The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following private members' statements: the hon. Member for the District of Terra Nova, the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits, and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a tremendous individual from my district, Mr. Samuel Saunders of Glovertown.

Mr. Saunders has dedicated almost his entire adult life to the service of others. He has been involved in a variety of organizations over the years. This includes officer positions in the St. Edward's Anglican Church, the Alexander Bay Lion's Club, Glovertown Fire Department, Glovertown Recreation Committee, the local 50+ Club, Crime Stoppers, a local senior's complex, the Canadian Institute for the Blind and the Glovertown Academy Breakfast Program. Mr. Saunders also served three terms as councillor in Glovertown.

The first significant recognition of his volunteerism occurred when he was selected as Citizen of the Year in 1977. Mr. Speaker, this certainly puts things in perspective for me, considering that he was already being honoured for his dedication and noble work even before I was born.

Arguably Sam's greatest involvement over the years is his work with the Lion's Club which spans forty-plus years. As a result of his devotion he rose to the position of district governor and impressively received the Humanitarian Award from Lion's International.

I am glad to hear that recently he has been nominated for the Seniors of Distinction Award, a nomination that he certainly deserves.

Sam remains highly active in a number of groups. His energy and enthusiasm is something to behold and even envy.

As a resident of Glovertown, Mr. Speaker, I can certainly attest to the fact that both Sam and his wife, Marie, continue to play an essential role in our community and surrounding area. People such as this are crucial in the creation of a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community.

It is my absolute pleasure to recognize and congratulate my good friend, Sam Saunders, on a lifetime of service to his community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the Bishop's Falls Junior Boys Broomball Team on winning the provincial championships.

Mr. Speaker, on February 11 and 12 of this year, St. Anthony hosted the provincial broomball tournament. During the round robin play, the Bishop's Falls squad had a record of two wins and two losses; however, in the semi-final play Bishop's Falls downed Stephenville with a 3-0 shutout.

Mr. Speaker, in the championship game against St. Anthony, Bishop's Falls Juniors opened the score six minutes into the first period with a shot by Dave Thoms. With twenty-eight seconds left in the first period, James Hynes scored to make it 2-0, which ended up being the final score of the game.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating the Bishop's Falls Junior Broomball Team on winning the provincial championships and making this their third consecutive win.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to offer congratulations to the Howley Volunteer Fire Department upon celebrating its thirty years of service to the community. On February 19, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I had the marvellous privilege to witness the outstanding support and appreciation that the Town of Howley demonstrated to their dedicated fire fighters. Many residents of my home town packed the town hall to recognize the extraordinary dedication of Fire Chief Derek Murphy and the twenty-four members of the volunteer fire department in a community of approximately 200 people.

Mr. Speaker, the Howley Fire Department spend countless hours raising funds for personal firefighting equipment, engaging in training and unselfishly serve their community with passion and with pride. With the support of the fire-ettes and community groups they have raised over $20,000 that paid the town's share of their new fire truck.

At their thirtieth fireman's ball, it was gratifying to see fire fighters, Shawn Piercey, Terry Stead, Arch Barrett and Ken Barrett honoured for their thirty years of service. David Kelly was honoured for twenty-five years of service and Charlie McClean received the twenty-year long service award. The firefighter of the year was captured by Terry Stead. As part of this event nine deceased fire fighters were honoured with special plaques that are now hung in the foyer of the town office.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all colleagues to join me in congratulating the award winners and to applaud the Howley Volunteer Fire Department upon reaching the thirty-year milestone of dedicated service to their town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier drew the line in the sand when she said that any revenues from excess power sales will not go to pay for Muskrat Falls and give the people in this Province a break on their power rates.

I ask the Premier today: Why is it that you are so insistent on developing this project on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, while every outside user of Muskrat Falls power will get a break on their power bill and only have to pay half the cost of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will pay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is disingenuous to say to the very least.

I did not say in this House yesterday that any income earned from Muskrat Falls would not be used to reduce power rates. What I did say, Mr. Speaker, was that that is a policy decision that will be made further into the project.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday she stood in this House and inferred, in fact, that the president and CEO of Nalcor had made the same statement. Absolutely incorrect, Mr. Speaker. This is a policy decision that will have to be made by the government of the day as we get nearer to the completion and bringing online of electricity generated at Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, the record speaks for itself. It is the way you always talk. You talk out of both sides of your face from one day to the next day, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: The Premier said, and she said it very clearly –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to repeat her question and to be sensitive to some of her language.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has said, Mr. Speaker, that she will not commit to use any revenue from excess power sales to subsidize the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier, how is it fair that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador should have to pay more for Muskrat Falls power than customers outside of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's get down to the facts. Mr. Speaker, to meet the power demand of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2016, 2017, Muskrat Falls is the cheapest option to do that at 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour without a loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and without selling one kilowatt of power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we do not need to do any more than that. We can let whatever extra power we have run away down the Churchill River. Mr. Speaker, we will still have to pay 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour for the cheapest power that we can generate. Unlike what is being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, hooking up fifty or sixty ponds around this Province and costing us tens and tens and tens of millions…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier may not want to take this issue seriously, but I tell you the people in the Province take it seriously. The people in this Province who will have to dig deep into their pockets, I say to you Premier, to pay for your particular project.

I ask you today: Why you will not give the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador a break? Why will you not use revenues from the sale of excess power to subsidize the Newfoundland and Labrador ratepayer? Why are you refusing to do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they are going to have a dig a lot deeper if the Leader of the Opposition has anything to do planning for - or her lack of planning for meeting our power needs here in the Province in 2016, 2017 and beyond. Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is the cheapest way to supply power to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we can let the excess water flow down the Churchill River and not get any value for it. That is not our plan, Mr. Speaker. Our plan is to use that power in the best way we can to help the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, either to defray the cost of electricity, Mr. Speaker, or to build necessary infrastructure, or to induce industrial development in Labrador particularly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, for the person out there today who is going to see their light bill go from $150 a month to $300 a month, I say to you Premier, they do not see that as the cheapest power that they can access.

Mr. Speaker, we want to see excess power used for industrial development and usage in Labrador. A glaring omission, I say to you Premier, a glaring omission in your term sheet on Muskrat Falls, but we are dragging the government there, Mr. Speaker, to start recognizing that there is a need in Labrador for industrial power.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier stated that her new preferred option for excess power is Labrador. If this is really the case, I ask you today, Premier: What rate can Labrador users expect to pay for this power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at least with the development of Muskrat Falls there will be power for use in industrial Labrador beyond the recall power we currently have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to finally see her warming up to the development of Muskrat Falls. She was dead against it a few weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I suppose one must be grateful for small measures, Mr. Speaker, and slowly but surely we are moving her along.

I guess it does not feel comfortable to be at odds with just about every other person who has some kind of commentary on this piece, such as the Board of Trade, such as the independent business community, such as the Federation of Labour, and such as her own national leader, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will not hoodwink me like she has hoodwinked a lot of people in this Province. I can you tell you that, Mr. Speaker. She will not hoodwink me into thinking there is not a way to provide cheaper power to the people of this Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – and she will not hoodwink me into thinking that there should not be cheaper industrial power for the customers in Labrador.

I ask you today, Premier, to put your money where your mouth is. If you are committed to seeing power used for industrial purposes in Labrador, what kind of rates can we see being offered to these customers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have too much confidence and respect for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to ever suggest to anyone that they could be hoodwinked by me or anyone else.

Now, Mr. Speaker, industries in Labrador at the moment enjoy the cheapest industrial rate for power than anywhere else in the country. She was talking erroneously about that the other day, about the fact that we were not already renegotiating contracts. Mr. Speaker, contracts that do not have to be negotiated for at least another three years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have recall power from the Upper Churchill that is now available for industrial use in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we will have another 1.2 terawatts of power. We will have available in Labrador over 500 megawatts of power for industrial use.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we all know about the extra industrial power in Labrador that the government opposite is selling to Emera and losing money on, I say to the Premier; losing money on for the last two years on behalf of the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, they will not answer the question and they will not outline what the rates for industrial customers would be in Labrador. We know that today under the interconnected grid, customers in Labrador pay anywhere from 2.1 cents to five cents for industrial power. We know that IOC has one of the cheapest power agreements in place since the Twin Falls project.

I ask the Premier today: What are you proposing in terms of new industrial rates for Labrador? Will there be a fixed rate or will it vary with industrial development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, when we are trying to induce investment in this Province we do a negotiation with the businesses that are coming in, in the same way that we negotiated with ExxonMobil, with Chevron, with the other oil companies, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that they had a rate of return here that was very good for the companies but, at the same time, saw benefits coming to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, any power that we develop here in this Province has to do the same thing for the people of the Province. We are not going to give it all away for free. The whole point of developing the power is to service, first of all, the needs of the people of this Province. Secondary to that, Mr. Speaker, is to induce the industrial development at a fair rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as I suspected, the commitment is only past the lips from this government. That is all we see, no details, nothing thought out and nothing concrete.

I ask you today, Premier: Will industrial customers in Labrador be able to get their power at a fair rate from Muskrat Falls or will they be able to go to Nova Scotia and buy it cheaper, just like the other customers in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know exactly where the power is going in Nova Scotia and it is going to residential customers because they need to take out their coal fired generation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what the Opposition is saying is that they want us to pay the 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour and they want the rest of the excess energy to run away down the Churchill River because they do not want us to go to market and get the best price that we can get for that excess power and bring that money home for use here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all industries that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - operate within this Province have a preferred rate for industrial power, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the benefits of having power, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue that practice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Here we go again, more spin from the government on where the Opposition is, but answer the questions I say to you, Premier. We know that, today, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will have to pay twice as much for Muskrat Falls power as customers in the Maritime provinces. The industrial power that becomes available in Labrador, we want to know if they are going to get that power cheaper in the Maritimes as well, cheaper than they are going to get it in Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in 2016- 2017, we are going to have a power deficit in this Province. We are not going to be able to meet the needs of Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' electricity needs unless we build new generation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot bring it in from Quebec and get it to the Island at 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour. We cannot get it from Nova Scotia and back to us in Newfoundland and Labrador for less than 14.3 cents an hour. Mr. Speaker, I am having an analysis done of their proposal of the development of fifty or sixty ponds that will give us 172 megawatts of power, and where we are supposed to come up with the other 300, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, this is the cheapest option for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: See, here we go again, Mr. Speaker. The Premier stands up today and tells us that she has not even looked at all these options, but every day she stands in her place and says that it is the cheapest cost of power that they can provide to the people of the Province, and she has not even done the analysis.

Mr. Speaker, if she wants to talk about new transmission, let's talk about the North Coast and the South Coast of Labrador, two areas of this Province that rely heavily on diesel power, that even have industrial customers who have to use diesel power to run mines on the North Coast of Labrador.

I ask the Premier today if her government is prepared to commit to the construction of transmission lines to the North and South Coast of Labrador to ensure that they have available, affordable power for future development.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to commit that outright here today because, first of all, it is not affordable power. This is a $6.2 billion project that has to be paid for by ratepayers. You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem, that is the problem we have here in the House of Assembly. They do not even have the fundamentals of hydro or electricity generation down. They do not understand what they are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot develop if –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it is like expecting us to develop the offshore, and because it is right off our coast, everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador should get free gas. Now, that is a wonderful thing if you can make it happen. It just does not make any kind of sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the Premier likes to spin her gas analogy, but she knows that when it comes to power development in this Province, the government is totally in control. The government has all the say, where the power goes, where it is transmitted, how much people pay for it, and all the rest of it. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not comparing apples and apples.

I ask the Premier this: The people on the North Coast and South Coast of Labrador who have been dependent upon diesel power ever since they have been in existence, I say to you, Premier, there is recall power on the Upper Churchill that they cannot access because there is no transmission capacity, so whether it is Muskrat Falls, whether it is the Upper Churchill, whether it is another development, are you committed to putting transmission lines to the North and South Coast communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, other than our isolated communities, ratepayers in this Province pay for the cost of the generation and transmission of electricity. That is the way that the system works. So, any electricity generated from Muskrat Falls will have to be paid for by the people who use that electricity. That is why it will not affect people who live in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It will not affect people who live in Lab West because they will not be using that power.

Mr. Speaker, we hope to be able to bring a power line to the North Coast, because of the development at Voisey's Bay, and the fact that we will be able to square costs, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, we will be able to do –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we are trying to get somewhere. Now we are finally trying to get somewhere.

