PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

December

3, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 47

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I would like to welcome the Members back to what should

be a very busy week.

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

For

Members' statements today, we will hear from the Members for Torngat Mountains,

Bonavista, Placentia West - Bellevue and Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand in this hon. House to extend

congratulations to Labrador Inuit in recognition of December 1 as Nunatsiavut

Day.

As an Inuk and a Labradorian, I am proud to take this

opportunity to inform my colleagues and residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

about the significance of Nunatsiavut Day.

The Nunatsiavut Government was established on December

1, 2005. This new government was and is mandated to act and advocate for the

cultural, social and economic best interests of the Labrador Inuit. The path to

self-governance was a long journey that involved hard work and dedication from

many people who would not give up on their dream.

The Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement set out a new

regime for land ownership, resource sharing and self-government, which included

Inuit ownership of almost 16,000 square kilometres of our land referred to as

Labrador Inuit Lands, and the creation of the Torngat Mountains National Park.

I am pleased to advise this House that the most recent

amendments to the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement was proclaimed into law

on this Nunatsiavut Day, being the 13th anniversary of the establishment of the

Nunatsiavut Government.

I ask all Members of this hon. House to share my pride

and join with me in recognizing Nunatsiavut Day.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure we'll get our monies' worth out of this

statement.

Provincial scholarships were recently announced and I

am honoured to stand here today and recognize five bright young people from the

district who were recipients. These scholarships are awarded to high achievers

who finished high school, are attending a post-secondary institution and are

based on results of public exams. Ultimately, it's the culmination of years of

hard work and dedication as it relates to their secondary education.

The Electoral District Scholarship, valued at $1,000,

is awarded to three high school graduates in each district who achieves the

highest public exam marks. In the District of Bonavista Ryan Connors of St.

Mark's School, who had the highest marks, Brianna Hiscock and Riley Cotter of

Discovery Collegiate were the recipients.

The Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarships,

also valued at $1,000, is awarded to 79 students with the highest marks – other

than the Junior Jubilee, W.C. Moss and the Electoral District Scholarships.

In the District of Bonavista, Tyler Hiscock of Bishop

White School, Noah Harris and Kaylee Tremblett of Discovery Collegiate were the

recipients.

I ask that you join me in congratulating them and

wishing them success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR.

BROWNE:

Mr.

Speaker, “thank you” – words we use every day to show our gratitude for acts of

courtesy or kindness. Words Canada's most talented roster of figure skaters felt

compelled to say to all Canadians to show their appreciation for our support

during the Pyeongchang Olympics.

Just last weekend, Olympic medalists including Tessa

Virtue, Scott Moir, Patrick Chan and many more, and yes, Mr. Speaker, including

Marystown's own Kaetlyn Osmond performed to sold-out crowds at Mile One Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

BROWNE:

can confirm to Members of the House that Kaetlyn got the first standing ovation

of the evening and sustained the most applause. There is no doubt that the

thousands of spectators present showed her fellow Olympians that her greatest

support comes from right here on the Rock.

Countless young figure skaters attended the show, in

awe of the Olympic performances, with a gleam in their eye towards the future,

thinking perhaps one day it could be them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating this elite group of athletes on their successful cross Canada

tour. And join me in assuring them the “thank you” is mutual. We also thank them

for the wonderful way they represented Canada in Korea, and I'm sure they will

understand if we reserve our biggest thank you to our very own Kaetlyn Osmond.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR.

BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to recognize a group who are based out of

my district but do work on an international level. I speak of the Trail of the

Caribou Research Group. Recently, I had the privilege to attend the group's

first fundraising gala dinner at Legion Branch 56 here in the city.

All in attendance were entertained by the Royal

Newfoundland Regiment Band and Master of Ceremonies Peter Noel. It was great to

see the sold-out event attended by members of all branches of the military,

including the commander of 5 Wing Goose Bay, along with members of the general

public and yourself, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will agree that the highlight

of the night was when the organization's president, Retired Major Michael

Pretty, took the podium to outline in what he said would be 10 minutes or less

about the work of the group around the world.

What transpired for the next 30 minutes was an

emotional, historic journey of what the young men of the Newfoundland Regiment

and their families endured 100 years ago to defend our freedom. For those 30

minutes, you could hear a pin drop. Due to the work of this group, they

discovered the sacrifices made and the everlasting effects that they have had on

our province.

Their endeavours to find all the resting places of

fallen Newfoundland Regiment soldiers and recognizing them with a ceremony and

headstone has taken them to three continents, 18 countries and 450 cemeteries,

serves as a testament to the dedication this group of volunteers has for

acknowledging the importance of preserving our history and paying homage to

those who served in the Great War. As their motto says, “Every Story Is

Important.”

I ask all Members of this House to congratulate and

thank the Trail of the Caribou Research Group for preserving our history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Tacora

Resources on the restart of the Scully Mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

COADY:

This is great news for Labrador West, and indeed the entire province.

The restart of the mine has been a collaborative effort

of Tacora, different levels of government, labour and many others. I want to

recognize and thank the Member for Labrador West. In fact, our government has

been working toward the reopening of the mine in Wabush since 2016. I'd like to

thank officials within the provincial government and, in particular, those

within Natural Resources, who have diligently on this project to ensure success.

Mr. Speaker, that success means good, well-paying,

long-term jobs will be returning to a vital mining region. Approximately 260

positions are directly associated with site operations which will produce some 6

million tons of concentrate annually when fully ramped up.

As a province, we have initiated

The Way Forward on Mineral Development – Mining the Future 2030: A Plan

for Growth in the Newfoundland and Labrador Mining Industry . The restart of

Scully Mine demonstrates the many benefits mining brings to the province as we

work to achieve our Mining the Future

goals.

We welcome Tacora to the region and we hope for a long,

safe and prosperous future for the company, its workers and indeed the

community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. On this side, the restart of Scully Mine is certainly good news, both

for the residents of Labrador West and for the entire province.

The mining industry in this province currently employs

approximately 4,800 people, and with the restart of the mine our understanding

is another 260 positions are expected. The restart of the mine will not only

bring those jobs into the region, but the economic spinoffs from small business

related to the mine will support the entire economy of Lab West.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this is the start of more good

news and a time of continued growth for the mining industry in our Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy. The

restarting of the mine is great news, obviously, for the workers and

communities. However, what happened to the workers when the mine shut down in

2016 should never be allowed to happen again, where jobs and pensions were lost

and people's lives devastated.

In federal law, workers are the last to receive what is

due them in a shutdown. The province should be pushing the federal government to

change that law and place workers at the top of that list.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister Responsible for the Status of

Persons with Disabilities.

MS.

DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize December 3 as International

Day of Persons with Disabilities. This day is celebrated internationally to

promote the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities.

This morning, with the Coalition of Persons with

Disabilities, I signed a proclamation to commemorate this day and promote

awareness of the value of diversity in our society. I also participated in a

ceremony at Government House to celebrate the inclusion of persons with

disabilities both here and around the world.

This year's theme, Empowering Persons with Disabilities

and Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equity, also focuses on the United Nations'

pledge to 'leave no one behind.”

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to continue our government's

work to promote inclusiveness, equality and diversity throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador.

We will continue working with advocates and

stakeholders to remove barriers, creating environments that promote greater

participation in our communities, and equitable access to employment

opportunities and public services. In fact, work is well underway with our

Diversity and inclusion are achieved when we uphold the

value and dignity of all individuals. As Robert M. Hensel, a well-known advocate

for the community of persons with disabilities said: “Know me for my abilities,

not my disability.”

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleagues and all citizens

in this province to join me in recognizing International Day of Persons with

Disabilities and striving to make Newfoundland and Labrador a more inclusive

province for all people.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I, too, would like to recognize

today as the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

The theme, Empowering Persons with Disabilities and

Ensuring Inclusiveness and Equity, reflects the diligence and hard work of the

many advocates who fight each and every day to ensure that all persons,

regardless of the challenges they may face, have access to all services,

buildings and to the whole of society.

Mr. Speaker, the minister referenced the development of

in this House and hope that it will be brought forward early in the next session

for our review.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the statement. Obviously, I'm

very happy to join with her and my colleague from the Official Opposition in

recognizing this day. It would have been nice, though, if the minister had

explained what she means by well underway in reference to the new inclusion

legislation, which has been promised for a number of years now.

But since it's still being written, I encourage the

minister to make sure that the legislation crosses all departments because we

know that our education system right now still has serious problems with

inclusion that need attention.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, I trust the front benches have returned refreshed after their week's

break from the legislative session.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

CROSBIE:

Very entertaining, Sir.

We were told this morning of a serious error with the

provincial electronic medical record program. May I ask the minister how the

error was discovered?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a serious issue – one we have taken seriously.

The important message, I think, is that there has been no evidence of any harm

to any individual as a result of this error. However, Eastern Health have been

tasked to fact check that with a case-by-case review of each of those reports.

The problem came to light when one of physicians here

who is an EMR user highlighted the fact that an expected result had not appeared

in his chart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Can

the minister just clarify when this came to light then?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The single incident was notified to TELUS, as far as

I'm aware, at the end of October. It was only around the 14th or 15th of

November that TELUS contacted NLCHI to say this was not an isolated problem. And

then there were some back-and-to to get the required data to scope out the

magnitude of the problem. That became apparent on the 27th.

On the 28th, all the ordering clinicians were advised

of the problem, and asked to contact their patients on a case-by-case basis. As

of this morning, Mr. Speaker, the individual patients have been notified by

courier.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr.

Speaker, the minister has enlightened us as to the timing of the discovery of

the issue. It was also put out in a briefing this morning that 615 patients may

not have received medical results in a timely manner.

