June 3, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 37

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; the

hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; and, the hon. the Member for the

District of Placentia & St. Mary's.

The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to extend my sincere congratulations to the

St. Alban's and the Milltown-Head of Bay d'Espoir Fire Departments for the

tremendous success of their annual telethons.

These telethons are instrumental for raising funds to purchase necessary

equipment and to help ensure that the volunteer firefighters return to their

families safe and sound.

We are all so very thankful for the dedication of our firefighters, and

extremely proud of the support shown by the communities. The generous donations

received show how much residents recognize the important role that volunteer

fire departments play in keeping our communities safe.

The professionalism and enthusiasm of all volunteers involved in the

telethons is highly commendable, and the contributions of the entertainers and

the persons who were interviewed offered much to the resounding success of the

telethons, with each one raising over $12,000.

The co-operative effort of emergency services in the entire area to enhance

the region's firefighting capabilities is very much appreciated by our

residents and commercial sectors.

Both departments are committed to the health and safety of their

firefighters. It is vitally important that, when our volunteers respond to an

emergency, they are properly equipped to handle any situation, and these

telethons, along with supports from the Department of Municipal Affairs, help

them to do just that.

I would also like to join the St. Alban's Fire and Rescue Department in

thanking CHCM Marystown for their excellent promotion of the telethon, which

helped contribute to its great success.

On behalf of the St. Alban's and Milltown-Head of Bay d'Espoir Fire

Departments, I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations and a big

thank you to the public and business community for their generous support, and

to the fire departments, along with Fire Chiefs Frank Collier and Fred Kearley,

for a fundraising effort extremely well done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the City of Mount Pearl on

hosting the Focus on Youth Awards recently held to honour youth in our

community.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Mount Pearl Focus on Youth Awards recognizes youth

in many different categories. I would like to congratulate all of the nominees

and the winners of these awards. In particular, I extend congratulations to the

following recipients: Female Athlete of the Year, Laura Murray; Male Athlete of

the Year, David Forbes; Team of the Year, Mount Pearl Synchro Club Tier 3 Team;

Adult Volunteer of the Year for Sports, Maureen Au; Youth Volunteer of the Year,

Meghan Kerrivan; Female Youth of the Year, Megan Drodge; Male Youth of the Year,

Adam Sheppard; In Service Youth of the Year, Rebecca Mercer; Group of the Year,

Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron 807; Visual Performing Arts, Karissa Vokey;

Performing Arts, Individual of the Year, Megan Barnes; Adult Volunteer of the

Year, Sandra Mercer.

Finally, there was a three-way tie for the Performing Arts Group category: O'Donel

High Jazz Band, Mount Pearl Senior High Drama Club, and the Mount Pearl Show

Choir.

I would like to commend all of the nominees and winners on their hard work in

sport and volunteerism, and community activities. Being recognized by your

community is a significant achievement in itself. All of these individuals and

teams have been acknowledged for their tremendous contribution to their

community.

I would also like to recognize and congratulate the City of Mount Pearl on a

very successful event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the

nominees and winners, as well as the City of Mount Pearl, on a fantastic Focus

on Youth Awards ceremony this year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate two youth from my district, Samantha Kavanagh of

Calvert and Brandi O'Keefe of Ferryland, on being awarded the Duke of

Edinburgh Silver Award of Achievement, one of the most prestigious youth awards

for young Canadians.

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award Canadians Challenge is an exciting

self-development program available to all young people, equipping them with life

skills to make a difference to themselves, their communities and their country.

The program now reaches over 108 countries, motivating young people to undertake

a variety of volunteer and challenging activities.

The Award Program has three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. As the recipient

of the Silver Award, Samantha and Brandi had to be entered in the program for a

minimum of six months, completed forty-five hours of community service,

participated in forty hours of physical recreation over a twenty-week period,

and participated in an adventurous journey of three days and two nights.

As these activities must be undertaken in your spare time, being the

recipient of such an award speaks very highly of Samantha's and Brandi's

character, perseverance, commitment and leadership qualities. It is indeed a

recognition of their initiative and the support of those around them that they

committed to and met the requirements for the award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in

congratulating Samantha and Brandi on receiving this prestigious award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here in this great hon. House today to bring congratulations to five

well-deserving young constituents of the great District of Bellevue: Rebecca

Higdon, Cody Clark, Ashley George, Erin Kelly and Alyssa Power, for winning

awards and honourable mentions at the Avalon Regional Historica Fair on May 3,

Cody Clarke represented Crescent Collegiate High School of Blaketown, and

received the Hudson Bay Company Explorer Award for his project entitled,

"They Called Me Trapper: Mattie Mitchell".

Rebecca Higdon and Ashley George represented Woodland Elementary School of

Dildo. Both girls received awards. Rebecca received the Laurier LaPierre Award

for her project entitled, "Midwifery in Newfoundland", and Ashley

received the NLTA Marconi Branch Award for a focus on education in Newfoundland

and Labrador for her project entitled, "Nonia."

Erin Kelly and Alyssa Power received honourable mentions for their joint

project entitled, "The Beothuk". Erin and Alyssa were representing

Holy Family Elementary School of Chapel Arm.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this House join me in extending congratulations to

Cody Clarke, Rebecca Higdon, Erin Kelly, Alyssa Power and Ashley George for

their outstanding accomplishments at the 2008 Avalon Regional Historica Fair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to pay tribute to a great lady

and an outstanding citizen of Freshwater, Placentia Bay, Catherine (Kit)

McGrath.

Kit McGrath was the Director of Nursing at the former Placentia Cottage

Hospital for twenty-eight years, from 1955-1983. Not only was she the head

nurse, but she was the heart and soul of the Placentia Hospital and health care

system. Physicians came and went over the years, and there were some who built

great reputations there, making major contributions to the health care of the

residents of Placentia Bay and the Cape Shore, but the one constant throughout

those years was Kit McGrath. Her compassion, her dedication and skill in patient

care has left a legacy that will live on well into the future in Placentia Bay.

Kit McGrath was recognized for her tremendous contribution to the people of

the region in 1983 when she was named Placentia Citizen of the Year.

Mr. Speaker, Kit McGrath passed away last week and the love and esteem in

which she was held was evident in the tremendous numbers who attended her wake

and funeral. It was a display of respect reserved for special people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in offering our sincere

gratitude for the life of Kit McGrath and in extending condolences to her

family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to recognize June as Seniors Month in Newfoundland

and Labrador and to acknowledge the value and the contributions of seniors

across our Province.

This month is an important time to recognize that seniors of all ages and

diversity are important members of our society. The contributions of seniors

have helped, and continue to help, shape our Province, our country and society

as a whole. Their collective experiences, wisdom and knowledge is a precious

resource which deserves great respect.

As the minister responsible for seniors, I believe that our gratitude and

respect for seniors should be shown throughout the year, not just the month of

June. That is why we have made significant investments in initiatives which

benefit seniors and help them have a quality of life and live as independently

as possible.

Mr. Speaker, in the last two budgets we have significantly expanded the

seniors' benefits for both single and married seniors, benefiting over 37,000

seniors. Our expansions have increased the budget for this program by 250 per

cent since 2003 bringing it to a total of $26.8 million annually.

Budget 2008 also provides some $15 million for a Long Term care and Community

Services Strategy including an increase in home support service levels,

additional client subsidies for personal care homes and funding to exempt RRSPs

from the financial assessment process for clients receiving home support.

It is our government's vision to have a supportive, age-friendly Province

where seniors can make a contribution to their communities, and in turn, our

communities support senior residents. We all want the best quality of life for

our families, our friends and ourselves, and through our healthy aging policy

framework we are building the foundation to achieve this.

As outlined as action items in the framework we are in the process of

developing a campaign targeting abuse against older persons, which we will be

unveiling later this month; a campaign to promote positive images of aging. A

new seniors' recognition awards program will be launched later this year.

Mr. Speaker, this collective package of measures, in addition to our

significant cuts in taxes and fees and our enhancements to our Provincial Drug

Program, puts more money back into the hands of seniors, helps to enhance the

quality of their life and shows them our gratitude for all that they have done

and continue to do for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, seniors in this Province not only need to be recognized in the

month of June as Seniors' Month, but they should be recognized on an annual

basis, and so should the issues and the concerns that they raise in our society.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, there are 70,000 seniors or more who

live in this Province and 50 per cent of them live on an income that is less

than $15,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the plight of seniors throughout the

Province, even in this Assembly. Only a week ago I raised the issue of a

gentleman by the name of Mr. Fillier, who was trying to access medication for

liver disease, a rare disease that he suffers, in this Province. Mr. Speaker,

his medications ran out yesterday, but as a result of the profile of his issue

within the Province there was a beneficiary who came forward and did donate for

a full month's supply of medication for this gentleman. That is not the kind

of issues that our seniors should have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. They

should have access to medical treatments that they require.

What about the case of the Connors family, who have become the face of home

care for seniors all across this Province, people who needed access to home care

services at a time when they were most medically challenged within their lives?

Because they could not afford it, they had to go without it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her response.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask for a minute to clue up my comments, please.

Mr. Speaker, these are the faces of seniors every day in Newfoundland and

Labrador who are challenged when it comes to medical conditions and medical

treatments. I ask government, that in recognizing Seniors' Month you recognize

those serious issues and take action to address them.

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

Quidi Vidi.

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

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

Yes, of course I recognize the things that government has done, but, Mr.

