on the government side of this House in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, to join with us so that the

results can be delivered for the people of our Aboriginal communities.

This petition I have here today and this being at least the third one,

if not the fourth one has 12 pages of signatures, Mr. Speaker. It's a

very important issue and a very important concern to all persons in

Newfoundland and Labrador, not just our indigenous people.

We really want our voices to be heard and we feel strongly. It's fine to

send down a few plane tickets and pay for some hotel rooms to bring some

people up to Halifax to ask about what we think the consultation should

look like, but it's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It's okay to do that

if you're doing that in conjunction with going to communities, but not

in and of itself because it's not enough.

These communities as a whole are impacted. Men, women, children,

grandparents, nieces, nephews, everybody wants to share their views and

their concerns about what is happening with murdered and missing

Aboriginal persons, Mr. Speaker.

We want these community consultations to take place right here in our

province. We want Members of the government opposite to work with their

federal cousins and make sure they deliver the results that the people

of this province are expecting.

Thank you so much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader, I would ask

Members of the House it's difficult for the Speaker to hear the Member

designated to speak. I understand that you're carrying out the people's

business in the House. I ask to keep the level of conversation a little

bit lower or take your conversations outside the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to rise today and present a petition.

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

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS an extension was announced to the Robert E. Howlett highway on

March 25, 2014; and

WHEREAS the environmental assessment, design and engineering of this

project is complete; and

WHEREAS continued residential commercial growth has increased traffic on

the Southern Avalon;

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

the House of Assembly to urge government to continue with this

significant piece of infrastructure to enhance and improve traffic to

the Southern Avalon.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 15 to 20 years, certainly on the southern

Avalon, we've seen tremendous growth in residential development, in

terms of commercial development, significant manufacturing and small

business operations. Obviously, the fishery along the Southern Shore and

the southern Avalon is extremely important.

There's one major highway to the southern Avalon. With that growth and

with the boundary to the City of St. John's, we've seen tremendous

growth in regard to the amount of traffic on that highway. That's why

for many years we've lobbied to see new infrastructure built, so we

could see an extension to the Robert E. Howlett which would bring that

traffic and highway up beyond Bay Bulls Big Pond, bringing it down to

drop it in at the city limits of Bay Bulls and St. John's after Middle

Pond. As well, it takes that heavy traffic volume out of residential

areas as you go through Middle Pond and around Big Pond and those areas

which are so important.

I know there's infrastructure money that the federal government has

talked about in the budget. I've had discussions with MP O'Regan for the

area, very good discussions, exchanged information in regard to his

efforts in terms of getting recognition and partnering to get funding to

do this. I also have written the provincial Minister of Transportation

and Works and actually advised him that this is indeed a worthy project,

is shovel ready and shovel worthy.

So we look forward to the coming weeks and months ahead in regard to

this piece of infrastructure which is so vital and important to the

southern Avalon to continue the economic growth and certainly to

continue to meet the transportation needs of that region.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further

petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Bill 4, second reading.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation, that

we now move into Bill 4, second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that Bill 4,

an act entitled

An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to speak to the proposed amendments to

the Financial Administration Act

or as it's commonly referred to the FAA, related to purchasing cards

or what are referred to as P cards. The

Financial Administration Act

will be amended with a new section, 34.1, which has been drafted by

Legislative Counsel and has been reviewed and approved by the Department

of Finance.

P cards are essentially government issued credit cards to be used for

the purchases of goods and services. The credit card provider for the

provincial government is BMO. A P card is a charge card used by both

industry and governments in Canada to procure and pay for selected goods

and services. Purchase orders and invoice-based procurement processes

can be labour intensive and for low dollar value transactions, the

processing costs often outweigh the cost of goods and services.

The introduction of a P card has enabled many organizations to reduce

the cost of this process while maintaining an appropriate level of

control and also achieving rebates from the card provider based on the

annual spend and speed of payment.

These proposed amendments allow for the payment of government purchased

card transactions, or P card transactions, to the card provider to be

recorded as an advance or non-budgetary payment and requires

accountability by the cardholder or employee to properly record

expenditure against budgetary appropriation and reconcile the advance in

a timely manner as per

section 22,

section 30 and

section 31 of the FAA.

