PDF Version

December 6, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 54

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

When

hon. Members are ready.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have Members'

statements from the Members for the Districts of Bonavista, Mount Pearl

Southlands, Labrador West, St. John's East Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main and Cape

St. Francis.

The hon.

Member for the District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, provincial

scholarships were recently announced and I'm honoured to stand here today and

recognize five bright, young people from my district who were recipients. These

scholarships are awarded to high achievers who just finished high school, are

attending a post-secondary institution and are based on results from 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 Department of

Education and Early Childhood Development scholarship score. In the District of

Bonavista, Vanessa Duggan of Discovery Collegiate, who had the highest marks,

Olivia White of Bishop White School and Zachary Russell of Discovery Collegiate

were the recipients.

The

Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarships, valued at $1,000, are 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, Rebecca

Holloway of Heritage Collegiate, and my much smarter cousin, Conrad Reid 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 Mount Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

past Sunday, I had the pleasure to participate in the Mount Pearl Lions's Santa

Clause Parade. The parade began at Mount Pearl Senior High and travelled down

Ruth and Park Avenue, ending at Mount Pearl Square, where participants were

treated to hot chocolate, Timbits, pop and hotdogs by the Lions Club members and

other community-minded volunteers.

This

year's parade featured cheerleaders, floats, marching bands, animated

characters, community organizations and dignitaries from various levels of

government. The weather was absolutely wonderful for parade participants and

onlookers alike, which was evident by the large number of families present along

the route who were there to enjoy the festivities and catch a glimpse of good

old St. Nick.

An event

such as this certainly would not be possible if not for the commitment and

support of many community volunteers, organizations, the city and the corporate

community.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pearl

Lions Club and all of its community partners in hosting another successful Santa

Clause Parade in the City of Mount Pearl.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the organizers of the 6th Annual

Christmas Gala held in Labrador City on November 19, raising funds for Daffodil

Place.

The

organizing committee of Thelma Ricketts, Amy Dumaresque, Ann Marie Riviere,

Paulette Lambert, Nadine Stroud, Ronda Farrell, Christine Gordon, Melinda Myers,

Linda Moulton, Dawn Willcott, Angela Cayouette and Leeann Barrett give

generously of their time making this event a huge success.

The

Christmas Gala consists of a great dinner, followed by both a live and silent

auction that raised this year $16,000 for Daffodil Place, for a six-year total

of over $90,000.

honour of those affected by cancer, three candles were lit first for those

presently taking treatment, second for those who have won their battle, and

third for those who have lost the battle against this dreadful disease.

Mr.

Speaker, the residents of Labrador West recognize the importance of Daffodil

Place for cancer patients who have to travel to St. John's for extended periods

of time for treatment. It is their home away from home.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the organizing committee of this

great event. I am already looking forward to next year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for St. John's

East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

today to honour a remarkable person taken from us much too soon. Gerry Porter

died last Friday just eight months after his brain cancer diagnosis.

The many

facets of his life are reflected on GerryPalooza, a Facebook page that began as

an invitation to an event, became a page of memories and love when he moved to

palliative care and now stands as a beautiful tribute.

edited the Muse , worked as a graphic

artist at Memorial, introduced people to new music and ideas, designed posters

for dozens of local shows, and impressed everyone he met with his wit, wisdom

and intelligence. He was best known, lately, for his brilliant political

Speaker. But I am sure we can all agree that Gerry always avoided low blows, and

made us laugh at ourselves.

Most

important, he was a loving husband, father, grandfather and friend. We all feel

his loss, but I send an extra big hug to Debbie, Nick, Chris and all the other

Porters and McGees.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in saluting Gerry Porter, an unmatchable example of

a life well lived.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Prior to recognizing the

Member for Harbour Main, we welcome her guests to the public galleries, Zachary

Dean with parents, Shawn and Louise.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

recognize an inspirational young man from the District of Harbour Main.

Twenty-year-old Zachary Dean from Seal Cove is an exceptional individual who

faces challenges head on and will stop at nothing to reach his goals.

In 2011,

after moving from New Brunswick, Zachary started bowling with the CBS Special

Olympics and since then has moved on to participate in six additional sports,

including swimming, snowshoeing and softball. In total, Zachary has collected

more than 30 medals during his time with the club in just five short years.

In 2015,

he was named CBS Male Athlete of the Year for the CBS Brightstars Olympics. This

past summer, in addition to winning a silver and bronze medal at the

Newfoundland Summer Games, he was also presented with his Gold Duke of Edinburgh

medal by Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal.

With the

support of his mother Louise, father Shawn and sister Kayla, Zachary has been

able to not only meet his full potential but exceed it.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Zachary on his outstanding

accomplishments and showings us that a disability is not an inability.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Bauline on the grand

opening of their beautiful new town hall and community centre.

In 2009,

the gathering place in the town was the old school. It had to be closed for

safety reasons. The town had to rent an apartment to hold council meetings and

to hold public meetings, they used the United Church.

Mayor

Rita King and the council started planning for the new community centre. Under a

new council, with the leadership of Mayor Chris Dredge, the work was started.

Town Manager Craig Drover, Mr. Everything, was the person in charge of

overseeing the project.

I was

happy to attend the grand opening on November 19, and already the building is

booked solid. They have a dart league, Zumba classes, showers, dances, all kinds

of parties and community functions. It also has new council chambers and

offices.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating Mayor Dredge and the Town of

Bauline on the opening of their beautiful new building.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize the National Day of Remembrance and Action on

Violence Against Women. On December 6, 1989, a gunman shot and killed 14 young

women at cole Polytechnique,

because he believed they were feminists. This remains one of the worst

incidents of mass murder in Canadian history.

Twelve

of these women were engineering students, one was an employee of the university

and one was a nursing student. All 14 were killed simply because they were

women. This horrific event is a chilling reminder of the devastating effects of

the violence against women and a reminder of the continued struggle that women

face every day in our society.

The loss

of these 14 women is still felt keenly by their families, their friends, their

industry and their country. It has driven a movement that strives for a society

where women are treated with equality and respect. We still work every day to

achieve those goals. We all have the right to come home to a safe home, to

socialize with our friends, to attend a medical appointment, to ride in a taxi,

to attend university or to simply walk down the street without fear of being

attacked.

Mr.

Speaker, November 25 marked the beginning of the 16 Days of Activism Against

Gender-Based Violence. It also marked the beginning of the seventh annual Purple

Ribbon campaign to increase awareness and responsiveness to violence against

women. This year to highlight the campaign, the Purple Ribbon flag has been

raised for the first time at Confederation Building. The flag will remain in

place until December 10, coinciding with Human Rights Day and the Close of the

16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.

Mr.

Speaker, Members of this hon. House are wearing the purple ribbon today in

honour of December 6, the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence

Against Women. In addition this year, we are wearing the white ribbon to mark

the 25th anniversary of the White Ribbon campaign, the world's largest movement

of men and boys working to end violence against women.

Mr.

Speaker, as a reminder to us all of the events of December 6, 1989, I would like

to read the names of those 14 women who died that day into the record of the

House of Assembly: Genevive Bergeron, Hlne Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara

Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Marie Klucznik, Maryse

Laganire, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michle Richard,

Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte.

Flags at

Confederation Building will be flown at half-mast from sunrise to sunset to mark

this tragic day.

Mr.

Speaker, at this time I'd ask that we all take a moment of silence to remember

these women and all the women and families whose lives have been impacted by

violence.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Please be seated.

The hon.

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Many people in this nation

will recall where they were on this day 27 years ago when word spread across

this country in 1989 that a shooting had occurred in Montreal. It was

understandably met with sadness and shock.

However,

the revelation that these 14 people were senselessly murdered because they were

women, that fact changed our country forever. Fourteen strong, intelligent and

successful females were targeted and stripped of their young lives all because

of their gender.

Violence

against women is real and we must do everything in our power to change this.

December 6 is a grim and sombre day for our country. We must always remember

what occurred in Montreal that day and remember the women whose voices were

silenced. The work to end gender-based violence must never cease.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, 27 years ago I

was living in Montreal only blocks away from cole Polytechnique. I remember it

well.

For the

first anniversary, I made a film for CBC called

After the Montreal Massacre featuring Sylvie Gagnon who was shot but

survived. In it, women talked about the need to end all forms of violence

against women and how poverty and lack of equal opportunities affect women's

full equality.

On this

anniversary, I ask the minister to commit to a more rigorous and transparent

gender analysis of all legislation that comes before this House, and to make it

publicly available so, together, we can all work towards great equality. Gender

and equality must be embedded in all that we do.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm

pleased to rise in this hon. House today and share that earlier this year, and

as mentioned by the Member for Ferryland yesterday, the coastline of Mistaken

Point Ecological Reserve was inscribed as a World Heritage Site by the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, also known as UNESCO.

This is the first provincially-managed World Heritage Site in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and it's the fourth jewel in our crown of UNESCO sites in this

province.

Mistaken

Point is home to the world's oldest, large, complex multicellular fossils,

representing the remains of soft-bodied creatures that lived some 560 to 580

million years ago. Located on the south coast of the Avalon Peninsula, this is

the place in the world where there is evidence of when life got big.

Mr.

Speaker, World Heritage Inscription would not have been possible without the

dedication of the people of Portugal Cove South and other communities on the

Southern Avalon, Dr. Guy Narbonne, Dr. Richard Thomas, the very important

Mistaken Point Ambassadors Inc., Fossil Guardians, as well as the commitment and

support from provincial government staff, and the federal government represented

by Parks Canada. This was truly a celebration of co-operation between the

community, academia and government.