Given the 12-month period, over which this error may

have occurred, how confident is the minister that no other patients are

impacted?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

met with senior vice-president from TELUS Health this morning, and I would say

it was a fairly open and frank discussion. The bottom line is that, as of this

week, there is now a mechanism in place. We know what leaves our electronic

system and TELUS will now be telling us, on a daily basis, at least, what goes

into their system. If there is gap between the two, an investigation will occur

on that day. As far as this is concerned, there are at least two other methods

and, in critical incidents, these three others methods of physicians accessing

those reports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

understand the minister to be telling the House that this is being used as a

learning opportunity, and that safeguards are being put in place to make sure it

doesn't happen again, or to minimize the possibility.

Can I ask the minister: Was the NLMA made aware of this

error prior to the news conference this morning, and what reaction, if any, have

they given?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The electronic medical record is co-managed by an

oversight committee, which consists of the Department of Health, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information and the Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Association. They knew when we knew. They have been fully

supportive of government's approach, and given their CEO's past history as

director and lead on the provincial Task Force on Adverse Health Events, they

have supported us in our endeavours with TELUS Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

thank the minister for the reply.

Can he tell the House what his level of confidence is

that the measures put in place will prevent this kind of incident happening

again?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

I'm

not going down the P50, P70 or P80 level of certainty, Mr. Speaker. That would

be most unwise. It's happened before and tripped people up.

What I can say is, there is a daily reconciliation

process between the information that leaves our systems, which physicians had

access to, independent of TELUS' software, and there will be a second

information back on a daily basis from TELUS and we can compare those lists

through an algorithm, any errors will pop up on a daily basis. There is never a

foolproof system. This is, at the moment, better than in any other jurisdiction.

For the Member opposite, there are four other

jurisdictions affected by this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

thank the minister for that response.

There is a different level of care required when taking

concern about money versus taking concern about human life and health.

Have there been any other issues with the software

involving this record system?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR.

HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There are no other issues that either TELUS, the NLMA

and the oversight committee or ourselves are aware of currently. For context,

over the period of time that TELUS have discovered this error, 1.5 million items

of data went through this system and only 600-and-odd patients had a problem.

That is a small percentage; it is not an acceptable

percentage but I think it speaks to the volume of work that this system does. We

have a reconciliation process in place. We had paper backup, we had electronic

backup for all of these results and critical clinic results were phoned directly

to the ordering clinician.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

thank the minister and would switch focus now, at this stage.

It's been 17 days since the SeaRose FPSO reported an

oil spill due to a problem with a valve. The SeaRose has not yet resumed

production.

I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Have

there been any other problems identified in addition to the valve and,

specifically, what issues are delaying resumption?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed correct, there had been some time even

since the NIOSH oil sheen has been seen or even any wildlife impacts. Mr.

Speaker, there is an investigation that is ongoing. There is a full review of

the flow line. If you recall, I did indicate that it was a weak link on the flow

line that had an issue. There has been some investigation of that flow line.

Those investigations are continuing. There is going to be a continued, thorough

analysis before any start-up of the White Rose is undertaken, Mr. Speaker.

I know that all concerned, the C-NLOPB, as well as

Husky, the operator, are doing all that needs to be done in order to ensure the

safety in environmental protection.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

thank the minister for those assurances, but I would ask her: Is there an update

that she can provide on the environmental impact of the spill and any associated

cleanup efforts?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Well, Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated, there has been no sheen seen on the water

for quite some time, I think it was November 18, and no further impact on

wildlife since a few days after that. However, vessels are still monitoring.

They're still out there surveilling. That is continuing. There has been some

water monitoring as well for the depths of the ocean to see if there has been

any impact. Those are continuing.

So, there is no ongoing cleanup because they haven't

found any further sheen at this point, Mr. Speaker. However, diligence is still

ongoing. There are still observers out there for wildlife and there are still

vessels on the water. It is now switched to really looking at what the root

cause is and ensuring that we have taken every precaution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

We're told that over 250,000 litres of oil were spilled in the marine

environment. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Fisheries said that the situation

was being monitored and that he would have better information in coming days.

So, I ask that minister, what is his assessment of the

impact of the spill on our offshore and inshore fish stocks?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR.

BYRNE:

Mr.

Speaker, we always monitor. We work with the federal government. We work with

the federal administrators, those responsible for protecting the marine

environments of our shores, off our shores. We will take nothing lightly when it

comes to this, but we also have assurance that the methods and procedures are in

place to continue to monitor this.

This has been a pledge by the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans and we will ensure that that work is done. Obviously, it is early in

the process but work is already underway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

CROSBIE:

Yesterday, the Terra Nova FPSO was given the green light to resume production.

Has the Minister of Natural Resources been provided with a plan and a target

date for resumption of production?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important question because there has been an

abundance of caution here. There are similar valves on the Terra Nova that there

are on the White Rose, so there was an abundance of caution.

I can tell you that they have brought in remote

operated vehicles to check the flow lines. They have been in touch with a

manufacturer of the links. They have brought in whatever was required to ensure

the diligence of making sure the equipment was operational.

There was a slow start-up starting yesterday, and I can

advise the House that at this point there is nothing to report. I believe

operations are ongoing and they will soon resume production, but they have

started that process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a recent briefing, it was indicated that the carbon

tax on residents of this province will result in approximately $62 million in

annual revenue.

I ask the minister: Is all of this directed to general

revenue?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the carbon revenue will be directed to general

revenue. There's approximately a million dollars a quarter to the consumers of

this province. The majority of revenue, which I'll get the final numbers on, I

think that might be a little bit high, but the remainder of it is industry, the

offshore and other industry.

I think it's important, again, to note that in working

with the federal government and the plan that we put forward has the interests

of the consumers of this province, and our industry in this province, in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So just to clarify, is the minister saying it's $4

million a quarter, so that's $60 million a year? We were told in the briefing

there was $61.8 million to be collected.

Could he clarify what that amount is?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

Through the gas tax, Mr. Speaker, the amount on gasoline and on diesel, what the

consumers in this province will pay, it's about $1 million a quarter in 2019-20.

There is also revenue from the offshore, production

platforms and other industry in this province, but directly to the consumer in

this province, what they pay in gasoline and in diesel and so on, in 2019-20

it's about $1 million a quarter. There is other revenue from industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

understanding is the revenue from industry is coming from those on site and

offshore site facilities over 20,000 tons of emissions.

Does the minister have a number of what's expected to

be collected in the fund for those facilities, based on being over 25,000

emissions standard?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of this is under the green energy fund, through

the federal government, Mr. Speaker. Some of it is industry, some of it is

offshore production, the other industries in the province that are considered

emitters.

Mr. Speaker, the Member asked about monies going into

general revenue. It's important to note that the largest tax put in place on the

people of this province is Muskrat Falls. So this province is working to

mitigate those rates. So make no mistake that any revenue that's generated as a

result of the carbon pricing system in this province will be going to help the

people of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we'll see where this is going in terms of reducing

emissions and assisting people of the province.

I ask the Minister of Environment: What GHG reduction

emission targets are set in this province's climate change action plan? Have you

updated the plan?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister of Finance has said, we've put in place

a carbon pricing plan that reflects the realities of this province, and

certainly protects the people of this province, as well as industry, to allow

them to remain competitive.

As for the industry, we put in guidelines and we've put

in targets for them to reach. The first year would be a 6 per cent reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions; to go up by 2 per cent for each of the next four years

until we get to the 12 per cent range that, whereby, industry will be expected

to reduce their greenhouse gases to protect the environment and to allow them to

remain competitive in a worldwide industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So they're bringing in a carbon tax. So I ask the

minister: Obviously, this is broader scale in terms of the climate change action

plan. So have you updated the climate change action plan for the province in

relation to your new carbon tax? Surely you must've.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

put it in one word, Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Because what we've done in the

carbon pricing plan will inform us in developing a climate change plan that we

will have in effect in the next few weeks. But, certainly, it's very important

that we have the carbon pricing plan in place. The bills that we are discussing

today will also inform us and will allow us to move forward with our carbon

pricing plan.

Yes, the carbon pricing plan will be a major component

in development of our climate change plan, that we know will protect industry

and, at the same time, protect the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He can clarify it, but I thought he said they haven't

updated their climate change action plan, but the carbon tax is going to flow in

that at some point in time. So they haven't updated it, but they're bringing in

a carbon tax.

Starting in a few weeks the government will be

collecting, as we were told, approximately $62 million annually for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for a carbon tax.

I ask the Minister of Environment: Can you tell how

much of this revenue will reduce GHG emissions in our province? What's the

number?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

Mr.

Speaker, we have a carbon price plan in place that's really a

made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador plan. If we didn't go with that, we would have

been levied or forced to accept a backstop from the federal government that

would cost the people of this province four times as much.

So we think our plan really addresses the greenhouse

gas emissions, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, will

protect the taxpayers of this province so we're not overburdened with another

tax that's going to affect the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, we don't know what the number is at this

point, but certainly, as we move forward, that's something that we will be

monitoring very closely, but we know that we have a plan in place (inaudible).

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, that's interesting. They're bringing in a carbon

tax of about $62 million they're going to collect, but the minister can't tell

us how that, in any way, is going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

He did reference a Liberal plan, so I'll ask him this:

In 2019, the Liberal federal carbon tax is based on $20 per ton. We went with

our own plan. So what is the minimal federal requirement for GHG emissions for

2019? So we're comparing that to our plan. What's the requirement for GHG for

the federal plan?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

Mr.

Speaker, we have the same targets in place to reduce greenhouse gases. How we do

that is outlined in our plan, the Newfoundland and Labrador plan. We can't help

that former Prime Minister Mulrooney put in the targets. But we're going to

adhere to those targets and we feel –

HON. MEMBER:

Harper.

MR.