The new

section also provides the comptroller general with the ability

to recover any amounts that are not properly accounted for. I think that

would be an important message for the Members of this House to

understand that the comptroller general will have the ability to recover

any amounts that are inappropriately charged to these cards of low

dollar amounts.

To give you some background on how government got to this point, the

process has been going on, my understanding is, since 2014 and had

included a multi-phased approach. In the fall of 2014, an

interdepartmental team was established to implement the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador P card program, which included the development

of government-wide policy, procedures and business processes to govern

the use of the card. It was determined the P card would be rolled out

using a multi-phase approach.

Phase one would include a small pilot group in select departments

utilizing a manual process. Phase two would involve developing, testing

and implementing a fully integrated technical solution between

government's financial management system and P card transactional data

from BMO. Phase two would also include any amendments to the P card

policy and procedures developed in phase one, but includes additional

training for phase one participants and the widespread rollout of

purchasing cards to remaining departments with the assistance of BMO.

The policy and procedures outlined and the roles and responsibilities

within the program and the overall administration of the program would

reside with the Government Purchasing Agency, and the day-to-day

administration would reside with card coordinators in each department.

Phase two is anticipated to commence in spring/summer 2016, subject to

legislative changes to the FAA that we are discussing here today. The

agreement with BMO includes a rebate the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador will receive from the card provider based upon the volumes of

purchases and the speed of payment to BMO. Rebates will range from 0.88

per cent to 1.3 per cent based on an aggregate volume of $10 million to

$150 million, as well as government's ability to process speedy

payments. To maximize the benefits of the P card program, government

needs to pay the card provider in as timely a manner as possible to

achieve the greatest possible rebates.

Within the current confines of the FAA to make the monthly payments to

BMO, the amount must be recorded in the financial system and immediately

charged to an available appropriation. In order to pay as quickly as

possible, it has been determined that the optimal business process is to

pay BMO in advance of the detailed card reconciliation each month. This

is because there would be a greater risk that all reconciliations would

not be able to be compiled within the required seven-day time frame to

accomplish reconciliation in an advanced manner of payment, thus

delaying the payment to BMO, and therefore putting at risk the rebate

the province would be able to avail of.

Section 22 of the FAA requires that no payments shall be made out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund except under the authority of the Legislature.

Further,

section 30 requires that an individual certify receipt of goods

and services before payment.

In the pilot phase of the P card, a manual process has been implemented

which complies with the requirements of the FAA. To achieve

administrative efficiency and maximize rebate potential, a long-term

solution for P cards will be implemented which will require a process

using a single electronic file from the card provider and completing an

electronic reconsolidation process.

To give an example, compare this to an individual's personal credit

card. Ideally, you would pay your credit card charges as soon as

possible, or at least by the payment due date to avoid extra interest

charges. A good practice would be diligent and to be verifying the

charges on your statement. Then if there is a problem, you would seek to

get the credit reflected on your next credit statement. This is how the

P card would work under this new amendment to the act. The amendment,

along with the electronic solution, will allow government to maximize

the potential rebates from the cardholder and achieve administrative

efficiencies in administrating the P card program.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks today. I look forward to hearing

from my colleagues on these proposed amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It's great to be here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister with regard to her discussion on Bill

4,

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act. I just have a few

comments on the actual amendment.

As was said when the minister spoke to it, it would allow payments to

corporate credit card providers without a direct charge to available

appropriation, provided that those payments are subsequently charged to

an available appropriation in the same fiscal year; in regard to the

management of that within the bill. The purpose is to revise the

certification process for these payments.

As was indicated, these are referred to often as P cards or government

issued credit cards for the purchase of goods and services within

government. Through this process, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has received a rebate from the card provider based upon the

volume of purchases and the speed at which the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador makes the payment. So an amendment to the FAA

as referred to is required to implement an internal process to make sure

we can maximize the rebate potential.

Currently, if you look at how it happens. The FAA requires all

expenditures be charged to an appropriation and that an individual must

certify receipt of goods and services before the payment. This often

creates a practical time lag and does not maximize the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador's rebate potential. So this certainly, what

the minister proposes, will help to address that.