Because

of their efforts, Mistaken Point now counts itself amongst such iconic

international company such as the Galpagos Islands and the Great Barrier

Reef. Mistaken Point now stands toe-to-toe with other international natural

treasures in terms of its outstanding universal value to humanity. Since the

announcement, our government has rolled out our plan for additional staff and

infrastructure support.

Mr.

Speaker, World Heritage status ensures that this site will be protected and

available for future generations to study and discover, of which I know we are

all collectively very proud.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and

this tremendous story for the southern Avalon.

I, too,

would like to offer my congratulations to all of those who worked long and hard

towards this achievement. To the Mistaken Point ambassadors, the residents of

the southern Avalon, and the numerous academia staff who worked in this

destination, certainly some local people. I think of people like Kit Ward that

for decades have known and understood what we had there and on their own

protected the areas for the community.

Having

Mistaken Point designated as a World Heritage site will ensure its protection

for many years to come. I was delighted to hear the minister speak of increasing

the funding and positions available as we move forward with Mistaken Point. That

certainly needs to continue. I hope the minister committed to that and committed

as well to employing local content and expertise where possible, which is so

important.

As the

minister indicated, Mistaken Point is home to the world's largest complex

multicellular fossils. It is truly a unique tourism attraction. I encourage all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Members from the House, to visit this site

over the coming months and years to see exactly what it has to offer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It's wonderful what happens

when communities work together for a common goal. Congratulations to all the

people of Portugal Cove South and those who worked with them to earn Mistaken

Point a UNESCO designation.

I remind

the minister, there is more work to do. We need legislative buffer zones that

will ensure Mistaken Point and our other jewel on the West Coast, Gros Morne,

are protected from encroaching development for generations to come. It is the

right thing to do.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier, if he can confirm if Mr. Bern Coffey, Clerk of the Executive

Council and known critic of Muskrat Falls is actually the chair of the oversight

committee on Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

the former premier would know because this is the oversight committee that they

had put in place, it was made up of a group of people that were in the

bureaucracy within the province and in the capacity of the clerk, they become

chair of the oversight committee.

Mr.

Speaker, what we've done over the last few months is we've put in place a new

board. That has been done just recently through an IAC process. In terms of

providing oversight, we feel there's also some room that we can do with

strengthening that position as well, Mr. Speaker. Based on some of the reports

we saw just recently, if the need is to do that, I can assure you that this is a

government that would do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

December

2015, was the last oversight committee report released on Muskrat Falls.

I ask

the Premier, if an updated, new oversight committee report will be available

this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

it's widely known around the province now and people have been watching this

project, there have been a number of variables that have occurred. Last year in

December we put in place an EY we engaged EY to look at the

schedule and the

cost of the project. Those reports came out late spring of this year. Added to

that there was some re-baselining that had to be done. That was done sometime

late June. June 29 I think the date was, Mr. Speaker.

There

have been significant discussions around, as we know, the federal loan

guarantee. We've had Aboriginal issues around methylmercury, Mr. Speaker; we've

had issues around the cofferdam and, of course, the major contractor. There have

been ongoing discussions with those groups.

Mr.

Speaker, most of these things that I've just mentioned are as a result of the

project that we inherited because of the poor management of this prior

administration. So what we've done with all those variables, we've been checking

them off as we got them done. What we want to do is get those completed and get

the oversight report out there as quickly as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier needn't worry; we're going to get to poor management of the current

government before too long this afternoon. They've been in power now for 12

months, Mr. Speaker. This government, this Premier has been in power for 12

months.

I ask

the Premier: You're on the record as saying how important the Oversight

Committee work is, how important it is to have oversight of Muskrat Falls and

how valuable this committee was; why is it there's been no updated report

available to the people of the province after 12 months you've been in office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all, what I would do is I'd ask the former premier if he'd just go to the

website where the minutes of the meetings of the independent Oversight Committee

is there. They are there.

Mr.

Speaker, the oversight report, as I just mentioned, there are a number of

variables. So any reporting that would have been done right now would have been

with all those variables in place, so there would have been very little value I

would say.

We are

making a lot of headway, a lot of progress when it comes to the contract with

the major contractor, finalizing that. The federal loan guarantee will have an

impact. The Aboriginal issues around methylmercury something that the former

premier didn't even take the time to become familiar with that is something

that just happened in October.

So, Mr.

Speaker, a lot of variables with this but when this work is completed, we want

to get this done as quickly as possible and get those reports out there. I think

last year, I believe, the former administration put out two reports.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the

minutes are online and here's what it says. It names one of the employees

provided an update on the Project status based on the reports for the month

ended July 2016. What the minutes also say, and these are for August 30:

Commence drafting of the next Muskrat Falls Project Oversight Committee

report.

So, Mr.

Speaker, that's all the minutes say. That's not very in-depth and not very

valuable to the people of the province.

I ask

the Premier once again: Why has the committee not provided an update on the

status of this very important project? We've already seen where delays have

gotten us; we've seen what the independent engineer has said. People of the

province want to know why is this project at risk and what's the Oversight

Committee saying?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

just last year, late September when I asked the former premier to give an update

on the Muskrat Falls Project, he refused to do that, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

Just last year around late September, when I asked him for a financial update of

the affairs of this province, he refused to do it and he had that information.

He knew the information in the spring of 2015. He just refused to do it.

We've

been giving regular reports on where things have been, as it relates to

methylmercury, as it relates to the re-baselining, the federal loan guarantee.

There have been a number of variables. I just answered the question for the

former premier two or three times already, Mr. Speaker.

We want

to get this information out there. When we can get some good, solid information

about this project, the mess they have left this province in, we will get that

information out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

committee has met. Here are the minutes for October 6. It's even shorter than

the meeting before that where it says they're going to continue to write and

draft the Muskrat Falls oversight report. That was their meeting. That's the

result of the progress of this Oversight Committee that the premier himself has

stood here in the House, has said publicly how important the work of the

Oversight Committee is and there has been no report for a full year from this

government opposite.

Let's

not forget, Mr. Speaker, this is the Premier who hid the information about Mr.

Ed Martin's severance. This is the Premier who wouldn't release that

information, said he didn't know until ATIPP proved differently. Well, there's a

full report from the independent engineer, Mr. Speaker, a full report that the

minister apparently never took the time to read.

They

knew about this in July. They had their own people in Muskrat Falls in July.

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to get to

his question.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Why did you not take action

before now, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

it's not unusual for the former premier we would not want fact to get in the

way of a good story. As we said yesterday, the independent engineer's report was

released on November 22. The Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee received that

report on November 22. It was written, it was done for some fact checking on

November 2, so what we've now directed Nalcor and Natural Resources Canada

they received that report in its draft form. We've now directed Nalcor to

provide that information to the Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee when they get

it in draft form.

That has

not happened in the past. That is not something that the former administration

took the initiative to do. They were not involved in this and right now, just

like last year, when they refused to release that information, we will get this

information out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

rhetoric continues.

I'll ask

the Premier this: The independent engineer did a full review of the project in

July; what officials accompanied the independent engineer during that review?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

there are a number of people that went with the independent engineer. All I

would say is, Mr. Speaker, he must have read the document. The names are all

there, but they were not involved in drafting that document, Mr. Speaker.

Neither did anyone get a copy of the draft document.

Mr.

Speaker, he talked about rhetoric, the former premier talked about rhetoric.

Well, what he's doing right now is playing politics with a report based on an

oversight committee that that former premier put in place. He was a part of

that, and we will change that. Already we've directed the independent engineer,

when those reports go into the hands of Nalcor, Natural Resources Canada, they

will now come to the Muskrat Oversight Committee; something they failed to do

when they put in place this oversight committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

do have the report and I've read the report. The report clearly outlines there

were officials from government. There were officials from Nalcor that were with

the independent engineer when they reviewed the site.

I ask

the Premier: Why was it not until Friday past before you knew of the issues with

the cofferdam?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because

that's when the final report was presented to the oversight committee, that is

why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

He is suggesting the people

that went on the site visit with the independent engineer were not doing their

job? Is he suggesting they were incompetent, Mr. Speaker? Because I would like

to remind the former premier, these are people that they had put in place. Is he

suggesting the oversight committee that they put in place were incompetent? Is

that what the former premier is suggesting today?

Mr.

Speaker, we have directed now that when the independent engineer's report comes

in draft form, that that must be given to the Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee.

That is not something the former premier in his capacity or his colleagues in

their capacity did not do. That will now happen, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

talking about the independent engineer who in July spent several days and

several efforts with officials from Nalcor and officials from government

reviewing the Muskrat Falls Project and updating on the status, and in a report

very clearly issued the concerns they observed on site.

question for the Premier is: Is it an issue for you or a concern for you that

officials never brought this information to you or at least through the minister

to you? Is that a concern for you, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

number one, when the site visit was done in July the cofferdam was not

completed. It was under construction at that point. That is clearly outlined in

the report, should the former premier take some time to review it and read the

report in detail, Mr. Speaker. So as I said, we won't let fact get in the way of

a good story.

Mr.

Speaker, what we've put in place is a new board. The former premier let a board

go with just five people. We've now put in place a new board at Nalcor. The

independent engineers, a draft report will now go to the Muskrat Falls Oversight

Committee. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if need be, we will even strengthen

further that oversight committee. There is a need for strengthening oversight.

