December 4, 2012                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVII   No. 63


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, before we start proceedings, I want to welcome some special guests to our gallery. We have forty-seven members from the Pouch Cove-Flatrock Seniors' Group. They are accompanied by their recreation director, Mathew Cooper, and their bus driver, Johnny Evans. They come from the District of Cape St. Francis.

Welcome to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also in our galleries today we are joined by Linda Ross and Gillian Spurrell of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women; Paula Sheppard of the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs; Karen McCarthy of Cape Consulting; and Andrea Marshall of Aurora Energy

Welcome to our galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of Bonavista North –

MS MICHAEL: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party, rising on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, right now in this House we have probably one of the most important issues that we are dealing with in the history of this Province, and that is the issue of the Muskrat Falls Project.

Yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources said during Question Period that the federal loan guarantee document dealing with Muskrat Falls would be released today, building up the expectation that we would see it in time for discussion in the House today.

We learned at 12:45 p.m. that the members of the Opposition were being invited to a briefing at 2:30 this afternoon, when this House is in session. A briefing that would be interfering with the order of this House by expecting us to attend a briefing that could have been done in consultation with us, and I am shocked that the Minister of Natural Resources would arrange a briefing that would interfere with our being here in the House. So, on this point of order I rise, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the concerns raised by the member opposite, but I do not believe there is any point of order. I think it is more a point that she may want to talk to the minister outside of the procedural wrangling of this House. I see no point of order in what she has raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further comments to the point of order?

I do acknowledge the member's comment and her concern being expressed. Whether or not it is a point of order is the real question, and I would rule that it is not. I would suggest, though, the issue at hand is something the member may want to discuss with the minister involved, but it does not impact the proceedings of the House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members' statements.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise in this hon. House today to speak of a monumental occasion in the life of the school community of Riverwood Academy in Gander Bay North.

Last year, we reported a project that would combine the efforts of the residents of two neighbouring districts. In an effort to raise funds for an outdoor recreational space for their school and community, a Playground Committee was struck – named Funds for Fun – of a group of parents. Under the watchful eye of Principal Tyrone Power and Chair Angela Leyte, they made application to the Let Them Be Kids Foundation and were successful in receiving sponsorship.

In five short months the group raised nearly $100,000 locally, which grew to exceed $150,000 with the foundation's commitment to equipment costs. Over 400 volunteers converged on the school grounds on September 29 to proceed with Build Day – two very proud volunteers were your Members for Lewisporte and Bonavista North.

I know all members join me in recognizing this monumental achievement. The project has realized a Regular Playground, a Tiny Tots area, an outdoor Adult Fitness Area and a Memory Garden. It gives new meaning to a playground fit for everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We will now have members' statements for the District of St John's West; to be followed by the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair; and the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge an event I attended in my district yesterday at the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador office.

As we are all aware, Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Day of Persons with Disabilities and I had the pleasure of attending a presentation held by the Canadian Hard of Hearing Association, in partnership with the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, in recognition of this special day.

The event included a special international guest speaker named Francis Smith, who shared his personal story of overcoming adversity. Mr. Smith was born with a rare craniofacial disorder and lacked both ears. He spoke of how he triumphed through numerous reconstructive surgeries, hearing loss, extensive speech therapy, as well as bullying and discrimination, to become an accomplished musician.

I understand Mr. Smith will be making his presentation again later today, and if anyone has the opportunity to attend they should do so. To say that it is motivating and inspirational is an understatement.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in commending Mr. Smith as well as those who organized this event to celebrate International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the Pouch Cove Lions Club on their thirtieth Anniversary Charter Night.

Mr. Speaker, my very good friend and former colleague Harry Harding was the guest speaker. What an inspirational speech he gave.

Mr. Speaker, over the past thirty years the Pouch Cove Lions Club has raised funds in many ways; bake sales, Christmas raffles, flea markets, a booth at the Regatta, as well as bingos. They have this year alone donated $30,000 and gave 5,480 volunteer hours of service.

Mr. Speaker, since 1982 the Pouch Cove Lions Club has touched lives with so many donations and services to hospitals, seniors, youth and numerous others in our area.

Mr. Speaker, there are two members who have been there since day one, Mr. Ken Hudson and Mr. Herb Hudson. Herb was named Lion of the year this year.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in congratulating the Pouch Cove Lions Club for their service and dedication to their community and the surrounding area.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House to recognize and congratulate seventeen well-deserving recipients from Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair district who have been presented with the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. Each of these individuals has earned this recognition through volunteer contributions in their community, their region and the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege to attend ceremonies in Port Hope Simpson and L'Anse au Loup where many recipients were honoured. I congratulate and acknowledge Calvin Poole of St. Lewis, Benjamin Powell of Charlottetown, Judy Pardy of Cartwright, Margaret Burden of Port Hope Simpson, Harrison Campbell of Pinsent's Arm, Claude Rumbolt of Mary's Harbour, Robert Hancock and Reginald Hancock of Forteau, Wilfred Letto of L'Anse au Clair, Sylvia Buckle of Pinware, Elfrieda Normore and Emanuel Barney of L'Anse au Loup, Marie Marshall and Agnes Pike of West St. Modeste, Stanley Pike Sr. of Red Bay, and Walter Bolger of Capstan Island on being recognized for their hard work and dedication.

I also had the pleasure of presenting the Queen's Diamond Jubilee to Mr. Frank Flynn of Forteau, at the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company biannual convention last week in recognition of his thirty-four years of service as a board member of that company.