The government opposite is starting to open their eyes and realizing that they are reaping power benefits in Labrador and giving nothing back. I say you, today, Premier, you should be committing to do transmission lines to both the North and South Coast of Labrador. In the immediate future, commercial customers on the North and South Coast of Labrador pay the highest rates of commercial power in this Province, nearly twenty cents a kilowatt hour.

I ask you today, Premier: Will you stand in your place and commit to bring down the cost of electricity to these commercial users in the North and South Coast of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not waiting for the development of Muskrat Falls to help people in our isolated communities in Labrador. We already subsidize significantly power rates in those communities under the Northern Strategic Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have committed to review commercial rates on the Coast of Labrador once the project is sanctioned. We have a pilot project where we are looking at small hydro sites along the coast that might be a more economical way to develop electricity for the people on the Coast. Mr. Speaker, we have a project in Ramea that is developing a wind-hydrogen-diesel mechanism for generating electricity that will have great beneficial effect to our isolated communities in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people on the North and South Coast are paying exorbitant rates for energy when it comes to commercial businesses. It is reflected in the cost of living in these communities, what they have to pay for food, and what they have to pay for all of their services, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the government today: In light of the fact that you are proposing to reap another resource on the doorsteps of Labradorians, are you prepared to at least give something back immediately and start bringing down the rates of commercial users in those communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is true that Labrador was ignored for far too long, mainly under their Administration – fourteen years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, since we have come to government, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – have been invested in Labrador in hospitals, in the Trans-Labrador Highway, in the College of the North Atlantic, in long-term care, and in subsidies to electricity under the Northern Strategic Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Labrador is important to this Province. It is integral to who we are as a people, Mr. Speaker, and we will never treat them with the same disrespect that has been shown by members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish they did not send out the memo to applaud every time the Premier speaks in the House of Assembly because it is using up all of our time in Question Period, Mr. Speaker. I will remind the Premier of this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will remind the Premier of this, she never needs to stand and question my loyalty or my commitment, Mr. Speaker, to the people of Labrador; I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker. I do not know where she cut her eye tooth but I cut mine on the…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. Question Period is a half an hour; there are important questions being asked and important answers given.

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I never would have sold out the people of Labrador on 5 Wing Goose Bay like you did Premier and your government, I can guarantee you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, according to Gilbert Bennett, Nalcor's Vice-President responsible for Muskrat Falls, he said once a transmission line is connected between Muskrat Falls in Labrador and Soldiers Pond on the Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland and Labrador will be on one interconnected provincial grid.

I ask you Premier: If this is the case, what will it mean to ratepayers in Labrador's grid? Will it be regulated at the same rates as the interconnected Island grid customers or will they be exempt?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is back to fundamentals again, Mr. Speaker. She obviously did not hear what I said to her a few minutes ago.

Where you get your electricity; Mr. Speaker, if you get your electricity from the Upper Churchill all of the expenses, capital, operations, maintenance, all of those kinds of things that are associated with that project are charged off to ratepayers. That is what goes in, in determining what your rate is. All of the people who will be receiving power from Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, are on a different source of generation. The cost associated with Muskrat Falls will be signed off to those ratepayers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries. As we know, the lobster fishery is about to get underway here in this Province, at the same time the FFAW has presented a proposal calling for matching funds from the government and the Province. Our understanding is that the federal government is prepared to invest approximately $9.5 million in this proposal, but the FFAW is still waiting to hear from the Province on what its commitment will be.

I ask the Minister: Can he update the House and the people of the Province as to the status of this request?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have not heard officially that the federal government has supported the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: The member opposite is right, that the FFAW have a proposal before us and we have it under review, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North. I ask other members if they would be kind enough to allow the member to ask his question.

The hon. member.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of the proposal that FFAW has put forward is to increase the incomes of those remaining in the fishing industry. The minister has often stated that is the vision of the fishery by his government, a viable industry.

I ask the minister again: Is he prepared to invest in this proposal, and if so, will it be reflected in this year's budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell him what is in the budget at this particular point, but I will, Mr. Speaker, say one thing. When we have something before us, and it is the right thing to do, we will do it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, from the minister, that there is no proposal in from the FFAW?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was the one wearing hearing aids.

I said, in my first response, that we had received a proposal from the FFAW.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB Web site reports that since January of this year over 500 litres of Thruster Seal Oil has been spilled from the aft starboard thruster on the Terra Nova FPSO. The first spill of 184 litres occurred between December 22 and January 8.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. member.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister heard what I have said already. What I said seems to suggest that the thruster was leaking hydrocarbons into the ocean undetected for over two weeks.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Natural Resources confirm that this is the case and tell the House whether or not he was aware of this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no, I am not able to confirm the information that the hon. member has brought to my attention, but I will certainly look into it and report back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, that I have a printout of the Web site here on my desk with all that information. So it is not going to be hard for him to get the information. I would like more detail though about how C-NLOPB dealt with this issue when they found out about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it has also come to our attention that the turret of the Terra Nova FPSO is constantly in need of repair and has basically been jerry-rigged to keep producing oil. It was supposed to have been permanently repaired in 2008 and to date has not been.

Mr. Speaker, since we know the C-NLOPB did not inform the minister of the toxic mud spill last week, and now we know he does not know anything about the thruster spill either, I ask the minister: Is he aware of the mechanical problems with the turret on the Terra Nova FPSO?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the highest standards of safety are employed in the offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. The operators submit safety plans that are reviewed by the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. There are regularly scheduled maintenance checks that occur; there are regularly scheduled retrofits that occur on the rigs and on the equipment on the rigs. Those are all done according to industry standards and all of those are done to ensure the safety of the people and the environment working offshore. There is no jerry-rigging going on, Mr. Speaker, in the offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to take the minister's answer to mean that he does not know about the mechanical problems with the turret on the Terra Nova FPSO. Mr. Speaker, the turret is the integral piece of machinery for the production of oil on an FPSO. To repair it, production must stop.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is profitability trumping safety in the offshore oil industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. member is trying to go in terms of trying to inflame people in terms of the safety of the offshore.

Again, I will repeat for the record, there are safety plans in place, there is regularly scheduled maintenance work that is being done, and there is regularly scheduled retrofit work that is being done. Rigs do get taken out of production. There are shutdowns that occur from time to time as are required according to the operators, according to the manufacturers of this equipment, and according to the regulations that we have employed in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador. All of that is being done, Mr. Speaker. All of that is being done to ensure the safety of the environment and the safety of the people working offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, public trust in government's oversight of offshore safety has recently been shaken. An independent offshore safety authority like Norway's would be quick to report a situation like a malfunctioning thruster or problems with an FPSO turret, ensuring both public and government were fully informed of a situation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: When will she give the public a timeline on the creation of an independent safety authority which she says she is going to back?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I call on members in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition if they would be kind enough to allow the hon. member to ask her question and pay attention to the answer that has been given.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to and adopted all of Justice Wells' recommendations. We have, in particular, agreed with recommendation 29. We have indicated that we have asked the federal government to join with us in support of that recommendation.

As the member opposite is aware, it is an accord between ourselves and the federal government and we have to get the concurrence of the federal government to make any changes to that accord. We are engaged with the federal government hoping that they, as well, will concur with Justice Wells' recommendation 29 and help establish a separate and independent safety regulatory agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

This being Private Members' Day, and usually Question Period starts no later than 2:30 o'clock, and Private Members' Day starts no later than 3:00 o'clock, it is my understanding that I may have waltzed through Statements by Ministers very quickly and that there is a statement by a minister, the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works.

By leave of fellow members, we will hear the statement if the hon. member has leave to present.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not only met but has exceeded the target for the purchase of energy-efficient vehicles as outlined in our 2007 Energy Plan, Focusing our Energy.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Energy Plan, the provincial government set out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take a lead role in environmental sustainability. This Energy Plan was an opportunity to set a positive example in the use of greener vehicles within the Province.

In 2007, our government committed that 25 per cent of new car and sport utility vehicles (SUV) purchases for the provincial fleet between 2007 and 2011 would be energy-efficient or hybrid vehicles. This target would cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and help set the tone for this Province's commitment to green energy.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform the hon. House today that we have exceeded that target.

Since April 2008, 48 per cent of our government's new car and SUV purchases have been hybrid vehicles. In the last three years we have purchased 125 cars and SUVs. Sixty of these are hybrids. These vehicles are spread over eight government departments in all areas of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, our ability to reduce our carbon footprint depends on the choices we make, and our government's choice to utilize more energy-efficient vehicles is helping us to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions and save energy.

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to enhance our fleet as the local market adapts to the demand of the hybrid vehicles. As the market adjusts, we hope to introduce hybrid pickup trucks to our fleet, and to continue down this road of fuel efficiency and sustainability.

Mr. Speaker, by introducing hybrid vehicles to the government fleet, we are showing that energy efficient vehicles are a viable option for those wishing to curtail energy consumption and leave a smaller carbon footprint. We are also helping to showcase the technology of hybrid vehicles, and we are showing our commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions by enhancing the fuel efficiency of the vehicles that government employees drive everyday.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing more hybrid and energy efficient vehicles being introduced to our fleet as we continue to lead by example.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say I am somewhat surprised that he went with this statement. Maybe that is an understatement, I should say I am extremely surprised, because all we have to do is think back to the AG's report not too long ago. In 2002, this government had 156 four-wheel drives, 405 two-wheel drive pickups, and in 2010, we have 367 four-wheel drives, 314 two-wheel drives, Mr. Speaker; an increase of 135 per cent of four-wheel drives, which are the real gas guzzlers, I must say, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General went on to say that 219 – 21.2 per cent of highway vehicles – operated below the 20,000 km annual usage rate to justify even the purchase.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is fine to say that we are trying to make this environment better, but then again, when you look at the numbers that the Auditor General refers to, I would say the hybrids are probably costing more. At least we should try to use them to their full potential.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see that government has met and exceeded the green vehicle targets, however, if you are buying more vehicles to add to the problem, if that is leading by example, Mr. Speaker, I would say God help us.

Thank you.

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

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

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

It is good to see that government is embracing green initiatives and good to see that the target was exceeded. I look forward to maybe next year being told that 100 per cent of our vehicles are hybrid vehicles because I would like to reach that 100 per cent much more quickly than the government has set as a goal for themselves.

I agree with the statement about the ability to reduce carbon footprint being based on choice. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to individuals in our Province, many people do not have the financial ability to make a choice about things like hybrid vehicles nor about things like whether or not their homes are energy efficient. I ask: Is government going to choose to allow for more grants and tax breaks for people to retrofit their homes and businesses? Will government allow for more grants and benefits for people to buy their own hybrid vehicles? Will government choose to invest more in public transportation, which would reduce the need for the use of personal vehicles? That is the choice I would like to see government making, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador and it is regarding the Trans-Labrador Highway, Route 510; the fact that government, Mr. Speaker, has no radar vision at all, no vision and nothing on their radar to deal with paving this particular section of road.

You talk about commitment to the people of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, today they are one of the few people left in the Province paying not only the highest rates for energy but also driving over the worst roads, those that are fortunate enough to have roads, because many of the communities still do not have them.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Labrador today who wants to get out of Labrador by road has to use Route 510 and they are asking the government to consider making a proposal and making allocations of funds to be able to deal with this particular section and to have it paved. Mr. Speaker, just to read the petition into the record, it says:

WHEREAS the Trans-Labrador Highway is a vital transportation lifeline for the Labrador communities, providing access, generating economic activity, and allowing residents to obtain health care and public services; and

WHEREAS Route 510 connecting –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway are unpaved, in deplorable condition, and are no longer suitable and safe for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS Labrador cannot afford to wait years or decades for upgrading and paving of their essential transportation route;

WHEREUPON the petitioners urge the House of Assembly to ask the government to provide additional funding for much needed improvements to Route 510 and connecting branch roads of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador have a deplorable transportation network, I say to the government opposite. It is one thing to say that we are going to construct roads, but to construct roads and then neglect them to the point that you cannot drive over them –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - they are so bad; they are so poorly maintained in many cases. To look the people in the face and say to them that we are not going to address your issue for at least another three years before it is even going to end up on our radar.