We put in place a new board. The independent engineers report will go to the

Muskrat Falls Oversight Committee, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you now we will

do more if required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier wants to keep going back to the oversight committee. It appears the

oversight committee are working. The problem is that the Premier hasn't ensured

that they will issue a report, a status report on the project. For a full year

there has been no report from the committee. It's about not providing

information publicly. I'm not sure why he would not direct that and keep it

confidential. Why are they not directing that?

The

Minister of Natural Resources has said that she knew last month there were

issues with the cofferdam.

I'll ask

the minister: Why did you not share such an important, critical piece of

information with the Premier of the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's be

clear on timelines. The cofferdam wasn't completed until November 5, impoundment

began on that date. On November 18, which is two weeks later, the observance of

the seepage, leakage was that the water needed to be lowered. The water was

lowered. A public statement by Nalcor was made on the 18th advising what was

happening. Again, Nalcor did advise on the 21st what was happening. Last week in

this House, when I was questioned about the cofferdam, I did say how concerned

we were about this issue.

It is an

ongoing situation, Mr. Speaker. There are geotechnical engineers on site and we

are hopeful that we can get this cofferdam finished, get the water raised so we

can protect our assets downstream.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the information from the minister, but the question was: If she knew

about this a month or so ago, why did she not inform the Premier? This is an

issue that could potentially cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars

or worse to the project.

I ask

the minister again: Why did you not inform the Premier a month ago when you

found out about it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, this government

has been stating publicly since September that we were concerned about the

cofferdam. We were concerned about raising the water levels in the river so that

we could protect downstream assets. That has been public since September.

October we had a meeting, a very important meeting I say, Mr. Speaker, with the

indigenous groups. We were able to work through a few issues with that. Water

was raised in the cofferdam. It was completed and raised in November. Nalcor

came publicly and said there was an issue with the cofferdam.

November 18 when asked, I did say that I was concerned about this issue. I am

concerned about this issue; this government is concerned about this issue. I

think it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing situation and

we're continuously monitoring and discussing it with Nalcor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister said, when asked, she'd release the information. It's nice to be

proactive and get that out and let the people of the province know upfront, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier stated

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier

stated yesterday that river diversion should have happened months and months

ago. By this assertion, is the Premier questioning the performance of the new

CEO, or does he have issues with the management team which was retained by the

current CEO?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all, I want to talk about proactive release of information. Let's keep in mind,

Mr. Speaker, that this is a government around May of 2015 or June of 2015 who

became aware of a major contract problem that cost many hundreds of millions of

dollars. The contract is not even finalized yet. So when it comes to proactive

release of information, the former administration did not even release that

information when they knew about it for many months prior to going into the

election last year. So they hid that information.

Mr.

Speaker, the comment that I made about river diversion was always part of the

schedule. That

schedule was put in place by the prior administration so they are

the ones that should best answer that question why that

schedule (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has

just said that the current CEO or management team at Nalcor can't change the

structure for Muskrat Falls, or for the timelines. That's what he just said. He

said it was put in place and he's going to keep it forever. There are issues. He

just said they can't change it. It doesn't make any sense.

Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Natural Resources, by not installing the ice boom

and ignoring the risk at Muskrat Falls, with your avoidance of duty, are there

issues in regard to insurance claims in case damage is done to the

infrastructure?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

first of all, I'm going to answer what he talked about, the (inaudible) to all

of this. I'm guessing that the former minister is suggesting that for somehow a

construction team can go up and change a river diversion. That's what he's

suggesting? That within a year you could actually change that

schedule so that

the timeline could be changed, that you could actually do that quicker?

Mr.

Speaker, there is a reason why the river diversion was missed. It was related to

the poor management that the previous administration had done. The

schedule that

they had agreed to on sanctioning of that project, Mr. Speaker, not only had

they missed the schedule, but I can tell you what, they certainly missed the

budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS :

At the next Cabinet meeting maybe the Premier can talk to his Minister of

Finance and the Minister of TW who sat at the board table at Nalcor, one of them

was even chair of the board.

Did they

miss the schedule? Did they miss the budget? Maybe they can stand up and tell

us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I've

given several warnings to Members of the House. Don't let today be the day that

I identify a Member and silence them.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, by not installing the ice boom and ignoring the risk at Muskrat Falls,

will your avoidance of duty on the potential insurance claims to damage to ice

could that cause insurance problems, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, saying that we

ignored the issue of the ice boom is not factually correct. We as a government

have been working very diligently to get the Muskrat Falls Project on track.

The

people of this province know the mess the Muskrat Falls Project has been in.

They know that it's two years behind schedule. They know that it's multi-billion

dollars over cost, Mr. Speaker. We've been working very diligently.

Let me

say this, Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue of the log boom. It is because of the

problems with the cofferdam and the lateness in the year. And that has to do

with the fact that this project has been over

schedule (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Minister of Natural Resources: What was Nalcor's response to the independent

engineer's report posted quietly online Sunday?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, we have said

repeatedly that this government was going to be open and transparent. When the

report came in, it was delivered to the Oversight Committee. Nalcor was asked

for a response. The response and the report were posted online.

We have

posted much and many more documents online. We have made them available to the

public. That's why they are available on an ongoing basis. We'll continue to do

that, Mr. Speaker.

It is

important to be open and transparent. That's why Nalcor has been out there on

the subject of the cofferdam since this whole issue occurred.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: Why would you not be proactive and release that

information in a public statement rather than just post it online?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

I can say to the hon. Member

how come he didn't post anything online when (inaudible) under Muskrat Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, the report, when

it was ready, was posted online. This is an ongoing process. We're going to post

things online on an ongoing, regular basis. We think it's very important to make

information available to the public. We made it available to the public and that

is now why it's so important that they are referring to it. And that is, I

think, an ongoing thing that this government will continue to do.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

needs to go back and check online, indeed, if all the reports that we did during

Muskrat Falls were put online. She should go back and read a few and maybe it

would update her on where we are with it.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: What action has been taken to address the concerns

with

MR. KING:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista need not stand for the remainder of the day.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I ask the minister: What action have you taken to address the

concerns with scheduled changes with the high voltage DC lines?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't

address his earlier comments; I won't dignify the response.

Mr.

Speaker, with the transmission lines, they are being worked on. A lot of work

has been done over the past summer. We are catching up a little bit on schedule.

I know that Nalcor has been working diligently. As you know, as the people of

the province know, under the CEO, Mr. Marshall, there was a separation of the

transmission lines from the powerhouse and from the generation. It is under a

new leadership, and that leadership has been working very, very diligently to

try and catch up on the schedule.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: When will a detailed plan be ready on the high voltage DC lines

and the challenges?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

quite sure what analysis he would like to have done, but whatever he would like

to have done, I'm certain I can ask Nalcor to provide. They are working to

ensure that

schedule for the transmission is brought up to date, Mr. Speaker. We

had several months' slippage under the former administration. They are working

diligently to do their best to bring that as quickly as possible online.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, major thoroughfares such as the Outer Ring Road, Peacekeepers Way,

Manuel's Access, Foxtrap Access and Route 60, to name a few, will not have

24-hour snow clearing this year.

I ask

the minister: What is the plan to keep these roads safe?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

my answer today is not much different than it was last week. We're basically

deploying our resources and of course, safety is always foremost in what we're

doing. I mentioned last week that we do have a number of targets and measures in

place that will deploy our resources.

The only

difference this year, Mr. Speaker, versus last year is that we don't have a

dedicated crew that's sitting in a depot during those hours. However, there are

a number of measures that we are using to trigger our deployment of resources

and one of these of course, as I said last week, we do have staff that is

monitoring the road conditions. We do have forecasting that's out there. We have

the RCMP that is on the roads who give us advice as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, can the minister provide this House an update on the million-dollar

tunnel study?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I

correct that; it is $750,000 for us budgeted a quarter of a million dollars

means a lot to this government. I'm not sure how much it means to the other side

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAWKINS:

That is a study that was part

of the budget, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you today what we're actually doing

so far: We have a committee in place; some interdepartmental discussions we're

having on that. It is quite likely that the discussions will go into the next

fiscal year, but it is an ongoing discussion we're having.

When we

do have something further to report, I can certainly give an update on that.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly something we identified last year within our

budget. We will continue to look at that and we will be certainly making

decisions on this side on evidence based.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South, for a very quick question.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So at a

time when the Liberals cut 24-hour snow clearing at a savings of $1.9 million,

they committed to spend upwards to a million dollars on a tunnel study.

Will the

minister agree to halt the study and invest in snow clearing to ensure major

roads are safe and cleared this winter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works, for a quick response.

MR. HAWKINS:

Mr. Speaker, our roads this

year we have committed to safe roads this year as well. As you know, I

mentioned last week as well that the entire province did not have 24-7. As a

matter of fact, there were 13 areas that had it. Only two of those 13 areas had

7-24; the other 11 had 5-24. So it's not like the entire province was covered.

We are

making sure that we deploy our resources to make sure that our highways are

safe, and we will continue to do that, 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.

December 2007, the provincial government announced it had finalized a nine-year

agreement with Ocean Choice International aimed at ensuing, among other things,

the former FPI groundfish quotas totalling millions of pounds of fish would be

landed in the province for processing.