Amendments to the FAA would include

section 34.1. It will allow payments

to the card provider to be accounted for as an advance on expenses. The

requirement will be that the amounts subsequently be charged to an

available appropriation in the same fiscal year and be certified in a

manner prescribed by

section 30.

As we often do with pieces of legislation or amendments, we look to

other jurisdictions and what practices and protocols they would have.

This is what I just described. It's consistent with other jurisdictions

and what they actually do in handling such situations in regard to these

cards.

In regard to accountability controls in place, an agreement with BMO

provides that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is not

responsible for unauthorized use, dispute process in place with card

provider, built-in card and transaction limits, block of merchant

categories, training for cardholders and supervisors, cardholder

agreements, and the Comptroller General has the ability to recover funds

from the responsible party in event of misuse.

For example, the Government of New Brunswick has partnered with us on

the agreement I understand. They spend approximately $30 million

annually through these P cards. The potential rebate for spend between

$25 million and $49.9 million is 0.93 per cent to 1.7 per cent.

Those are some of the details in regard to, as the minister has

introduced, the amendment. As I said, these cards are issued for the

purchase of goods and services within government. These changes, we

believe, would make it easier for the Comptroller General, the

Department of Finance, to use the P cards in a way which would generate

rebate funds for the province. Anything we can do in terms of

administration or utilization of expenditures like that is something

that we would certainly support.

The faster the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador makes payments on

the P cards, again, the greater the province's financial benefit would

be. This is about streamlining the process. Faster turnaround means

greater results for Finance and for the department as a whole.

The P cards were initiated certainly when we were in government. I am

pleased to support the legislation that takes an extra step to maximize

the benefits of P cards. The legislation, while fairly technical, would

also allow the comptrollers to make payments on P cards immediately, as

I said before, and then assign it to the appropriate budget line.

The accountabilities, I talked about those, the checks and balances will

still take place. Certainly, the legislation alters the internal process

for maximum benefit, and I think that's what this amendment is about.

It's making some adjustments consistent with some other jurisdictions in

what's happening to make sure we're maximizing the utilization of these

cards for expenditures of goods and services in government which I think

is a good initiative.

With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to take a few moments to speak to Bill 4,

An Act To Amend The

Financial Administration Act, something that is very practical and I

think very sensible to be doing. We will be supporting this bill.

As the minister and the House Leader for the Official Opposition have

pointed out, the cards that we're talking about, P cards are government

issued credit cards which must be issued to a person and apparently do

have a limit of $2,500. The public, I'm sure, would like to know that if

there are credit cards going around in government that are being used,

that they are being used wisely and there are controls in place to make

sure that that is the case.

The P cards themselves are usually used to buy supplies, furniture, and

occasionally can be used for travel. The thing this bill is getting at

is that the government receives a rebate from the card provider based on

the volume of purchases and the speed of payment. The whole idea of the

amendments is to maximize the rebate so that it would be a benefit to

government in having a maximization of the money that comes back to

government.

In the current act,

section 22 stipulates that all government money must

be charged to an available appropriation. That a claim is actually made,

and

section 30 stipulates government must certify receipt of goods or

services before payment.

The difficulty is that it does not allow doing so in a time frame that

allows an efficient processing. Things are slowed down. There is a wait

time on the putting in of a request and the payment happening. So with

the amendment that's now being made, it will allow payments to the

credit card providers without an available appropriation. So long as

they are charged to an available appropriation within the same fiscal

year.

Now that's very technical, and I'm sure anybody out there listening to

us is probably going to sleep as this moment. The thing is that my first

question was: Who is benefiting from this? Is it the bank that's

benefiting because they're getting the money ahead of time? In the

briefing that we got, we got clarification: no, in actual fact the

government is benefiting because it will get the rebate much more

quickly. That is the thing that I think makes this very important for

us.

The bill that we're discussing and will pass, I'm assuming, includes

section 34.1 which will allow credit card payments as an advance on

expenses. I think that's extremely important. I'm glad to see that

there, but we have to make sure there are safeguards in place. One of

the safeguards put in place includes an agreement with BMO that

government is not responsible for an unauthorized use. So if somebody in

whose name the card is uses it inappropriately, government will not be

held responsible. It will be the person whose name is on the card.