Mr. Speaker, today, everyone in Labrador has to drive that Trans-Labrador Highway and they should have the ability to drive over paved roads like other people in this Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They should have the ability, Mr. Speaker, to have a ferry service that is going to be modern and designed to meet their needs, something the government has neglected to address, I say to members opposite. Something government has neglected to address on behalf of the people in this area. At some point they have to stop and realize that the people of Labrador are part of this Province as well and they deserve to have the same kind of transportation networks, Mr. Speaker. They deserve to have paved roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member present her petition. I ask members for their co-operation.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I could not even hear my own self speak, so I appreciate the intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you right now the people in Labrador deserve better. They deserve to see some vision for their highway, some vision for their ferry service so that their ferry service could be modernized. There should be a new vessel built, it should be long-term contracts that gives them access between Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, in conclusion….

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am presenting this petition today on behalf of the people of Labrador. It is one of many that I will be bringing forward to the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present this petition. I will read the prayer of the petition into the record:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS we the students of French Shore Academy in Port Saunders from the Towns of River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay, Port Saunders, Port aux Choix and Eddies Cove West appreciate the facility we currently learn in; and

WHEREAS unfortunately the sense of fairness and equality existing at school is absent on the outside due to essential services not equally available in all our towns; and

WHEREAS the lack of high-speed Internet in River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay and Eddies Cove West puts some students of our school, or our school, in an unacceptable disadvantage at learning today in the twenty-first century;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all Members of the House of Assembly to urge government to direct funding to ensure high-speed Internet services are provided in these towns to allow equality and fairness for all members of our student body.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand and present this petition on behalf of those students. I believe they are presenting, not only on behalf of themselves as students of the schools, particularly in the Tri-town area of the Northern Peninsula, but their representation of many in the rural parts of Newfoundland, where, today, we still do not have high-speed Internet access.

Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in the urban centres, or the larger rural communities, we are fortunate to have high-speed and we have come to take it for granted. Yet, when you have an opportunity, for example, as I did not very long ago, to stay in the Maynard Inn in Hawke's Bay, and just as she was actually processing my credit card and the time that I had to wait for that procedure to go through, you recognize just how disadvantaged people are when they do not have the high-speed Internet. Obviously, this is a major setback for students who are involved in distance education, those who are trying to download programs, schedules, and other things from the schools and from their teachers.

If you go into the community, as I said, into a hotel somewhere and you have to hook into the dial-up system, you realize that community is years behind in terms of the accessibility to information and to the procedures that all of us in other communities have taken for granted.

It is an issue, and while we appreciate what has been done, and this petition is not on behalf of those who have high-speed, it is on behalf of those who do not. They feel very disadvantaged, they feel disenfranchised, and obviously, as a student body they are not able to participate in certain programming, in certain activities, to the same degree as those in other communities throughout our Province who have the high-speed Internet capability.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand to bring it to the attention of the House of Assembly once again, to present it to government and say that sooner rather than later we need to have a plan that allows the implementation of high-speed Internet throughout the whole Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today, on behalf of the residents of La Poile, and anyone who happens to travel on our provincial ferry system in that particular area, whether you be tourists, or whether you be anyone from inside of this Province, for any given reason. The petition reads:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom-waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages, including men, women, children, seniors, and disabled persons, require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity, as well as health and safety regulations, to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room-restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service, which operates out of La Poile, may be able to utilize such waiting room-washroom facilities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the fifth such petition that I have entered into this House. I have had no indication from the Minister of Transportation and Works that he is going to be doing this any time soon. I think they have waited long enough. The citizens of La Poile are not second-class citizens, they do not need to be treated nor deserve to be treated like second-class citizens.

I believe this is probably the only remaining provincially serviced ferry route in this Province which has no washroom facilities whatsoever. Absolutely, not acceptable, inappropriate, inhumane, and besides being unhealthy, it is contrary to the very own laws that this government would insist upon from any other public provider of services. You expect people to use the service, you have to go to the wharf to catch the boat, yet you have no facilities available for them, for the basic of human needs, which is a washroom. I have seen cases from this government where they put porta-potties out on the head of the wharf, and expect that people who live in rural Newfoundland in these isolated communities should accept that, keep your mouth shut and this is good enough.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for anybody who lives in this Province, whether you live in St. John's or you live in rural Newfoundland. The have had enough of it. They are quite fed up, and this government needs to look at this seriously, do something about it and stop this degradation of residents, and anybody who travels to these particular areas.

I shall continue, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents to bring forth this petition – I do not care if it is another ten years – until we see something done by this government. It is just embarrassing to the government and makes them look bad. They deserve to be embarrassed because of it. The sooner they remove this, improve the situation, and eliminate it, the better for all concerned.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and the time being now 2:54 o'clock, the Chair calls on the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to deliver her private member's resolution.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand to present the following private member's bill in the House of Assembly. It reads, for the record, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS free and open communication is critical to sound public policy, essential to good governance and a cornerstone of an open and democratic society; and

WHEREAS public servants have a higher loyalty to the people of the Province than to the security and the convenience of their supervisors or political masters; and

WHEREAS whistleblower protections already exist for the House of Assembly Service and statutory offices but the same protections are denied to public servants within government departments and related agencies such as health and education authorities; and

WHEREAS this government promised to introduce whistleblower legislation almost four years ago;

BE IT RESOLVED that government consider the immediate extension of whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal public servants in order to ensure their ability to freely disclose information about something they believe to be harmful to the public's interest without fear of workplace retribution or retaliation.

That is the motion I am proposing today, Mr. Speaker, and it is seconded by my colleague, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

I am presenting that motion because we feel that the public service in this Province should fall under the same protection as do the Officers of the House of Assembly and the statutory offices of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. So we feel that right now to deny these protections to public servants we are in fact stifling any particular legitimate complaints that could come forward for investigation. Mr. Speaker, whistleblower legislation would allow a government employee or a senior staff member to talk about critical problems within government without facing disciplinary action.

If we had it in place, for example, a lab worker may have promptly reported problems with testing of tissue samples and hormone receptors at Eastern Health long before we ever came to the conclusion that there was a problem there. Because there was no protection for health care providers and people who worked in the health care system, I am not surprised that the issue around hormone receptor testing went on for as long as it did in this Province unreported. Even if there was – and I am not suggesting that there were people who knew the difference, I am not suggesting that at all – what I am saying is that if was a problem and someone was aware of it and they had to have come forward they were certainly at a risk of losing their job. They were at a risk of being disciplined in their workplace. Maybe suspended without pay or some other kind of retribution.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that we should ensure that protections are there. Maybe in the case of Eastern Health and the faulty hormone testing that occurred in the laboratories for several years may have been detected much earlier if the workers were protected and had the ability to be able to come forward and to make complaints without fear of losing their jobs or being disciplined in some other manner.

Another good example, Mr. Speaker, is the spending scandal that occurred within the House of Assembly; the spending scandal and the abuses of allowances by MHAs that went on for a period of time, without being detected. I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that there were people in the staff of the House of Assembly at the time who knew what was happening but I am saying that if there was and the legislation was in place they would have been protected. Mr. Speaker, maybe we would not have had the spending scandal and the misappropriation of allowances by MHAs that we had that went on for such an extended period of time if there had to have been people employed within the House of Assembly that were protected if they were reporting anything that they saw to be suspicious or divulging information that they thought should be shared with higher authorities or people in positions of authority. If they thought that they could do that without risking their terms of employment maybe we would have detected that much earlier.

Mr. Speaker, what happened was this, after these particular incidents that had occurred there was a report that was done by Chief Justice Derek Green. In his report he recommended that there be protection put in place for the staff in the statutory offices of the House of Assembly so that if there were reports coming forward, then these employees could be protected. That was built into our new legislation when we passed it in the House of Assembly.

With the exception of some of the members who were recently elected in by-elections, everyone else who is in this House would have voted on that legislation. Mr. Speaker, they obviously voted to uphold the fact that there should be whistleblower legislation in place for statutory offices of the House of Assembly and for employees of the House of Assembly.

Why did government not take that a step further and make it binding on all government departments and agencies of government such as school boards, health boards and so on? Why did that not happen? I guess that is the reason we are bringing this motion to the floor of the House of Assembly today because if it is good for one group of people within the public service, why is it not good for all groups of people? Why is it not good for all departments?

I think it goes back, and I think we have to go back a little further. We will go back to 2006. You will all remember the incident that happened with teachers in the Province going back to that particular date. At that particular time, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Bank was actually, I think, the CEO of the Eastern School District. It was the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, who suspended teachers from that school board simply because they spoke out at a forum. The forum was talking about stress that teachers are facing within the education system. It was about stress that they were dealing with in the classroom; very legitimate issues I would say to hon. members – very legitimate issues in terms of respecting what people out there working on behalf of citizens in the Province often have to go through.

In the case where these two teachers spoke out, they were disciplined. They were disciplined by then the CEO, who happens to be the Member for Grand Bank today, who was the CEO of the school board at that time – very proudly, Mr. Speaker, was out in the media speaking about this issue, talking about suspending teachers who were outlining very publicly the fact that there was stress in their jobs, stress in their schools, issues that were confronting them as professionals who were working in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, these two teachers were suspended for a week, they were suspended without pay, and they were suspended for what? Voicing their opinion regarding workload and stress issues in the workplace; that is what they were suspended for. It is not like they uncovered, Mr. Speaker, a big scandal of some kind. It was nothing of the sort. It was employees who were frustrated, who had issues with workload that had some stress and they were speaking out. They were suspended by the CEO of the Eastern School District, who happened to be the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker.

What we are saying is that we need to do something to protect these particular workers. The government opposite felt the need to do that as well, because if they did not they would not have made the commitment in their Blue Book in 2007. In 2007, Mr. Speaker, at that time their leader, who was the Leader of the government, who was the Premier, was out saying that he pledged that a new Tory government will implement whistleblower laws in the next session of the House of Assembly. That they would at the earliest opportunity - this was in 2007, in the middle of an election. You talk about Stephen Harper making commitments and breaking promises.

In 2007 the Tory government, Mr. Speaker, was out knocking on doors in this Province telling the people of the Province that we are going to bring in whistleblower legislation at our earliest opportunity so that public servants, so that teachers, so that health care workers who see things that are going on in their workplace are able to speak out without being suspended like those teachers were by the Member for Grand Bank; without being sent home from their jobs and their paycheques held back. This is what the Conservative government was telling people. It is no wonder they are standing shoulder to shoulder with Stephen Harper today, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder they think it is okay for the federal government to make commitments boldly in the face of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and then retract on those commitments, because they did the very same thing. They did the very same thing in 2007 when they went to the people of this Province and said, we will promise and commit to bring in whistleblower legislation at the earlier convenience in the Legislature, and it never happened.

A year later, Mr. Speaker, when they were bringing in their Throne Speech that spring, when the new session of Parliament was opening, right before the Budget came down - and this will tell you how much you can read into a Throne Speech by a Conservative government in this Province, absolutely nothing, I say to government members, nothing. Let me tell you what you said. You had the Lieutenant-Governor come in here, sit in the Speaker's Chair in this very House of Assembly, and you had the Lieutenant-Governor read from the Throne Speech your words as a government, where you talked about Chief Justice Derek Green's report and the fact that he had recommended there be whistleblower legislation implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In your Throne Speech you said, "Among his recommendations was a call for ‘whistleblower' legislation establishing procedures for the disclosure of wrongdoings and for protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoings.

"My Government will introduce whistleblower legislation this year after appropriate consultation has taken place."

That was the commitment in the Throne Speech in 2008. Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have had a Throne Speech in 2009, we have had one in 2010, we have had one in 2011, and they have yet to act on that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, there are others out there who are calling for this legislation, including NAPE itself. Public servants themselves want to see this legislation. We had a report of the Legislature and, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of the Chief Justice at the time was that the legislation should be implemented and put in place. We had commitments from the government themselves saying that they would do it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they withdrew their support and they did not do it.

Why did they not do it? Let me tell you. Let me tell you what they said as a government. This is after promising it, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a campaign when they were knocking on doors. This was after having the Lieutenant-Governor come into this House, sit in that Chair where you sit today hon. Speaker, and read to the people of the Province that we are committed to bringing in whistleblower legislation, and to date they have not done it.