Speaker, I really beg to differ with the minister when he says that he is

committed, that is why we have made significant investments in initiatives which

will help seniors live as independently as possible. That is only for some. We

have too many seniors who cannot live as independently because of the needs

testing that is done with regard to the needs around home care.

Once more I am asking the minister, as he looks at the financial assessment,

what we are calling for, what I am calling for, is an end to financial

assessment and that home care is available for people based on need. If they

need home care, they get assessed for how much home care they need and that is

what they get.

It is not enough to say half of seniors are being covered, or some are being

covered. The program is geared to creating cracks that seniors are falling into,

and that goes both for the drug card program as well as home care.

I cannot impress upon the minister enough how much this has to be dealt with

immediately. We have to stop seniors living in poverty and begging for their

needs to be met.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Environment and Conservation, I am especially

pleased today to announce that June 1-7 is Environment Week. This is a time to

reflect on the importance of our Province's environment and to demonstrate

that we care about protecting our natural heritage.

Taking Action for our Environment is the theme for this year's Environment

Week. It is a reminder to everybody that we must work together and take an

active role to ensure Newfoundland and Labrador's environment is clean and

healthy for all of us to enjoy, especially our children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are extremely fortunate

to have clean air and easy access to nature with our abundance of forests,

wildlife, rivers and ponds.

To kick off Environment Week, yesterday, the nineteenth annual Newfoundland

and Labrador Environmental Awards Ceremony was held at the Battery Hotel here in

St. John's. The environmental awards recognize individuals, groups and

organizations making an exceptional effort to protect and enhance the

environment and quality of life in the Province. Environmental Awards were

presented in five categories along with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce this year's winners: Individual

Category, Mike Manning; School Category, Holy Spirit High School in Conception

Bay South; Community Group/Organization Category, the Kelligrews Ecological

Enhancement Program, known as KEEP; Municipality Category, the Town of Appleton;

and Honourable Mention was given to the Town of Glenburnie-Birchy Head-Shoal

Brook.

Mr. Speaker, the Lifetime Achievement Award was presented to Dr. John Gibson.

Dr. Gibson is an individual who has dedicated himself to environmental

stewardship and has made a significant contribution over his lifetime in the

name of environmental protection and sustainability. Dr. Gibson has been a

leading and inspiring advocate for the protection and promotion of our Province's

watersheds. Much of his professional career has been committed to fisheries

research, and in his personal life he has been involved in numerous

organizations that focus on ecology and conservation issues.

The initiative, dedication and hard work that these individuals, communities,

schools and organizations have put into caring for our environment is a reason

to celebrate their accomplishments and encourage others to participate in their

community environmental initiatives.

This week, my department has planned events around environment week for

government employees, and I encourage as many employees to take

part in some of

the presentations taking place on topics such as: climate change, waste

reduction and curbside recycling. The

schedule of events has been posted to the

Public Service Network news link.

I ask all hon. members to give a round of applause to this year's

Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Award winners.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask all hon. members here today to take their time to do

their part this week and every week. Reduce energy use at home and work, carpool

or walk, and please consider the environment when making purchases.

Every one of us can make a difference, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

we in the Official Opposition want to congratulate all those involved in

Environmental Week, and to say congratulations to all those in the various

categories: the individual, the school, the community, the municipality and hon.

mentions, those who received awards at the nineteenth annual awards presentation

recently, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that when someone in your district wins such an award I

remember when a group in my area, GAIA, at Ascension Collegiate, won a similar

award just a few years ago, and how proud they were for the work that they were

doing to help the environment.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, I think we all should do more to help

protect our environment. I know I enjoy the great outdoors all summer long,

being an avid camper, and I want to say to the minister that it is

heart-sickening when you drive around our Province and go to many of our side

roads, to see the waste that has been discarded in the forest and the side

roads, that many people do not have respect for the great environment.

Mr. Speaker, all too often we also hear so much about the tremendous amount

of waste that we have today, the e-waste and so on, and hopefully over the

coming months and years we will be able to take care of all those problems, Mr.

Speaker. I know in my area, one of the things that started just out of the blue

is carpooling.

On the Veterans' Memorial Highway, at the intersection of Country Road,

people used to park there. I am sure the hon. Member for Harbour Main knows what

I am referring to. Right now there are about 100 vehicles that park there on a

daily basis and commute back and forth to St. John's. I have met with the

minister and her officials, and they are hopefully going to do some work to

expand that area so that more people can park there.

I just want to commend the minister for taking time to do that, and each and

every one of us should do our part, Mr. Speaker, to protect our environment and

make it a better place for our children and our grandchildren.

In closing, I want to thank all those who take

part in Environment Week each

and every year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement, and I am very

pleased to join with her in congratulating the winners of the various awards

this year.

I hope everybody will understand if I particularly mention the Lifetime

Achievement Award of Dr. John Gibson, who is a member of my constituency. The

minister has mentioned him, so I will not make a separate member's statement

with regard to him, but I do want to recognize the tremendous work that Dr.

Gibson has done over the years and in his lifetime.

Mike Manning, of course, is known so well for his work with regard to Pippy

Park, and also his involvement in Tidy Towns. He has been a real leader in Tidy

Towns, which is a very important piece of environmental concern as well.

The thing that I do want to point out to the minister once again is, when she

talks about reducing energy at home, which is so important to our environment, I

look forward to hearing down the road, hopefully in the near future, Minister,

maybe by the fall, some real plans of our government with regard to helping with

energy efficiency in residences and in companies as well.

We heard the minister on the radio this morning throw out a challenge to

companies when it comes to Environment Week, saying that she would like to see

companies, corporations and businesses become involved, as well, in the kind of

competition that is here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the hon. the member to conclude her response.

MS MICHAEL: I shall, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I think that was a really good point that you made in

the media this morning and I hope businesses take up your challenge.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, oil prices have been steadily increasing over the past couple of

years. Under the current Hibernia royalty regime, once that project reaches

payout the Province's share of royalty revenues will skyrocket to 30 per cent.

I ask the Premier today: With the increased price of oil, will this project

reach payout sooner than originally forecast? If so, when does government

believe that this will happen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, when oil prices are high, dates are moved forward. You

cannot always pin it down to an exact date, though, Mr. Speaker, because it

depends on what other costs the project might incur.

We have seen some examples in the last couple of years when rigs have had to

be taken off locations or the FPSO has had to be shut down for some reason or

another, because those costs then have to go back in and be recovered before we

get the payout. Is it general principle, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. As oil prices

stay high, the quicker we will get the payout.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could give us an indication, then, of when they are

forecasting a payout right now on the Hibernia project.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Hibernia piece, we are expecting payout in the

next year or so. On the other projects, Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that

information and table it here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are currently in the process of debating Bill 35 in the House of Assembly

and one of the projects currently under review and could be impacted by this

legislation is the Hibernia South project.

I ask the Premier or the minister today: what is the status of the Hibernia

South discussions and when can we see some public statements with regard to that

project?

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, discussions are always ongoing with our

partners with regard to development of projects in our basins around

Newfoundland and Labrador, and discussions are being held. We talk about what is

happening with Hibernia South and what we would like to see happening with

Hibernia South with our partners all the time.

In terms of an application process to come forward to develop Hibernia South,

that ball is in the hands of the partners. They will have to come forward with

an application to the CNLOPB and once they have done their analysis and make a

recommendation, then it comes to me as minister and the federal minister to say

yea or nay to that application.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could tell us, then, if there are any established

timeframes around that particular process or if there is any indication that the

companies will be coming forward in the relatively short period of time.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In meetings that the Premier and I have had with all of the partners in

Hibernia South, they are very anxious to see development in that field and they

are working hard to gather the information that they need and we need to ensure

that goes ahead in a proper manner. They are working hard on gathering that

information. They have not indicated to us any firm timeline as to when they

will be coming forward with an application.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Hebron project will also be impacted by the

passing of Bill 35 in the House of Assembly. Earlier this session we did ask for

a status update on Hebron and we were told at that time we could possibly see

something happening as early as June.

I ask the minister today: What is the status of the negotiations on Hebron

and when can the people of the Province expect to see some kind of deal being

proposed or finalized around this particular development?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Hebron negotiations are ongoing and there has been a great deal of

activity and a great deal of concentration by my department and the Energy Corp.

in bringing those negotiations to a conclusion. We are very hopeful that that

will be done this month, but the biggest consideration for us is that it be done

properly and in the best interests of the Province.

We are looking forward to the announcement and we are going to do it as soon

as we get the good news to share with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Premier and his colleagues were in Opposition they asked for a full

and open debate in the House of Assembly on projects like the Voisey's Project

which was granted.

I ask the Premier today: Will he commit to a similar debate on the Hebron

project to ensure that the people of the Province have all of the information

and have an opportunity to have their voices engaged in debate in the

Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we were engaged in those debates you have to remember the circumstances,

we were dealing with a government that was there basically on leave. We were

dealing with an unelected Premier, a Premier who did not have the mandate of the

people, who was proceeding with major projects in this Province like the Voisey's

Bay project when he predecessor had campaigned on the basis that not a single

spoonful of ore was going to leave the Province. So we were very, very concerned

about the details of that.