I ask

the Premier to report to the House on the extent to which OCI complied with its

commitments and to tell the House what will happen to these quotas now that the

agreement is about to expire.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for the question. The hon. Member is correct; the

agreement with OCI and Quota Holdco does expire in December of this year. As

recently as last Monday I was in Ottawa. I met with the federal minister of

fisheries. It's an issue that we have ongoing discussions going with the

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When OCI

closed the doors on its Marystown fish plant, it entered into a commitment with

the provincial government to provide a minimum of 110 full-time processing

positions for a minimum of five years in the company's Fortune facility.

I ask

the minister: Has OCI in fact provided 110 full-time jobs in the Fortune plant

on an ongoing basis since that agreement was signed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, again I thank

the hon. Member for her questions and a lot of the questions she could probably

ask the party's leader.

Mr.

Speaker, OCI entered into an agreement that was administered by the previous

administration. That agreement has never lived up to its full potential. One of

the reasons that agreement has never ever lived up to its full potential is

because the previous administration never put any teeth in the agreement. So

there was never any way that government could enforce the agreement that was

brought in to the OCI Fortune situation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister if OCI has advised him of its employment plan for the Fortune plant

for 2017 and beyond. If so, how many processing jobs will it entail and for what

duration?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, since becoming minister about a year ago, I've had the opportunity on

many occasions to meet with OCI. Ironically, this coming Friday I'll be joining

the Member for that district in Fortune to have a discussion with the plant

workers.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister then: Does government deem OCI to have met all its obligations under

both the 2007 agreement and the 2012 agreement concerning the Fortune operation?

What are they going to do about it if they didn't?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, again, what I

can assure the hon. Member that it wasn't this government that entered into that

agreement. It was the Members opposite that entered into that agreement. That

agreement had no teeth.

One of

the things that we're talking about with the company now, we're looking at a

situation where that agreement has one year left. We're going to explore every

opportunity to ensure maximum employment for the people of Fortune.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, Grand Falls has

a backlog of family law and is losing a full-time Provincial Court judge.

Government is not replacing him. Women depend on the courts for protection and

swift justice.

Last

week, the Premier and Minister of the Status of Women held an event in the great

hall of this very building proudly proclaiming their commitment to end violence

against women, while acknowledging Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest

rate of domestic violence in the country.

Mr.

Speaker, on this December 6, I ask the Premier: Can he explain to the women of

this province how he is holding to his commitment when he knows reducing the

number of judges will further delay these cases?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I'd like to thank the Member

opposite for what is definitely an important question on a significant day.

What I

can advise this House is that the decision to reduce the judges in Grand

Falls-Windsor was actually a decision from the 2013 budget made by the Member's

opposite. They cut the funding at that time. Unfortunately, the judge at that

time did not retire until now.

The

situation we are facing, though, is that Grand Falls-Windsor has a caseload that

last year was 1,747 cases made up equally of family and criminal. We have other

courts in the province, such as Stephenville, which have higher caseloads and

only one judge. We have courts in Harbour Grace that have similar caseloads and

only one judge.

Again,

we're dealing with a decision that was made previously, but what I can assure

the people of Grand Falls-Windsor is we will be replacing the retiring judge in

the near future that's an upcoming retirement. I can also assure the Member

opposite that we are taking the steps necessary to ensure people have timely

access to family justice.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The time

for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The City Of

St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 62)

Mr.

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

Act To Amend The Lands Act. (Bill 63)

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

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

An Act To Provide The

Public With Transparency Regarding Public Sector Compensation. (Bill 61)

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Notices of motion?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, December 12; further, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that

this House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Monday, December 12.

Further,

pursuant to Standing Oder 11, I give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Tuesday, December 13; and finally, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give

notice that this House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on December 13.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Further

notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has the greatest percentage of the workforce earning

the provincial minimum wage in Canada with women, youth and those from rural

areas making up a disproportionate number of these workers;

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

of Assembly to urge government to legislate an immediate increase in the minimum

wage to restore the loss of purchasing power since 2010 and an annual adjustment

to the minimum wage beginning in 2016 to reflect the consumer price index.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand today and once again speak to this serious

issue, a petition for which I once again have in my hand. The minister, a couple

of weeks ago, announced minimum wage would go up in 2017; 25 cents on April 1

and another 25 cents in the fall, November, I think. Nowhere going near meeting

what is being asked for in this petition which, number one, wants the loss of

purchasing power since 2010 made up for.

I note,

Mr. Speaker, we have a piece of legislation coming in front of us today which

has to do with the Joint Office of Regulatory Affairs and Service Effectiveness,

which is, right now, the Maritime provinces together, but very shortly will

include Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the points of this joint office is to

bring commonality to the four Atlantic provinces with regard to regulations and

service effectiveness. One of the things they're dealing with is minimum wage.

They have aligned themselves with regard to when minimum wage announcements will

be made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that

helps.

There

are aligning themselves as provinces to announce minimum wage increases at the

same time. Right now, it will be April 1 every year. Next year in 2017, April 1,

PEI will align itself with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. One thing they're not

doing is aligning themselves with regard to the rate of minimum wage,

unfortunately, because this is what they should be looking at.

I point

out to the minister, that New Brunswick in April 2017 will be going up to $11.

So I challenge his announcement in this House that we will no longer be the

lowest minimum wage in Canada next year when he adds his little 25 cents in

April and another 25 cents in the fall. We're going to continue to be the

lowest. I would like to point out too, that New Brunswick recognizes the need

for dealing with inflation and they will be adding an increased rate of

inflation every year after 2017.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

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

firefighters both career and volunteer are exposed to many hazards in their line

of duty; and

WHEREAS

firefighters both career and volunteer risk their lives and wellbeing to serve

our communities;

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

of Assembly to urge government to enact workers' compensation legislation

containing a presumptive cancer and cardiac clause for firefighters both career

and volunteer.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, this is not the first time Members on this side of the House have

presented a petition on this issue. It's an issue that we feel is critically

important and we expect that government will be acting on presumptive cancer

legislation, but our concern is it's only going to include career firefighters

and it's going to ignore the legitimate needs and concerns of our over 5,000

volunteer firefighters in this province.

During

the recent election campaign well, it's a year ago now; it's not that recent I

guess we made a commitment as a party that we would enact workers'

compensation legislation that would contain a presumptive cancer and cardiac

clause for all firefighters in Newfoundland and Labrador, both career and

volunteer.

We went

a step further than that. We also recognized the impact of PTSD on all of our

first responders and the need for legislation that would ensure that those

affected by PTSD who are first responders would get the care and the support

they need and deserve.

This is

an issue that I hope we can all agree on and it's one that I hope government

will act on in the interest of all of our first responders. I am pleased to

present this petition today on behalf of all firefighters in our province, not

just our career firefighters but our volunteer ones as well.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the recreational ground fishery is part of our culture, history and heritage;

and

WHEREAS

the federal government is proposing a tag system for the recreational ground

fishery in 2017; and

WHEREAS

participants will have to purchase a license and purchase tags in order to

participate in the recreational fishery;

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

of Assembly to urge the federal government to implement no cost fees for those

participating in the recreational ground fishery in 2017.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm after presenting this I got up yesterday and I spoke for 10

minutes on the fishery, and at the last of it I went and talked about our

recreational fishery. I've had calls from numerous people all over this province

very interested in this, and really feel that as Canadians we have a right, just

like every other Canadian, to go out and catch a cod. We have a right to be able

to do something that was our heritage. But in saying that, we still respect the

cod, we respect the grounds, we respect the fishery and we respect the ocean. We

just want to be treated equally. We wanted to be treated like the rest of

Canada.

I know

the minister, when I ask him a question, stated that we should be treated just

like everybody else in Atlantic Canada. So I hope that he's pushing the federal

counterparts to make sure this doesn't come in and it doesn't have a cost to it

that we go out and have the cost to go catch the cod. We should be treated like

everybody else.

Nobody

knows what kind of system is going to come in place. Nobody understands how much

it's going to cost. Nobody's being told how many tags they're going to get.

People want to know this stuff, and it's very important. If you go around this

province, you'll go to every little cove and every little nook and cranny in

this province and people love the right to be able to go out and catch codfish.

I hope this government will get to their counterparts with the federal

government and let them understand how important the recreational fishery is to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to

and from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there have been a number of buses removed from service over the past few weeks

for safety reasons, calling into question the current inspection and enforcement

protocols for school buses in this province; and

WHEREAS

there have been concerns raised by members of the busing industry regarding

government's tendering practices as it relates to the provision of school bus

services in this province; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents throughout our province who have raised both scheduling

policy, the courtesy-seating policy, the new double-bus-run schedule, as well as

overcrowding on school buses;

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

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to strike an

all-party committee on school busing to consult with stakeholders and make

recommendations to government for the improvement to the school busing system in

our province.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to present this petition in the House of Assembly again today.

Actually, I'm not glad I wish I didn't have to present it actually, but we

continue to hear of concerns by families in this province as it relates to

school busing.

As I've

said when I've spoken on this in the past, I'm certainly encouraged by some of

the commentary I've heard from the Minister of Service NL as it relates to some

new legislation, I think he's hinted at, that will be coming forward hopefully

to address school bus inspections. That's obviously a positive thing and

something I'm sure that parents and families will welcome. I certainly do, I'm

sure other Members would as well.

There's

more to it than simply issues around the inspection process. That definitely is

a part of it, but there's also the ongoing concern around the 1.6-kilometre

rule. That's something, as I said, that's been ongoing for years in my district

in the St. John's metro area. Not so much in some of the rural areas because,

while it did apply, apparently it wasn't being enforced. This year they've

decided to crack down on the 1.6-kilometre rule throughout the province. Now, of

course, many families who did receive school busing for their children in the

past found out this year that they no longer will if they're within 1.6

kilometres.