This is their explanation. They said it is just a law that would be used by people who may have a personal vendetta against the government for the wrong reasons. Now, how paranoid can one government get, I say? I say, be men and women; be responsible parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker. We cannot bring this in because there might be someone out there with a vendetta against the government, and they may use this for the wrong reasons? What kind of an excuse is that, Mr. Speaker, for not giving public servants in this Province the ability to free speech, the ability to report wrongdoings within government departments and agencies without being disciplined, without being punished, and without having to lose their jobs? The government is so fickle, they are so paranoid, and they are so scared that they cannot do this because there might be a vendetta against the government by one of these public servants and then they would use it for the wrong reasons.

Mr. Speaker, they also cited the fact that they could not do this because things like the access to information legislation are already creating a burden for their Administration. Because people have the ability to have access to information, it is taking up too much of their time to inform the public. Too much of our time is being used giving out information, so we do not want to add to that. We do not want to be burdened by people in this Province who really want to know what is going on. No, we are the government, Mr. Speaker, we do not want to be burdened by people. I say to government, honour the commitment that you made. Support whistleblower legislation and stand in your place today and tell the people of this Province that there should be freedom of speech -

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

MS JONES: - and they should be able to do it without being punished.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today that the hon. members of the Opposition have brought this motion to the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, we have been questioned from time to time, in Question Period mostly, with respect to why we have not brought in stand-alone whistleblower legislation during our tenure as government of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds we have in Question Period we do not have an opportunity to do the answer justice. Instead, what it does is offers the Opposition the opportunity to make negative innuendos and allegations and question government's motives and whatnot about whistleblower legislation, and failure to keep up with our commitments and whatnot. There is very little opportunity in a few seconds to respond to their questions to get the government's position right, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Mr. Speaker, by bringing this resolution to the floor of the House, it gives us the opportunity to make full response and explain to the people of this Province where we are on whistleblower legislation and our rationale for our position. Mr. Speaker, this debate today should be very helpful to the public in understanding the position of this government about this rather sensitive and very complicated issue.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution part of the motion put forward today is that the government consider the immediate extension – the immediate extension – of whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal public servants in order to ensure their ability to freely disclose information about something they believe to be harmful to the public's interest without the fear of workplace retribution or retaliation.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader is then, in making this motion, asking the House of Assembly to call upon government to immediately, and I emphasize the word immediately, consider extending the whistleblower protections that are currently afforded to the public service employees under part 6 of the House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity, And Administration Act; to extend that whistleblower protection to include all provincial and public servants. That is what the motion asks, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, let me say that we will not be supporting this motion; for a very simple reason: that the motion calls for the immediate consideration and extension of whistleblower legislation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did, in 2007, promise in our blueprint - we promised in our 2007 blueprint - that we said we would: a Progressive Conservative government will develop whistleblower legislation. We deliberately said develop, Mr. Speaker, because that indicates that it will be an unfolding process, an unfolding process.

To do so immediately, Mr. Speaker, as suggested by the hon. Opposition, would be irresponsible, and not in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. It would not be in the best interest to bring in legislation simply because other jurisdictions have it, or bring in legislation that would be mired in bureaucracy, with pitfalls, mired in secrecy, misguided, and unaccountable.

So, Mr. Speaker, for that reason, we will not support this motion. Not because we do not support whistleblower legislation. We have been considering and continue to consider whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years – and we continue to do so – but we will be voting against the motion, because the motion directs us to proceed immediately, when good government planning and prudence dictates otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions one might ask when trying to strike a right balance with whistleblower legislation, and none of these questions, Mr. Speaker, are easily answered.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need to call upon government to consider immediately such an initiative, because, as I mentioned earlier, this government has been considering, and continues to consider whistleblower protections for public service employees. Mr. Speaker, to do so immediately, as I mentioned, would not be responsible.

Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, explain to the hon. members and members of the public, exactly what whistleblower protection means. Whistleblowers are usually defined as those who disclose information about something they believe to be harmful to the public interest occurring in business or in government. For example, if you report something like an employee falsifying travel claims or some mechanic or engineer who is making shortcuts in maintenance all which might risk public safety. These would be the sorts of things that whistleblowers would inform on. The whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, establishes a framework for the disclosure of these wrongdoings by the public servants. It enables public servants to disclose a serious wrongdoing without fear or threat of reprisal.

Mr. Speaker, generally a wrongdoing is defined broadly in Canadian whistleblower legislation. It includes, Mr. Speaker, an act or omission constituting an offence under provincial or federal laws or an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life or health or safety of persons or to the environment. Other than the danger, of course, that is inherent in the performance of the duties or the functions of an employee. It is also defined to include gross mismanagement including in public funds or a public asset. A wrongdoing would be knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing. That is how wrongdoing is defined broadly in whistleblower legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2007 this government introduced new legislation entitled, the House Of Assembly Accountability Integrity And Administration Act, which legislation governs the effective administration of the House of Assembly, the standards of conduct of elected members and their ethical and accountable behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, part 6 of the House of Assembly Accountability Integrity and Administration Act contains whistleblower protection for employees of the public services of the Province who disclose information relating to a wrongdoing committed by the Speaker, by a member or an officer of the House of Assembly, or a person employed in the House of Assembly in statutory offices. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in a later presentation this afternoon will refer to other pieces of legislation that includes whistleblower protection.

Essentially, Mr. Speaker, if a public servant reasonably believes that he or she has information that could show that a wrongdoing has been committed by the Speaker, or by members or by an officer of the House of Assembly, or a person employed by the House of Assembly is about to or commit or may make a disclosure to his supervisor that something untoward is going to happen, he can do it, Mr. Speaker, without fear or threat of a reprisal.

Mr. Speaker, reprisal, what does reprisal mean? What do we mean a fear of reprisal? What can happen to you for disclosing a wrongdoing? What are some of the fears or concerns people might have? A reprisal might be a disciplinary measure taken against a person for making a report. It might be a demotion. It might be termination of employment. It might be a measure that adversely affects his or her employment in some way. Or it might be a threat to take a measure to affect his employment in some way.

Mr. Speaker, this government is well aware that there are jurisdictions in Canada that have enacted whistleblower legislation for wrongdoings committed by members of the public service; a number of them across Canada. We have examined them all, talked to the officials in these jurisdictions and reviewed them all, Mr. Speaker, because we have actually been silent or inactive on this in the last few years.

In Ontario, Mr. Speaker, part 6 of the Public Service of Ontario Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 is whistleblower legislation for Ontario. Manitoba has a Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, 2006. New Brunswick has the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which received Royal Assent in 2007. Nova Scotia has civil service disclosure of wrong doing regulations made under section 45 of the Civil Service Act, 1989. Mr. Speaker, there are jurisdictions, four as a matter of fact, in this country that have whistleblower legislation.

We are also aware that Prince Edward Island Opposition Leader tried to introduce whistleblower legislation into his Legislative Assembly in 2010, but the bill was voted down by the current Liberal Government due to its many flaws. We are also aware, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia has been looking into comprehensive whistleblower legislation but has yet to enact any legislation; neither has Alberta, neither has the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, the Yukon or Quebec.

That tells us something, Mr. Speaker. This tells us that Newfoundland and Labrador is not unique in exercising due diligence to ensure that any whistleblower legislation that we do enact best serves the needs of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out so often in question period, officials in my department have attended a national conference on public interest disclosure legislation to discuss the experiences of other jurisdictions; they have formed working relationships with their counterparts and continue the dialogue with them. We continue to monitor these jurisdictions with whistleblower legislation and have discussions with them.

Mr. Speaker, we are considering whistleblower legislation and we continue to do so. Mr. Speaker, that flurry of provincial legislation protecting whistleblowers follows a move by the federal government to beef up its own whistleblower legislation.

In 2010, Mr. Speaker, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was passed by the Parliament in November 2005 and came into force in April, 2007. That act contains procedures for disclosures of wrongdoings and provides for an integrity commissioner with powers of investigation. Mr. Speaker, she fell out of grace with that government, for obvious reasons. I think, if I may, she left the post in early retirement on October 18, 2010, four years before her term was up because the Auditor General found out that during her tenure of the 228 complaints that were filed, only five investigations were launched and not one investigation of wrongdoing was discovered. She fell from grace, Mr. Speaker, very early into her term.

Watchdog groups, Mr. Speaker, such as the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform and Canadians for Accountability have called the federal act a toothless law. They claim it is mired in bureaucracy, it is misguided, creates a secretive, unaccountable regime. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government is not interested in mirroring any whistle-blowing legislation that is mired in bureaucracy, is misguided, and is secretive and unaccountable. This government has considered and continues to consider whistleblower legislation and will bring forward appropriate legislation which will facilitate public servants' ability to freely disclose information, Mr. Speaker, about a wrongdoing without fear of workplace reprisal. We will do this when we are satisfied we have conducted our due diligence.

Mr. Speaker, we still have questions about the effectiveness of stand-alone whistleblower legislation and the establishment of independent offices to administer this legislation. For example, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the following statistics which demonstrate a number of inquiries received pursuant to provincial and federal whistleblower legislation in 2009. Mr. Speaker, the ombudsman in Nova Scotia in 2009 received twenty inquiries, investigated two. The integrity commissioner of New Brunswick received thirteen inquiries, none of which proceeded through full investigation. The ombudsman in Manitoba received three, investigated three. The integrity commissioner in Ontario received thirty-five and only investigated seven. The federal integrity commissioner, before her fall from grace, received 151 inquiries and investigated none.

Mr. Speaker, before we embark upon legislation, before we expend significant funds and create more bureaucracy, we will continue to learn from the growing pains of other jurisdictions until we are satisfied that we will bring to this House a bill that is well thought out, thorough and effective to meet the needs of this Province. We need the time to do it right. To proceed immediately, Mr. Speaker, does not give us that time. That is the reason we will be voting against this motion.

This government will not hide wrongdoing. That is why we brought in the Auditor General in this House. That is why we brought in the whistleblower legislation for the House. We will continue, Mr. Speaker, because it is our responsibility to do so and we will protect our public servants.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank the hon. Opposition for bringing this matter to our attention. This government is not interested in bringing in legislation for political reasons. We will only bring it in when we get an act that is appropriate to protect our public servants.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime let me say that we are very proud of our public servants. We value them. They are the engines that drive this government. We depend on them every day to pull strongly and enthusiastically on the oars of their departments, agencies, or boards. I can assure them that even without whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, they can have every confidence that this government will support them if they feel compelled to report wrongdoing in the workplace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We just heard fifteen minutes of sound, words, and very little substance. I am absolutely shocked and amazed at what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of this Province just uttered as a justification for voting against this resolution.

Not only Joe Chesterfield, but the people of this Province are not so gullible and are not so naive that they just could not plainly and clearly see through a case of spin. I am absolutely shocked from the minister of this government who said: We need time to do due diligence. We will do it when it is right. We do not want to do it right now because we have not studied it enough.

This is from a government who five years ago said: Yes, we are prepared to do it. Yes, we will do it in the first session of the House of Assembly. That came from the former leader of this government, Mr. Williams, on October 7, 2007, reported in The Telegram. His comment was: Yes, we will do it. Yes, we will do it in the first session of government.

For this minister to stand up here today and suggest that we need more time, what about the time that it took to bring in the House of Assembly whistleblower provisions? Did that take five years? Mr. Speaker, that did not take five months. Justice Green came in here and did his investigation during the MHA scandal, proposed the legislation for the whistleblower which only applies to Members of the House of Assembly by the way and to staff of the House of Assembly and its agencies, not - as the minister forgot to tell in his speech - that it does not apply to departments and agencies of government. It was cute that it was left out, too cute by half.

We do not already have whistleblower legislation when it comes to this Province. It only applies to the House of Assembly. Justice Green did that in five months. This House of Assembly passed that legislation in five months, yet we have a minister here who has been five years into the game and says we need more time. We need more time. Well, Mr. Speaker, governments who claim they need more time usually are governments who are secret, which we absolutely know that this government is. It is a government that does not want to fulfill its commitments. It is a government that wants to maintain absolute control so that nothing can ever come out to reveal the things that are improperly and sometimes illegally happening. That is the whole point of whistleblower legislation.

If someone works in a government department and they are aware of some wrongdoing and they reveal it right now, they do not have the protections for their jobs. They can be flicked out the door immediately no matter how bad the activity is in a given department of this government. If someone were to come out today, their job is on the line. That is what whistleblowers, principally, is all about. It is not about trying to show governments up, it is about protecting the people who know there is a wrongdoing.