LETTO:

Mr.

Harper. What did I say?

HON. MEMBER:

Mulrooney.

MR.

LETTO:

Harper. I'm confused.

Anyway, by Prime Minister Harper. Mr. Speaker, what we

do know is that the greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by the plan that we

have put in place. Whether it's through the carbon pricing or through the

performance-based system that we put in place for big industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought the opposite Member was going to say Prime

Minister Diefenbaker, he went back so far, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure where he

was referring to in terms of the prime minister.

Basically what we have, he's saying you're collecting

the $62 million to reduce gas emissions, despite the federal government having

not given a specific target. So there's no target there, but he referenced

targets. So in absence of that, they've gone with a provincial plan.

So I ask him – he said there are targets – what are the

provincial emissions reduction targets for 2019? You must have them; you said

you had targets.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I apologize I never got the prime minister's name right.

That's immaterial, I think, when it comes to the topic that we're dealing with

because what we're dealing with is a very, very serious issue. It's the

reduction of greenhouse gases.

We put targets in place that large industry have bought

into. They are pleased with our plan and that plan will see the reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent in 2019-2020; 2020-2021 we'll be 8 per

cent; the year after that it will be 10 per cent; and finally, in 2022, the

greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 12 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He still can't tell us what the targets are going to be

and how this money is going to ensure that those targets are met, Mr. Speaker.

There's a lot of information lacking in the legislation

from baseline targets for facilities; performance credits have not been

established; contributions of the greenhouse gas reduction fund not established;

sector-wise performance not established; facilities that want to opt into

performance standards hasn't been identified.

Minister, you're jamming all this in to January 1 with

no regulations, too many unknowns exist. Shouldn't you agree that this should be

delayed and even shouldn't go in at all because it's just a tax grab on the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR.

LETTO:

Mr.

Speaker, one of the things that we've kept in mind developing our carbon price

plan is that we wouldn't be gouging the people of this province.

The Member knows full well what taxes will be levied

because of this plan. We're going to remove the gas tax and replace it with a

carbon tax and that's .37, I think. On a 60 litre of gas, by the way, if anybody

is going to go – to put it into perspective and put it into money figures so

that people understand, on a 60-litre tank full of gas, they'll be paying 25

cents more than they are today.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good plan. That's a plan that

meets the needs of the people and addresses the greenhouse gas emissions.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 22, WestJet announced the cancellation of

their St. John's-Dublin flight.

I ask the minister. When did you become aware of this?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we're very disappointed that WestJet has

decided to cancel its flight to Dublin. I had actually travelled to China and I

met with WestJet executives while I was there. They had indicated at that time

that the flight was performing well. We had met with our partners, the Airport

Authority, the City of St. John's, Destination St. John's and others, and

highlighted that we would work with WestJet to enhance a marketing plan. We had

upwards of $800,000 on the table to fully market this connected flight to

Dublin. It's a direct flight.

I took the flight recently, Mr. Speaker, and I want to

say that it's certainly very important for us to have connectivity and air

access. We're meeting with our partners in the airline industry on a regular

basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Order, please!

I do remind all Members, thoughts are becoming chirps

and chirps are starting to sound like heckling, so watch out. That's a warning.

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, you referenced talking with WestJet in China

but when you had your meeting, were there any discussions about this particular

flight? And have you also had discussions with the Irish ambassador, the Airport

Authority or other stakeholders in advance of WestJet's announcement?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that I did meet with executives and had

conversation when I was in China back in June. And the indications were that

this flight was going to continue at this particular time.

We have continued to meet with our partners and have

stakeholder meetings for months. I had taken a personal holiday to Ireland, but

I had met with a number of people in Ireland while I was there and highlighted

this direct link, and, being an ambassador for promoting the Irish-Newfoundland

connections, that's what we do. We continue to do so.

I met with the Irish ambassador. We talked about how

important connectivity is. In continuing to have the conversation with other

airline partners, with WestJet, I will continue to meet with them. I have a

meeting scheduled with them, Mr. Speaker, and we'll have those conversations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS.

PERRY:

have heard that the Nova Scotia government has given a significant amount of

funding to Halifax airport in support of the Halifax-Dublin flight.

Minister, are you aware of this, and what did you do to

try and promote Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm certainly aware that Halifax has a significant

funding through their Airport Authority in upwards of $10 million to support and

attract air access. One of the incentives that can be provided is you can buy

airline flights. You can actually pay for empty seats if you want to pay for

that access. That's one mix that you can do, and that can be an incentive that

maybe the Halifax airport is doing.

We work with our partners. We work on promotions. We do

a variety of things that we can do to attract air access, direct air access to

our airports whether it be St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, or Deer Lake,

or Gander, or looking at all airport connectivity because it is so important for

business and tourism for our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I look

forward to continuing to have those conversations with all of our partners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Mr.

Speaker, government sat idly by while a multinational company tried and failed

to break the union at D-J Composites. After almost two years locked out in a

labour dispute – two years, Mr. Speaker – today, the workers of D-J Composites

have a new collective agreement – no thanks to this government, who refused to

stand up for the workers of this province in their fight against a multinational

corporation.

I ask the Premier: To protect workers in the future,

will he now implement Recommendation 5 of the 2010 Industrial Inquiry and amend

the Labour Relations Act to provide

for a process for the imposition of a new collective agreement when a prolonged

strike or lockout has been ineffective in bringing about a resolution?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, for the Leader of the Third Party, I would say no

one stood idly by. There was a number of people that were involved in this in

terms of mediation and so on. When the union reached out to me, and others did

as well, we got involved in this to try and bring the two parties together.

As the Member opposite would know, through a PMR that

was done in this House of Assembly, that I think you supported, there's work

ongoing now actually in the future on how we can prevent a long labour dispute

such as this.

We were involved, and I think if you speak to the

workers and you speak to the union – I actually visited that line myself. I'm

not sure if you were there or not. I also did meet with the company themselves

to get the two of them back to the table. They agreed to do so because there was

an arbitration mechanism within their own agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but it was almost two years before the Premier

did do that.

In his 2010 Industrial Inquiry Commission, John Roil

noted replacement workers aggravate and prolong labour disputes.

I ask the Premier: Will he now show he supports workers

in this province by enacting legislation banning the use of temporary

replacement workers during a strike or a lockout?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister for Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR.

DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're very pleased, as the Premier mentioned earlier,

that D-J Composites are going back to work and negotiating the back-to-work

process for that.

But what we're more happy about here right now is that,

based on a private Member's resolution that came forward to this House and

passed unanimously by this House, we've gone out to try to get a terms of

reference for this process, placed out to hearing views of unions, employers,

all Newfoundlanders. We're moving on that process, and we should stay tuned

because, in the new year, we're going to be having that process come out.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The locked-out workers of D-J Composites have had to

make big sacrifices to win economic justice. All along government claimed it

wanted to stay neutral, not picking sides in the dispute. No doubt, this

prolonged the dispute unnecessarily.

I ask the Premier: Now that this particular dispute is

over, can he explain why he chose not to stand up for workers in this province

when they made specific requests?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR.

DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, government must ensure that there's a balance between the needs of the

worker and the needs of the employers. It's very, very important that that

balance is struck. A negotiated deal is much better than a forced deal.

From our perspective, we're listening to this process –

in the new year, we're going to hear from the trade unions, the employers, the

workers and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on this very topic. We're going

to hopefully move forward on some recommendations based on what we hear in those

consultations. That's exactly what you would do in this case, and that's what

we've done, to make sure we hear from all sides to get the best results.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that, if he remembers

correctly, we had a corporation that was ruled as acting unjustly.

I ask the Premier: Will he finally show workers in this

province he is on their side and enact laws that protect them so no worker ever

again has to suffer like these workers did?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR.

DAVIS:

Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for the question. That's exactly what we're doing. That's

why we started this process to make sure we look at the legislation, hear from

all sides in the process and making sure we have the best information.

We have to have the best information in order to make

the best decisions. That's what we're doing in this government. That's what

we've always done and that's what we're going to continue to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time for Oral Questions is ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MR.

OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill 45.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Marriage Act, Bill 46.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

BROWNE:

Mr.

Speaker, I move the following private Member's resolution, seconded by the

Member for Bonavista:

WHEREAS impaired driving is the number one cause of

criminal deaths in Canada every year;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support a public awareness campaign

to encourage the public not to drive impaired.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's

resolution just entered shall be the one to be debated this Wednesday.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Supreme Court In The

Province, Bill 47.

Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1),

I hereby give notice that this House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday,

November 4.

Further, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1),

I hereby give notice that this House shall not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday,

November 6.

Thank you.

HON. MEMBER:

December.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

December, sorry.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Okay, we're good?

Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is basically a document that I would like to

table. I missed Tabling of Documents but, on the 22nd, the Leader of the

Official Opposition asked for the update to the cannabis contract. I have the

timelines here. I can read that out under Answers to Questions – I did provide

it after, but I'd like to table this for the House.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS many students within our province depend on the

school busing for transportation to and from school each day; and

WHEREAS there are many parents of school-aged children

throughout our province who live inside the Eastern School District's 1.6

kilometre zone, therefore do not qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS policy cannot override the safety of our

children;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the

1.6-kilometre policy for all elementary schools in the province and in junior

and senior high schools where safety is a primary concern.

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to present these petitions on a

weekly basis – sometimes daily. I have a lot of them. I have a lot of concerned

parents out there who are really concerned for the safety of their children.

They're not caught up in the cost of school busing because, like I said, cost

should not override the safety of our children no matter what.

It's a very fair petition because we're targeting

elementary schools, where our most vulnerable children go, your K to six which

you're looking at probably five- to 10-year-olds, 10- or 11-year-olds. They are

the ones that, as a parent, you don't want them walking the streets. I know my

district and a lot of other districts, some of the roads there are no sidewalks,

high traffic areas.