There are also built in limits on the P cards, which is extremely

important. If a person working for government receives a P card, they

will be trained so that they fully understand what the responsibilities

are and their own liability as the person whose name is on the card.

Another safeguard is the ability of the Comptroller General will be

allowed to recover funds from the cardholder if the card is misused.

Safeguards are put in place to ensure that government and the people's

money will not be used inappropriately by people who have these P cards,

whose names are on the cards.

This is not something that's new. It happens in other jurisdictions. For

example, PEI, Ontario, BC uses this method. Obviously, it's working well

there. With the safeguards in place, I know we can make it work well

here.

We do have a practice going on whereby you get pooling. Our government

is pooling with New Brunswick to collect a pooled rebate. By pooling you

actually will get a larger rebate. So those involved in the pooling will

get larger rebates.

I think this has been thought through carefully, and I'm very happy to

say we will vote for this bill.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

parliamentary assistant to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BROWNE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It gives me great honour to rise today, as this is the first time I have

risen in debate since becoming elected. So if you'll indulge me, I want

to say thank you to the people who put me here. Like many of my

colleagues, I am certain it will be a tremendous honour to serve in this

House for these four years, and perhaps beyond if the voters allow.

Today we are discussing amendments to the

Financial Administration Act .

It is also refreshing today to notice the multi-partisan co-operation

here and the agreement by all parties that this is a good measure we are

putting forward, that's been ongoing. This process began in 2014, and

we're currently now entering phase two, pending the legislative

approvals.

This amendment would allow for the payment of government purchasing

cards, the P cards, provided to be recorded as an advance or a

non-budgetary payment, and then requires accountability by the

cardholder or the employee to properly record the expenditure against

the budgetary appropriation and reconcile the advance in a timely

manner, as per sections 22, 30, and 34 of the

Financial Administration Act .

Mr. Speaker, it's important, we can compare this to a personal credit

card where you would make your own personal payments as close as you

could to when you made the transaction, or before the date when your

interest would start accruing. So it is certainly good practice to be

diligent and verify your charges on that statement to ensure we are

streamlining purchases within government to make sure we are getting the

best bang for our buck for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The introduction of the P card system has enabled many organizations to

reduce the cost of this process while maintaining an appropriate level

of control and achieving rebates from the card provider based on the

annual spend and speed of payment. It would also create that checks and

balances, where the Comptroller General would have the ability to

recover any amounts that are not properly accounted for.

So, Mr. Speaker, we see this as a good measure to take, highly technical

as it is, but it's something we are happy to support, and I am extremely

happy to rise today in support of it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the

Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now she shall

close debate.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to thank the colleagues in the House today who spoke to the

bill. I also want to say a thank you to them for participating in the

briefing that Finance officials provided. I certainly want to say a

thank you to the officials in the Finance Department, including the

Comptroller General's office, who have been working hard on this and

have provided the information to government to bring this bill into the

House today.

With respect to the conversations that have been happening in the House

today as part of the bill, I think one of the things that's been echoed

is the need for us to find efficient ways to process things while also

making sure we have exceptional control in place as we steward and take

care of the public purse.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the support of Members of this House of

Assembly as we move forward with this bill. I thank the House for its

consideration today.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the

pleasure of the House that Bill 4,

An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To

Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now

been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Now? Tomorrow?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act,

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and

I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

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

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Dempster):

Order,

please!

We are now considering Bill 4,

An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act.

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 4)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against,

'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 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

Financial Administration Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the

long title

carry?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against,

'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the

bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against,

'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I move,

Madam Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 4.

CHAIR:

The motion is that

the Committee do now rise and report Bill 4.

Is it the pleasure of the House?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

The motion is

carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER

(Osborne):

The hon. the Deputy

Speaker.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, the

Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and

have asked me to report Bill 4 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 her to report Bill 4,

An Act

To Amend The Financial Administration Act, carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received? Now? Tomorrow?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 5.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board that Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Interprovincial Subpoena

Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and

seconded that Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Interprovincial Subpoena Act,

be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Interprovincial

Subpoena Act. (Bill 5).