Now, if there is one thing the Minister of Justice did say, it was that is what it is about. It is about people who are doing wrongdoing. I liked the way he also says: Some jurisdictions do not have it. Quebec does not have it. Maybe there is a reason they do not have it. I say to the minister there are a lot of jurisdictions in this country that do have it. Our neighbours in Nova Scotia have it, New Brunswick has it, Ontario has it, Manitoba has it, and Saskatchewan has it. Are we inventing a wheel here? This is not inventing a wheel; this has been created and done. We have even done our own in the case of the House of Assembly.

So, when the minister stands up today and tries to be so cute and says we are going to vote against this resolution because it calls for immediate. That is why it calls for immediate, Mr. Speaker, because immediate was supposed to be in 2007. They have had five years to study this. They have studied it to death, or the other alternative is they have not studied it at all. I think that is the alternative that is most likely, Mr. Speaker. They have not studied it at all because if they study it, then, of course, they have to do something with it. There is only one conclusion you can draw, they do not want to do anything with it.

This is about a government, we talk about keeping commitments. It was in their Blue Book of 2007. It was uttered from the lips of the Premier of the day, their leader, and yet, not followed through. Which can only leave the people of this Province wondering: Why won't they follow through on that? If we would have had whistleblower years ago, for example, you might never have had the MHA piece. You might never, ever, have had Mount Cashel; which as the investigation inquiry revealed, bureaucrats were into it up to their ears and people in authority, when it came to cover ups. We might never have had those catastrophic events in our history.

That is what this minister is trying to do now, deflect again. This is the same person who took the remand centre off the radar up in Goose Bay and did not tell the people about it last year; slipped it out of the budget. This is the same minister who is not doing anything about HMP and blames it on the feds. This is the same minister who does not respect the reports that are filed by our Citizens' Representative. This all happened in the last week with the Citizens' Rep, Mr. Speaker.

It is about protecting people. We have an Auditor General in this Province, he looks at the financial details. If you do something wrong he comes into the departments, he picks it out, and he tells us. The Auditor General is limited in what he can do. He is restricted in what he can do from a financial point of view. Money was involved, money was expended. Was it expended within the program guidelines? Was it wasted? Is it not being properly utilized? He reports back to the government, which report becomes public, and everybody knows about it. We do not have that when it comes to a lot of other things that are going on in government.

This is the same government that says when it comes to freedom of information requests under the access to information act - the most delaying, deflective government in the history of this Province, bar none. The timelines, forgetting answers to freedom of information requests, are routinely, routinely, disregarded when it comes to the departments of this government; absolutely, routinely disregarded.

I noticed the minister also said he is not going to support it because it is sensitive and complicated matters, was the phrase he used. We are dealing with some sensitive and complicated matters as governments so therefore, we have to be careful on what we bring in.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about the serious, complicated matters that this government supposedly deals in. This is about a wrongdoing. This is not about innuendo that somebody thinks I did not like what this minister, or deputy minister, or some director in government did. This is not about this kind of stuff. This is not about the policy decisions that the government is dealing with. This is when somebody ‘boldfacedly' does something wrong. We are talking crime here. We are talking criminal, possible illegal activities here, Mr. Speaker. That is what whistleblower is designed for. It is not about protecting governments. It is not about protecting ministers or protecting MHAs.

The principal end result of whistleblower legislation is to protect the person who reveals the illegal activity from any retributive action that might be taken against them or punishment. Therefore, one can only conclude, if this government is not prepared to bring in whistleblower legislation, they want to leave that hammer, or more like a maul, on the table so that regardless if there are illegal activities going on in some department of this government today, whatever it is, it might even embarrass government because it went on. If it is illegal the government should be the first one to come out and say that is illegal; that is improper, we cannot condone that. Instead of that, and saying we need to protect the person who brings out that illegal activity and thank the employee.

I agree, we have a good crop of public servants in this Province but if they are so good, as the minister claims, why is he not affording them, and his government affording them, the opportunity to be protected when it comes to things like whistleblower legislation? If you really admire your workers, if you appreciate the work and the skills that these people bring to their jobs, why would you not want to protect them? Yet, this government is saying no, we are not prepared to do that. We already know - they do not have to invent the wheel - it exists in numerous jurisdictions in this country, it exists in numerous jurisdictions in this Commonwealth. We even have it within our own House of Assembly and everybody who works for the House of Assembly, yet this government will say we cannot go there; we need some more time to study this. They have not one, but a dozen templates.

They claim we have a great public service that they respect. They agree that it is necessary and yet, they are not agreeing to come forth with it. It has nothing to do with complicated and serious and sensitive matters of government policy. It has to do with exposing, without the fear of reprisal, illegal, improper activities that are going on within government departments and agencies.

Now, the alternative, Mr. Speaker, is what we live with today, and that is called the brown envelope syndrome. That is what we have. We have seen it, in fact, because this government rules with an iron fist. This government deflects information. This government tries to deflect issues, and this government has ruled, for the past number of years, with an iron fist to the point where there is a fear in our public servants and in our bureaucracy. A fear that if I open my mouth, no matter how bad or how terrible something is and how contrary it is to the public interest, I will lose my job if I reveal that. That is not a fiction of anyone's imagination.

I have had people approach me, the first question is: Can I ask you something in confidence? Sure. Once you give your commitment to confidentiality of course that is what it is, you stick with it. Then they tell you a story, and you say: well, how come you have not revealed this in some manner? This is absolutely inappropriate, improper and possibly illegal. Why will you not come forth with this? It is because I will lose my job. If it ever was traced as to where it came from, I could lose my job. Now, you have to respect that person. As concerned as he or she is about the public interest and wanting that information out there, they have to look after their jobs and their families first. That is why they ought to be afforded the protection that would come with whistleblower legislation.

What I call the brown envelope syndrome, there has been more brown envelopes exchanged since former Premier Williams left, three or four months ago, then have been seen in the last four years. The fear is still there but now people, for some reason or other, they do not care as much; not that they do not care about the incident. Absolutely, they care about the incidents but the brown envelopes - and that is the case where people, without having to expose who they are, remain absolutely anonymous. They are putting the information in envelopes and slipping it to people in the media, slipping it to people in the Opposition because they want it brought out but they do not want it brought out in their name for fear of being fired.

Now, I would think a government, rather than try to hide from the truth, rather than try to deflect from what is absolutely necessary – i.e. the revelation of the truth – that you would be all in favour of this and say: We want to know if there is something going wrong. Tell us about it. We decided as MHAs that that was appropriate for us and everybody who works at the House of Assembly. Why would we not accord the same courtesy and respect to the people who work in our public service? Yet, this government says no.

So I say to the people of the Province who are listening: Ask yourself why. Why would a government commit to something that protects its public servants, yet for five years refused to implement it on the nebulous, frivolous grounds that they have not had time enough to study it yet. Who is trying to protect whom, I say, Mr. Speaker?

This certainly does not appear to be a government that respects or is prepared to respect and protect its public servants when it comes to revelation of information that is harmful to the public interest. It ought to be done and it ought to be done immediately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to stand today if I could and make a few comments about the private member's resolution that calls on government to take an immediate action and to immediately extend the whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal public servants.

In the last eight years, our government has been committed to transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct. One of the things we need to recognize is that whistleblower protection is not, in and of itself, a policy in isolation. I think we need to look at whistleblower legislation and the policies around it in context, Mr. Speaker, not just in isolation.

For example, this government introduced the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in 2005. The cornerstone of this access to information and protection of privacy is openness, transparency, and accountability. In fact, Mr. Speaker, section 3 of that act provides that the purpose of the act is to make public bodies more open and accountable to the public.

Let me just share with you three of those mechanisms with which it does that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I stand to be corrected, but the member said the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was brought in 2005. My understanding, actually, Mr. Speaker, is that was introduced and passed in this House in 2002 after vigorous debate between the government and the Opposition. It was in 2002 that it was actually brought in and passed in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

MR. WISEMAN: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order. If there is a statement of ‘misfact' then let it be corrected, but trying to interject and to take some of my time, Mr. Speaker, is a normal practice consistent with the strategies by members opposite, but let me continue.

I was about to, Mr. Speaker, share with you, and share with the House some of the provisions in which these public bodies are left to be accountable. Firstly, by giving individuals the right to access of records; secondly, specifying very limited exceptions to the right of that access to the information; and thirdly, Mr. Speaker, providing for an independent review of decisions made by the public bodies under the act, very clearly, Mr. Speaker, providing that openness and accountability

We have more than 400-and-some-odd public bodies across the Province that are covered by that access to information and protection of privacy; the government departments, agencies, boards, and others. The act was proclaimed in 2005, and during that proclamation period there is a requirement that there be a comprehensive review every five years after that act came into force.

I say, Mr. Speaker, last year, in January, or this past January actually, that five-year period was up and we did the first access to information; the review was done and completed. That, Mr. Speaker, very clearly showed that our government is committed to the effectiveness of this important piece of legislation. The mere fact that we put in place a review mechanism – the consultations, again, broad consultations were conducted around the Province – further demonstrates by way of example the kind of commitment that we have made as a government to openness and transparency. The results of that government effort, Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular piece of legislation, the access to information and privacy policy, I think, points very clearly an independent review, an independent assessment.

The National Freedom of Information Audit released in May, 2010 by the Canadian Newspaper Association; this year it said Newfoundland and Labrador placed fifth among the Provinces and Territories, receiving a B grade; placed fifth, Mr. Speaker. With respect to response times, again, the same assessment, Newfoundland and Labrador placed second among the provinces, with only 7 per cent of the responses beyond the statutory deadline. When you consider the large number of requests that we get, only within 7 per cent did we not meet the deadline, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me read you some statistics; in 2009-2010 there were some 550 requests under that particular piece of legislation for access to information; in 2008-2009 there were some 535 requests; in 2007-2008 some 470 requests, Mr. Speaker. With those numbers of requests to be compliant within that kind of range I say, Mr. Speaker, is again a reflection of our desire to be open and transparent.

Mr. Speaker, in 2004, our Province enacted the Lobbyist Registration Act. Transparency around lobbying is good government policy I say, Mr. Speaker. It is a good policy objective. Information should be publicly available on individuals or groups, who seek to influence government spending, seek to influence how government raises money, and seek to influence how government may make laws and regulations – pass legislation in this House that becomes the law of the land. Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of us, that we know what lobbying is, who is doing it, that they be registered, when it is done, and it is done appropriately to ensure that we have the legislation that governs it.

Lobbying can be a very legitimate part of the democratic process. It provides an opportunity for individuals, groups or organizations to inform government, to provide information, lend insight to help form policy decisions and legislation that we may introduce in this House. Open and transparency, and registering and making sure that the paid lobbyists are registered to ensure that they are in fact and the activities that they are engaged in with public office holders are actually documented and recorded.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador's openness – and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I think expect all of us to be open, transparent and accountable as we make decisions. The Lobbyist Registration Act is yet another example of where this government is committed to good governance, good openness and providing a democratic process to influence decisions.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the members opposite that it was this government's clear commitment to greater openness and accountability for all government departments and public bodies. That is why we have demonstrated in the Transparency and Accountability Act that we proclaimed in 2006, Mr. Speaker. Let me just share some of the items under this act that reflect our government's commitment to openness and transparency. Under this act, each government entity must develop a three-year plan, Mr. Speaker, that includes clearly the definitions of performance expectations, exactly what the department is doing and what those performance expectations are. Annual reports I say, Mr. Speaker, for each of those are provided. All of the necessary information that is recorded in those plans needs to reflect the direction provided under the legislation.

To help that process, Mr. Speaker, we resourced it. We provided an office to help develop those plans to ensure that they have the support necessary to provide consistency, open information, factual information, and clear information about what the future should look like, and to ensure that all of these entities throughout government are complying with the legislation. There are some 140 government departments and agencies now that are covered by this particular legislation.

In addition to the planning and reporting, the Transparency and Accountability Act also stipulates a number of very significant points. I just want to share with the House some of those particular stipulations. Each entity must prepare their annual budgets using accrual accounting information, Mr. Speaker, and that entities report required financial information in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. We want to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a clear understanding of the true financial position of the government, of the department, or of the agency involved.

Prior Cabinet approval is required to set up a new corporation under the Corporations Act so that agencies and departments cannot go out and conduct business by incorporating a company under the Corporations Act that would take them outside of the regulations and the act itself.