As well, on the Lower Churchill, the Lower Churchill was a really interesting

situation because in the Lower Churchill project we were, through questions,

made aware over the course of time that, in fact, this was a deal that was going

to extend beyond the Upper Churchill. So it was basically going to compromise

our ability to obtain redress on the Upper Churchill. There was no redress on

the Upper Churchill. The project management, the project marketing, the project

financing was going to be actually done by Quebec, financing was going to be

marked up and we were going to be able to recall our own power, but we would

have to recall it at more than what we sold it to Quebec for in the first place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If, in fact, at the end of the day there was an

overrun, I think, if I remember correctly, of 10 per cent, which might have been

probably a half a billion dollars, we would have lost the project completely. We

were afraid what they were going to do with it and we were trying to protect

them from themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter to me if they were on lease,

on rent, on loan, on term, I say to you, Mr. Premier, but the reality is that

there was a request for a full debate around those projects by the member

opposite, the current Premier of the day. We are asking, Mr. Speaker, that if

there is a deal on Hebron that it be brought to the House of Assembly for a full

debate.

I ask the Premier today, if he is prepared to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Memorandum of Understanding has

already been presented to the House. The people of the Province know the basis

of the agreement. That basic framework will not change. The details are now

being worked out by officials, and as the minister said we hope to have that

done by the end of June. From our perspective there is no need beyond that.

We have the best that money can buy, the best advice that we could get. We

have the best people hired with Hydro. We have the best people within

government, within the minister's department and the minister herself working

on this. We are quite confident that we have achieved the best possible

alternative.

You know, unlike the concern that I had - I remember quite vividly when I was

on the other side of the House and I looked over during the Lower Churchill

questions and asked a question, actually, of the current House Leader who was

the only solicitor, the only lawyer, the only person on the other side who had

any legal training, and I asked him: have you read the draft agreement for the

Lower Churchill? If I remember correctly his answer-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: His answer was: I will read after it is signed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, absolutely ridiculous! What I will tell the

Premier is that my colleague certainly read Bill 35 and he read it thoroughly,

and as a result of it we can see some strengthening of that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, up to 200 workers at the Come By Chance refinery have been

impacted by a company decision to contract out work. They have been on the

picket line for a couple of weeks protesting that particular decision.

I ask the minister today: have you had any discussions with the company to

find out why they made the decision that they have, to contract out the services

as opposed to rehiring people who have been in their company, some of them up to

ten, fifteen and twenty years?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have had conversation with the company. As a matter of fact I had a

meeting with the principals of the company, of Harvest Energy as well as the

local management of the refinery, to discuss the reasons why they are going to

do contracting out rather than doing the work in-house as they have been doing

for a number of years. We have very little influence other than moral suasion. I

took the time to make sure that they fully understood the social impact and the

economic impact that would have on the surrounding communities. I did all that I

could, Mr. Speaker, to encourage them to have another look at this and to take

another direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister can tell me then if the company's

decision to do this is to achieve greater financial efficiency within the

company or other efficiencies that they are looking for.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason that the company offered to me was this was not in their main line

of work, that they had been doing this work in-house themselves for a number of

years and had found, on review, that they were not very good at doing it. Better

efficiencies were to be found by contracting the work out, as well as the work

would be of a higher quality because they would be asking people who had an

expertise in that area to come in and do the work.

We have been paying quite a bit of attention to this issue, as I said, Mr.

Speaker. The member, the MHA for Bellevue, has almost a daily conversation with

me with regard to this matter. He is engaged with the communities, he is engaged

with the company and he is engaged with the union. We are doing the best that we

can do, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the company fully understands the views of

the communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have also been in contact with some of the union members, but in

particular some of the communities that are impacted.

I would like to ask you, minister: have you done any analysis on what the job

loss at that particular refinery is going to mean for communities in the local

area, and what the loss of economic impact will be to those particular residents

and communities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the company, there will be about eighty people affected. It is

hard to get the numbers any more definitive than that because it depends on what

else happens inside the refinery this year with regard to vacation, holidays,

sick leave and so on.

We also know that a lot of the people who were engaged in this work, it was

part of seasonal work that they completed, not only here in Newfoundland and

Labrador but in other parts of Canada as well. It formed a part of their annual

income, an important part to them, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, and any loss of direct

work in the community has a significant impact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this morning on the front page of the Telegram ,

the headline read: autism is on the rise In Newfoundland and Labrador. This was

the result of a study that was done by Queen's University.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister today: what plan of action is

being taken by his department to address the growing crisis of health concerns

for children of autism in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, not to take away from the significance of the

question, but I would ask her to read the other part of the front page, which

talked about the successful recruitment of pathologists.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as the story indicated, there has been a recent

prevalence study done by Queen's University in partnership with the Province,

the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Community Services,

and that study has not yet been released. What it indicated, which is what I

indicated in the paper yesterday, is that there is a higher instance of autism

in this Province than in some other provinces in the country. We are going to

use that information, together with the insights we have gained ourselves from

working with individuals with autism over the last couple of years, both in our

education system and in our health system, to map out a future direction for

providing services to people with autism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the positive headline for pathologists in this

Province has no doubt been the result of the profile that we gave the issue as

well, Minister, in this Legislature every single day before we dragged the

government, kicking and screaming, into a room with pathologists to even

understand what the issue was all about, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, we did not

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did speak to health professionals at the Janeway hospital who have

explained to us that the numbers of children with autism in this Province have

increased. In 2006 we had about 74 children that were diagnosed. Those numbers

jumped to 114 in 2007 and they expect the numbers to increase again in 2008.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

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

We have also, Mr. Speaker, been told by the people at the Janeway, that there

is only one developmental psychologist to assess these children.

I ask the Minister of Health: has your department looked at adding a

different position or another position of a psychologist there, to help deal

with the increasing numbers of children with autism in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the member's question is,

yes, we have looked at what kinds of resources are necessary to provide for

people with autism.

Let me elaborate a little bit, Mr. Speaker, on what we have actually done.

What we have done this year in working with not only the Janeway but with the

Autism Society who provide tremendous supports for people with autism in the

Province, we have increased their funding level this year by, I think it is,

about $250,000 over and above what we have provided in past years. We will

continue to work with that society and their many chapters throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will continue to work with the Janeway to

ensure that they have the necessary resources to respond to well in the

Janeway's case it is children with autism.

The Department of Education, as well - children with autism in our education

system will be well served through the resources that this Budget has delivered

to the Department of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Collectively, ourselves at Health and Community Services, our Regional Health

Authorities, the Department of Education and the Autism Society, we will work in

the best interests of everybody (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seven years ago, an individual with a grandchild affected by autism took

their case to the Supreme Court when he was placed on a waiting list for ABA

Therapy. Now, we are one of only two provinces in Canada to have a zero wait

time, and, Mr. Speaker, that is something to be very proud of.

I ask the minister today: Given the success of that particular program for

children under the age of six, will your department now commit to extending

resources to a full-time ABA Therapy program beyond the age of six for those

children who are impacted?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member indicated that she had read the Telegram

today, she must have read the rest of the story that said that I have had

discussions already with my colleague, the Minister of Education, to look at the

ABA program. As she would be very much aware, the ABA program now provides

services to children from the time of the diagnosis until they start school and

then the education system provides programs and services augmented with what is

provided by Health and Community Services. The minister and I have agreed that

we need to sit down and have a discussion around the ABA program, the supports

that are provided to autism, both in the education system and in Health and

Community Services.

As I say many times in this House, Mr. Speaker, our interest as a government,

not just with people with autism but with the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, is to ensure that we have a health system that responds to the

changing needs of our population and has a view of enhancing the quality of life

that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have, and that is what we will do

for people living with autism in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, my next question is for the Minister of Education.

We know that special education teachers receive some very limited training in

terms of dealing with children of autism, but we are concerned about the level

of professional development which teachers and special assistants receive.

I ask the minister: Is she looking at or prepared to look at a training

program to be applied to those individuals within the school system to help deal

with these children of autism?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would know,

certainly we have spent a considerable amount of time in the last couple of

years to review the ISSP process that we have in the schools that deals with

students who have special needs.

Mr. Speaker, we had a Province-wide consultation done. We had a report

submitted to government which had seventy-five recommendations, of which we

accepted seventy of the recommendations.

Some of the recommendations we are able to implement immediately. Others need

ongoing review and analysis within the department so we can move ahead with a

plan of action, but we do plan to move ahead with seventy of the

recommendations, and falling under that umbrella would be any child in the

school system who has special needs, including children who may be diagnosed

with autism.

Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the special needs of the students,

and as we move forward with the full implementation of the ISSP report we should

be able to see improved services in the schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Media reports have confirmed that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary have

launched an internal probe into their Corner Brook operations, using the

Criminal Investigation Branch of the OPP.

I am wondering if the Minister of Justice might be able to provide the House

with any information as to the nature of this complaint, and what would warrant

bringing in the OPP to investigate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm for the Opposition House Leader that there is an investigation

ongoing. It is my understanding that Chief Joe Browne will be conducting a news

conference this afternoon, at which he will confirm in further detail the nature

of the investigation, and at this point what I will say is that this matter, and

matters of this nature, are taken very seriously by the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary and steps have taken already by the Chief to address the situation

that has arisen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. I appreciate the minister's candid answer.

Minister, we will be certainly staying tuned for the outcome of the press

conference this afternoon, but I am wondering if you would be in a position to

advise the House and the people, at this time, in addition to the leadership

issue that is being investigated, are there any external issues surrounding this

investigation non-internal - that might be involved?

There was an indication, as well, there would be a report compiled by the OPP.

I am wondering: Would you be agreeable, once you receive that report, to having

it released?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are issues ongoing right now in relation to the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, as have been reported recently in the media. In terms of the issue

that the hon. member is referring to, obviously if there is a report prepared by

the OPP and reviewed by the Department of Justice we will have to see where that

is going.

If there is a criminal charge or charges that come out of any of these

investigations then, Mr. Speaker, obviously that matter will have to be dealt in

the normal course of events.