You just wouldn't do it as a parent. Unfortunately,

some parents are put in a situation. They have no other way to get their

children to school, whether they walk from there. Then there are family

situations, single parents, small child at home, it puts a lot of stress on

every family.

This petition is not new to this House. We've put

private Members' motions and my colleagues have petitioned. As recently as last

week, we had a public meeting actually in my district and the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island and myself attended. It was a decent turnout

and parents voiced their concerns. It was all about they wanted to have a public

meeting, Mr. Speaker. We obliged, thought it was a good idea to give them an

opportunity to come to voice their concerns, to give possible solutions, to tell

their story. Sometimes that's a lot of what it is, Mr. Speaker, they want to

have their story told. They're concerned. They have legitimate concerns.

We listened. We told them what we've been doing, we

hear their concerns and we said we would keep the petitions that they filled out

at that meeting, plus I have others, and there is more coming. We said we'd keep

their issue alive. It's a very important issue. We should never lose sight of

it. It happened in September, now we're in December, keep it going because, most

years, in September month after children go back to school, parents

self-admitted, too, they died off on the issue and they made other arrangements,

as hard as it might have been, and hope for the best for next year.

This time around, they've made it clear they're not

giving up on this. They want us to keep fighting it. We've committed to do that

as a caucus, as a party, and we're going to continue at that, Mr. Speaker, every

opportunity we get until we see some change.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm the alternate for the Minister of Education, and

it's in that capacity that I'm rising today. I thank the Member. I've listened

to him in the House on many occasions bringing this very important issue

forward, and I did want to make sure that the people of the province did know

that the government has given guidelines to ensure that buses may stop as a

courtesy stop within the 1.6 kilometres. We've given that guideline to the

school board, Mr. Speaker, and they are making provisions, where possible, to do

that.

The 1.6 kilometre has been around for quite some time –

decades in fact. The Member opposite would know it's a very important issue.

Safety is paramount; we all know that. It is generally used across the country.

If you do a jurisdictional scan, 1.6 is used across the country, including a lot

of rural areas. I'm using Ontario here; Alberta is actually longer, Mr. Speaker.

So, I think it is an important issue. I know the

minister is consumed with this. I know they've had many, many discussions. I

think, as we move forward, I just want the people of the province to know this

is an important issue for government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you for the response.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

are dealing with high levels of taxation, increased unemployment rates,

increased food bank usage, increased bankruptcies and many are being forced to

choose between food, heat and medications,

Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek

numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities Board.

Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes

online, these rates are predicted to further increase significantly to

unmanageable levels for the average citizen of our province. While government

has indicated that they are working with Nalcor to mitigate these rates, they've

provided no detailed plan as how they intend to do so.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential

options for rate mitigation and develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal

with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to

the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential

suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I've presented this now several times, and I will be presenting it

several more times. Today, we have signatures from the Southern Shore area,

actually. I won't list off all of the communities, but all along the Southern

Shore. There were a lot of people, all across Newfoundland and Labrador, that

have this same concern. I think the petition is –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LANE: – pretty self-explanatory. People

are concerned, and they're glad that the government said that they're going to

be putting plans in place to mitigate rates, but they would like to know what

those plans are.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make mention that a lot of what we're talking about

here is coming out of Nalcor, and there continues to be concerns. As we listen

to the inquiry, it's absolutely shocking, to say the very least. I certainly say

to the Premier, I say to the minister, it's time to get some accountability at

Nalcor. It's time to make changes to the

Energy Corporation Act , which you made a minor change in legislation this

spring. It went nowhere; they still didn't give us the information. You've said

you've committed to a further change to get more information out there. It

hasn't happened yet. That needs to happen. People at Nalcor have to be held

accountable.

I'm absolutely shocked, as I said, of what I'm seeing out the inquiry. I can't

believe that there haven't been pink slips handed out in some cases, based on

what we've been hearing. I certainly would say to the minister, to the

government, that we need to have accountability at Nalcor; we need to find out

what's going on there.

We had issues going back as far as DarkNL when they couldn't even keep the

lights on, Mr. Speaker. They couldn't even manage to keep the lights on, which

was their core mandate, and we found that they didn't do basic maintenance. Not

only was there nobody fired, but everybody got their corporate bonuses, which

was absolutely amazing. We never got any answers to that either.

We never got any answers from other questions that were raised by the former

chair of the board talking about conflict of interest. Never did found out what

that was all about. So, Mr. Speaker, time for some accountability at Nalcor.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources for a response.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there was a pink slip given out. It was given

out to the government of the day that approved the Muskrat Falls Project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS.

COADY:

Mr.

Speaker, I will say this, it is shocking and unbelievable what's coming out of

the inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

COADY:

Since we've come in to this government we've actually been able to take that

project –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Please proceed, Minister.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you.

We have been able to take that project and at least put

it on a path where we're not seeing continuous increases in costs or time

schedule slippage.

All that being said, Mr. Speaker, the project – and we

all know the Muskrat Falls Project will have a devastating impact, or could have

a devastating impact if not for this government who are working very diligently

to have a plan so that the costs are not borne 100 per cent by taxpayers,

because that's what the former government actually put in place.

So we are working toward that end. We are working

toward making sure that we have a plan. The plan is required for 2021, when we

do take power from Muskrat Falls. I can assure the Member opposite and the

people of this province, we will have a plan that will see us through this mess.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR.

LESTER:

Mr.

Speaker, the 15 per cent retail sales tax on insurance premiums that the

provincial government imposed in 2016 has significantly increased the cost of

insurance.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of

Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not to reduce, but

to eliminate the 15 per cent retail sales tax on insurance.

Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, if you drive a

motor vehicle on a road of any sort in this province, it is a legal requirement

to have insurance. Therefore, anybody who uses their vehicle to travel back and

forth to their employment or to medical appointments or even to visit family and

friends must, therefore, have insurance on their vehicles. In some cases, this

has put insurance out of reach of a lot of our citizens within the province.

We're hearing reports now that there are more uninsured

vehicles on the road now than ever. This has only come about – 15 per cent

extra, it doesn't sound a lot when you look at 15 per cent. But when you're

looking at $10,000 or maybe $20,000 for insurance, that's a big, big cost.

That's something that we have to look at. If people are

not travelling, if people are not going to work, they're not spending money in

the economy, they're not spending money in our communities and that's all having

a ripple effect. It's not even ripple anymore, it's a tidal effect. We're seeing

small businesses close up all over the place, and it seems like the only

announcements we can get are announcements that are driven by world commodity

prices.

What about small- to medium-sized businesses? They're

also affected by that 15 per cent that could be spent in their business.

Instead, we're having to spend it on a retail tax on insurance.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Service NL for a response,

please.

MS.

GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr.

Speaker, as the Member opposite is well aware, there is an ongoing insurance

review and I'm awaiting the response from the PUB.

However, the Member just indicated that there were more

uninsured drivers on the road today than ever before. I would love to see where

he got those statistics, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Orders of the Days, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I would call from the Order Paper, third reading of Bill 40.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and

Social Development, that Bill 40,

An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act,

be now read a third time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against?

The motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

bill,

An Act To Amend The Housing Corporation Act. (Bill 40)

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and

its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Housing Corporation Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as

on the Order Paper. (Bill 40)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and

Social Development, for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting A

Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill 45, and I further move that the said bill be now

read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that the

hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and

Social Development shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers, Bill

45 , and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt

the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against?

The motion is carried.

Motion, the

hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a

bill, “An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers,” carried. (Bill 45)

CLERK:

bill,

An Act Respecting A Pension Plan For Teachers. (Bill 45 )

MR.

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that the

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 3, 2018.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

All in favour of that motion, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR.

SPEAKER:

All

those against?

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Address in

Reply.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Address in Reply.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take this opportunity to get up and

recognize some great things that are going on in the District of Bonavista.

Recently, on Saturday evening, we had the Christmas tree lighting in Bonavista.

What an excellent turnout that we had for this time of the year. We also have it

this evening in the municipality of Trinity Bay North. With the season upon us,

it's about giving. I said in my speech on Saturday night, much like Canadian

Tire, this season is about save like Scrooge and give like Santa.

I just wanted to make an appeal to the people in my

district to give to the fourth annual toy drive that I host every year. We've

been doing it for a number of years. I partner with local charities and

organizations that distribute the toys, so I want to make that out to the

public. I know there's a video and on Facebook asking for that. I encourage all

people to get out and certainly do that.

Also, I'd like to reflect on the year that we've had in

the District of Bonavista. It's been a very positive year, Mr. Speaker. Tourism

numbers are up through the roof. I was –

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

KING:

– a

great announcement – I'll get to that, thank you for the idea.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get up and talk a little bit

about the tourism industry that seems to be on its wheels. I was at a Chamber of

Commerce function on Saturday evening and it was highlighted that there were

61,000 visitors to our region this year. You take the population of, say,

Bonavista, which is a little shy of 4,000, that certainly adds quite a few

people to our towns and regions.

You have Trinity-Port Rexton – you seen the number of

young entrepreneurs, which I want to recognize as well. In a place where we

always hear that you've got an aging population, our region is one in which we

have a younger population coming into the area. We're a place to be. It is

because of the economic growth that we have in our area. It's an exciting place

to be. It's a cool, hip place to be. I think it started off years ago with

Rising Tide Theatre and some of the great things that they've been doing here

for 25 years. This past year was the 40th year of Rising Tide Theatre, so I do

want to recognize Donna Butt and what she's been doing.