Obviously when you talk about small children, K to six children in particular,

having to walk to school, this time of year it's certainly dark early in the

morning. We're into the wintertime, you could be into snowfall where there's

nowhere to walk. A lot of places don't have sidewalks. Even communities that do

have sidewalks, they are blocked up with snow in a lot of cases, don't have

proper crosswalks, lighted crosswalks. All those things are a real safety

hazard. This new double-bus run is causing all kinds of havoc on parents,

especially where they have two children who have to go to school now at

different times, different buses. It creates a real problem.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this again. I will continue

bringing this matter before the House of Assembly on behalf of all the families

out there who are concerned about their children's safety.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

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

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

WHEREAS

the education of children is one of the most important and vital investments

that can be made in the success of our children; and

WHEREAS

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should be choosing educational

options that will provide all students of our province with a higher standard of

education and enhance the learning experience for our youth; and

WHEREAS

the government's decision to make cuts to teachers and to our education system

will have a negative effect on the students;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reverse the decision effective immediately.

Mr.

Speaker, I presented this same petition yesterday. As I said at the beginning, I

would have hoped that this wouldn't be still an issue and I would have hoped

that as we got through the first third of our school system in our

primary-secondary systems that some of these things would have went away or

there would have been some adjustments; but after discussions yesterday and

outlining my concerns that I had heard, yesterday, no less than three phone

calls and seven emails I had gotten from people who had watched obviously

they're engaged here.

One was

actually an administrator, a school council chair, a number of parents and

somebody who has a special needs student. Then I realized my biggest fear is

being realized here. Not only did we all note that this was going to be

detrimental, but it's having a major impact and we're only a third of the school

year done yet.

I've had

parents talk to me about their serious issues, particularly around the

overcrowding, kids having to eat their lunch in their classrooms, teachers

trying to supervise six and eight classrooms at a time because the ability now

with all-day kindergarten influx, with taking teachers out of the system, there

are less teachers in the system because the ratio has increased. Taking away the

capital investments around new schools, renovations, adjustments to cafeterias,

using resource rooms that were supposed to be for quite areas, for study areas,

for engagement areas are now being used for other activities because the

necessary rooms have never been invested in and the necessary renovations

haven't been made, issues around busing I didn't realize, maybe I was

fortunate enough in my own district

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

that busing wasn't

particularly a bigger issue and maybe it's just the nature of the routes and

that, but the impact I'm hearing from all over the province about the changes to

busing, particularly in some of the sub-urban areas here where kids have to wait

that much longer or they have to walk a distance to get to a bus stop or the

time frames because it's a dual-line bus pickup has had a detrimental effect.

It's becoming more and more evident that this will have a major impact on our

education system.

I didn't

realize two of people talked to me last night; one was an issue around the

supervision in the school system about teachers being overworked. This wasn't a

teacher, an educator, this was a parent, but also talked about her daughter, the

core French program and the impact it's having and how she's still devastated

over that.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to talk about the other issues that are

relevant to the education system over the next of weeks.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Order 2, third reading of Bill 53.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 53,

An Act To

Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2 be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 53 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, nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act No. 2. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act No. 2, read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend The

Municipal Elections Act, Bill 57, and I further move that the said bill be now

read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that she have leave to

introduce Bill 57 and that the said bill be now 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, nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend

The Municipal Elections Act, carried. (Bill 57)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Municipal Elections Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 57 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 57 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of

St. John's Act, Bill 58, and I further move that the said bill be now read a

first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that she have leave to

introduce Bill 58 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, nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend

The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St.

John's Act, carried. (Bill 58)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's

Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 58 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 58 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Finance, for leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 59, and I further

move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural of Resources that she have leave to

introduce Bill 59 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?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against?

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour to introduce a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act,

carried. (Bill 59)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 59)

MR. SPEAKER:

Bill 59 has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Natural

Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 5,

second reading of Bill 56.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Member for Terra Nova, that we move into second reading of Bill 56, An

Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that Bill 56 be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting The Rooms Corporation. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of

Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me great opportunity as minister responsible for The Rooms Corporation in my

capacity as Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development, to

present the bill here today. The Rooms is truly an innovative, culturally

relevant institution that embodies and showcases Newfoundland and Labrador to

itself and the world, and brings the wider world to its doorstep.

The

mandate of The Rooms, as outlined in the

Rooms Act , is to: collect, preserve, present and make available for research

the historic artifacts, natural history specimens and archival records that

represent and illustrate the natural heritage of the province; to conduct

research with respect to the history, natural history, culture and heritage of

the province; collect and present provincial, national and international

contemporary and historic art; advance and promote the works of contemporary

visual artists of the province; support the development of cultural industries

in the province; strengthen the culture of the province; and to provide and

enhance client services and partnerships to promote the cultural collections of

the province and to show other national and international collections.

As a

public institution accountable to the provincial government and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, The Rooms must provide great value to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The care, exhibition and access to priceless

artifacts, artworks and documents belonging to the people of the province;

outreach beyond St. John's; and, the focus on educational programming to deepen

the pride and identity of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, together form

the foundation of The Rooms' Mission Statement which I'd like to read in the

House.

March 31, 2017, The Rooms will have further engaged the public through

thought-provoking exhibits interests, aspirations and concerns of the people of

our province.

The

Rooms Act , when it was first enacted

in 2005, brought together the provincial archives, the provincial art gallery

and the provincial museum as one single entity under The Rooms Corporation all

of which are responsible for developing and managing collections and

programming.

The

archives preserves records of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that

having enduring legal, fiscal, evidential or research value. The archives also

collects records from private sources which having enduring value to the history

of the province. Archivists and technicians constantly engage with private

donors and government departments to identify and acquire new collections.

The

Rooms Act makes these collections

accessible to the public. Some collections are online; some form exhibitions at

The Rooms. In the reference room, staff offer direction and assistance, showing

researchers how to properly handle archival material and helping guide them into

finding answers to their questions.

The art

gallery manages a collection of over 7,000 works, ranging from historical to

contemporary, from international art to local crafts and folk art. While The

Rooms concentrates most on Newfoundland and Labrador artists, the collection

includes many other Canadian works. New work is added regularly, and the Art

Gallery curates many major exhibitions annually.

The

Rooms tells the story of Newfoundland and Labrador, its diverse people and its

natural environment. Over a million natural history specimens and over a million

artifacts bring these stories to life, connecting us with the past and the

environment that has shaped our experiences and been changed by our presence.

Three

floors of exhibit space give the museum the capacity to interpret our past in

many ways. There are permanent and temporary exhibitions from The Rooms

collection, as well as travelling exhibitions that come from all around the

world. Those who want to delve deeper can arrange in advance to access The Rooms

research collections. Visitors are invited to broaden their experience of the

museum by taking

part in a variety of extensive and exciting programming. From

special events, to interactive media, to on-site learning experiences, The Rooms

offers a diversity of ways to better understand our environment and ourselves.

The

Rooms also manages regional museums located in Grand Falls-Windsor, Grand Bank,

Northwest River in Labrador. However, The Rooms is more than the sum of these

parts. Exciting opportunities, Madam Speaker, for collaboration to produce

richer visitor experiences as The Rooms increasingly undertakes

interdisciplinary exhibitions and educational programming. This is why primarily

we're presenting this bill before the House. But before I get into some of this,

I want to talk about some of the most recent success which talks about the great

synergies at The Rooms.

The

Rooms plays a great role in engaging visitors, both local residents and

tourists, through an enticing array of programs and events that reflect

Newfoundland and Labrador's unique culture and history. I'm pleased, Madam

Speaker, this engagement was highlighted on July 1, 2016 when The Rooms held the

largest commemoration in Canada to mark the 100th anniversary of the First World

War.

The

First World War had a profound impact on Newfoundland and Labrador. It involved

thousands of our people in world-changing events overseas and dramatically

altered life at home. Our great war happened in the trenches and on the ocean,

in the legislature and in the shops by the fireside and bedsides. The exhibition

shared the thoughts, hopes, fears and sacrifices of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who experienced those tumultuous years through their treasured

mementos, their writings and their memories.

During

the opening month of the commemorative event, The Rooms welcomed 22,000

visitors, up 11,000 from July, 2015. This August also saw an increase with

14,500 visitors, compared to 9,500 visitors that same time last year.

The

Rooms raised $12 million in private sector donations and a one-million-dollar

contribution from the federal government to build the Royal Newfoundland

Regiment Gallery that's the largest permanent World War I exhibit in the

country the Fortis Courtyard and Amphitheatre, as well as to produce the July

1st event. That is quite an achievement that The Rooms Foundation was able to

undertake.

addition there was a corporate gift of $3.25 million from Fortis and an

individual gift of $3.25 million from philanthropist Elinor Gill Ratcliffe the

two largest gifts ever given to a cultural institution in Atlantic Canada.

Furthermore, the provincial grant will represent 79 per cent of The Rooms total

operating budget in 2017-2018, down from over 95 per cent reliance on provincial

government grant 10 years ago first when The Rooms was established. The Rooms

continues to increase its earned revenues and decrease its reliance on

government funding as it pursues various forms of revenue generation and

collaboration with its partners.