Any unauthorized borrowing will not be allowed. Borrowing must be approved by the minister of the department responsible, together with the Minister of Finance. Capital borrowings, again, require the approval of the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance will publish a three-year fiscal forecast and semi-annually report on the economic and fiscal position of the Province. Fortunately, in the last five or six years as the Minister of Finance has stood, it has been a very positive message, Mr. Speaker. The forecast has been reflective of a Province that is on the move. The Minister of Finance on the day of his Budget presents a three-year forecast about the impact of the policies and the decisions that will have significant financial impact on the Province. I say, Mr. Speaker, these are all requirements under this particular piece of legislation.

I think if you look at government's record of openness, accountability, and ethical conduct, those three pieces of legislation are clearly reflective of our government's intention to ensure that we are open, transparent, and conduct ourselves in a very ethical fashion. That goes back to my introductory comment. When you start talking about whistleblower legislation, it is impossible to talk about it as a policy decision in isolation. You need to give it consideration in the context of other things that we are doing.

There was a reference earlier made to Justice Green and his report and bringing legislation to the House to cover Members of the House of Assembly and employees of the offices of the House. I think what is really important, Mr. Speaker, and if the members opposite want to cite Justice Green and his activity, what becomes really important is that Justice Green also said that whistleblower legislation is very complex. It is extremely complicated, very complex, and it is important in bringing in the legislation to strike a balance. It becomes, as my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has already pointed out, it is really important that before we start jumping in whole-heartedly, wanting to quickly move to bring legislation in, we need to ensure that we understand what it is we are doing. We need to understand the implications of that, Mr. Speaker.

So, we need to be careful as we continue to monitor, to continue to become informed, to continue to do the analysis of what is happening in other jurisdictions. When we have done the appropriate due diligence, when we are comfortable that we have the necessary insights, the necessary understandings, can speak clearly to the experiences of other jurisdictions, and we have struck the balance, as referenced by Justice Green, and we understand the implications of that balance, then we will be in a much better position to do as the members opposite are asking to do immediately. Sometimes, taking immediate action and doing it prematurely can do more damage than having no legislation in place in the first place, I say, Mr. Speaker.

So, I thank you for the opportunity, and I thank members opposite for giving me the opportunity to have a few comments with respect to the bill that they have introduced, and ask them to recognize that sometimes being hasty, moving immediately, can sometimes do more damage than making sure that we have done the appropriate due diligence, and we understand the implications of the decisions we are about to make. When we have done that, we will be in a much better position to move forward, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very happy to stand today and to speak to this private member's motion with regard to whistleblower legislation. I am pleased that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair brought this in, because I think it is something that is more than well overdue.

The former speaker just talked about we cannot do things as a knee-jerk movement or a knee-jerk reaction. Well, I would say the government right now must have an arthritic knee, because this is not a very fast knee-jerk that we are talking about here. In 2007, these people sitting in government right now promised that they would deal with whistleblower legislation during the first session of the House. Then in 2008, in the Throne Speech the government promised to introduce whistleblower legislation that year after appropriate consultation had taken place. Well, that appropriate consultation has been going on for three years, Mr. Speaker, and it is not acceptable.

This is not something that is brand new; this is not an idea that has not happened in other jurisdictions, an idea that has not happened even here in our own Province. We, here in this House of Assembly, and the people who work with us, all fall under a piece of legislation that has whistleblower legislation in it. Even after the Cameron report when Madam Cameron was studying the whole issue with regard to the ER-PR testing and did her report, even in that there was some built-in protection for members in the health care. It is not a general whistleblower but protection in one particular aspect of the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken the steps, major steps, to make whistleblower happen. Surely to goodness if we have been able to put a process in place to make sure that whistleblower is operative under the House of Assembly and all of the statutory offices, surely if we have been able to put that in place, we should be ready to start putting it in place for the whole of our government. The lame excuses from the other side of the House, from the government side of the House, are really boring. It is all I can call them is lame excuses because there is some reason why they are not putting this in.

It is really interesting that when it was put in here in the House of Assembly, it was as a result, as has been said already, of Chief Justice Green's recommendation. The House of Assembly at that time was compelled and felt compelled, and rightly so, to make sure that his recommendations were put in place. It is really interesting that in the report that Chief Justice Green did, Chief Justice Green documents that in a survey that was done of Members of the House of Assembly at that time, in that survey over 50 per cent of the MHAs of the day did not think that we should have whistleblower legislation. Knowing that the majority of the people in that survey were people who were members of this government, one can say that they only put it in for the House of Assembly because they were forced to put it in and that there really is not an openness over there to having it in our full government and that is why we do not have it. When they were forced to do it, they did it. Now that they can take their dead time in getting it put in place for our whole governmental system, we are never going to see it under this government, Mr. Speaker. I have been calling for it since I was elected; representatives of the NDP were calling for it before I sat in the House. On a federal level, our party has recently put in a reform agenda that includes legislative protection for whistleblowers, and that comes from recommendations by the federal Public Service Commission in a recent report to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, they do not have it in Ottawa, and it is a shame. The Public Service Commission has acknowledged that they should have it and have made a strong recommendation. We know it was deemed extremely important by Chief Justice Green, and that is why we have it here in the House of Assembly, in our statutory offices. I am really tired of the rhetoric that I am getting from the government side of the House. One gets the feeling that they really do not want it, yet we know from people who come to us and speak to us, people who send information to us, that out there in our government we do have people who are not happy because we do not have whistleblower legislation. They are asking if you can have it in the House of Assembly, in the statutory offices: Why don't we have it? They want the protection. There are many things they observe that they are not happy about. They are not protected, so they are not going to say anything. The delays are unacceptable. When are we going to get a timeline from this government? I would suggest it is just like the anti-scab legislation when the promise was made during an election time, that that was going to happen. The lip service that they give to some things is one thing but the actions are another, and we are not getting actions.

I am really glad the Official Opposition brought forward this private member's bill today so that the issue can be raised here in the House and we can have an opportunity to point out to people that this government is just dragging its feet with regard to making sure that workers inside of the whole government system are protected. It leads to a spirit of openness, Mr. Speaker. It leads to a spirit also of responsibility. If people know they can identify things that are going wrong and identify those things safely and without having to fear for their jobs, if they can do that, Mr. Speaker, then that leads to a whole culture of a sense of responsibility. Because people are going to say, not only do I think I should report this but I have protection which is telling me that I should report it; that this is my responsibility to report something if I see it going wrong; that I have a responsibility to report it, and I am protected because I have that responsibility.

By not putting in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, this government is continuing to allow the bureaucracy of government to be operating in a spirit of fear and a spirit of hiding, and that is not good. This is a government that says it is open and transparent. Well, it should be open and transparent on every level. One of those levels is how this government governs the bureaucracy inside of the whole government and public system.

On the federal level there is a non-governmental organization called the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform. The acronym is FAIR, which is a very nice acronym; I am sure they liked that, when they came up with it. This group FAIR says that although drafting of whistleblower legislation does take time - and it does, but I would say four years is a lot of time, Mr. Speaker. They point out there are powerful vested interests that favour the status quo.

FAIR calls the history of whistleblower legislation in Canada, they are using my words, one of foot-dragging by politicians and bureaucrats alike and it is not acceptable. It is really good to know there is an organization like FAIR that is studying and researching the issue. Proponents of whistleblower legislation point out that it ensures that public servants are not afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation and it ensures that wrongdoing is quickly revealed. That is the point I was making. Because people are not afraid and because they know they do have a responsibility to speak out, if they see wrongdoing happening, then they are going to speak out.

Chief Justice Green does point out in his report, in the section where he talks about whistle-blowing, that while having whistleblower legislation here in the House of Assembly prior to 2006, while it may not have stopped what was going on, he felt confident in saying there had to be people who were handling things along the line at the time of the spending scandal, who knew there was something wrong and they just did not have the process, or an apparatus, or legislation to allow them to come forward. He does not say it would not have happened, but he does indicate he did believe that whistleblower legislation would have helped if it had been in place. That was one of the reasons why he made the recommendation. It does ensure that people feel free and will come forward, and that things get revealed quickly. That means that something which is not operating well in the system will not go on for years.

The other thing that Chief Justice Green recommended, he recommended that a law to protect public servants or anyone else who speaks up with evidence of financial abuse or other impropriety should happen in the legislative branch. It was extremely important to him, and he said that such legislation might have gotten someone to come forward sooner. It might have, he could not say for sure, but when we had the financial wrongdoing back in 2006 it might have been identified sooner if we would have had it. Certainly, such legislation might have meant that ER-PR testing mistakes in Eastern Health and the ensuing cover-ups, because there were cover-ups, would have come to light earlier as well. Surely to goodness, with the experience we have had here in this Province just with those two incidents alone, the financial wrongdoing and the ER-PR mess; surely with just those two alone we should be one of the Legislatures that are rushing to put whistleblower legislation in place.

Like I said earlier, it is not like it is a new idea. It is not like it has not been done elsewhere in the general governments, like in Nova Scotia, and we already have it here in our House of Assembly. We need it for all sectors, not just in Eastern Health and the House of Assembly. We need it for all workers. All of the workers in our bureaucracy should know that they have this protection and it will lead to good governance and to good order, Mr. Speaker, which is extremely important. We need a law that will stipulate mechanisms and guidelines for both internal disclosure and protection and for external disclosure and protection, because there might be times when internal disclosure will not work; therefore, there has to be protection if a person has to go outside the system to disclose, because that is a possibility. We have to have legislation that allows both for internal and external when the internal does not work.

This government has to start taking this seriously, has to stop the foot-dragging, and has to let us know when they see that this legislation can be put in place. It is not something this government is good at, Mr. Speaker, giving timelines; they are not good. Every time you ask them for a plan they give you a strategy. They never give you a plan that has actual timelines and tells you what their goal is and when they are going to get there, and I would like to see it. They can do it sometimes.

It is interesting today that we had a Ministerial Statement where there was a goal set with regard to buying more fuel-efficient vehicles for government, and they set a bar of 25 per cent. Lo and behold, they actually when up to 46 per cent of the vehicles now in use are fuel-efficient. So, they can do it when they have the will to do it. So the question is: Why don't they have the will to do it in this case?

This is a quote from FAIR, "Speaking up in the workplace about public interest concerns is considered a natural, expected and honourable course of action." We should want people to identify when things are going wrong. We should want people to be able to stand up and say: This has to change. That is what openness and transparency is all about. If this government wants to show some way in which it is open and transparent, then put in a system that will allow the whole of our bureaucracy to be open and transparent because people will be free and will be safe in doing the honourable thing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair is pleased to recognize the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to be able to have a few words on this private member's motion, and to give a little bit of background, Mr. Speaker, and to address some of the ways that we are currently dealing with whistleblowers in other forms of legislation. It is not simply a matter of bringing a specific whistleblower act. It is something that we deal with as a government, and it is something that other governments throughout the country, and the federal government, have also dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, whistleblower protection became, as many people are aware, a prominent topic in corporate governance in the wake of the numerous high-profile corporate fraud scandals a number of years ago. Whistleblower legislation, federally, was brought in, in 2004, in response to the sponsorship scandal, which many people will remember. Then, as a result, provincial legislation protecting whistleblowers came into vogue across Canada. Currently, Mr. Speaker, there is a degree of whistleblower protection in every jurisdiction in Canada, including our own. I am going to go through a couple of examples in a couple of minutes.

Various federal and provincial statutes already contain provisions designed to protect employees who provide information to law enforcement officials. For example, Mr. Speaker, most occupational health and safety legislation protects employees from reprisals resulting from their efforts to enforce statutory health and safety provisions. The Canada Labour Code, as well as this Province's Labour Standards Act, protects employees who give information to inspectors or who testify against their employers.

An example of this, Mr. Speaker, can be found in our Occupational Health and Safety Act which says in section 49, "An employer or union shall not take a discriminatory action against a worker by dismissing him or her or by deducting wages, salary or other benefits, or by taking other discriminatory action against him or her… (b) because the worker has testified or is about to testify in a proceeding or inquiry under this Act or regulations;" or "(c) because the worker has given information to the Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Commission, an officer or another person concerned with the administration of the Act…" Again, Mr. Speaker, the clear intent of this piece of legislation is that if someone gives information or testifies then they should not be subject to reprisals.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we cannot forget here, of course, is human nature. Human nature is such that two things can happen: one is that there is a natural human reaction to figure out exact reprisal for what he or she did unfairly to me; or, secondly, I will get back at him or her for what they did to me. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to be cognizant of that in all aspects of our legislation and our workplace environment.