Also, I'd like to recognize the 25th anniversary of the

Trinity Pageant. I know we had a number of people joke about that previously,

but it started to bring people to our area. Through that, we've seen things grow

in Bonavista. You see Home from the Sea in Elliston. That's been a great boom

for our region, bringing people to a community that couldn't afford to pay its

light bill in 1997 and only had three businesses and now you have several

businesses, they are open year-round and they are bringing people.

Actually, the road to Elliston is even paved this year,

which is a great thing. I know the Leader of the Opposition, when he was out to

the district, when he was on his campaign tour, or the year before last, talked

about this road needs to be paved. While it was in the five-year Roads Plan, we

kept up to our word there. It's great. You are seeing other roads done along

Route 230, Route 233 and we see major infrastructure in place.

You look at the Sir William Coaker Heritage Foundation,

what they are doing in Port Union; the Port Rexton Brewery, other operators

within Port Rexton, and the good news that we saw the other day in our brewing

industry with the tax breaks. We're going to see more growth where you see Union

Electric Brewing Company opened up; Dungeons Distillery Ltd. as well.

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Baccalieu Trail in Bay Roberts.

MR.

KING:

What was that?

MS.

P. PARSONS:

Baccalieu Trail in Bay Roberts.

MR.

KING:

Baccalieu Trail in Bay Roberts my friend, the Deputy Chair of Committees, is

telling me. So we see a lot of growth in this industry.

To use a pun, the potential is untapped in this market,

so I'm excited about it. I have worked with local companies to help them get

things in place so that they can be successful.

Growth in our region is spectacular. You take Church

Street region in Bonavista, a bunch of young entrepreneurs – and I was happy to

walk into a place like East Coast Glow and purchase Christmas gifts on Friday. I

was able to get homemade soap products, high quality, that's in demand all over

the world. They've been in New York. They've been featured in magazines. They

ship everywhere.

You've got the Boreal Diner which is the Bonavista

coffee company, great coffee, and something that you would never think of in our

region years ago. It's great.

Outside of the tourism industry, you look at the growth

in our agriculture sector. We have a number of young farmers getting into the

field, dairy farmers and some vegetable farmers as well. They're excited about

coming home and starting a family business such as farming. I know my friend

from Mount Pearl North, he's huge into the farming industry and he's excited

about what's going on out in the District of Bonavista with regard to

agriculture. You can see he has a gleam in his eye right now because I'm talking

about agriculture.

You look at the Musgravetown, Lethbridge, Harcourt

areas, all vital to our farming

industry, and now you see it on the top of the peninsula. We have a couple of

young farmers who are doing whatever they can to produce non-traditional

vegetables, who raise animals, to go out there and start something they're

passionate about. I mean, they're two young electricians from Labrador who moved

to our area who are looking to get into the farming industry. I've been talking

to them a number of times and I'm excited about what they're doing.

Also, the forestry

sector, we have the biggest forest lumber producer in the province with Sexton

Lumber. I've been working with Kevin Sexton for three years now. When he

couldn't get any satisfaction from the former PC government, when he wanted more

timber, when he'd have to shut down because he couldn't get enough allocations,

and when the former MHA of the day wouldn't even take his calls or get in a row

saying, no, no, other areas of the province need that, what I've been able to do

is been able to work with Kevin Sexton and work with the minister of Fisheries

and Land Resources at the time to help them be sustainable and open and maintain

their shifts so they don't have to shut down for two or three weeks at a time.

He's been able to

grow his operation. Now he's in finger jointing. I've talked about this here in

this House many times before. You get more product out of the lumber and timber

that you actually bring in. Now he's actually going to be into pressure

treating. So that's growing our economy, creating more year-round jobs, Mr.

Speaker.

That's what we want

to see, more people employed in our region. We're an area of growth. One area we

certainly don't want to forget about is the fishery. The fishermen had a pretty

good year. The fall, the weather hasn't been co-operating very well for the cod

fishery, but when the fishermen have been able to get out they've been telling

me that they've been able to get their

quotas on cod fish, so we wanted to see that increase. There is always a concern

about crab.

The local fish plant, I'd certainly be remiss if I

didn't talk about Ocean Choice International and the job they're doing here in

Bonavista. They just don't employ people from Bonavista but all over our region:

Trinity Bay North, Port Rexton, Trinity, over in Newman's Cove, Ambrose Cove,

that area, Elliston.

HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR.

KING:

Yeah, that's down your way. The minister for the Status of Women was talking

about Grand Bank and they're doing a good job down there.

One thing I love about Ocean Choice International is

when the quotas for crab were cut this year, it put a number of people in

jeopardy of not getting their hours that they needed for their unemployment

insurance. What OCI did as a company is brought product in from other areas.

Everyone that needed their hours got their hours. We're certainly thankful for

the good ownership and management that we have at Ocean Choice International.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude my comments, but I'd

like to take a moment with the House winding down here right now, just to wish

everyone a very Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to those who don't celebrate

Christmas and a very happy, joyous and prosperous new year.

Certainly going into 2019, we'll see an election and we

want to keep the prosperity going and certainly don't want to regress back to a

Progressive Conservative government which won't see any prosperity at all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call from the Order Paper, Order 5 and I'd like to

move the second reading of Bill 41.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Torngat

Mountains that Bill 41,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador

Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read a

second time.

MR.

SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that Bill 41 entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And

Labrador Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And

Labrador Act.” (Bill 41)

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to open the discussion on

amending the Atlantic Accord implementation act to extend the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to

the offshore area. This action reflects the province's commitment to help

address climate change, while maintaining the competitiveness of our industry in

supporting clean, economic growth.

The province's carbon pricing system, which has been

accepted by the federal government, is based on the principles of maintaining

competiveness for taxation and trade, minimizing the impact on consumers and

vulnerable groups, recognizing the considerable cost we are already paying to

de-carbonize electricity and delivering meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas

emissions. My colleagues, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment and

the Minister of Finance, will speak on the provincial carbon pricing system and

the principles and actions we are taking in response. I will focus my remarks on

the offshore area.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the offshore area, this

made in Newfoundland and Labrador approach will ensure we, as a province, do our

part to address climate change while protecting our offshore industry against

the federal backstop, which would have imposed significantly higher costs

without improving outcomes. Before I get into specifics, I would like to speak

to the contribution of this sector and denote a couple of key points with

respect to the Atlantic Accord and subsequent Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Atlantic Accord implementation acts.

From an economic perspective, oil production in the

offshore area represents 25 per cent of Canada's conventional light crude

production, and there's been over $56 billion in industry expenditures on

exploration, development and operations; quite an economic stimulus for our

province. The industry represents 25 per cent of provincial GDP and over 40 per

cent of our exports in this province. Going forward, our government anticipates

the potential for significant growth and our even greater contribution to the

provincial financial well-being, and I will speak further to these growth

opportunities in a moment.

From a governance perspective, the Accord Acts confirm

the federal and provincial governments as equal partners in the joint management

of offshore oil and gas developments in legislation as outlined in the 1985

Atlantic Accord. This legislation often supersedes other federal legislation.

Both governments have committed to introduce amendments to regulations only with

the consent of the other party. The Accord Acts define and grant the C-NLOPB its

powers and authorities, as well as cost recovery mechanisms for its operational

costs.

No petroleum activity can take place in offshore area

without the authorization of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum

Board. Offshore operators were consulted and expressed a clear preference for

having the province's Management of

Greenhouse Gas Act apply offshore. The federal government is in agreement

with this approach and it is supported by the C-NLOPB; however, the Accord Acts

currently do not permit the Management of

Greenhouse Gas Act to apply offshore area and amendments are required.

The provincial government therefore has proposed to

extend the application of the Management

of Greenhouse Gas Act to the offshore area through Bill 41 to be

administered as appropriate by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore

Petroleum Board. Specifically, amendments to

section 159 of the Accord Act will

allow C-NLOPB to administer the Management

of Greenhouse Gas Act regulations in the offshore area.

Specific amendments to

section 29 of the Accord Act

will enable the C-NLOPB to recover costs associated with this function from

industry. The federal government introduced their parallel amendments into

parliament on October 29 of this year. Our provincial Bill 41 mirrors the

federal approach. This approach is consist with and respects the unique

regulatory regime embedded in the Atlantic Accord. It is also consistent with

our Advance 2030 strategy.

Mr. Speaker, we're seeing success in our plan to drive

exploration and grow the province's offshore through

Advance 2030 – The Way Forward

on oil and gas . In fact, record bids for exploration licences offshore were

received earlier this month as a result of the most recent call for bids in the

Eastern Newfoundland region and Jeanne d'Arc regions. In total, there was a

record cumulative total of $1.38 billion in bids and a single record bid of $621

million from a new entrant, BHP Petroleum in the Eastern Newfoundland region.

The resource potential in offshore Newfoundland and

Labrador is incredible. In less than 7 per cent of the province's offshore,

there's a combined resource potential of 49.2 billion barrels of oil and 193.8

trillion cubic feet of gas. And I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker, that's in less

than 7 per cent of the province's offshore. There have been eight new entrants

in the past three years and $3.9 billion in recent exploration work commitment.

To ensure this continued interest in growth requires a

regulatory regime that is efficient, effective, transparent, globally

competitive and environmentally responsible. These factors, among others, are

important in attracting and retaining investment opportunities to the benefit of

our respective governments. Industry has identified a number of potential risks

to continued investment. These risks include regulatory uncertainty associated

with the many federal legislative initiatives, including those associated with

the implementation of carbon pricing offshore.

Applying the provincial greenhouse gas pricing regime

in the offshore area delivers meaningful reductions in emissions – which is

critical, we all understand the impact of climate change – while minimizing

uncertainty to industry. It provides for a single, seamless, large industry

carbon pricing regime to be implemented in the province that is tailored to the

unique nature of offshore petroleum industry. It exempts exploration activity,

it exempts aviation support services to the offshore. It structures greenhouse

gas reduction targets in a manner that recognizes the constraints of operating

350 kilometres-plus offshore.