While

The Rooms has evolved into a cultural gem of Newfoundland and Labrador over the

course of the past decade of operations certain weaknesses exist within the 2005

act. That has become quite apparent and this is why the 2005 act, when it was

put together then, it largely retained the same organizational structure that

existed joining the Archives, Art Gallery and Museum into one corporation. As a

result, three independent divisions were established within The Rooms.

essence, these three independent divisions create silos within the organization

that prevent The Rooms from fully realizing the natural synergies that exist

across the Archives, Museum and Art Gallery. To present a more unified, cohesive

collection that tells the story of our unique province, the CEO and the board of

directors have requested amendments to the act.

The

proposed amendments to the Rooms Act

are designed to help create integration within the organization and allow The

Rooms to better deliver on its very, very diverse mandate, as I outlined

earlier.

Specifically, we have streamlined the act considerably by proposing to remove

the requirement for separate divisions and directors for the Archives, Museum

and Art Gallery, as these things are not found in other acts; it's very

prescriptive in nature, Madam Speaker.

This

proposed change would allow for the grouping of like functions both within the

act and in practice. By proposing the restructuring and to restructure the act,

we were able to retain all of the legislative obligations associated with the

operation of the Archives, the Museum and Art Gallery, but significantly deduce

the degree of duplication and redundancy present in the original act.

Responsibilities previously attributed to a specific division would now more

appropriately rest in the care of the corporation governed by a board of

directors.

taking the opportunity to amend the Rooms

Act , we are also able to expand on an important element previously missing

from the act, which is the critical role The Rooms plays in engaging visitors,

both local residents and tourists, through an enticing array of programs and

events that reflect Newfoundland and Labrador's unique culture and history.

We are

proposing to incorporate enhanced accountability mechanisms consistent with

other Crown corporations, including a requirement for the board to provide

financial statements, reports and other information to the minister, when

requested. So in an era of open government, accountability and transparency,

this is a real measure to be added to strengthen the act, Madam Speaker, when we

talk about the request of being able to provide financial statements, reports

and other information, that's certainly an important addition.

We are

also proposing to undertake further housekeeping amendments such as clarifying

the appointment process for the provincial archivist to ensure that it meets all

obligations under the act and other related acts.

The

Rooms is the official repository for significant archeological objects belonging

to the province and clarifying inconsistencies with respect to the corporation's

ability to lend, lease and borrow items to enhance the collection available to

the public.

Throughout the debate, I look forward to further discussion about the important

role The Rooms plays in the community. They amendments I've presented today will

help ensure that the board of directors and the CEO at The Rooms have the

ability to effectively govern, manage and direct the affairs of the corporation

in order to guarantee long-term sustainability at The Rooms and the change will

assist in the continued preservation and celebration of our unique culture and

history.

The last

time an amendment was made to The Rooms

Act was in 2008 by the previous administration. Today's proposed amendments,

as requested by the board, are to provide organizational direction, enhance the

legislation and to bring The Rooms on par with other corporations. Make no

mistake; The Rooms will continue to be Newfoundland and Labrador's premiere

gathering place to celebrate our history, heritage and our culture.

I want

to say, Madam Speaker, the proposed changes here in the act are really to ensure

that the board and the CEO would have more flexibility by removing very

prescriptive measures in

an act. It does not mean that specific changes would

happen to The Rooms, but it does allow the board of directors to have that

flexibility.

I want

to actually give recognition and praise to the board of the directors at The

Rooms and the CEO for all the work they've done. Especially over the last year

with being able to raise over $13 million through private and the federal

government, as well as the major initiatives that have been undertaken. It's

quite significant when you see.

I'd like

to thank Ms. Dawn Baker, Ms. Lisa Browne, Ms. Zita Cobb, Mr. Tom Foran who

chairs the board, Mr. Stan Hill, Ms. Mary McCarthy, Mr. Jeff Pardy, Mr. Ian

Patey, and Ms. Kathi Stacey, and the Deputy Minister of BTCRD who are all

involved in bringing credible experience and knowledge to their role as members

of the board and ensuring that there is accountability, integrity and that The

Rooms is delivering upon its mandate.

The

Rooms has a significant staff employing 44 people who work very diligently; six

permanent seasonal staff that operate our regional museums. It's great to see

that, and the undertaking that has happened with the number of visitors and all

of the programming that has taken place as well.

So I

look forward to a full debate here on this matter, and I look forward to what my

colleagues across the way have to say on this particular bill.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm

pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak in response to the minister's

opening comments on Bill 56 which is to amend the

Rooms Act which was brought in, in 2005. As the minister notes, there were

amendments made in 2008. So it's just over a decade old.

I think

The Rooms has served our province well over the last decade. On this side of the

House, obviously, given our history with The Rooms since its opening, we are

very supportive of the work that's going on there and of the people that the

minister references, both the volunteer board members and the professionals that

work at the facility every day.

We do

have some questions and concerns about this legislation. I'll speak to that in

some detail this afternoon. I'll try and highlight some of the questions and

concerns in second reading so that the minister is able to speak to that, either

in his response or during the Committee stage of the bill.

I think

in this day and age identifying opportunities to do things more efficiently

makes good sense. Enabling more flexibility for the board and the staff at The

Rooms makes good sense as well, but we do have some specific concerns that I'll

outline as we go through this this afternoon.

I was

pleased to hear the minister talk about the investments that have been made at

The Rooms. In his opening remarks for most of his remarks today he talked more

about the success of The Rooms over the last decade as opposed to the changes

that are being proposed here. I was pleased to hear him acknowledge that work.

He also acknowledged the continued improvement in our tourism numbers as a

result of millions of dollars of investments over the last number of years. So

I'm pleased to hear him acknowledge that work as well. We thank him for that.

What is

this bill all about? It appears that what will happen here is we'll see a formal

merging of three divisions right now within The Rooms that are fairly

autonomous: the Provincial Archives, the Provincial Art Gallery and the

Provincial Museum. There will also be a change to how the provincial archivist

is appointed.

There's

some enhancement to the objects of The Rooms Corporation which, on the surface,

certainly appears to be a good thing. There's an amendment to the act that will

ensure that the board, when asked, will provide financial statements and reports

and other information to the minister, which seems to make good sense. There

should be that level of accountability.

So again

on the surface, no real concern with that as well. I'm hopeful that the minister

will be able to address some of the questions and concerns we do have as we work

our way through this.

As I

said, the three divisions that we have currently are individually directed and

operate autonomously. There was likely very good reason for that initially when

these three historic independent entities were brought together under one roof

at The Rooms; but there's a concern that because of that historic relationship

and structure, there isn't enough collaboration happening between those entities

with regard to events and exhibits and overall operations. So I think addressing

that is worth exploring.

As I

said, I think improving the accountability in terms of reporting, especially

when it comes to finances, makes sense as well. I think adding the eighth object

of the corporation, to develop and conduct programs and events that represent

and illustrate the significant history, culture and heritage of the province.

Adding that as an object of the corporation to reflect the importance of

engagement appears to be a good thing as well.

I guess

we're more concerned about what's not being said this afternoon in second

reading. We'll pose some questions and raise some concerns that hopefully the

minister can address. I'm just making sure I've raised the pertinent points

related to the bill itself. I think we've provided a good overview of what this

bill contains.

Now let

me speak to some of the things that I guess come to mind as we reviewed it.

Rather than save all these questions for Committee, I'll outline them now. The

minister will have a chance to respond and we can work through it in greater

detail at the Committee stage as well. I appreciate that he's listening

intently, and I don't say that sarcastically. He's making eye contact as we

speak, which makes me a little nervous and uncomfortable but that's okay. That's

how democracy works. So it's all good.

One

question I have for the minister is I appreciate him acknowledging the work of

the board and thanking the board members. I'd like him to answer whether the

board is supportive of these amendments? Based on the minister's comments in

second reading here, I suspect the answer is yes, but I'd like to hear him

confirm that for the House and for the public.

He spoke

about new flexibility for the board and the CEO. I suspect that simply relates

to the fact that you no longer will have three entities that are not required to

collaborate, but if there's more flexibility that is being given here beyond

that, then I'd welcome some further commentary on that.

He spoke

about eliminating duplication and redundancy, which again on the surface is

something we should all support. So I'd just like him to elaborate a little

further on that. What duplication and redundancy specifically is being

eliminated here? I realize the three entities will now be able to be directed to

work more collaboratively, which again sounds good, but what duplication and

redundancy specifically is being eliminated?

What

impact will that have on personnel? We talked about the 44 people who work at

The Rooms currently. If there's going to be some restructuring and some

elimination of duplication and redundancy and more flexibility for the CEO, it

just suggests there will probably be some budget implications and personnel

implications. I get there is some sensitivity, obviously, associated with

personnel matters, but I'd like to hear the minister talk a little bit about

what the expected impact will be of these changes and what kind of timeline has

been put in place for that.

I wonder

how much influence the minister will have at The Rooms with respect to the

reorganization that will now occur. I think we'd all agree, no matter where we

sit or stand in this House, that preserving the quality of the work that's done

at The Rooms and the need to preserve our culture and history is really

important. So I wonder if the minister can give some assurances that the quality

of that work won't be compromised in any way by these changes that are taking

place.

I'd like

him to tell us specifically how many job losses should be anticipated as a

result of these changes. What level of control will the board be given in

relation to these changes? The way I read it

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. KENT:

Sorry, there's some heckling

going on, but I don't think it's actually aimed at me this time, which is nice.