In terms of an internal investigation, that will be dealt with by Chief

Browne. That is not something that would normally come to the Minister of

Justice's attention because these are internal operational matters that will

be dealt with by the Chief.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure whether the Minister of Health and Community Services or the

Minister of Justice would be best situated to handle this.

Again, I asked questions yesterday related to mental health services in the

Provinces, principally HMP. We have also had information relayed to us that a

teenage girl having some mental issues was placed in the Whitbourne Youth

Centre, and she was there for a thirty-day psychiatric assessment and actually

never did get the assessment.

I am wondering if the minister, whoever is most appropriate, could tell us:

What are the wait times right now in Whitbourne when it comes to psychiatric

assessments, and is there a backup? - Because there certainly seems to be.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

The issue of medical treatment or psychiatric facilities or treatment at the

Whitbourne Youth Centre first arose, Mr. Speaker, during what I will refer to as

a strip-search investigation earlier this year.

We are certainly aware of the issues that have to be examined, and the member

opposite raises a very good issue. It is an issue that I am going to have

explored, Mr. Speaker.

As for wait times, I am not exactly certain of that. If I had more time, Mr.

Speaker, I could go into detail in terms of the policies at the Whitbourne Youth

Centre, how it is being utilized and how it is relates to the facility both at

the Janeway hospital and the St. John's detention centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back in April we brought attention to the fact that the women's

correctional facility - in Clarenville, that is - was not providing adequate

mental health services to the inmates there.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Where is your department in terms of

implementing the recommendations that the Office of the Citizens'

Representative provided quite some time ago regarding mental health for female

offenders?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if the report that the Opposition House Leader is referring to

is the one that deals specifically with the Labrador situation, but the Labrador

situation is being addressed in this year's Budget by the examining of the

building of a facility in Labrador that would deal with people with mental

health issues, youth and female offenders.

In relation to, specifically, the Clarenville situation, Mr. Speaker, we have

commissioned and the member rightly pointed out yesterday that the Terms of

Reference of the prison review are broad, but we made them broad specifically so

that we could look at issues as they arose. It is my understanding that Ms

Poirier, Mr. Brown, that they will be looking at the other institutes in this

Province and will specifically be looking at the issue in relation to the female

offenders in Clarenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

At the cost of being frustrated, I am going to put more questions to the

Minister of Health and Community Services today in the line of the questions I

asked yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, at present, the Medical Transportation Assistance Program does

not cover cost for patients who stay with a relative or friend. Staying with a

relative or friend in a familiar environment while receiving treatment could

actually help in their recovery and with their well-being, but it can be an

added cost for relatives and friends, especially because very often patients'

nutritional needs can change while they are receiving treatment and may be very

different from a family's usual meals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will your government reinstate the meal per

diems and increase the monthly cap to reflect the true financial burden in the

Medical Transportation Assistance Program?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I should first, I guess, apologize for the member's frustration. It is not

my intent at all. As I stand in the House each day and attempt to answer

questions the best way I can, it is not my intent to create frustration, but

maybe the member may want to ask clearer questions, or be a little more content

with my answers, though I accept her questions on their face.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, in the last two years we have made

significant improvements in our medical transportation system. We have, in fact,

increased the limits for accommodations. We have, in fact, increased the limits

for the meals. We have, in fact, increased the deductible that is available. In

fact, we have increased the amount, the portion that we will share in after the

deductible, Mr. Speaker.

As I said yesterday, this program, together with others, will be a part of

the annual evaluation that we do of programs and services in preparation for

next year's budget -

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- and the suggestions that the member has made, together with many from

colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side, Mr. Speaker, we will

incorporate all of those

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Of course the minister knows that my questions are usually quite clear. He

also knows that the cost of staying with relatives and friends is not covered,

but I am glad to know that he is at least going to take it under advisement as

he does the current evaluation that is going on.

Mr. Speaker, patients are occasionally referred outside the Province for

testing that is not available in a timely manner in the Province due to the

length of the waitlist. Mr. Speaker, we have been contacted by patients

regarding situations where the Medical Transportation Assistance Program would

not subsidize the cost of the trip, even through the doctor has referred the

patient for testing outside the Province.

I ask the Minister: Will this government cover the cost of trips for testing

outside the Province if the physician deems there is an urgent need and it

cannot be done in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: There is a caveat that the member has placed in her question

which is a valid one, which is if the service is not available in the Province.

On occasion, there are individuals who may want to leave the Province to avail

of a service, and in fact there has been a recent example where an individual

and they may be the example the member is referring too - a recent example

where there was an individual referred outside the Province for a service that

was available in Newfoundland and Labrador, albeit there might have been a

waiting list different in this Province than there would have been in Ontario,

but the person chose to leave and go to Ontario for the examination.

In those sorts of circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the medical transportation

system was never designed to accommodate that kind of a circumstance, but

clearly if the service is not available in the Province, like the recent

radiation treatment, for example - I think there are 130-odd patients we sent

out to Ontario for radiation treatment because the service was not available in

the Province.

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

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few years back there were a number of cardiac patients who went out of

Newfoundland and Labrador, again to Ontario, because we could not accommodate

all of the workload in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for question and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 26.(5)(

a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling six Orders in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the

2008-2009 to the 2013-2014 fiscal years.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in Question Period the Leader of the Opposition asked the question

with regard to Island Aggregates, as to the length of our contract with Island

Aggregates and the amount of money that had been disbursed under our limestone

program.

Mr. Speaker, we had a five-year contract with Island Aggregates beginning in

2006. That contract is now lapsed. We paid money to Island Aggregates only as it

was invoiced, so they do not have any money belonging to us, Mr. Speaker. In

fact, we probably owe them some money.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

Vidi.

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

I am pleased to stand once more and speak to the petition with regard to the

911 service in the Province, a petition that I have indicated before has been

signed by over 50,000 people.

While I do know that the minister responsible is committed to the issue of

911, I do believe it is important to keep this discussion alive, especially

since we do know that, beginning two days ago on June 1 st , 911 has

begun in Labrador West and it has begun there because of cooperation among the

Labrador City and Wabush municipalities and the mining companies in the region,

the Iron Ore Company of Canada and Wabush Mines, as well as the Provincial

Government. I think it is important to note that the mayors in Labrador West

recognize number one that this is an extremely expensive service that not all

municipalities can carry, even with partners in the service with them and the

need for this to be a Province-wide service that government is in charge of.

Just to point out, that this discussion is alive and well and that people in

the Province are watching, municipalities as well as organizations and

individuals I continue to get phone calls about this issue, and once again I

encourage the minister in the work that is going on inside of his department. I

look forward, in the not-too-distant future, at least to receive a report from

the minister explaining where things are, how things are going with the planning

for a 911 in the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move from the Order Paper Motion 1, pursuant to

Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on today, Tuesday,

June 3, 2008; and further, I move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that

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

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 of the

clock today, being Tuesday, June 3.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 10 o'clock

today, Tuesday, June 3.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 5, second reading of a bill,

An Act

To Amend The Energy Corporation Act, Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35 is now in debate in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: I am closing debate.

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

I would ask direction again before I again interrupt the minister. Are we

going to follow the Standing Orders, I say to the hon. Government House Leader,

or revert back to what we have been doing the past two days?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that for the past two

Parliamentary days we did not follow the rules of debate for second reading,

however when the minister speaks at this time she will close second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks now she

will close the debate on second reading of Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Energy

Corporation Act.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a really interesting week as we discussed Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act.

This is a significant piece of legislation for our government and for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, certainly the most significant

piece of information that we have brought forward in our time as a government.

It is a wonderful opportunity here, and a new road that we are going down, in

which we are going to establish our own Energy Corporation, where we move along

the path to becoming masters in our own house, that we sit at tables and make

decisions with regard to our resource development in the best interests of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador; and Bill 35, Mr. Speaker, is a mechanism to

allow us to do that.

We suspended the rules here in the House this week, Mr. Speaker, to allow a

full and open discussion of this legislation so that especially the opposition

had ample opportunity to lay their perspective on the table, to raise concerns

and to have questions answered.

Outside of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, we also took the time to meet with

our colleagues opposite, again to discuss issues that they had around this piece

of legislation, and made amendments that we will discuss in Committee to address

a number of the concerns that they brought forward.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of work that we are very proud of, as a

government; again, a new path being forged, a new day for Newfoundland and

Labrador in resource development.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move the closure of second reading of Bill

35 and look forward to our discussion in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35,

An Act To

Amend The Energy Corporation Act, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35 has now been read a second time.

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill 35)

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

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

Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 35.

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

of the Whole to consider Bill 35, and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Collins): Order, please!

Before we debate Bill 35, there was a point of order raised by the hon.

Opposition House Leader on May 29. He raised a point of order to inquire whether

it was permissible to read from a BlackBerry while speaking in debate. The House

Leader said that he had observed the hon. the Minister of Justice using his

BlackBerry in this way.

Our Standing Orders are silent on the use of electronic devices in the

Chamber. This is a question that the Standing Orders Committee might consider.

In the meantime, I believe the Speaker had discussed this informally with some

members and advised them that it is permissible to use a BlackBerry provided

they are silent and, further, that they should not use them as a speaking aid in

debate.

We are now ready to commence debate on Bill 35.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Now that we are in Committee, Mr. Chair, I am going to introduce six

amendments to Bill 35. These are being circulated, I understand, at this moment

in the House.

These amendments, several of them, are related to process in terms of making

sure that the intent of the bill is clearly understood and there is no ambiguity

about what it is we are trying to achieve in several of the sections of the

bill.