Mr. Speaker, we deal with people who come into contact with each other on a daily basis. We have people who disagree over issues. What this type of protection is meant to be afforded, I would suggest, is on serious issues, on issues that have, if not a pure motive, then certainly a good motive.

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in this House I refer again, as many of us do, back to our experience or what I refer to as my former life. In my former life, one of the things we dealt with regularly in the criminal justice system was information provided by what we refer to as informants. Mr. Speaker, informants make the police world go round. They are the basis upon which the police will receive intelligence, will receive reasonable grounds to get a warrant, and will provide information to the police which will go into their databanks.

Mr. Speaker, you always have to look at the information that some of these people have provided with a degree of scepticism. You look to corroborate the information that they provide to ensure that innocent people were not subjected to unnecessary prosecution or the stigma of being brought to the criminal justice system. So, Mr. Speaker, on the one hand you have the public good requiring and police investigations requiring reliance upon information which could otherwise be sceptical.

Now, I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that in this case people who come forward as whistleblowers can be put into that category because they are not. We always have to be aware of human nature, of what human nature does to us, and how it affects us as human beings. So what we have tried to build into the legislation, and I will give you an example in a second here now under the Environmental Protection Act, then I am going to talk about the Personal Health Information Act which was recently brought in.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what I will probably do is I will jump, because my time is somewhat limited and this is a matter that I could certainly discuss at length, but let's talk about the newly proclaimed Personal Health Information Act which, I think, was recently proclaimed on April 1. It includes a whistleblower protection. This is a good example, I would suggest, of how a whistleblower protection section should be described and then I will go back to the Province's Environmental Protection Act. "A person shall not dismiss, suspend, discipline, demote, harass or otherwise disadvantage or penalize an individual where (a) the individual, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief…"

So, what we are doing, we are not simply saying that everyone who brings forward information is entitled to the protection of the whistleblower legislation or the whistleblower provision here. The person has to act in good faith. Now, what does acting in good faith mean, Mr. Speaker? Acting in good faith means you proceed on the basis that you are doing what you believe to be right, which is necessary in the circumstances, and which requires, in the public interest, coming forward and on the basis of reasonable belief. It is not enough to say: Well, he told me that someone else told him that she said this. Because now we are into our third or fourth level of hearsay, and I am not saying reasonable belief cannot be based on hearsay, but that belief must be, as the modifier states, reasonable. So, we have acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief.

Mr. Speaker, the person shall not be dismissed, harassed or demoted if he or she, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, provides information to the commissioner under the Personal Health Information Act. In subsection (b), "the individual, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief has done or stated an intention of doing an act that is required to be done…" Mr. Speaker, what we have to understand with whistleblower protection, and whistleblower protection, for example, in this act, is that there is a requirement on the individual who is coming forward to ensure that there is a certain standard met. Mr. Speaker, people's reputations can be at stake. It can be a situation where an allegation can be brought forward, an investigation can pursue, and there is no basis. That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. We have to, as we are bringing in this type of legislation and we are looking at this type of protection, ensure that people feel free and feel that they can come forward and they can be listened to, but there is an obligation imposed on them, Mr. Speaker, to act in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief. That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, you have to like the person or that you dislike the person who you have the information on. What you have to have is that you act in good faith, it has to be something that affects, in this particular case the Personal Health Information Act, and also that you have said to yourself, well, this is the information I have and it is reasonable and I am obligated. Perhaps that is a good way to put it, Mr. Speaker. While there may not be that legal obligation, you feel a moral obligation to come forward. Mr. Speaker, in subsection (c) that is reinforced, "…acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief...".

There is an interesting provision, Mr. Speaker, when we go to the Environmental Protection Act. Under section 97 it states, "(1) An employer shall not (a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee", again, because whistleblower protection is meant to protect the whistleblower. In the Personal Health Information Act, if he or she acts in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, "(1) An employer shall not (a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee; (b) discipline or suspend an employee; (c) impose a penalty upon an employee; or (d) intimidate or coerce an employee, who refuses to carry out an action which is contrary to this Act, or because the employee has reported or proposes to report to a person an act or omission that contravenes, or that the employee has reasonable grounds to believe may contravene…". Again, we are hearing the reasonable grounds. Mr. Speaker, while people are encouraged to come forward, there is an onus upon that individual to ensure that he or she is not acting with an ulterior motive other than a belief in this is the job or the moral obligation imposed upon me by virtue of the job that I do.

What I find interesting, Mr. Speaker, in subsection (2) – and I looked in the Personal Health Information Act – under subsection (2), "A person who intentionally reports or provides false or misleading information under subsection (1) is guilty of an offence." There is a recognition, Mr. Speaker, in this section that there are circumstances where people will act with ill motive, where people will act to exact retribution or revenge. If someone does that, Mr. Speaker – but again the use of the word, intentionally, certainly outlines that you have to act knowingly, willingly or with an intent because that is what the word intentionally means.

Mr. Speaker, we have in the Personal Health Information Act: acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief. In the Environmental Protection Act, Mr. Speaker: a reasonable grounds to believe. While we are encouraging or while these sections in these acts encourage people to come forward, there also, Mr. Speaker, is an onus or an obligation on the individual to ensure that as best he or she can, that they are acting within the confines of the law.

As outlined in section 97(2), Mr. Speaker, if you provide false or misleading information you are guilty of an offence.

Mr. Speaker, while these provincial protections target particular types of offences related to the specific purpose of the legislation they do provide public servants with assurances needed to encourage potential whistleblowers to come forward. These provisions form part of the government's commitment to ensure accountability and ethical conduct.

Mr. Speaker, there is also, under section 425.1 of the Criminal Code, an amendment that I have to say, despite all of my years of working with the Criminal Code, the first time I saw this section or really paid attention to it was today. This is section 425.1: that it provides as criminal offence for an employer to take or threaten an employee with discipline, demotion, dismissal, or to penalize an employee because an employee has reported or plans to report to the appropriate authorities a violation of any federal or provincial/territorial law on the part of his or her employer.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here in the Criminal Code, as I think I was talking about the other day in terms of the difference between the federal head of jurisdiction under section 91, which makes criminal law, and section 92 of the Constitution Act which allows us to make provincial laws, the Criminal Code, or the Parliament of Canada has seen fit to ensure that there is a provision here which says that no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall take measures against an employee with the view or the intent – again, we are into criminal law now so there has to be an intent – to compel the employee to abstain from providing information or with the intent to retaliate against an employee.

Mr. Speaker, while concern over capital market fraud – exemplified by the, I guess the best example I can think of is the Enron case – led to the enactment of this new provision in the Criminal Code, this legislation provides whistleblowers with protection if they disclose any type of criminal activity by their employer.

Mr. Speaker, employers who use employment related intimidation in retaliation against employees now, or against whistleblowers, risk criminal liability. That is an interesting section of the Criminal Code, Mr. Speaker, and one which I am not aware of having been used, but we could very quickly find out – through the various research tools – if it ever has.

Mr. Speaker, section 425.1 is the first provision to apply in a comprehensive manner and to provide for criminal sanctions, which again, are an indication of how serious our parliament, the Federal Parliament of Canada takes this kind of activity.

Mr. Speaker, this is all consistent though. It all comes back to one of our basic principles upon which we exist as a society. That there is an obligation on law abiding members of society to report when something is going wrong, where public safety may be threatened. What was it I was speaking about the other day, Mr. Speaker, where again we talked about the obligation on members of our society to come forward with information?

Mr. Speaker, my point today that I am adding to the points raised by my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Environment that whistleblowers and principles are not new to this government. This government is committed, as we have shown, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years to accountability and good government. What we have to do is ensure that legislation is the best possible legislation and you look at what has taken place in other jurisdictions and you look at, Mr. Speaker, what is taking place in our jurisdiction. My point is that whistleblowers in this Province are not without protection, as I have outlined in examples of the legislation that we have in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, these acts are examples of our commitment in terms of protecting individuals who come forward in good faith and on reasonable belief to report incidents that they feel they have to report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege again to be able to stand in this House to speak to the private member's motion. I would like to just read through the motion again just to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I ask all hon. members for their cooperation.

The hon. member.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was having trouble hearing myself as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just read through the private member's motion again and speak to it for a few moments before it is brought to a conclusion, shortly. It says:

WHEREAS free and open communication is critical to sound public policy, essential to good governance and a cornerstone of an open and democratic society; and

WHEREAS public servants have a higher loyalty to the people of the Province than to the security and convenience of their supervisors or political masters; and

WHEREAS whistleblower protections already exist for the House of Assembly Service and statutory offices but the same protections are denied to public servants within government departments and related agencies such as health and education authorities; and

WHEREAS this government promised to introduce whistleblower legislation almost four years ago;

BE IT RESOLVED that government consider the immediate extension of whistleblower protection to all provincial and municipal public servants in order to ensure their ability to freely disclose information about something they believe to be harmful to the public's interest without fear of workplace retribution or retaliation.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, when he responded to the presentation of the private member's motion as the Leader of the Opposition spoke to it first, said one of the reasons or the main reason that he would not be able to support this motion is that we are calling for the immediate implementation of this particular act. I do not believe that is exactly the intent of this motion, because it says it calls upon government to consider the immediate extension. Considering the immediate extension or the implementation immediately would be two different things I would think, Mr. Speaker. With his background and profession, I would not challenge his interpretation, so to speak, but I would think he would understand what the intent of this motion was.

I have listened to a couple of the members speak from the government side and I was particularly interested as the Minister of Environment talked about many of the great policies and decisions of government but really never did speak to the whistleblower legislation, to the private member's motion here today. We go back and we recognize or we realize that in 2007, as this government went to the electorate of this Province, that in its Blue Book, in its book of promises and good wishes, and so on, in solicitation of the support of this Province, one of the conditions in there, one of the promises to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador was that a Progressive Conservative government, in its second term, would develop whistleblower legislation. You cannot be much clearer than that. It did not say we would look at it. It did not say that we would begin to develop it. It said in the second term of governance it would develop whistleblower legislation.

We know some of the dates and things that have been brought forward here this afternoon by us as an Opposition, and by the Leader of the NDP as well - we heard from our leader when she talked about the incident with two school teachers who were suspended from the Eastern School Board for speaking out at a forum. It was very shortly after that, just the following month, when my hon. colleague, as the critic for Education at that time, called for legislation to protect teachers. We know that in May, 2006, the report by Commissioner Derek Green called for whistleblower legislation as well. Then we see a litany of responses and delays, if you will, by government throughout that whole process.

It is interesting that suddenly this promise, this piece of legislation that was important enough in 2007 to go into the Blue Book of the Progressive Conservative Party as they solicited the votes of the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador, that suddenly it began to be delayed. What is also interesting is when the election was completed in October of 2007, and this Province gave the vote of confidence to the government, and when we get to the Throne Speech in March of 2008, it was important enough again to be a part of that Throne Speech. The Lieutenant Governor reading the Throne Speech on behalf of the Premier at that time, said that my government will introduce whistleblower legislation, not this term, not in the next four years, but it said this year, after appropriate consultation has taken place. Mr. Speaker, that is three years ago.

We listened to a Throne Speech just a couple of weeks ago by the Lieutenant Governor, and it is now three years later, it is three Throne Speeches later, and even the consultations on whistleblower legislation has not begun. So, it is only right this afternoon, here in this House, that we would bring this forward as an Opposition party to question this government, to expose the fact that this was so important that it was put into the Blue Book, it was written into the Speech in 2008, and yet, three years later we are hearing excuses and reasons why this legislation has not begun to move, why it will not begin to move, and why we really have no idea as to where and when we can realistically expect it.

Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of whistleblower legislation, basically, has been defined here this afternoon. We know that it would essentially allow a government employee to notify a senior staff member or someone else about a situation within government, within their workplace; be it without facing disciplinary action, without being scolded or run through the wringer, as we might say, so to speak, with bringing it forward. It is very important that we have that. It is critical in order to allow these employees, for the best interests of people, to be able to come forward with situations they are concerned about in their workplace and so on.

It is interesting that just a couple of months ago when the issue of teacher double-dipping, I believe it was referred to in the media and so on, when that issue came out after the Auditor General's report, the AG's report, that when it was brought into the open, myself, as the Education critic, suddenly every other day when I would go to my office there would be a brown envelope. It would be a concern that would be addressed around this issue in terms of the retiring teachers being hired and so on. I do not want to focus on that, but I want to focus on the issue of the only way that people could bring out what they feel were injustices being done within the system in which they work was by putting a brown envelope on the desk of an Opposition member. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things this legislation is all about, is to change that course of communication, if you will, and it is about being able to allow freedom of speech within the workplace.