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I'm very happy to stand today in this House and speak to Bill 5,

An Act

to Amend the Interprovincial Subpoena Act. It's the first piece of

legislation that I've led, I guess, that comes from my Department of

Justice and thank you I say to the Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the Interprovincial

Subpoena Act, in the grand scheme of things, this is not what I

would term a contentious piece of legislation. You see bills that come

into this House, some are very short and can be deemed housekeeping and

some can be long, contentious and propose very dramatic changes to maybe

previous legislation or practice.

I certainly don't think this is a contentious piece of legislation, but

I also don't think that it's mere housekeeping. The effect of it does

have certain significance when it comes to the order of business and the

order of work as is carried out by courts and tribunals and commissions

not just here in this province, but across the country. Basically what

we're doing is we're trying to amend the legislation to give us

uniformity across the country.

As we know, a subpoena is simply a legal document that is issued by a

court or another body that has the power to issue subpoenas that compels

a person to appear before that court or body to give testimony. I think

everybody is aware of the general concept of a subpoena and its purpose,

and when you receive a subpoena you must show up in front and give your

sworn testimony.

The Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which I'll refer to hereafter as

ULCC, adopted a uniform

Interprovincial Subpoena Act in 1974. Since then, all of our

jurisdictions in Canada, except for Quebec, which has its own different

form of law than we have in the rest of Canada, being more of a civil

law, they have adopted legislation based on this act. However, some

provinces are further ahead than other provinces in how this is applied.

The intention of this particular piece of legislation, this amendment,

is to create a uniform process to allow subpoenas in one province to be

recognized and enforced in another province, and it will ensure a

witness who's residing in one province in this country can be required

to attend to a court or proceeding in another province to give evidence.

So, in general, this process we have here today, which we are putting

forward this amendment for debate and hopefully for adoption, is

two-fold. A court in the issuing jurisdiction must certify the subpoena.

Again, you have, say, the court in Ontario will issue a subpoena, it has

to go through a process in that court where the subpoena is certified or

passes muster, we'll say, and has to be done in front of a sitting judge

or justice. Secondly, a court in the receiving jurisdiction must adopt

the subpoena.

We have two issues with the current legislation we have here in this

province. Currently, the first issue deals with boards, commissions and

tribunals. Under

section 3 of our current

Interprovincial Subpoena Act a

subpoena from a court outside the province can be adopted and enforced

as an order of the court here in Newfoundland and Labrador where, (a), a

judge in the other province has certified the person's attendance in the

other province is necessary for the adjudication of a legal proceeding

and that attendance is reasonable and essential to the administration of

justice in that province.

That's a fairly simple concept. If you're going to issue a subpoena, the

attendance of that person is obviously necessary. Because forcing

someone to go to court, even if it's just here in this province, it's

not a small thing. It takes time out of a person's life, and it doesn't

matter what kind of court or body it is. If you're doing this, it's

essential to that particular case of whatever nature that case may be.

Again, that has to go through a court, and again, a judge will certify

that the subpoena is necessary; secondly, obviously that attendance in

the other province would not adversely affect the health or well-being

of the person being subpoenaed or cause irreversible economic loss. That

again seems to be a standard concept. We're not going to force somebody

to show up where they can show that doing so would harm their health.

The second part of that, the irreversible economic loss, obviously

that's covered in the fact that a subpoena is supposed to be accompanied

by witness fees and travelling expenses. A person, if they're being

compelled to attend court, then the cost of doing so should be covered

by the bodies that are compelling them to do so. That's covered out in

the

Schedule of the particular piece of legislation.

Our act here when it defines court, it includes courts in another

province, as well as boards, commissions, tribunals or other bodies in

another province that have been designated as a court by our Lieutenant

Governor in Council. This is where the big change is happening. It has

to go through Cabinet, through the LGIC.

Under the current version of the act, before a subpoena issued by a

board or court sorry, board or commission or tribunal, not the court

can be recognized here, that board must be designated by our Lieutenant

Governor in Council, and the designation order must be published in our

Gazette . That is a

time-consuming process, to go through that rigmarole, that procedure,

that protocol. I'm sure when this was originally conceived there was

good reason for that, and we have seen other provinces that have already

moved away from this. So it's not necessary to go through that procedure

in order to go through Cabinet, and then go through all the

documentation and protocol that follows thereafter.