Before concluding I would like to note, that C-NLOPB

operates on a cost recovery basis from industry. This means, in effect, that 100

per cent of the costs that are incurred by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador

Offshore Petroleum Board to administer greenhouse gas regulations are recovered.

This would not result in any new costs to the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, industry supports this approach, including

the continued application of a single regulator offshore. Our government

completed numerous consultations, including each offshore operator: the Canadian

Association of Petroleum Producers, the Newfoundland Offshore Industries

Association, and Nalcor Energy. Our government has also engaged the C-NLOPB on

an ongoing basis to ensure that the provincial regulatory approach can be

effectively integrated with existing current licensing, reporting and compliant

practices implemented by the C-NLOPB.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this act basically does

a couple of things. It allows the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to apply to the offshore oil area. It gives

powers and imposes duties and functions under the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act on

the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. And, as I've said

earlier, the federal government has introduced parallel amendments into

parliament in late October of this year.

So the two things that this bill does, the amendments

to the Accord Act, are basically allowing for the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and for C-NLOPB to be the purveyor

of that act on the offshore and allow it to collect fees in order to cost

recover.

So that's it, Mr. Speaker. It's a rather simple bill as

part of our strategy to ensure we address climate change and greenhouse gas

emissions in this province.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation.

The bigger piece will come in Bill 44 – I'm assuming will come after the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act .

In a nutshell, this bill basically permits the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act to be

incorporated into the Atlantic Accord which in turn will give the C-NLOPB the

power to administer and collect these carbon taxing or fees under one

administrator which was agreed upon and is what industry wanted. We attended a

briefing actually and some of the minister's staff attended and gave us an

overview, so I thank them for that.

This is kind of a small piece of the big picture but

it's an important piece, obviously. During the briefing, basically, we were

explained the same thing that cost recovery – that 50 per cent of the costs

where it's a joint between the federal and provincial, the costs would only be

applied. You could only get 50 per cent of cost recovery; but, the C-NLOPB being

the one administering it, a lot of that makes sense to us.

Now, removing ourselves from the bigger piece of carbon

pricing in general, we've been on the record for quite some time of our views.

I've been the critic of climate change since 2015 and we've made that pretty

clear in this House and publicly of our views on the carbon pricing model that's

being implemented by the federal government, now in turn by the province in

their own made in Newfoundland approach.

So I suppose tying two of them together – this piece of

legislation is pretty routine but the bigger piece is where we – the overall

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and

charging a tax to the consumers of this province and our industry with no set of

real emissions in place is an area where we have concerns, and we'll discuss

that later in Bill 44.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB will administer

the Management of Greenhouse Gas Act

in the offshore area. They will recover costs associated with this from the

industry, which happens with current costs for other regulatory functions of the

C-NLOPB.

Section 1 of the bill is going to make changes to

section 29(2) of the Accord Act. Subsection (1) is already contained in the act

and subsection 2 is being added. Subsection (2) indicates that all amounts

related to the Management of Greenhouse

Gas Act will be paid in their entirety to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

This is because carbon pricing is a provincial jurisdiction. The C-NLOPB may ask

the province for more operating funds, which the C-NLOPB will then bill to

industry and then pay back to the province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak a long time on

this. Like I say, we have the associated Bill 44, which I think would be more in

its entirety, because this is more like an enacting piece of legislation tied to

Bill 44. So we'll discuss further into that piece of legislation.

But this one here, like I say, in a nutshell, it's the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act . It's

allowing it to be part of the Atlantic Accord. It's giving them sole authority

as a regulator to do the collections, to remit the funds to the province and

deal with the cost recovery, deal with the offshore separately. It's what

industry wanted, and this legislation reflects that.

So we'll discuss further on this piece of legislation

as we debate Bill 44.

Thank you very much.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

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

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to have a couple of minutes to speak to

this amendment, the bill itself. Bill 41 is

An Act to Amend the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and

Labrador Act. Obviously, it's something that is being required because of the

legislation that's being brought in with regard to the greenhouse gases. We do

have the greenhouse gas act, and later on in this sitting we will be discussing

amendments to that act.

The amendment today is an amendment to the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act because – it

was said in the briefing that the oil companies would've preferred to be managed

in terms of the greenhouse gas policies. They would prefer to have the C-NLOPB

in charge of the industry offshore rather than the department – a department

probably would've been Natural Resources – that they would prefer the C-NLOPB to

administer the GHG Act.

So that's why we are standing here today, because in

order for that to happen there has to an amendment to the Atlantic Accord

agreement to shorten the full title. What we're doing today is approving – which

I think we need to, we shall – the amendments to the Atlantic Accord agreement,

allowing the C-NLOPB to administer the greenhouse gas act as it relates to the

offshore, as has been pointed out by the minister, pointed out by my colleague

from CBS as well.

So it's pretty straightforward, but it is an

opportunity to look at the fact that the activity in the offshore is pretty key

when it comes to looking at greenhouse gas emissions here in our province, and

adjustments have to be made. We did not meet the first target that was agreed

upon with regard to the reduction of emissions in this province, and one of the

reasons why we had to change the target is because of the greater activity in

the offshore. So it would appear that we can set targets for the reduction of

GHG emissions, but if at the same time we continue to grow in the offshore, if

we continue to have more activity in the offshore, that's going to change our

ability, as we go forward, to reduce our emissions. It's as simple as that.

I would like government to think about what else is

going to need to be done, because if we continue growing in the offshore and we

continue having more activity in the offshore and that's affecting our targets,

then something else is going to have to be done with regard to the offshore to

make sure that we do meet targets that we're setting, and that discussion will

come up in the amendments to the greenhouse gas act, which is rather

problematic. So if we continue to have activity that's going to be increasing

our emissions and we have to keep changing our targets, we're never going to get

anywhere where we are really affecting greenhouse gas emissions in this

province.

The latest reports globally are saying that greenhouse

gas emissions are growing on the planet, in spite of the agreements that have

been put in place, and we have to accept responsibility for that here in this

province. So if our growth in offshore development is going to continue to

increase our emissions, then, as I've already said, we're never going to get

anywhere when it comes to really reducing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

MICHAEL:

the overall emissions in this province, which affects overall emissions on our

planet.

So it's problematic that we don't have that broader

discussion in this House. It's problematic that we are not taking seriously

enough the importance of our role when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

The details of this bill are pretty straightforward.

It's just making sure that administration is going along, is working well and

that the administration by the C-NLOPB would be in agreement with what's

happening with regard to the greenhouse gas act, because the greenhouse gas act

itself is under the department under the minister, but the behaviour of the

offshore is under the C-NLOPB. So it becomes problematic.

It points out to me, Mr. Speaker, something that we've

been saying here in this House, and that is we need a separate agency that's

dealing with issues like the greenhouse gas. We need a separate agency dealing

with environmental issues and safety issues in the offshore. Because the

C-NLOPB, their responsibility is exactly what's happening here – it's

administration.

It's administration of the business part of the

offshore. It's administration of the lease of lands in the offshore for

exploration. They have an administrative role. They do not have a major role

when it comes to looking at how much greenhouse gas is being produced by the

offshore and how much an increase in activity out there increases our emissions

and therefore works against our being able to diminish, to reduce our emissions.

So this is a moment for government to think about that,

Mr. Speaker, to think about the fact that we actually have had to change our

target because of the offshore. We've had to change our target because of the

offshore. So are we looking at five years down the road, setting a target now?

What is the production going to be like in five years or 10 years? And do we

wait –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do we wait until then to make the adjustment or do we

make targets, are we going to be realistic and say, well, knowing what's going

to happen or what could happen in five years time our target is probably not

going to work.

I don't think we are being completely open and honest

with ourselves about the targets we are setting, because at the same time we're

doing it we are saying we want to increase production. So one is

counterproductive when it comes to the other. So we have a problem here. If

we're going to continue with offshore, if we're going to continue with that

industry, then we need to be looking at what are the other ways in which we are

going to reduce emission, and that's a major problem.

I also would like to know what will happen in terms of

communication between the Minister of Natural Resources, who will be in charge

of the greenhouse gas act, and the C-NLOPB. What's going to be the communication

back and forth between the board of the C-NLOPB and the minister who is in

charge of the greenhouse gas act? Who is going to oversee that communication?

That kind of thing is not really dealt with in the amendment we're making. It's

stating facts, but who is going to monitor to make sure the communication is

going on between the two bodies.

We do have a bit of a complication when it comes to

that, but my big issue that this begs for us to look at is the issue of how

every time we increase activity in the offshore we're increasing our emissions,

and because of that, targets already have had to been changed, and I would say

that we are going to continue changing our targets and we will continue to be

adding more emissions to the planet and becoming more and more a part of the

problem when it comes to greenhouse gas rather than really seriously saying

we're going to help reduce greenhouse gas.

So I'll leave my comments at that point, Mr. Speaker. I

may have questions to ask in Committee.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR.

LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm only going to take a couple of moments to speak to

Bill 41. Mr. Speaker, this all ties into the carbon tax and basically giving

jurisdiction to the C-NLOPB to manage that within the offshore. It's almost a

cart before the horse in one sense. (Inaudible) of how we're dealing with it

here in the House today, because arguably you're voting in favour or against a

mechanism to have something applied to the offshore that we haven't even agreed

on yet, if you know what I mean, because I think there are a number of people

that have issues with the carbon tax per se.

And I have my concerns. I have my concerns with the

carbon tax. I know the government has said – and I get where they're coming

from, that either have a made in Newfoundland and Labrador approach or have it

forced down our throats by the federal government. That's basically what it

comes down to, one or the other. I can understand that. They're saying that our

version is a more palatable version, if you will. Better for us than if the

federal government simply imposed something. I can understand that and

appreciate that, and to some degree I could agree with that.