Several of the other amendments that are being brought forward at this time,

Mr. Chair, are a result of discussions held with our colleagues opposite during

the last several days, and concerns that they have raised.

What we are trying to achieve in this bill, Mr. Chair, is to ensure that the

Energy Corporation has the tools it needs to operate effectively in the

commercial world. At the same time, Mr. Chair, we acknowledge that we are

dealing with a hybrid here; because Energy Corp. is a Crown corporation, it is

owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is a fine balancing act

that we have had to do in this piece of legislation to ensure that the Energy

Corp. is able to function properly in the business world and do the work that it

needs to do on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to be able to

engage in business activities where there is a great deal of commercially

sensitive information that partners and third parties would be very concerned

about in terms of sharing with our Energy Corp., and their requirement that,

that information be protected, that it not be widely shared, because it could

have a significant impact on their business activities.

That is also true, Mr. Chair, not only for third parties or other companies

that we might be dealing with, but, for example, in our transactions, in what we

are trying to achieve in the development of the Lower Churchill and the sell of

power either from the Lower Churchill or from our Energy Corp., what we are

doing in terms of R&D, Mr. Chair, in ensuring that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are facilitating that kind of research and

development. We have to ensure that we protect that information in a way that

sees the people of the Province get the primary benefit from that. It is a fine

balance that we are trying to strike in this bill, and some of the amendments

speak to that.

Again, how do we deal with tendering? How do we ensure that there is a lively

and open, competitive, function in our Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries so that

the people who want to do work on behalf of the Energy Corp. and its

subsidiaries have fair and open access, that everybody understands what the

rules are, and the guiding principles for doing this kind of activity?

These are the kinds of things that we have addressed in these six amendments

that we have brought forward, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to further

discussion on all of the elements of these amendments as we move through

Committee.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to say it is pleasing, I guess, to see that we

have moved from second reading stage into Committee stage of this bill. For

those, of course, who might be wondering what that is all about, there are

usually three or four stages to a bill, one being first reading, then second

reading, which is pretty general in nature, and Committee stage, which gets into

the specifics, and then, of course, the third and final stage in terms of the

Legislature.

We have reached the stage now where we are in Committee and the rules require

or allow that each side now, or each speaker who gets up, not necessarily side

to side, but that is usually what happens, will have ten minutes each to address

the matters, and we will usually stick to the specifics of the bill,

clause-by-clause, rather than being of a generic nature. I think it warrants

some bearing in the first instance to explain to the public what has happened in

the last couple of days.

We started our debate on this Bill 35 back last Thursday. In fact, we worked

Thursday afternoon on it, we worked Thursday night on it, and over the weekend

on it, because it is a very substantial and important piece of legislation, as

the minister says. We incorporated the Energy Corp. piece and brought

an act

into this Legislature last year called Bill 28, which created it, and we are

back here now this year amending that Bill 28 by Bill 35 to allow certain other

things to happen.

We in the Opposition certainly feel as well that what they are now tacking on

to the Energy Corp, or taking away or adding to the Energy Corp. is, in and of

itself, very, very substantial.

First of all, in terms of the process, we outlined, as an Opposition, last

week what we felt in second reading were some serious issues that were remaining

in Bill 35. The government had an option. They could have said we can debate

this until the cows come home, pursuant to the rules or whatever, or we could

say, look, let's suspend the rules; this is important enough that each side

needs an opportunity to comment, to listen, and to respond accordingly.

That is what we agreed to do last Thursday. I am very pleased that, after

laying a lot of these issues on the table last Thursday, in the afternoon and in

the evening, the minister and her staff took it under advisement and over the

weekend and so on came back and said, okay, we listened to you and there are

some issues here that we are prepared to look at. In fact, there were six

amendments that the minister had, and she gave them to us.

In fact, there were a lot of extensive meetings, I would add, outside the

House, that just did not happen here in the House. The reason we did that wasn't

so the public would not be aware of what was going on, but it makes it a lot

easier sometimes across a table when you have the personnel involved to discuss

things, throw it out, tear it apart, get into the A's through Z's and figure

out what does this mean, what do you mean by this, and so on. That candid

conversation back and forth, and dialogue, helps sometimes resolve issues, and

sometimes we might identify that you do not have a problem after all, where you

thought you had a problem. That was the process that was used outside the House.

The government made not only the minister available - was she available - but

officials of her department, legal counsel from the Department of Justice,

representatives from the Energy Corp. itself, all members of the Opposition were

invited to attend, and our research staff, so it was a very comprehensive, shall

we say, open dialogue process.

We thank the government for doing that, by the way, because I think it is in

everybody's best interest. We did not get bogged down in the technicalities of

amendment after amendment to try to get this through just to get extra speaking

time, which would have been the case because the Opposition, in limited numbers,

of course, only have certain opportunities to speak, so we thank the government

and the minister for that process that was followed.

We are back here today and the minister has tabled some amendments, I do

believe, that government were prepared to live with, shall we say. We do not

necessarily agree, still, with everything that is in those amendments, but we

would concede that it has gone some way to alleviate and remove the concerns

that the Opposition had. We raised them; they came back and responded. Some of

them go all the way to answering the concerns that the Opposition members had;

some of them go part ways to operating.

By the way, the government has their positions, the same as we have our

positions, as to why they could not go a certain distance, and we feel that

sometimes, okay, maybe you did not go far enough, but that is the nature of

negotiations and discussions back and forth. At the end of the day, suffice it

to say that after all the deliberations we have a package of six amendments

coming from the government that they are prepared to amendment Bill 35 in these

ways.

As the debate goes on in Committee, and back and forth, of course, we will

take an opportunity to say why we agree with them, that the government are

putting forth. We will also take an opportunity to say why we disagree with

them, that they did not go far enough.

I am sure the minister, as we did in our meetings, will explain why that is

as far as she could go and that is as far as the government could go, et cetera.

That will be the nature, I would think, of our discussions back and forth in the

House. We will not belabour points. I do not intend to get repetitive about it,

but that is the process that we intend to follow. As we go through each clause

of the bill we would like to have an opportunity to say why we think it is right

or wrong, and so on.

At the end of the day we will be proposing, and I would now, in fact, table

there was one amendment that we wanted, that the government said they could

not agree to, and we will be tabling this as well here now at this stage, in

Committee stage, and ask for consideration when that clause comes up in the bill

for debate. That is with respect to clause 4 of the bill, talking about the sale

of subsidiaries. That was one issue that we could not agree on, and we all have

our reasons why we could or we could not, and that will come out as we get more

fully into that debate.

That is all I want to say at the present time. I am sure there are other

members who want to have some opening comments as well in regard to the debate,

and how we got here. I would say, probably suffice it to say, that after all of

the discussions and the debate that we have had so far, probably all of us will

leave here at the end of the day, when the vote is done, wondering if we did the

right thing; because some things we find about Bill 35 are good, and we can

appreciate where you have to go. We do not know if it is the right way to go,

necessarily, but we can appreciate, at least, and comprehend why you want to go

there.

The balance that we felt, from day one, the government needed to strike here,

at the end of the day, will determine whether we vote for or against Bill 35.

I just want it to be very clear that if, at the end of the day, Opposition

members - some may vote for it, some may vote against it, that is each

individual Opposition member's call, but at the end of the day - if we vote

against Bill 35, it is not because we did not appreciate the government's

efforts to make it palatable to us, and that we do not appreciate the government's

openness and being co-operative and providing us with an opportunity to at least

have a full and complete debate on this issue. I want to make that quite clear.

At the end of the day it comes down to the balance, we feel, of what it is

government is trying to accomplish in allowing the Energy Corp. to be functional

as any other business and player in the industry - whether that be whatever

piece of the energy industry that it might be, offshore, or Lower Churchill, or

wind energy, or whatever - versus the public's right to know what is

happening, when should they be informed, and the public's right to have some

say in when it is done.

That is basically how we see it lining up over here, I believe, as an

Opposition. That is the balance that is trying to be struck. The government, at

the end of the day, no doubt, feel they struck the right balance, and we will

have to make that decision at the end of debate because I certainly have not

closed off my head one way or another yet. I am torn right now, because I did

hear good arguments both ways, and that will be my conscience, I guess, that has

to live with that at the end of the day.

That is all I have to say at this point. I would like to table the amendment,

and I look forward to the debate as we go clause-by-clause.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do recognize when it is a Chair at the Table it is very hard for the Chair

to see me when I stand. I am right in the line of the head in front of you.

Thank you for your recognition.

I would like to make opening statements first, as well.

I was very pleased with the process that we have been going through since

last Thursday. I think it is something for us to think about as we continue

working together in this House of Assembly, because what we went through, I

think, is extremely important.

It is not that when a department, no matter which department it is, is

putting a bill together that the department is not using tremendous expertise.

The departments have expertise, and in the case of this particular bill, Bill

35, the Natural Resources Department has shown us that not only do they have

wonderful expertise within the department but that they knew where to go to get

expertise, both within our own country as well as internationally, to deal with

this bill, because the bill is an extremely important bill and a complicated

bill and, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, very complex.

It is not that members of the House in opposition do not trust the department

or trust the expertise inside any department, it is that we all have a

responsibility, number one, to understand any bill that we are passing in the

House, and number two, we have a responsibility to understand it for the people

of the Province, and through our discussion in the House, to help them

understand the bill as well. The discussions that we have, the questions that we

ask, the back and forth that goes on is extremely important for the sake of the

public interest and the public good of the Province.