The way

it reads to me, the board will have the same level of autonomy and control for

the most part that is has now, except for some reporting requirements which,

again, reading the legislation appear reasonable. I just wonder if the minister

could talk a little bit more about in terms of moving forward with implementing

changes, in terms of the operations and structure at The Rooms, how much

autonomy and control will the board of directors have?

Is there

any risk that any of these changes will comprise the operations of the Crown

corporation in any way? I suspect I know the minister's answer. I suspect he

will say no, but I just want to further explore that with him and ensure that

the changes that are being proposed here will in no way compromise the

operations of The Rooms Corporation.

Again,

there are lots of talk of eliminating redundancy and finding efficiencies with

respect to these changes, so I'd just like a better idea of what exactly that's

going to mean, practically, on the ground, within the walls of The Rooms. I'd

also ask if the minister could tell us if the board or the CEO have a draft

organizational structure in mind. I suspect that they do. I'd be interested if

the minister has any thoughts on that, if he's seen it, if there are any details

he can share, just to give us a better idea of what the new organizational

structure will look like moving forward.

What

does this mean for the next budget? I recognize that government officials are

now working through the budget process in preparation for the spring. All of

this suggests that there could be further cuts to the budget at The Rooms, and I

just wonder I know government is not going to show its hand, so to speak, on

what cuts may be contained in the budget in March or April, but I'd like to get

some sense if the minister does anticipate a reduction in The Rooms budget as a

result of these organizational changes that are being made.

Because

none of us again, I sincerely believe there's nobody in this House who would

stand and support stripping funding from the arts and culture and history that

The Rooms exists to help protect and foster and cultivate. So we want to try and

get some assurances that our arts and our culture and our history will be well

preserved and will not be negatively impacted, the preservation and promotion of

those things will not be negatively impacted by these changes that are being

made today.

The

minister also in his comments talked about the incredible corporate and private

personal donations that have been made to The Rooms Foundation. It's

significant, and it's something that a lot of people have worked very hard to

achieve over the last number of years, so we want to celebrate and acknowledge

that work as well. Given some of these changes to the three entities that are

part of The Rooms, and given the new level of oversight that government will

have in terms of The Rooms finances, I'm just wondering what assurance can be

given to donors that their donations and their investments will continue to be

preserved specifically for the purpose that they were intended for so that just

because government will now have the ability to have more say, that will not in

any way impact the targeted donations that are given for a specific purpose.

What I

read in the legislation doesn't cause me grave concern in that regard because it

makes sense for government to be able to get regular updates on the finances of

The Rooms. But if it's any more than that, there's still a need for some

autonomy for that board of directors and for the corporation to do the work that

it's mandated to do.

wouldn't want us to do anything here in this Legislature to the Rooms Act that could impact negatively on future donations. I don't

suspect that's the case, but I'd certainly welcome the minister's comments on

that.

Off the

top having researched the bill, having heard about the briefing, having listened

to the minister here in second reading, those are just some of the questions and

concerns that we have. We look forward to comments from other Members and we

look forward to his response in second reading. If need be, we can work through

some of those issues a little further in the Committee stage of the bill.

Thank

you for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

hon. Member for Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just

want to say to the Member for Mount Pearl North that those are some great

questions. Certainly, when we break into Committee, a lot of those questions, I

am sure, you'll get those answers.

Madam

Speaker, I'm pleased to rise and speak in favour of the amendments this

afternoon. Newfoundland and Labrador is widely recognized for its arts and

culture and for its rich history, which stretches back to the earliest days of

the European colonialization of North America and even before that to when the

Vikings encountered the Beothuk on the Northwest part of the Island.

Madam

Speaker, we're recognized for this rich culture here at home, in the rest of

Canada and around the world. It's fundamental to our identity as Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians. Our province has produced world-class artists, writers and

performers, from the paintings of Christopher Pratt and the acting of Gordon

Pinsent, to the novels of Lisa Moore and Wayne Johnston, just to name a very

small number of them.

Our

history, first as Canada's neighbour to the east and then as its newest

province, the jurisdiction that completes Canada's full expansion across the

North American continent, is a fundamental part of Canada's history. It's a

fundamental part of our own story, too, and it is a narrative that continues to

unfold to this very day.

Our

historical role in the world wars, this year being the 100th anniversary of the

battle of Beaumont-Hamel in France, or in the development of the aviation

industry or technological innovations like the transatlantic cables. These are

all events of global significance.

Because

we have such a rich and diverse culture identity, we owe it to ourselves, to our

visitors, to this province and to future generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to preserve it, strengthen it and ensure its long-term

sustainability. And that is something we have done very well.

Madam

Speaker, visitors and residents of Newfoundland and Labrador alike know The

Rooms building. Soaring into the skyline of downtown St. John's, The Rooms

combines modern technology with a striking visual reference to our past.

Madam

Speaker, the Rooms Act we're debating

here today, which was legislated in 2005, establishes a single entity to

administer the province's three great cultural institutions: the Archives, the

provincial Art gallery and the provincial Museum.

Since

that time, though, The Rooms Corporation has done a great job in nurturing these

institutions. In the same way the Rooms

Act streamlines the province's cultural entities and placed them under the

management of a single entity, the amendments that we're debating here today

streamline the operations of this single entity, merging three separate

divisions into a unified single division. In effect, these amendments strengthen

this legislation and make it more efficient, and that's exactly what our

government has set out to do in all of our operations.

Madam

Speaker, in The Way Forward document,

our roadmap of sustainability for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, we

pledge to deliver programs and services more efficiently, more responsibility

and in a more innovative way. And that's exactly what these amendments are going

to do.

The Way Forward

document is all about eliminating silos between government departments and

agencies. These amendments which include the merging of three independent

divisions within The Rooms Corporation eliminate silos within the corporation.

Madam Speaker, these amendments are also a concrete expression of our strategy

and our philosophy as outlined in The Way

Forward , and I'm happy to speak in favour of them today.

I'm very

pleased that these amendments also contain language that will emphasize the

importance of engaging visitors. And I draw all Members' attention specifically

section 10(2)(

c) and that speaks about our continued engagement of The Rooms

Corporation with the public as they develop their strategic plan, as they

develop the activities, all of The Rooms Corporation.

The

development of the tourism industry, Madam Speaker, in this province has been an

unqualified success. The industry now generates more than a billion dollars, as

has been referenced in this House many times this sitting, a billion dollars

annual in economic activity.

These

tourists are coming to our shores not just for our spectacular scenery and our

abundant wildlife; they're also coming here for our culture. They're coming

because Newfoundland and Labrador has a highly distinctive culture and a very

rich history.

The

Rooms location itself is also of historical significance. Almost 250 years ago

this was the location of Fort Townshend. After 1870, Madam Speaker, the site

became the home to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and later the St. John's

Fire Department.

Before

construction began on The Rooms, archeological work was done to ensure none of

the history was lost. The Rooms was built in a way that preserves the history

beneath it. Madam Speaker, The Rooms is truly a public space. It is fully

accessible. Wheelchairs and infant strollers are available upon request. We want

people to come to The Rooms.

Institutions like the provincial Art Gallery and the provincial Museum showcase

this culture and this history to all our visitors. When I'm referring to

visitors, I'm also talking about the people in this province who are looking to

get some exposure to Newfoundland and Labrador's rich cultural identity.

These

amendments we're debating here today include the phrase develop and conduct

programs and events that represent and illustrate the significant history,

culture and heritage of the province as the eighth objective of The Rooms

Corporation. In doing so, it enshrines the importance of strengthening and

preserving our culture for visitors and, more importantly, for the next

generation.

Engaging

visitors, Madam Speaker, is critical to strengthening the culture of this

province and to ensure the long-term sustainability of The Rooms. This

legislation is all about helping The Rooms become more sustainable.

Madam

Speaker, The Rooms is a place for all of us. For those who live here in

Newfoundland and Labrador and those travellers who want to experience it fully

and visit for a cultural experience. The Rooms is a place we continue to

preserve and celebrate our unique culture and our wonderful history.

This is

why I'm pleased to support the amendments proposed in this hon. House today. I

look forward to the discussion as we go into Committee.

Thank

you very much for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Speaker recognizes the

Member who serves the good people of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I'm very

happy to stand and speak to Bill 56,

An Act Representing The Rooms Corporation.

I would like to thank the officials that we met with yesterday. It was only 24

hours ago that we were presented with this legislation and with the opportunity

to be briefed. This is happening very, very quickly.

One

would think that when we have heard and I'd also like to thank all the people

who work with such passion and commitment at The Rooms, all the people who work

in the three distinct divisions who also work together to develop a treasure, a

jewel in our crown in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. How incredibly

proud are we of The Rooms and the culture, the opportunity and the experiences

that it provides to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that it provides

for people who come from all over the world who will visit The Rooms.

I would

like to thank the staff for their incredible work, for their years of study that

gives them expertise, that gives them the ability to make The Rooms as wonderful

as it is. It's not just about hanging pictures or showing artifacts or making

sure that we have some items from different years of our province's history,

it's much more than that.

Today,

we've heard the words streamlining, more efficiency, eliminating silos and I'm

concerned, Madam Speaker. I'm concerned with how quickly this has been presented

to us. I believe, because of the expertise that is needed in the Archives, in

the Museum, in the Art Gallery, that we have to tread carefully. Particularly in

this time of economic downturn, when there is incredible pressure across

government to cut, to find savings, to fine efficiencies, that we have to tread

carefully.