One of the areas that I feel best represents freedom of speech being stifled was in the handling of the air ambulance situation when it was moved from St. Anthony to Goose Bay. It is a sore spot, obviously, and always will be because of the reason it was done. It was a political move. In that situation, there was very clear direction which came from that board to staff within the region of the Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health services that they were to say nothing. They were not to talk about it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask why a directive would go out in any department, in any situation that would tell people they are not allowed to talk. What is it they are not allowed to talk about? What is it that the government is frightened they might talk about? Why would you want to stifle people from expressing themselves, from sharing concerns, and from probably bringing information forward that a department, a government, an organization, or whatever the case might be, do not want people to know? It makes you become suspicious, certainly. It is an example again of where whistleblower legislation that allows or gives the freedom of speech – it is an example again of where people are prohibited from doing that because of the absence of whistleblower legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we now are at a point where we are nearly four years down the road from the promise of whistleblower legislation by this government. We are now at a point where we really do not know where that legislation is because there is no commitment anymore. The Minister of Justice, in December, said there would be no legislation in force in 2010. Now we are into 2011, and we are into the spring sitting of the House of Assembly. There does not seem to be any desire or any immediate legislation to come forward on whistle-blowing. We are left wondering exactly where it is that the whistle-blowing legislation is.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment, again, if I could go back to some of the comments that he made when he was speaking, talked about ATIPP and the ability to have access to information through this legislation. He said that it was brought in, in 2005, it was actually brought in, in 2002, but nevertheless, it is there. Mr. Speaker, I can attest this afternoon to you in this House that every time we go after information through ATIPP, if there is any way that it can be delayed, it is delayed. Time and time again – and he mentioned the numbers, the successes, as he put it, in terms of the numbers of pieces of information that were coming out on time. Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that probably the only information that is not coming out on time is the information that the Official Opposition is requesting from this government.

I have seen delays that have been two months, three months, four and five months waiting for a simple response to a piece of information, to a request that has been put in appropriately and so on, and you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and it does not come forward. That, basically, really seems to be the way this government deals with things. I believe that is a part of the reason why we are not seeing this whistleblower legislation because, again, they want to keep things quiet, they want to keep it under the rug, they do not want things exposed, and they do not want a mechanism in place. Basically, the excuse that has come back since 2007 when they promised, as a government, that they would bring that legislation in, is that now we do not want people using it as an opportunity to be vindictive in situations and so on.

The minister, in his closing comment, I found very interesting because he said that you cannot move too quickly. Now, I am not sure what too quickly is, Mr. Speaker, but when you consider that it is four years since the promise was given, and four years later there is no start or development on that project, then I would consider that as not being very quick. As a matter of fact, I would consider it as a quite a delay. As a matter of fact, I would consider that it is something that obviously is not important to this government, does not seem to be on their radar, and that they really have no intentions of bringing forward.

He said also that we have to do due diligence. Well, Mr. Speaker, a part of doing due diligence is to keep the commitments that have been made, to honour the obligations that have been put forward, and I would call on government today, I am pleased to be able to stand at to have spoken on this for a few moments, and I would call on government to honour its commitment, and we look forward to seeing whistleblower legislation in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition. If she speaks now, she will close the debate on the resolution.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleagues in the House of Assembly today for their contribution towards the private member's bill that I presented. Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what the motion was because it was with regard to whistleblower legislation. I understood that some members did not talk a whole lot about whistleblower legislation, but basically that is what the bill is about.

Basically, what we are asking is we are asking government to keep a commitment that they made to the people of the Province in 2007, a commitment that they made when they were out in the middle of an election campaign when they were knocking on doors, similar to what Stephen Harper did a few years ago when he made commitments to the people of the Province. They made a commitment to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that they would bring in whistleblower legislation.

Now, what is whistleblower legislation? What that legislation does, Mr. Speaker, is it allows public servants in this Province: people who work for the taxpayers, people who work in Confederation Building and in office buildings all across this Province, people who work in our schools, people who work in our hospitals, people who work for other government agencies and boards; it allows those people to speak freely and openly about any wrongdoings that they may see within their workplace and to be able to do so without being punished, without being fired, without being sent home or without pay from their jobs and that is exactly what it means.

The very people who work for the public in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who work for people all over communities in this Province, who every day, Mr. Speaker, works hard and pays some of those hard-earned earnings and taxes to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador; those particular people employ public servants. We are asking that these public servants have freedom, that they have the ability to be able to report things that should be investigated, report things that they see going on in their workplaces that may be wrong.

I cited some examples. I cited the example of the faulty hormone testing and what happened in laboratories in this Province. I am not saying that people were aware that this was going on, but if they were aware they would have been able to report it without being punished, without losing their jobs, or without any penalty at all. I talked about other situations like what happened with MHA spending in the House of Assembly, what happened when there were misappropriated allowances of MHAs' funds. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if there was someone who was aware of that, I am not sure if there was, but if there was someone who was aware of it, they could have reported it and they would not have been punished, fired, or lost their job. They would not have had to worry about those kinds of things.

So we are asking, Mr. Speaker, that the same freedom and flexibility be afforded to other civil servants, to other people who work for the taxpayers of this Province and who are paid for by the hard-earned dollars of men and women in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the government opposite committed to do this. They committed to do it in 2007 when they were in an election campaign and they wanted people in the Province to vote for them. They wanted to send a message that we are an open and accountable government, and we are going to allow for those kinds of freedoms, so we will bring in whistleblower legislation at the first available opportunity. Guess what? They still have not done it. They still have not done it.

In 2008, they reiterated the commitment in the Throne Speech to the people of the Province, yet they still have not done it. The reason they have not done it, and they are quoted as saying this, the Leader of the Government was quoted as saying that they were afraid that people would use it to be vindictive toward the government, that people who had a complaint with the government would use it.

Now, how fickle is that? How fickle and how weak, I say, that they are afraid of their own hides, and that is the reason they will not allow for this legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador? They are afraid that someone out in there in the public service might have a problem with the government and they may use it against us. So, we cannot bring that in now. We promised it to you, we made a commitment to you that we were going to do it, but we cannot do that now because we are afraid. We are afraid that someone out there, someone in the Department of Fisheries, someone in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, someone in the Department of Health, someone in the Department of Education, someone in the Department of Labrador Affairs, someone in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, or someone in some of these departments, Mr. Speaker, might have a problem with one of us and they may use it against me. So, I cannot allow for this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I should have never made this commitment as a government because now I am afraid to do it because I am afraid that someone might hold it against me.

I have never heard such a lame excuse for not doing what is the right and honourable thing in all of my life. How can you go out there, look people in the face and look people in the eye in the middle of an election and make a commitment to them, make a commitment right to their face, standing on their doorstep, and then turn your back and not do it because you are afraid that someone might hold it against you?

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is pretty weak. It is pretty weak leadership for a government; it is pretty weak leadership for members who sit in this House of Assembly, that is what I say, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking the government to do today is nothing that they have not committed to. It is absolutely nothing that they have not committed to.

Someone, Mr. Speaker, on the other side stood up today and said: well, you know, whistleblower legislation is not being done in all provinces. Well, you are exactly right. It is not being done in all provinces but it is being done in some provinces, in many provinces. It is being done by the Government of Canada. It has been done by the Government of Canada and a number of provincial governments, but is that a reason not to do it? Is that a reason not to do it? Why can't we lead by example, like we did when we started bringing in things like anti-smoking regulations?

I remember when we first introduced the ban on smoking in bars in this Province. It was not the government opposite; it was a government that I was a part of at the time. Mr. Speaker, we were one of the first in the country to bring in that legislation; one of the first in the country to do it. Thankfully, other governments saw the merit of building and enhancing and broadening those particular pieces of legislation to apply it to other areas. There is nothing that says there has to be conformity in legislation right across the country before we stand up in Newfoundland and Labrador and do it, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing that says that. That is not a reason not to do it.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, I think we should not even look at some of these things. It is nice to see what other jurisdictions are doing. It is nice to learn from other jurisdictions, but the fact that someone in this country is not seeing fit to bring in whistleblower legislation is not a reason for us not to do it. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they are afraid of their own hide, too. Maybe that is why their provinces have not brought it in as well. They are afraid there might be someone out there in the public service who could hold it against them as a government too. So, they are afraid to bring it in as well. Maybe they are sharing the same phobia that the Conservative Government in Newfoundland and Labrador is sharing. Maybe it is a shared phobia in some jurisdictions, I have no idea. What I am saying is that if you make a commitment to the people of the Province you should be able to stand and meet your commitment.

Mr. Speaker, we already know, we are not new in Newfoundland and Labrador to having people break commitments to us. That is nothing new for us. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had more commitments made to them in the last couple of years by a Conservative Government in Ottawa that has broken all of those commitments than you can probably count on one hand. I guess that is why the government today in Newfoundland and Labrador has no problem standing side by side and supporting the Harper Government, because they do not see anything wrong with it. They did exactly the same thing. They went out and made commitments that they did not keep to the people of the Province and we are asking them today to honour your word, honour your commitment. Show the people of the Province that when you looked them in the eye on the doorstep in 2007 and said that you were going to bring this into play in Newfoundland and Labrador, that you will actually do it; that you will actually do it.

That is what we are challenging government members to do today, Mr. Speaker. We are challenging them to make good on their commitment to the people of the Province. Give public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador the ability to disclose information that they feel is important and needs to be investigated, without being penalized, because we know there are penalties that can come.

We saw that when I cited an example earlier of teachers in the Province who spoke out. Teachers who went to a forum that was being held on workload issues that were facing teachers in the Province, and stress issues that were facing teachers. These two teachers who thought, I am sure, they were doing nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong; I am sure they thought they were very innocent in standing there and being honest about the stresses they have and the workload that they were carrying. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The CEO of Eastern Health, who happens to be the Member for Grand Bank today -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eastern School District.

MS JONES: Eastern School District, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the correction.

Mr. Speaker, who used to be the CEO of Eastern School District, who is now the Member for Grand Bank and the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, actually went out and suspended them from their job without pay. Suspended these two teachers, who were so innocent, Mr. Speaker, who were out there trying to express themselves because of the workload they were facing in the classroom and within the education system, and what a heavy, mighty hand that came down; a mighty, heavy hand that sent them home, Mr. Speaker, without their paycheques. It was not bad enough that they went to a workshop on stress. Now, can you imagine how much stress they had when they went home without their paycheque? Because they went to tell people about their stress, Mr. Speaker, they got suspended and lost their paycheques. I have never seen anything like it in my life, Mr. Speaker. I have never seen anything like it in my life.

Those were the actions of the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, is the title the individual holds today. That is the title the individual holds today. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that he will not stand in his place today and support whistleblower legislation in this Province because he thinks if public servants speak out they should be suspended from their jobs without pay. He thinks there is no place for them if they have an issue that they think should be disclosed to the people of the Province. I think that is very unfair, very unfair, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard of other cases. We actually have letters, Mr. Speaker, letters that were sent out, notices or whatever, from health corporations basically saying to people, do not speak out publicly. You are not supposed to address these issues. It is not your place to address these issues. That is the same thing as saying to them, if you work here, you keep your mouth tight. You do not talk about the issues. You stay tight lipped and you do no talk about the issues, Mr. Speaker. That is what they are saying. They are saying that it is someone else's job to speak publicly about these issues, and it is not your job.

We think, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, that we should afford the freedom and flexibility to public servants in this Province. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we made a commitment to these people, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on their doorstep, if we were looking them in the eye and making the commitment to them, we would hold that commitment. We would not let the last three, four years go by and still take no action whatsoever; but, to turn around and give an explanation to the people of the Province that the reason you are not doing it is because you are afraid people may become vindictive toward the government if they have an issue with the government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that members will have a change of heart and think about the commitments that they made to the people of the Province. They do not want to be seen as breaking their trust to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and breaking a commitment to them, so I hope they will stand up today and support the bill that we put forward to implement the legislation on whistleblowers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall the resolution as put forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair declares the motion lost.

On motion, resolution defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day and the business of the House being concluded, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.

This House is now adjourned.