Because of what we have been through, and for me, in my short history in the

House which is only about a year and a half - so this is what, my third or

fourth session in the House. What we have been through has been fairly unique.

There have been times over the last year and a half where I have gone to

ministers and changes have happened in a piece of legislation because of issues

raised, and I have been pleased with that.

This was much more complex and much more involved, the process that we have

been through, and I think it is important for the public in general to

understand what we went through, that when we had meetings outside the House,

they were technical meetings in which we were able to really get at what was

behind the language of the bill, and if we had questions around it, what the

technical reasons were for why it was there, and if we wanted changes to see

technically could changes happen. There was a lot of push and pull and a lot of

discussion that was extremely important.

For me, I think it is something that we should really pay attention to and

that we should think about as we move on after this whole piece of work is over,

because it is something that I have been raising in the House over and over, and

I would like to raise it once more because of this experience. That is, what we

did in the name of second reading, in a situation in which we had said, we will

do this discussion without the usual rules hampering us. What we did is what I

think committee work is all about. It is equivalent to what happens in other

jurisdictions, both in Ottawa and in other provincial jurisdictions, where draft

bills come to committee first. Draft bills, after second reading, can be

discussed and even before first reading, draft bills, a committee can get them

and you can sit and talk together in committee about what this bill means.

The committee, the parliamentary committee, can call in witnesses, so the

equivalent of what we did, for example, as the Opposition with the Minister of

Natural Resources and her staff over the last couple of days, sitting down with

people with expertise, going through the legislation, trying to see if changes

can be made to meet everybody's needs, that kind of process can happen in

committee, and that kind of process can be an open process that anybody can

follow if they would like to follow.

I really do think it is something for us to think about in the House, how we

work, and that this model with Bill 35, or this experience that it could become

a model, that we could see that we all have the same interest when we are in the

House, and that is the public good and the public interest. That is why we were

willing to work as long and hard as we have worked over the last days in doing

this bill, just like the Department of Natural Resources and the Minister were

willing, to make sure we have as good a bill as possible through the, I am sure,

thousands of hours of work that have gone into putting this bill together; and I

do not think I am exaggerating.

I am emphasizing that first because I think it is really important for people

to understand the process and I think that we have come a long way in that

process, that we really have come to consensus on some important points. There

was give and take on all sides, but it was a serious give and take because it

had to be a give and take where you knew that you were not doing any damage to

the bill and the intent of the bill. That was the challenge on all sides, was

give and take without doing damage to the bill because a compromise that does

harm is not compromise. That is not what compromise is about. Compromise means

everybody being satisfied that what you have is meeting all needs.

We are not finished the process yet, and that is what I am recognizing. We

had a meeting as early as one o'clock this afternoon before we came into the

House. This process has been intense and there were things that we had discussed

then and have been tabled through the amendments that the minister has tabled,

that we still have to do more thinking about. That is what being in committee

now is all about, allowing us to think more deeply about the amendments and are

they really meeting the needs of everybody. I think there will be more questions

and a bit more pushing on some things here as we continue the discussion.

I think it has been said, maybe by the minister and Opposition House Leader

as well, but I also will repeat it, because I think it is good for the public to

think clearly about what it is we are dealing with. We are working with a bill

that is dealing with the creation of our Energy Corporation and the legislation

that will cover, not just the Energy Corporation but any subsidiary that already

exists or will exist under this Energy Corporation.

We do have to allow the Energy Corporation to operate as a business. It has

to be free to operate as a business and it has to do that in the context of a

very complex industry, an industry no part of which is not international. That

is the reality. There are some industries that you can get into them and while

there may be some global impacts they are not major, but when we are talking

about oil and gas we are talking about nothing less then a completely

international industry. The issues are not small, the issues are complex.

I will be speaking again. I need a little while to go over a couple of the

things that we have been talking about today. I think there are a couple of

points that I do want to raise.

In general, I like the work that we have done and I certainly do appreciate

the work of the minister and all of her people. We will see; I am hoping that we

would be able to pass this bill unanimously in this House, because it is an

extremely important bill, but we have to make sure that what we are passing will

totally protect the people in this Province while, at the same time,

establishing a first-class corporation and system of corporations.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will leave my comments at that for the moment.

CHAIR: Order please!

We will now call the clauses of Bill 35.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Act." (Bill 35)

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.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I think, in the haste to start calling the clauses

of the bill, the Minister of Natural Resources was going to speak to some of the

amendments that we have.

CHAIR: I perfectly understand the question, but there are no amendments

to clause 1. The first amendments are to clause 2.

MS BURKE: Yes.

CHAIR: We have called clause 1. Now we will go to clause 2.

We will lead the amendments one by one through clause 2.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

"Clause 2 of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the

proposed paragraph 5.2(1)(

b) the following: (

c) a report of each subsidiary

giving an account of its activities during the immediately preceding financial

year and including information that it believes may be of public interest

relating to its activities but the report shall not be required to include

commercially sensitive information."

Mr. Chair, this amendment, while we are providing a number of mechanisms in

this bill to ensure that the subsidiaries and the Energy Corp. are providing

information to its shareholder, which is the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, a lot of that information initially would have been bound up in

consolidated annual reports, consolidated financial reports and so on, Mr.

Chairman.

It was pointed out that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador might have an

interest in what the subsidiaries are doing around their specific mandate. They

might be interested in knowing what is happening in wind development, here in

the Province, or something around oil and gas that they would not have been able

to draw out in any kind of detail from the annual consolidated report. So, in

response to that concern that has been raised, we are proposing this amendment,

Mr. Chair, which has the subsidiaries give a very specific report about their

activities during the preceding year. The only caveat again, Mr. Chair, the

overriding concern through all of this legislation, is that we not release

commercially sensitive information.

We do acknowledge the concern raised by our colleagues opposite, and that was

the impetus for drafting this amendment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, speaking to the first

amendment.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are dealing here with Clause 2. Just a comment, by the way; I realize we

passed clause 1 here, but it all ties together under the act, and that is the

principal purpose of Bill 35, of course, under clause 1 was to outline what is

commercially sensitive information so that we do not lose the principal focus

here of what we are dealing with.

The concern here was that the Energy Corp., or subsidiaries that it might

establish, would be going off and doing business with people involved in the

energy industry it could be any sector - and the concern was, what if these

third parties were dealing with the Energy Corp., providing them with

information that might be technological information, it might be commercially

sensitive, it might be patented information it could be anything - it could

be drill processes that you might be using in mining or under offshore oil

projects and so on. So the third party company, such as the Exxons of the world,

did not feel comfortable, I understand, dealing with the Energy Corp. or with

any subsidiaries they might establish, knowing, or not knowing, what might

happen to that information in due course.

The only option around it, if you do not have legislative protection, I

guess, was to negotiate confidentiality agreements to protect yourselves, and

that becomes time-consuming and complex. Now, if the government obviously

decided here that because I am assuming that these confidentiality

agreements are done all over the world. I mean, whether you are Microsoft who

wants to buy Yahoo for $50 billion, or you are Exxon dealing with Norsk Hydro in

the Norway offshore, or in the Mexico offshore industry, these companies

standardly always do use confidentiality agreements, as I understand it, so it

is not a case that it cannot be done. It is a case of the Energy Corp. wants the

flexibility, I guess, to be able to move quickly without necessarily tying up

months and months or years and years in negotiating the confidentiality

agreements. So, it is not a case that it cannot be done; it is a case of the

government wanting to give the flexibility to the Energy Corp. and its

subsidiaries by saying: We are going to get around that problem by saying this

will be commercially sensitive information and it is protected. Because there

are two things, and we will get into this later, there are certain things that

the Energy Corp. and this is under clause 2, later on, when it says certain

circumstances when the Energy Corporation may refuse to disclose the information

and there are certain times when they shall refuse to disclose the information.

They may refuse to do it under the act commercially sensitive information

of the corporation or a subsidiary - they may or may not, it depends on what the

CEO decides, but in the case of any information they got from a third party such

as an Exxon, for example, they shall not disclose it, under no circumstances, as

I understand it. The CEO of the Energy Corp. or any subsidiary is prohibited

from disclosing it once this goes through.

The problem, of course, we had is that under clause 1 just to go back now

clause 1 is so broad, we feel, that anything and everything will be decided

at the whim of one individual, that being the CEO of the Energy Corp, as to what

is commercially sensitive. The question we raised last Thursday, when we first

discussed this, was: Did it need to be so broad? - Because we are entrusting it

to one individual.

Now, I realize that maybe nobody in government can decide in that type of

industry what is or is not commercially sensitive. Maybe you have to go outside.

Maybe the right person to go to is, in fact, the CEO of the Energy Corp.,

because I would assume that person has expertise and a level of knowledge in

dealing with that in the industry, and he or she would know what is or is not

commercial sensitive.

Our concern is that it is just carte blanche here. Once the law goes through

here, there will not be any consideration about what is or what is not. There

will not be any more of even a government saying what is or is not, technically,

let alone the House of Assembly or the people or anybody else asking what is

commercially sensitive. It will be left to one individual, and that will be the

CEO of the Energy Corp.; and, just in case they missed anything when they

defined it, they put in a subclause (viii) in the bill, which says,

"commercial information of a kind similar to that referred to in (

i) to

(vii);" above.

So, there is no question that the definition of commercially sensitive

information, not only is it broad here; it is as broad as one individual wants

it to be. Of course, government was not prepared we raised the concerns last

week and asked were there any kind of limitations or controls that you might

add, because it might be something that somebody might feel should be in the

public domain but it will never, ever, reach there is the CEO decides that it is

never going to get there.