We've

already seen over the past few years, both with the previous administration and

this current administration, decisions that were made so quickly without real

thought of what the trickledown effects are, without real thought about what the

rollout effects are on our services, on our agencies, on our Crown corporations.

When we look at times what has happened in the Department of Justice when there

were plans to close courts and then those decisions had to be reversed.

believe we have to tread carefully with wisdom and with knowledge in terms of

anywhere where it looks like it's simply a matter that we can do this because

it's going to save us money or it's going to streamline us, because those words

in and of themselves, although they sound like wonderful values that we want to

be able to do, particularly in this time of economic downturn, there are dangers

inherent in that.

I am

concerned that when the first Rooms Act

came out in 2005,

An Act Representing The Rooms Corporation, and it was assented

to in May 19, 2005, there was no public consultation. The outcry over this from

the community, from the archival community, the museum community, the research

community, the academic community, the arts community was loud, and there was a

promise that wouldn't happen again. Here we are today with a bill before us that

has had absolutely no public consultation. No public consultation whatsoever.

In the

past 24 hours myself and our office have consulted as broadly as we could within

the 24 hours, about people's response to the bill that's before us, and real

significant concerns have been raised. That's what I would like to speak to this

evening; that we have to be careful. We have to tread carefully in terms of what

this act is proposing.

The

proposals that are before us need serious consideration. To revise the structure

of The Rooms Corporation in order to make the structure more flexible by

removing the requirement for separate divisions and directors for the Archives,

the Museum and the Art Gallery and to eliminate the requirement for individually

directed divisions is one of the proposals.

revise the mechanism to appoint the provincial archivist is another

recommendation proposal from this bill. The responsibility for the Art Gallery,

the Museum and the Archives, currently three distinctive divisions, now is

assigned to either the corporation or the CEO.

The

language used to rationalize these revisions is to reduce redundancy with an

implication, Madam Speaker. That it will be better to serve the needs to meet a

new objective of ensuring visitor engagement. I know we all want to see more

visitor engagement at The Rooms. We all want to see more Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians visiting The Rooms. We want to see The Rooms crowded. Absolutely,

we all want to see that. However, by eliminating the expertise we currently have

with the directors of these three distinct divisions, will that in fact create

greater numbers in visitations? We're not so sure.

Three

directors with specialized expertise and the three functions of The Rooms is not

redundancy. Our collections, our Archives, our Museum and our Art Gallery all

take real expertise, people who have done academic studies, who have expertise

in these areas, and that's what's at great peril with this bill. Losing the

expertise that is so necessary to ensure the integrity of the work that must be

done in each of these divisions.

addition to offering quality programming to visitors to The Rooms, the core

functions of the three institutions at The Rooms are: to be good stewards of the

province's invaluable, historical and art collections and these are so

important. We all know that, and we all know that any of our exhibits, any of

our programming, unless based in authentic, scholarly research that verifies and

manages the collections we have, that our exhibits are not the best they

possibly can be, that they have to be based on authenticity, they have to be

based on expertise that we can rely on.

develop a good understanding of these collections, which has traditionally meant

for provincial and national cultural institutions, there is a significant

research component. It's not just about accepting items and cataloguing them.

They all require significant research components. Without well cared for

collections and an understanding of them, it is not possible to undertake good

programming and

interpretation. The expertise of our directors, the expertise of

our staff at The Rooms in the three separate divisions are absolutely the

foundation of any of the programming, of any of the exhibits that are undertaken

at The Rooms.

Eliminating the three director positions will further erode the province's

ability to be proper stewards of its collections and to undertake research. It's

absolutely at the core of all work that is being undertaken. Without that

foundation and that expertise, we're not able to properly and authentically do

the work that needs to be done.

Madam

Speaker, these functions and this expertise has already been comprised with the

elimination of a number of curator positions at The Rooms Provincial Museum,

which happened a few years ago, and is replaced by a single curator of history.

We've already seen the expertise and the staff cut back drastically. There is no

fat there; there is no fat to cut out.

Each of

the three divisions of The Rooms requires specialized expertise and experience

that the directors bring to it. These are not positions for generalists. These

are positions the same when we look in our health care system. We have

different kinds of specialists with different kinds of academic training, with

different kinds of expertise that they bring to their work. It's the same; it's

not just about hanging pictures or putting tags on artifacts. It's much more

than that and I believe we all know that. I believe everybody in this House

knows that.

Too much

will fall through the cracks if these functions are combined into a single role.

We can understand the need for expertise in certain health care situations. We

can understand the expertise in a number of different areas, whether it be in

our natural resources, whether it be in our education system. There's also a

need for expertise in The Rooms, in the three divisions of Archives, Museum and

the Art Gallery. It's not just a matter of someone picking up a bit of knowledge

and being able then to do the work that the directors are doing.

Basically, to have one director would mean we would have someone that was only a

generalist. There is a risk that we will wake up down the road only to discover

that the priceless provincial inheritance and it's priceless, it can't be

remade that's housed at The Rooms will be in shambles as a result of this

decision to further erode its capacity and its expertise. This is not about

streamlining and saying we can just cut out a few people and we'll still be able

to do what we need to do. We won't be able to do it. We won't be able to do it

in the same way without the expertise that is so needed.

There is

a risk that this legislation as proposed places too much authority in the hands

of the CEO, and this is not a business. The Rooms is not a business. It's a

cultural and arts institution. Now, in the briefing it was pointed out that BC,

for instance, combined their three entities, but the experience of British

Columbia has shown many problems combining their function. A decision to combine

the provincial museum and archives had to be reversed in BC, it didn't work. It

proved to be unworkable. It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that we not repeat those

same mistakes here.

Also in

our briefing, one of the officials that were present in our briefing brought up

the Glenbow Museum. That was a private museum and that became also an art

gallery, but its function was not a provincial museum, a provincial archive or a

provincial art gallery. That is the difference. This is our only provincial

entity that houses our Art Gallery, our Museum and our Archives. It's not housed

anywhere else, although we do have some satellite provincial museums.

This is

our valuable repository. It's also where research is done, where curatorial work

is done with a skeleton crew. But without the expertise needed in order to do

that, we cannot do that work properly.

As well,

there was no consultation with the cultural community; the cultural community

who's going to be impacted by these proposed changes, but also the cultural

community who has expertise, who has knowledge, who have been supporters of

these three entities, who have been supporters of The Rooms. When we asked in

the briefing whether public consultation was done or whether consultation was

done with the archival, the museum, the arts and the research communities

whether that consultation was done we were informed that in fact it wasn't and

that the consultation will be done after the fact.

It's a

very odd thing now, Madam Speaker, to come to the House with this legislation

just in case and that we're going to do consultation afterwards. That is not

true consultation. This government has prided itself on being open and

transparent, and talks again and again and again about consultation and

listening and hearing the people. There has been absolutely no public

consultation whatever done on this bill.

Madam

Speaker, this is a major bill restructuring our Provincial Museum, our

Provincial Art Gallery and our Provincial Archives. A major bill restructuring

it with absolutely no consultation whatsoever, and probably not even any

consultation with the staff who do have the expertise.

This is

top down. It's not based in some of the most foundational expertise that we have

in the province. I dare say not even those who do this work, who have the most

expertise in the province; even those folks were not consulted.

So it's

an odd thing now to actually ask the House to pass this legislation and then

have consultation after. To pass this legislation just in case they're going to

go in this direction. Again, I caution that we have to tread carefully.

The

promised consultation which was promised for the original

Rooms Act never occurred. This is happening yet a second time. I

urge government to not proceed with this legislation. I urge all Members of the

House to not proceed with this legislation until a proper public consultation is

undertaken.

This

government proudly, publicly announces its commitment to transparency and

accountability and it demands it as well; yet, that's not what it's doing with

this bill. If, in fact, this bill is the right way to go, if these proposed

changes are the right way to go, then public consultation should actually

support that, but we don't know because a public consultation has not been done.

The

concerns I have raised here today are concerns that have been raised by a number

of experts in the field of museums, archives, the arts communities and the

research and academic communities.

One of

the rationales that were used for this is there are silos and the archives don't

know what the collection is in the museum and the museum doesn't know what's in

the collection of the archives and that affects public programming and exhibits,

but that's a communication problem, Mr. Speaker. That can be solved in another

way. I believe that can be solved through consultation. That can be solved

through training. That can be solved through working together. Not by

dismantling the three entities that were established that way for a purpose.

That's

the way business is done across the country. There are no other provincial

museums, art galleries and archives that are combined into one; none in Atlantic

Canada, none across the country.

So,

again, Mr. Speaker, I beg this government to tread carefully and to do public

consultation diligently.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

Order, please!

I remind

the hon. Member that her speaking time has expired.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's an

honour to rise here today and talk on Bill 56,

An Act Respecting The Rooms

Corporation. I was briefed on this; I haven't had a very big opportunity to

visit The Rooms, only two or three times I guess in my lifetime I've been there,

but I was very enlighten to read: The objects of the corporation are to (

a) collect, preserve, present, exhibit and make available for research the historic

artifacts, natural history, specimens, and archival records that represent and

illustrate the significant history, culture and natural heritage of this

province .

thought that summed it up. The minister did an excellent job of going through

and talking about the mandate and what was all available at The Rooms. I thank

the Members opposite, the Member for Mount Pearl North, the Member for St.

John's Centre, I know they have some concerns about this, and I'd like to thank

the Member for Terra Nova.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to say my first opening to The Rooms, I was watching

This Hour Has 22 Minu