I guess the other side of it is should there be a

carbon tax. Should there be a carbon tax? And should we, as a province, instead

of taking the position of having it shoved down our throats or coming up with

our own solution, should we not be taking the position of Ontario and some other

provinces who are saying neither, we're not accepting either one. We're not

imposing one, and you're not imposing one on us either, because we just don't

agree with the whole concept of a carbon tax.

HON. MEMBER:

They are imposing it.

MR.

LANE:

And

the minister across the way there says, yeah, they are imposing it. And they may

well, but at least they're fighting it. I guess the point is Ontario and some

other provinces are fighting it. They're saying, we'll take you to court, we'll

do whatever. Now, will they win or will they lose? Who knows? Who knows what's

going to happen.

I suspect the federal government has jurisdiction to

simply impose it in any case, but they are fighting it and they are challenging

it. Personally, I think that's a route I would have liked to have seen us go, to

be honest with you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm looking at it now from a layperson's

point of view.

I heard in one of the answers in Question Period, the

Premier or the minister or somebody talked about paying 25 cents. All it means

is if you fill up your tank, 60 litre tank or whatever it was they said, you'd

pay an extra 25 cents. Well, if that's the case, then every time a

Newfoundlander or Labradorian goes to the pumps and puts 25 cents extra in the

pump, how is that dealing with climate change? I can't get my head around how

that is going to impact climate change.

Are we suggesting that people are going to say I'm not

going to drive my car because I'm going to have pay 25 cents on a fill-up? Of

course not. People who are driving their cars today, they're going to drive

their cars tomorrow. So simply saying to the taxpayer you're going to pay this

additional tax, I can't see how it's going to do anything whatsoever to address

climate change.

If we were serious about climate change, government

would be going after industry – and maybe it's going to do that, too, I don't

know. I'm not sure what their plans are, but I would think government would be

going after industry to get rid of the combustion engines and making it so

difficult to create this situation where, we're all going to electric b'ys.

That's the way it's going to be, and you may as well start looking at electric

cars because that's the way she's going to go.

We're going to create that environment; we're going to

create that pressure. Maybe we're going to use incentives, maybe we're going to

use a big stick if we have to, but we're getting away from combustion engines

all together and everything is going to be electric. It's all going to be green.

And to make that happen, that's going to impact climate change.

But saying to Joe Q. Public, or the Justice Minister's

father, when he was here he used to call it, was it, Joe Chesterfield. Saying to

Joe Chesterfield that you're going to pay an extra 25 cents at the gas pump, and

that's somehow going to stop Joe Chesterfield from driving his car and that's

going to do anything to impact the environment is absolutely nonsense. It's not.

It's not going to do one thing to help the environment.

So when I say the bills here, it's sort of like a cart

before the horse, that's what I mean. Because this is talking about implementing

something into the offshore that hasn't even been implemented for the province

yet. So I do have some concerns about it because I have concerns about the

carbon tax.

I would also say as a province here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in the big scheme of

things is minuscule. It's minuscule in the country. It's minuscule in the world

certainly, but even in the country I think it's minuscule.

When you look at the Muskrat Falls development, and we

all know the concerns we have about it, but one of the good things about Muskrat

Falls, if there is a positive to be found there – and there are certainly a lot

of negatives now for sure, I'm the first to admit that – but if there is a

positive to be found with Muskrat Falls, it does address, I think, greenhouse

gas emissions and so on.

Now, there are people who would argue it's still not

environmentally friendly. You talk to people about hydro and they'll say, yeah,

but you're destroying the – there are methylmercury concerns. They're destroying

the landscape and the vegetation and all that stuff. I totally understand all

that as well, but from a greenhouse gas emission point of view, it's considered

clean, green energy.

So for a little province like Newfoundland and

Labrador, 500,000 people, by virtue of that project I think we're doing our

share and then some to address pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. If

everyone else in every other province and area had initiatives like that, in

terms of clean energy, from that angle at least, then from a greenhouse gas

emission point of view we'd be way better off.

I think we've done more than our share. So, arguably,

why should we do more? And I know people will say, well, we all got to do

everything we possibly can to help the environment, and I get that, and I

certainly acknowledge climate change. I'm sure we all acknowledge climate

change. Even here in Newfoundland and Labrador, over the last number of years we

have seen the impacts of climate change. It's very real.

I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the

former minister of Municipal Affairs know that climate change is very real in

terms of our municipalities and our infrastructure and the storm sewer systems

and water systems. The pipes just can't handle the flows any more like they used

to. What was considered a one in 100-year event is now becoming a one maybe

every 10 years or five years. That's reality. It is happening, and I think we

all acknowledge that and I think we all need to do our part.

I would argue that, again, with the Muskrat Falls

Project, with all of the negatives that come with it now, that

part is a

positive, and we are doing our

part in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and

then some. Bearing in mind, like I said, the other environmental issues,

methylmercury, that's a different issue. It's an important issue, but it's a

separate one, but we are doing our part on greenhouse gas emissions and then

some.

Again, the whole concept that somebody going to the gas

pump and having to put in an extra 25 cents on a fill-up – is what was used. I

don't know if that number's even accurate, but that's what somebody said over

there so I'll take it on their word that it is right. Even if it was an extra

dollar on a fill-up, it's still not going to stop the average person who needs a

vehicle to travel to and from work and take the kids to hockey or dance or visit

friends and neighbours or whatever they're doing. It's not going to stop

tourists. So how does that tax do anything whatsoever to improve climate change?

I would say it does zero, zippo, nothing. All it does is it just puts more money

into provincial coffers.

I understand as well that given our fiscal

circumstances and everything else that we need every cent we can get at this

point in time. I understand that too, but that's not what this is about – or at

least that's not what it's supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be about

taxes and raising revenue. The spirit of all the legislation on this is supposed

to be about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So I just don't see how a carbon tax is going to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions, generally. I just don't see it. I think, like I said,

the federal government needs to be going after the big polluters either with

incentives and or big sticks to stop the pollution, but Joe Chesterfield going

to the gas pumps and now paying an extra tax for it is doing nothing to address

it.

I'm really conflicted with that. I understand this bill

is talking about applying this to the offshore. So if we're going to do it, if

we're going to vote in favour of bill – what is it?

HON. MEMBER:

Forty-one.

MR.

LANE:

No,

this is 41. The other one –

HON. MEMBER:

Forty-four.

MR.

LANE:

Forty-four.

If we're going to vote in favour of Bill 44, and we

agree that Bill 44 is a good thing and we should vote for it, than this is going

to, obviously, make sense because if you're going to do 44 and we're going to

have a carbon tax than, obviously, it needs to apply to the offshore as well as

the onshore and so on. So we get that.

The authority under this bill needs to go to the

C-NLOPB to allow them to manage the carbon tax for the offshore. I would have

preferred if we had debated Bill 44 first and we can all have our say about what

we feel about Bill 44 and the carbon tax.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on this, Mr. Speaker.

I will say in principle, if I'm going on the premise – if Bill 44 was voted for

and it passed, then I would say, well, we're doing Bill 44. It's happening, so

now we have to do Bill 41. But now that we haven't done Bill 44 – and it hasn't

passed, although I'm sure it will – it's kind of hard for me to vote, in a

sense, for Bill 41 because I don't agree with Bill 44. So that's the dilemma I

have.

My first inkling would be to vote for 41 because we're

doing it anyway, but I don't really agree with 44. So I'm probably not going to

vote for 41 either, because I can't vote for one and not the other, really,

unless Bill 44 was already in place and then it was just, okay, now we have to

do it.

Anyway, that is my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be

taking my seat now. I'm sure my colleague from Ferryland and others may have

more to say.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR.

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just going to stand and have a few words on this

because I was a part of this at the beginning. I look at the two ministers who

carried it through and I know the dilemma you're in with the federal government

also, is that if you didn't put something in place you would eventually have

something imposed. So many times it's better to find something that you're going

to help out Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in a better way than to have

someone from Ottawa impose something on you.

I know the current Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Environment was involved and the past minister, and now the Minister of Natural

Resources on this bill here, on Bill 41, it's better to have something we can

work with.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody tries to disagree that climate

change is not real, they should have come down to Bay of Islands last January

when we had the great floods down there and you see the devastation in the area.

You can go all across the province, at certain times you can see the disasters

we're having are becoming bigger. They're becoming more dangerous. They're

coming more often. They're almost now to the point that we are expecting major

floods every 100 years, every 10 years or sooner. So climate change is real.

Just on a point to the federal government on climate

change is that we know it's happening. They have changed their legislation where

we have a 15 per cent variance, which I know the government lobbied hard for a

number of years. That was finally changed to help out with the mitigation

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, which was a great benefit. Mr. Speaker,

that's something that's helping all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I heard the Member earlier speak on something, and

something I have to put out there because I know it was in the mix for a long

while and I know it's there now. He mentioned a few provinces like Ontario and

Alberta who are not agreeing with it and taking it to court. It has to be known

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that in this bill, from my understanding, is

that there's a me-too clause. It's if they go to court and they get something

changed, we have the option to opt out. If the court says that Ontario or

Alberta can opt out or if there are changes to it, we have that right. So that's

my understanding and I'm pretty confident I'm right on that.

If we don't sign on to this now, there will be an

imposed agreement on it on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So we're jumping in

now and saying, no, we're going to do something that we feel is going to benefit

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians more, but there is a clause there that if there

are any changes to any other provinces that we can move in on that. I know the

current minister there now was a part of that, and I just want to recognize that

part that's in there.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I heard the Member talking

about is, okay, why are we doing this? At the early negotiations and discussions

on this there's a green economy. This is a big part of that. There's about $44

million now that we can use in Newfoundland and Labrador to help.