Those were our first concerns under number one; but, of course, government,

for their reasons, explained to us, in the meetings as well, they are not

prepared to go there, they are not going to mend the definition that they have

outlined here of commercially sensitive information.

The rest of this bill, after that, basically deals with circumstances of how

the government or Energy Corp. or its subsidiaries will or will not report

things to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Cabinet, or to the House or to

the public. That is where we get into reporting requirements, where not only the

House or the Cabinet and the public, but now that we have made this law on

commercially sensitive information, what access if any should the Auditor

General have to it, or can he make of it? What access should the Citizens'

Representative have to it, or should not have to it? What information should the

Privacy Commissioner have to that information? That is where the rest of these

clauses come in, and there are certain prohibitions put in place after against

these other government agencies that we have, Auditor General, Privacy

Commissioner and Citizens' Representative and so on.

Moving on to number two: this is where a lot of the amendments go. We thought

these restrictions were so broad, and some of them were dangerous in the sense

that we felt government did not allow itself an escape hatch if they wanted it

in certain cases, and that it was going a bit too far. That is where we get to

the first one here, which the government now has proposed this first amendment

to Clause 2(5.2). If you look at it, there are two subsections where they talk

about reporting. On first reading, it says that the corporation and its

subsidiaries would provide an audited consolidated financial statement of the

corporation setting out the assets and liabilities for the end of the

immediately preceding financial year, and the results of its operations. In (

b) it talked about a report by the board giving an account of the activities of the

corporation. Nowhere in that subsection did it talk about a financial statement

of a subsidiary, nor did it talk about a report of the board of the subsidiary.

The way it was explained to us, that this was structured, is that you have

government who is the shareholder, you have the Energy Corp. which we

established here last year under Bill 28, and the Energy Corp. under that bill,

that Law 28, will create a number of subsidiaries. They might have A, for

example, that is going to be the Lower Churchill Project, they might have B that

is going to be Hebron, they might have C that is going to be the Ramea wind

project or they might have D that is going to be the White Rose Expansion. So,

there could potentially be fifteen or twenty different subsidiaries.

The concern we had, from a reporting point of view, is, if it is only the

corporation that is ever required to give a consolidated financial statement,

and only the corporation that is required to give an annual report, how would

anybody ever know, even the government, what different subsidiaries were doing?

What was their financial statement in any given year? What were their activities

in any given year? That was the nature of the proposal that we made. We said, we

think there ought to be some public disclosure or revelation as to what these

companies do.

The government's explanation to us, on first blush when we first met, was

that their concern and we bought into this, by the way, we did not disagree

with the concern that they had. By the way, it says audited consolidated

financial statement, so the financial statement for each year that the Energy

Corp. would provide, it may well have all of the information of itself plus the

financial information from everyone of its subsidiaries, but it all got

consolidated in a financial statement for the Energy Corp. Anyone, of course,

who went to look and find out what subsidiary A did, number one, there was no

financial statement, number two, there was no board report, and number three,

you had to go up and find it in amongst this consolidated statement.

As was explained to us by the current head, I understand, Mr. Martin of the

Energy Corp., the problem he had with that is, again if you get down to the

nitty-gritty details of the financial statements of corporation A and you

combine that with what is going on in the statements of the corporation,

somebody out there who might be a competitor of yours, like an Exxon who you are

trying to negotiate with or whatever, might find out very relevant information,

put it together and use that information to your disadvantage.

We have no problem accepting that

CHAIR: Order please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

I can sit down and come back again, not a problem.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, speaking to the

first amendment.

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

I will pick up from there. I am not speaking to what the Opposition House Leader

was saying but I am sure it is going to dovetail and he is probably going to

want to stand up again when I finish on this amendment.

I think it is important to point out for the listening public, that this

amendment was particularly needed, as was explained to us by the minister and

her people, especially in the case of a subsidiary that, at any one moment,

might only have one activity, and that if the report of the subsidiary that has

only one activity were, for example, to reveal its full financial statement it

would be very easy for competition to figure out information that would be

commercially sensitive information.

The discussion that we had, particularly from the perspective of the ministry

side, was the concern about protecting the individual subsidiary, that if it

were involved in only one activity would be giving away an awful lot of its

information, if it gave a full report without any restrictions whatsoever. The

discussion, the going back and forth that was called for, was around that point

which was an extremely important point. That is why, when this amendment was

presented today, which calls for a report which the original bill did not do -

the original bill did not call for a report of the subsidiary. This one calls

for the report of a subsidiary, and the report would be an account of

activities, and an account of activities during a preceding year would tell what

it is doing but not give away the information that would actually show how it is

doing, what it is doing or the commercially sensitive information. I think that

is really important. That is why having clause 1 in the bill is so important, as

has already been pointed out, that we need to understand what commercially

sensitive information is and why that always has to be a consideration.

We see then, in his amendment, an amendment that meets the needs of both

sides, that the subsidiaries are reporting but the subsidiaries are also being

protected. As I said, it is particularly important for a subsidiary that would

have a single activity and would be giving a lot of information away if it did a

full financial report in its annual report.

I think, though, we should also point out, in speaking to the amendment,

putting it in the context of the original bill which I think is important, that

this amendment is part of

section 5.2 (1), which goes on into subsection (2) to

talk about where the reports go. I think that again is important for people to

know, that what happens is the corporation and subsidiaries give their reports

to the minister. The minister can determine if those reports are satisfactory or

if more information is needed. The minister can give that information back to

the corporations and to subsidiaries. More information could be required and if

it is, it will be given.

What is very important is that the report just does not go to the minister,

the minister then has to present the report to the House of Assembly. All of the

reports that come, both from the corporation and the subsidiaries, have to come

to the House of Assembly, and the bill, the original bill, also indicates that

the reports will also be made public by other effective means including

electronically. That would mean that it would be on the Web site of the

department, I would imagine, once it is made public.

So we have, I think, with regard to this amendment, managed to get an

amendment which meets the need of subsidiaries being accountable, and being

accountable not just to the Energy Corporation but also straight through to the

House of Assembly, with regard to the report and its activities.

For me, personally, this amendment is a good one. It is an amendment that

meets concerns that were expressed both here in the House and also in the

meetings that took place outside of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to continue my few comments on this first amendment here, again, we feel

that it is appropriate to have this subsection (

c) added because at least now

there will be a report.

I would like to get on the record, as well, what our concerns were still

about this. This is not as far as the Opposition had asked to go, but it is far

as the government was prepared to go. Again, the reasons they explained was

because of the commercially sensitive nature of having financial data being put

in a way of a public report that competitors might use against us.

I just want to be clear on the record that, albeit we appreciate the

amendment that is being made, it did not go as far as we wanted. We thought you

could achieve a balance by still having some financial information without

compromising the commercial sensitivity of that information, and let people know

what the subsidiaries were doing. That is the whole point about all of this, by

the way. People might be saying, well, what is the need to know?

The reason they need to know is because if the government, through the Energy

Corp., is going to be having whatever, five or ten different subsidiaries

involved in different projects, we just feel as a matter of public principle and

public interest that the public ought to have some way of knowing what is going

on in these corporations. I mean, if you are a publicly-traded corporation there

are certain things you are required to do. Likewise, we feel if you have a

public enterprise - for example, the government - involved in certain

activities, well, it is only right and proper that the government give some kind

of report to the people.

It strengthens it a bit in terms of a report. At least we will get some idea,

according to this, of the activities of the preceding financial year. It did not

go near as far as we had hoped that it might go, but we do appreciate the

sensitivities of why they say they cannot go any further.

Hopefully, the report that the minister ultimately - under that subsection

5.2(3) - tables in the House, puts on the Web, or whatever else, will be of

sufficient detail to allow the people of the Province to know what is going on

in these various corporations and that it is not all hidden. Because, no

disrespect, we have had some problems sometimes, as an Opposition, and the

people of the Province, trying to find out what is going on, notwithstanding our

Transparency and Accountability Act. We have had to sort of pry teeth sometimes,

and the ATIPP Act, of course, has not been exactly helpful in some instances

when they do not want to put something out there.

The concern is there, but those are all of the comments that we have with

respect to that particular amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, speaking to the first

amendment.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Chairman, the next element of clause 2.

CHAIR: We will vote on the first amendment, first, before we proceed to

the second amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) they are all on clause 2.

CHAIR: But they are all separate amendments.

"Clause 2 of the Bill is amended by deleting the word "and" at

the end of the proposed paragraph 5.2(1)(a), by deleting the period at the end

of the proposed paragraph 5.2(1)(

b) and substituting a semi-colon and the word

"and" and by adding immediately after the proposed paragraph 5.2(1)(

b) the following:", which is an amendment - paragraph (c).

All those in favour of the first amendment as proposed by the Minister of

Natural Resources, please indicate by saying aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, please say 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, first amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The next amendment is to amend clause 2 of the bill by deleting the proposed

section 5.3 and substituting the following: The report required under

section

5.2 shall be consistent in form and content with annual reports prepared by

publicly traded companies.

Mr. Chair, this amendment speaks to, again, reporting mechanisms for the

Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries. In the act, when we talked about the form and

content of reports, we made reference to the Securities Act, which gave rise to

some confusion.

The Securities Act is

an act in its own right and stands on its own merit and

applies. The conditions of the act will apply or will not apply to the Energy

Corp. or its subsidiaries depending on the legislation that is contained

therein. Our major concern was ensuring that there was a reporting mechanism for

Energy Corp. that was of a certain standard and was acceptable in the business

world as well as would be acceptable and understandable to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chair, in this amendment we have deleted any references to the Securities

Act and amended Bill 35 to read that our reporting would be consistent in form

and content with annual reports prepared by publicly traded companies.