In 1998 the ULCC recommended a new definition of court which would

include not only the court, but board, commission, tribunal or other

body or person that has the power to issue a subpoena. This is a group

that's trying to apply uniformity in the law across the country.

The proposed amendments that we are putting forward would adopt this

approach and include a definition of other body to eliminate the need to

seek LGIC approval each time a board, commission or tribunal seeks to

have a subpoena adopted here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So we're

trying to eliminate it, trying to streamline it, trying to establish

uniformity across the country. Other provinces have moved here, many

others are on the way. In fact, I think the only other province that

currently has the same practice as we do here is Alberta.

The fact that a board, commission or tribunal has been given the power

to issue subpoenas through legislation should be sufficient indication

of the stature to warrant the application. So the fact that these groups

in their respective province or here in our province because this is

not just incoming, this is also outgoing as well. The fact is we have

boards, commissions and tribunals that we we've given them stature to

have subpoena authority, to warrant somebody coming in front of them to

give testimony on obviously what is a pertinent or necessary issue.

The fact that they have subpoena authority should already establish them

as a group that should have their subpoenas followed and approved and

recognized. It goes through a process as it stands anyway. It's

certified already.

The safeguards are already built into this act, because we don't want to

have nobody wants to see any kind of procedure abused or not treated

properly or with respect. The fact is there are already safeguards in

this piece of legislation that will continue to apply, including the

judge's certification. That's the big one there. Obviously, we have the

independent arbiter, a judge of the court of that respective province

who has to certify this subpoena and make sure it passes muster, we'll

say, and that it is necessary and that it does ensure the person's

health is not jeopardized.

We've always and you always will have people who, obviously if they

get subpoenaed, don't want to go somewhere else to give testimony.

That's standard. You will have disputes over that, but in this case we

are avoiding the process of having to put it in front of Cabinet and

have to go through that process when it's not necessary. The fact that a

judge deems it necessary should be cause enough to say that it should be

respected and adopted. The province will still be satisfied that there

are no facts suggesting that anything adverse will happen to this

person's health, well-being or economic well-being by compelling them to

attend.

The second issue that our amendments are hoping to address relate to

boards, commissions and tribunals in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Section

6 of our act allows a party to a proceeding in a court in this province

to apply to court and have a judge certify that a person's attendance in

Newfoundland and Labrador is necessary for the adjudication of a

proceeding and attendance is reasonable and central to the

administration of justice. This certification has to be required before

the subpoena is issued and sent and enforced in another province.

The second issue with our current act is that while our Lieutenant

Governor in Council can designate boards, commissions or tribunals in

another province as a court court being that power. The act doesn't

allow boards, commission or tribunals in this province to be designated

as a court. So, again, this inconsistency we see here has implications

for bodies that we have in this province that have been established or

been set up who wish to compel witnesses to come here. It's incoming and

it's outgoing as well. We want to ensure that our boards, commissions

and tribunals who do have subpoena authority can make sure that it's

sent out of province and enforced.

Some of those examples would be the Human Rights Commission, Public

Utilities Board, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. They don't

currently meet the definition of court and they cannot be designated as

a court, so they can't apply for that certification. So without this,

their subpoenas cannot be adopted. They cannot be enforced. You can see

the inconsistency that applies here, that other provinces have already

moved forward with in trying to ensure they don't deal with those

issues. The amendments we're putting forward would remedy this

inconsistency. They would permit them to have the power to issue the

subpoenas and have them enforced in the other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it's fine when you stand up in the House sometimes

and you say: well, I don't think there's going to be any issue with

this. I can say that with all honesty, I don't think this is a piece of

legislation to which there are any issues, but I would say to my

colleagues on the other side again, I do appreciate that department

officials took the time to provide a briefing. I know Members on the

other side took the opportunity to go to the briefing. I'm sure that any

questions they had were addressed sufficiently. If not, I would ensure

that as we go to the Committee stage on this, if they have questions we

would want to address them or if there are any suggestions.