One good example, I know I'm going to be meeting the

minister on it and it was on the plate, just a prime example in Newfoundland and

Labrador how we can reach some of our targets with the green economy fund. How

many people out in rural Newfoundland burn wood? How many people in Newfoundland

and Labrador use the older stoves? If we use the more combustible stove, which

is a great option, giving incentives to replace the older stoves with the newer

stoves which are much greener, much more friendly – and we have the funds to do

that.

So this is an opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador

to turn to technology and look at new businesses because there is funding there

to start new technologies, to find some way that we can cut the greenhouse gas

emissions in Newfoundland and Labrador through smaller ways, through larger

ways, through electricity, for some products. So there is a new economy that can

be made. In a lot of places a green economy has become very profitable and is

something that I know we will be looking at.

Also, I know the change with the 4 cents a litre or 3.7

cents a litre, it doesn't seem like a lot, but the gas tax that's on there now –

and I know the government made a commitment that they would relieve that as fast

as they can. What the government did do is release that gas tax now and put on

the carbon tax. So there's an extra burden there, but the burden that's in place

now is going to be removed. We had to find something as a province, Mr. Speaker,

to do our bit.

Some people would say, well, the gas tax was already

there, which is true because of the situation that happened in 2016, but they're

lessoning the burden on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The whole concept,

would it work? In some cases it will, in some cases it won't. The whole concept

is if it costs you more for behaviour, that funds will change your behaviour.

That is the original concept, is if you put a tax on something you want

behaviour to change.

A prime example, if you go years back, is electricity.

If the price of electricity went up people's behaviour will change. They would

wear a sweater or they would say, okay, let's turn the heat down in a certain

room if no one's in there. Behaviours do change if the price goes up. It

actually does.

This amount, is that going to cause a great behaviour

change in Newfoundland and Labrador? We don't know. Then if you increase it to

the point where there is a behaviour change, the next thing you know a lot of

people can't afford to even drive their cars. So there is a balancing act there,

Mr. Speaker. I know personally, every person I speak to agrees there is climate

change. Every person agrees that we must do something, and every person in

Newfoundland and Labrador says we must do our own bit.

I know everybody in government feels – and in

Opposition, also – is that we have to help out our way throughout the whole

province, and in Canada itself. Different ideas for Toronto, different ideas for

Calgary, but Newfoundland and Labrador – if we can create some good initiatives

for Newfoundland and Labrador to help the green fund that's in place, to help

bring down the emissions, to remove our footprint as best we can, that's the

best we can do as parliamentarians.

So I will be supporting this. I know Bill 44 will be

coming in. I know there was a tough slog with it. I understand the federal

government has accepted it and it will be coming into effect January 1, I

understand.

So, Mr. Speaker, the reason why this Bill 41 is in

because we have to get it through the House of Assembly. If not, by the time

Bill 44 comes in in January – if this is not passed now, it can't be done until

the next sitting, and this won't be in place.

Mr. Speaker, you're going to pass Bill 44, the

greenhouse gas emissions act, and Bill 41, is that you need to do them in unison

in this session of the Legislature to ensure that when one is passed, Bill 44 is

passed, that Bill 41 will be in unison. So I will be supporting this bill. I

know the greenhouse gas emissions act is very important.

I say to the minister, that we now, as a province, have

to look at some initiatives to help the people with some great green ideas for a

new economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I know the minister is open to

that. I know I'll be having discussions with the minister and I look forward to

doing our part, Mr. Speaker. So I will be supporting Bill 41.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad today to rise to speak to Bill 41. This bill

is, as others have spoken, to amend the

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland and

Labrador Act , specifically as it relates to Bill 44, which we'll debate I

guess later today, in regard to the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act . Also, there's a provision that the

Revenue Administration Act needs to be amended as well.

In regard to this particular bill related to the

Atlantic Accord, my understanding in terms of the briefing, this allows the

authority to be transferred to the C-NLOPB in regard to the particulars of this

bill for the administration of the greenhouse gas act. When that act was

originally brought in here to the House some time ago, a few years back, we had

a discussion then about industrial facilities and the emissions of those

facilities. At that particular time, it didn't include the offshore. So it

didn't include what we're discussing here today in regard to this regulatory

framework and giving the authority to C-NLOPB.

The current act, under our understanding, and the

provision now brings in both onshore and offshore installations of facilities,

and brings them in under the requirements of the greenhouse gas act. So that's

another reason why this amendment needs to be made to allow that greenhouse gas

act to be administered by the C-NLOPB for coverage of offshore facility and

sites.

So, overall, when we look at these two bills – 41 this

one is, and 44 we'll debate later – it's about climate change and a plan for

climate change where often a carbon tax is just one part of that. There are many

facets of that climate change plan that administration could have or a province

could have, and this carbon tax is only one component of it. This particular

bill speaks to our offshore facilities, oil and gas production, and bringing it

under the greenhouse gas act for the administration.

When you look at the beginning of our industry, where

we are today, and then looking forward and looking at the tremendous

opportunities we have in regard to the resources offshore and what that means

for the province in terms of future development, revenue streams, economic

development, it is indeed significant.

In any fundamental issue related to carbon tax or

climate change plans or things you're going to do, it always comes to, well,

what's the return going to be? Is this going to change behaviours? Is it a

behaviour pattern we're trying to get at, or is it a polluter-pay kind of

program that we're trying to develop and regulate? This particular act looks at,

about onshore and off, from 15,000 to 25,000 tons of emissions, and those

industries that are below that aren't covered by this but any that are between

15,000 and 25,000 as we move into the other bill will be and can opt into it.

My understanding in looking at the offshore and what we

were told in our briefing, most of the emissions now related to Bill 41 would be

significant. Most of them would far exceed almost half-a-million tons, I think,

of emissions that we talked about that would be relevant in terms of regulating

those that would be well over that threshold and requirement of being part of

the fund that would be set up when those will be looked at in regard to what

they can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and how that will look.

One of the things that was brought up as well, we know

the C-NLOPB is paid for jointly, 50 per cent as a partnership to the federal

government and the province. When we look at, any time there's administration or

extra roles of a body and what they do, there's also the issue of costs and that

cost being covered, what that particular cost will be in regard to the

administration of this regulatory framework.

Well, I won't call it a regulatory framework because,

as we know, this is a bill. There are vast amounts of regulations that are yet

to be done, which would certainly be applicable to this. I think we're about

roughly four weeks from January 1 of 2019 when this is supposed to become

effective.

So there's some concern, and we talked about it today,

in regard to being in any way ready or have the details ready to actually do

this and make it part of Bill 41. Those regulatory framework as well, through

Bill 41, will be giving the authority to C-NLOPB to administer and oversee the

actual framework of the greenhouse gas act.

There are also significant, in a broader sense, powers

in regard to the minister responsible for the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act . The minister responsible for that

act has significant authority in regard to, obviously, the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act , and exercise that authority,

duties and functions that are involved with that are given in the act. That

authority is given the minister to ensure that the administration and

enforcement of the act is done, and the C-NLOPB would be the body to do that as

we move forward – or this, if it passes, would allow the C-NLOPB to carry it out

with the greenhouse gas act, and this would give them the authority to do it.

There is also reference as well, in the bill, which

significantly relates to coming into force in regard to other changes in Ottawa

related to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Implementation Act. So

that needs to be – I guess there will be some questions later in regard to

changes to federal regulatory frameworks, or legislation in Ottawa that needs to

be changed as the Accord itself is shared jurisdiction and shared legislation.

There will be some questions about that as well as we go through in regard to

that.

I guess the real discussion will start, and I think my

colleague mentioned it as well, in regard to debating Bill 41. The real

discussion is on the greenhouse gas act, which is tied to this, and the carbon

tax; how it's been outlined in Bill 41 and what the intent of it is. Is it going

to reach the targets? Are there targets? What are they? How can we ensure the

extra revenue that has been generated is going to address that and is going to

be intrinsically linked to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

That's fundamental, and I'm sure we'll have a long

debate on that in Bill 44. Ultimately, that'll connect to this Bill 41 – if Bill

44 passes – that the C-NLOPB will have the authority to carry out the

administration of that act under the authority of the minister at the time who

owns and maintains that greenhouse gas act.

So, with that, we look forward to the debate on Bill

41. I look forward to some questions and then getting into the overall issue

here, which is Bill 44, later in regard to that bill as well.

Thank you.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

If the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources speaks

now, she will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.

COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For those watching at home, this is on Bill 41, which

is

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador – sorry, the Accord Act

to allow for the Management of Greenhouse

Gas Act provisions for our offshore, as well as to confer powers and impose

duties and functions under the Management

of Greenhouse Gas Act to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore

Petroleum Board and allow them to cost recover.

I'd like to recognize and thank the speakers to this

bill: The Member for Conception Bay South; the Member for St. John's East -

Quidi Vidi; Mount Pearl – Southlands; Humber - Bay of Islands, and Ferryland.

I want to recognize the leadership of the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands, not just on the climate change file when he was

minister but also on dealing with emergency services, because climate change has

had an effect on our province, Mr. Speaker.

Many of the speakers today talked about Bill 44. So I

will say to those that may be tuned in, Bill 44 is

An Act to Amend the

Management of Greenhouse Gas Act and the Revenue Administration Act, and that

will be debated shortly. That really does compose the imposition of some of the

rules and regulations that will be around climate change and the management of

greenhouse gas in the province.

Today, in Bill 41, we're dealing with really the

offshore industry and the implementation of – the imposition the management of

greenhouse gas on the offshore industry.

I do want to say a few things in res