These companies have a responsibility to report to their shareholders. We

have a responsibility to report to our shareholders, the Energy Corp. and its

subsidiaries do, and we think that this amendment meets that criterion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The concerns, for the record again, originally expressed in 5.3 says,

"The report required under

section 5.2 shall be consistent in form and

content with annual reports that would be required of the corporation if the

corporation was a reporting issuer under the Securities Act".

That piece we did not have any problem with; because, if you are under the

Securities Act and you are operating under the Securities Act, and the

Securities Act requires that you do certain things in your reporting, we said,

well, why would the Energy Corp. be any different? They should comply with any

other public company, or any company that might be required to comply with the

Securities Act.

The concern came with the caveat that was placed on the end which said,

"subject to the exceptions to these requirements that the minister may

approve." So, our simple question was - and this came out in the meetings,

by the way - if your intent is that the Energy Corp. will comply with the

Securities Act, why do you need to have the caveat there saying that it is

subject to the approval of the minister? Anyway, government looked at it and

said, really, it was confusing and that there was no need of it, and that was

not their intent. They have agreed to delete that, subject to the exceptions to

these requirements the minister may approve. We had no problem with that

particular amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to a couple of the amendments that have been put forward, and

I know now you are on amendment 2, is it?

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Opposition Leader that we are now speaking to

amendment 2 only.

MS JONES: Number 2. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to say, first of all, that a number of the amendments that have been put

forward - and I did not make any general comments at the beginning, simply

because I had to step outside for a minute. What I wanted to say, Mr. Chair, is

that a number of the amendments that are being dealt with here today, that are

being proposed by government, no doubt are being done so to strengthen this

particular piece of legislation, and to ensure that once this Energy Corporation

is established, there can be greater securities built around it in terms of

public interest being protected.

Mr. Chair, we had proposed, initially, a number of amendments to the bill

that we wanted to see enclosed, and most of those have certainly been met or

addressed by government in their own amendments that they proposed and through

the negotiation of different wording that would be all-encompassing within the

bill. However, there are certain aspects that we still feel would give greater

clarity and strength to the bill, and I guess we will debate, as time goes on,

whether it is necessary or unnecessary, as we get into that particular aspect of

it.

Mr. Chair, I know that you have already dealt with clause 2, but I just want

to say that the purpose of having that there was to ensure that the reporting

mechanisms of subsidiary companies were also being done in a transparent way,

and not just that of the Energy Corporation. While there was different

legislation and acts under which the Energy Corporation would have to produce

annual reports and annual returns, there was nothing that guaranteed that

subsidiary companies and that would be companies like Hebron-Ben Nevis,

particular auspices of the Energy Corp., or the Lower Churchill or the Ramea

Wind Project or the Hibernia South Project, which are all four that we would be

aware of to a certain degree within the Province, or have at least heard that

government is having discussions about. It would be to ensure that each of these

subsidiaries, as well, would produce annual reports and that those annual

reports, Mr. Chair, would account for the activities of that subsidiary through

the course of the entire year, of that particular financial year. It would also

include information that they believe to be of interest to the public. That is

very important, because oftentimes when you have corporations or companies like

this that are set up and established, it is not until something major happens

within that corporation that hits the media and makes the headline news, that

people until then, people usually do not know or have an everyday grasp on

what is going on.

Mr. Chair, notwithstanding the fact that there would be no controversy

whatsoever that would have to make those headlines, there would still be a

disclosure process in which both the positive aspects of the corporation, in

terms of gains and investments and profits, Mr. Speaker, might be reported, and

also any significant challenges that they may have faced as a subsidiary over

that period of time. That was one of the particular pieces that we had wanted

added.

We also wanted to add that they would have to table their financial

statements for each subsidiary, but after further clarification from the

minister and her officials and also from Hydro, we had a better understanding of

the sensitivities that would be around disclosure of information of that nature

and we fully came to understand that their reasoning for not providing it would

be very much in terms of upholding the commercially sensitive information clause

that would be contained within this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Chair,

that was the reason we had asked government to add further clarity and to

strengthen that particular clause, and while it is a compromise, we certainly

believe that it is necessary.

Mr. Chair, under clause 2 (5.3), in which they omitted the Securities Act, I

think my colleague has already spoken to that and indicated that within the

legislation it did not provide any further clarity or was not providing for any

necessity within the legislation, and therefore I think it needed to be taken

out.

I am assuming we have not gotten to the debate on clause 2(3) in the

amendments yet, and I will reserve my comments on that until then.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a brief comment, to be on record with regard to the various amendments.

I think that is an important thing for us to do.

The amendment that we are looking at here, the second amendment, basically,

to put it bluntly, is a nice, clean, straightforward statement of what needs to

happen. That was the only concern that was raised in the discussions that were

held outside of the House with regard to the section,

section 5.2 that was being

replaced. This is straight forward. I think anybody in the Province should be

aware of the fact, or not be aware of it but be satisfied with the fact that the

annual reports that are prepared by publicly traded companies are absolutely

quite intense and quite comprehensive and cover every aspect of a company that

could be covered.

Knowing that these annual reports will be done by the corporation and

subsidiaries is extremely important. Well, the corporation's subsidiaries are

different, but by the corporation should make everybody satisfied. I think the

language is clear and cannot be misunderstood.

Thank you, very much.

CHAIR: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the second amendment

to clause 2 as proposed by the Minister of Natural Resources?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

The second amendment is carried.

On motion, second amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our third amendment, "Clause 2 of the bill is amended by deleting the

proposed subparagraph 5.4 (1)(d)(

i) and substituting the following: (

i) is

treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party, or"

Mr. Chair, this amendment results as a housekeeping error in fact, Mr. Chair,

something that happened in the translation, in the drafting of the bill from

what our intent was to what actually ended up in the bill. Basically, in terms

of identifying confidential information, what the bill speaks to is that any

third party, any company that Energy Corp. is involved with or one of its

subsidiaries is involved with, that if that third party provides us with

information that they hold confidential than the Energy Corp. and its

subsidiaries will hold confidential as well, Mr. Chair.

To give you an example of that, Mr. Chair, what that means: you know, when we

are negotiating, for example, the Hebron agreement, one of the reasons we needed

a very thorough and a very strict confidentiality agreement was because one of

the requirements we needed in terms of the negotiation was to go into what is

called the data room of ExxonMobil. That is where they hold all of their

information with regard to their seismology, in terms of the price of oil, in

terms of just tons and tons and tons of very commercially sensitive

information that if it were leaked in any kind of a way or made available to

their competitors would have significant impact on the company. Mr. Chair, when

we are engaged in that kind of activity, when third parties are providing us

with very, very sensitive information that they have always held confidentially,

then what we are saying in this bill is that we will also hold it as

confidential information.

When the bill originally came down we had this piece not only applying to the

third party but we had it applying to the Corporation and to the subsidiaries.

What the original bill says is that anything that the Energy Corp. holds

confidential, anything that the subsidiaries deem confidential and hold

confidential, it is treated in the same way as this third party, and that is far

to broad, Mr. Chair. That was never our intention.

We have defined very clearly in this bill what kinds of information we want

held confidential. The amendment reflects here clearly, Mr. Chair, the intent

when we drafted the bill but got mixed up in the translation.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This was one of the issues that I raised in the debate on Thursday in the

House of Assembly, because what it does pertain to is it falls under the

section

the look at the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Although

there are clauses within this bill that restrict the kind of information that

can be released through any process whatsoever, as it is deemed to be

commercially sensitive information, there are additional clauses which speak to

the Access of Information by authorities of the Province, Mr. Chair, such as

those provided for under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act.

Mr. Chair, under this particular Act, basically what it was saying is that

the Chief Executive Office of the Corporation or subsidiary or the head of

another public body may refuse to disclose an applicant under the Act,

commercially sensitive information, which we understand. They may also refuse to

disclose an applicant under the act, commercially sensitive information as it

relates to a third party, which we have no problem with.

Mr. Chair, it went on to also say that, information similar to the

information requested to be disclosed treated consistently in a confidential

manner by the Corporation, the subsidiary or the third party. We had a problem

with that because it goes beyond the real definition that would have been

outlined at the initial clause 1 of this bill defining commercially sensitive

information. It would have taken in just about anything that the corporation or

the subsidiary felt that they did not want to have released to the public, and

we thought that was giving too much authority. I understand from the minister

that was never the intention in the first place to have it stated in the bill,

and now that has been removed. This was the position that we took on Thursday of

last week when we noted it in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as I said in the beginning, we have no problem with third

parties who deal with the government. No matter what company that may be, in

whatever sector, whether it be in the oil industry or in the wind power or solar

panel industry, Mr. Chairman, it does not make any difference whatsoever, that

they would have that autonomy to say to the corporation that as a third party,

although this may not be commercially sensitive to the deal, it is sensitive to

our organization or our corporation, and therefore we would not want to have

this information released in any way to the public.

That guarantee is provided for within the legislation, but certainly not a

privilege that should extend to any other aspect of the corporation or the

subsidiary, because to do so, Mr. Chair, would allow them to exempt any

information that we may want to request. We could have actual annual reports

that would have nothing only the title in them. We have had that in a request

under Freedom of Information, for information from the Minister of Aboriginal

Affairs on the Mealy Mountain Park area. I have r