I don't think this is a piece of legislation, though, that should be

held up. I think it's one that has been in the works for some time. We

have seen other provinces moving forward. In fact, I wanted to check and

see who exactly has already gone there. Ontario, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Nunavut all recognize

subpoenas from boards, commissions and tribunals. Similar legislation in

PEI, Manitoba, BC and Yukon limit the recognition of extra provincial

subpoenas to courts in the province with no inclusion. Alberta provides

for the recognition, the same process that we have here.

I think this is a step in the right direction. I think it's going to be

of great use to our boards, especially when you look at the boards that

I've referenced, and other boards, commissions and tribunals that had

that power and should have it enforced and have the ability to call

people because the matters that just looking at the three that I

referenced there, our Child and Youth Advocate, the Human Rights

Commission. The fact is if they're having a matter and they need

testimony from them, we need to ensure that people can be compelled to

show up and give that testimony.

Again, I look forward to listening to the commentary provided by my

colleagues on the other side. If there are any questions, hopefully we

can address them at some point during this debate and move forward,

hopefully, to the adoption of these amendments and moving forward on

Bill 5.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Yes, the minister can relax a little bit now because I will confirm for

him, yes, I agree, it's not contentious. It will create uniformity

across the country, and there won't be any issues raised by us as the

Official Opposition on this bill.

Also, we did attend a briefing provided by officials. We appreciated the

briefing to provide clarity, to make sure that the bill was what it

appeared to be and what the intentions of the bill were.

Mr. Speaker, it's laid out. I'm not going to go through all of the

commentary that the minister has already done. He's done a job of

clarifying exactly what this is about. I can tell you that this is going

to streamline. It does make uniformity, is the word he used, and he's

correct. It will streamline the process for this province.

Currently, there are circumstances where a request or a subpoena would

have to go through a Cabinet process. Part of the bill is to repeal that

part of the section, that part of the act, because it will now be

covered off and respected from not only the courts, which mean a court

in a province of Canada but also other bodies, which is new. A new

section on other bodies means a board, a commission, a tribunal or body

or person that has the power to issue a subpoena.

The province of Canada is updated and also subpoena, which means a

subpoena or other document issued by a court or other body requiring a

person within a province of Canada to attend. This is not about what

happens within the province but it happens when you cross provincial

lines, not just for courts but for agencies and commissions and

tribunals and boards who have the ability and have the power to issue

subpoenas.

Probably a good example would be the Child and Youth Advocate. For

example, the Child and Youth Advocate in this province wished to

subpoena someone from another province then having this legislation in

place would streamline a process in that example.

If the Child, Youth Advocate wanted to subpoena someone from Alberta,

then this would streamline and simplify the process of being able to

subpoena that person, obligate their attendance, require their

attendance here in this province. Also, it would work the opposite way,

vice versa, the other way. If someone in Alberta wanted to subpoena

someone in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would streamline the process

for requiring that person to appear as a witness in a matter in that

province.

This is not about people alleged to have committed breaches of the law

or anything like that. Subpoenas are for witnesses so people have some

value to bring to a legislative process by an agency or board that has

the legislative ability to issue subpoenas. It will allow them to call

witnesses throughout Canada, where they have this type of similar

legislation, in a simplified manner so that the witnesses can bring

value to the process that's before the court, before the board, before

the commission or tribunal, body or person as the case may be in which a

province may have a legislative authority to issue those types of

subpoenas.

This is updating the current legislation, and I'm sure we'll see lots of

this from the government. We did lots of it when we were in government

where we went through processes of constantly updating legislation. I'm

sure they'll have lots more come before the House which will be updates

similar to this, which require us to look at them in the House, to give

our due diligence to them to make sure that they are bills that are

appropriate and right. We have the right to debate them as Members of

the House on both sides and then pass the bills here in the House if the

House sees fit to do so.

I'm sure we'll see many more of these in the weeks to come. I would

expect to see more of these in further sittings of the House. We'll look

forward to debating those as well. We have no issue with this bill and

we'll be supporting this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to stand and to speak ever briefly to Bill 5,

An Act to

Amend the Interprovincial Subpoena Act. Any time, Mr. Speaker, we make

any kind of changes to our legal system, whether through the court

system or any aspect of our legal system, we must do so carefully. We

know the power of our legal system, we know the power our judicial

system, the court system, and we also know how often the general

population is terrified, intimidated, frightened and sometimes does not

have a working knowledge of how our judicial system works, how our legal

system works.

With any change we must act with absolute certainty, keeping in mind

those aspects, and keeping in mind the needs of our community. We have

no problem whatsoever with the amendments put before us in this act, but

I do again want to point out, as we've heard from Chief Justice Derek

Green a number of times, how important it is for us to modernize our

judicial system, to modernize even specifically our court system so that

it better serves the people of our province.

He speaks so often about the need to improve access to our justice

system, to improve access even physically to our justice system, as many

province; also access to our justice system in terms of people

understanding, having a working knowledge of their rights within our

justice system; also access to our system in terms of the high cost, the

high cost in terms of the high cost of representation for those who need

representation; also the time that it affects people's lives.

Any time we extend the authority for anyone to subpoena someone to come

to the court, we must do that with great certainty and keeping in mind

we must always keep in mind the rights of the people who are being

subpoenaed.

So again, we believe this move is simply another method to help

streamline our justice system. In fact we are not losing anything by

doing this particular type of streamlining, but always we must keeping

in mind how it affects the people of the province, how it affects

people's access to justice, how it affects people's human rights. To

ensure that nobody is unjustly subpoenaed, that no one is suffering any

hardship because of a subpoena.

I would hope again that this government, as clearly petitioned by Chief

Justice Derek Green, takes really into account the need for ongoing

legal education within our schools, legal education within our

communities, and that we take into account the great need to improve

to justice.

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to support this. I look forward

to more attempts by this government to further modernize our legal

system.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the hon. the

Government House Leader and Minister of Justice speaks now, he will

close debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate and thank the commentary from my friends on the other side.

I don't think every piece of legislation that we bring forward is going

to be so agreeable. That's to be expected. In many cases, that's to be

encouraged because that's what this House requires is good debate.

However, in some cases, as this one, I do think this is a piece of

legislation that is necessary. It's a step forward. It's the right thing

to do. As the Leader of the Official Opposition said, there is going to

be lots of legislation that comes forward like this that it's an attempt

and to quote my comrade for St. John's Centre to modernize our

legislation, to modernize our system.

I would go further to what she said and say that if there are any

suggestions on modernizing and attempting to make things better, that's

what we should all be doing and listening. We're open to listening to

that on this legislation or anything that's not there. We've had

correspondence on other issues just within the Justice Department alone,

where we talk about things that we hope that we can do to make things

better.

I appreciate the fact that the bill seems very straightforward. I don't

know if there will be any questions in the Committee stage, but I look

forward. I do want to take this opportunity on this piece of legislation

to say something that I hope will stand for the rest of it. There's a

lot of work and everybody in this House realizes, but I don't think

people behind the scenes or people out in the public that watch this or

maybe listen realize the tremendous amount of work that goes into just

one piece of legislation that shows up in this House.

Something as small as this bill, in terms of just a few sheets of paper,

requires an immense amount of work by a number of people in various

departments, whether it goes through Cabinet, and goes through the

Legislative Council, it goes to the Department of Justice, it goes

through solicitors, it goes through people in policy. So I just wanted

to take an opportunity to thank those people. It's easy for us to stand

up sometimes and speak to this, but we do have the benefit certainly I

do of having very, very smart people explain this to you and they do a

very good job sometimes of explaining this.

I'm going to be very self-deprecating here now and say that sometimes

they dumb it down to my level. So I appreciate the work that's being

done by our people in Legislative Counsel and by our solicitors,

especially in Justice who are fanned out throughout government and

working in departments.

So I appreciate the commentary by my colleagues on the other side. I do

want to say very much that I appreciate the work done by all those

individuals on this piece of legislation and every piece of legislation.

I think it should be noted. Sometimes we don't always get that

opportunity, but there's a lot of work and thought that goes into the

most minute piece of legislation, let alone the things that are very

dramatic and significantly change policy. Even something like this has

to be thought out as to what the cause and effect will be and what the

repercussions are.

To all of those individuals and they know who they are I want to say

thank you so much for the work that you do for this legislation that we

get the honour to stand up here in this House and debate and put forward

and have passed by this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is it the

pleasure of the House that Bill 5,

An Act To Amend The Interprovincial

Subpoena Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. S