I would also like to pay tribute to each of these constituents who are so well deserving of this recognition and to thank them for their commitment and contribution to the people of my district and the people of Labrador.

I ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly today to join me in extending our congratulations to these seventeen individuals from the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair on receiving the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Howley United Church on their eighty-fifth anniversary. I recently had the opportunity to attend the celebratory service to commemorate this significant milestone.

Mr. Speaker, the United Church was built in 1927, and was the first church to be erected in the community. This building has withstood the test of time and has become a true gathering place for the community.

Given the small population, the United Church alternates services throughout the year with the Anglican congregation in the community, and on several occasions, all religions and denominations in Howley have come together to share special services that are always well attended.

At this time, I would also like to recognize the contributions of Marjorie Martin. For fifty-five years she has served as the organist of the Howley United Church. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the current and the past clergy of the United Church and its loyal congregation on their eighty-fifth anniversary celebrations and the tremendous work that they do.

I ask all members in this House to join me in honour of their special anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to share with you all an exciting and unique event coming up for women in our Province. Today, our hon. Premier announced Ovations: Applauding Accomplishments of Women in Our Communities to be held on January 17, 2013.

This event is an initiative of the Women's Policy Office, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs and representatives from business and community.

Ovations will bring together women of all backgrounds to celebrate achievements, recognize the triumphs of those who came before us, and focus on the future.

The event will begin with an afternoon forum, featuring keynote speaker Zoe Yujnovich, President and CEO of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and a panel of Newfoundland and Labrador women who will share their insights and experiences. The panellists will be: Anne Whelan of BrenKir Industrial; Nora Duke of Fortis; Hilda Broomfield-Letemplier of Pressure Pipe Steel Fabrication; Maisie Clark, Mayor of Campbellton; Susan Knight, Chancellor of Memorial University; Jackie Thompson of Status of Women Central; and Jillian Peddle, the 2012 Canadian Red Cross Young Humanitarian for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The highlight of the event is sure to be the evening celebration hosted by actress Krystin Pellerin from the television series Republic of Doyle. It will include a keynote address from the Premier as well as a series of entertaining and inspiring performances.

Mr. Speaker, for generations, women in Newfoundland and Labrador have played an instrumental role in shaping the history, culture, and economy of the Province. Ovations are a great opportunity to applaud the remarkable accomplishments of women who make a difference each and every day at home, at work, and in our communities.

Finally, I would like to thank the Ovations organizing committee, many of whom are here today, for all of their hard work to date, including chair Linda Ross, President and CEO of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

I encourage you all to visit OvationsNL.ca for more information. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, bringing women together to share in their struggles and their successes are positive opportunities for reflection and also for moving forward. We have many women in this Province who set tremendous examples and continue to raise the bar for all who come behind, enabling them to move even further forward.

Mr. Speaker, just look around our own House of Assembly where we have a female who is a Premier of our Province for the first time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We have a Leader of the Third Party, who is a woman in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and doing a remarkable job in advocating for people. For the first time, we have a female Clerk of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We do not have to look too far, Mr. Speaker, to see great examples of what women are doing today, not just in political society but in all aspects of our society. I look at remarkable women throughout this Province and things they have accomplished. I look in my own area of Labrador where I see people like Sarah Leo, who is now leading the Nunatsiavut Government; people like Karen Oldford, who leads one of the most industrial towns in this Province, in Labrador City; and people like Agnes Pike who, for fifty years, has been a municipal leader, an advocate for minorities, and served on boards both nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that not too long ago women's place was in the home, we could not vote, and we were not entitled to marital property despite our greatest efforts, women today have entered the public realm with force, establishing themselves as leaders on all fronts, both locally and globally.

I want to congratulate and recognize all of those women who will participate in the panel, and all of those women out there in our Province, from CEOs to paralympians – women, Mr. Speaker, from political backgrounds, to advocacy. They are all making a valuable contribution.

Let us not all forget the women who raise families, who work double days, who make tremendous strides in their own lives and in others', because their contributions too are remarkable in our Province and in society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. We can never celebrate too much the accomplishments of women in this Province, and I congratulate the organizing committee.

As we all know, rights and advancements are not given but hard won, and I applaud the feminist social activists who have worked so hard to bring us to this point. As more and more women move into leadership positions, it is our hope that they continue to bring their experience, wisdom, and compassion, and continue to work for the advancement of women in all sectors of our society.

Women still disproportionately live in poverty, particularly single mothers and seniors, and the lack of a publicly funded and administered child care program creates a huge barrier to women's full participation in the workforce. I invite everyone to look around this House where important decisions are made and see that women still occupy a mere 17 per cent of the seats. This must change if women are to attain full equality.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to recognize National Safe Driving Week, which officially began this past Saturday, December 1.

National Safe Driving Week provides a week-long opportunity to raise awareness of potential road hazards and cultivate safer, more defensive driving habits for all Canadians. We are gradually improving our road safety statistics and through our continued effort we can save even more lives in this Province and across the country.

Mr. Speaker, Service NL is constantly reviewing the Highway Traffic Act for opportunities to enhance road safety for everyone who uses our roads. This is done through improving and modernizing the legislation as well as educating drivers. We strive to ensure that our law enforcement officers have access to the best tools available to support the public in safe driving: to work, to school, or even to the cabin for the weekend.

Today, I am pleased to share some more positive news. The number of deaths on Canadian roadways is declining with an average of one less death per day recorded in 2012. This is a good start, but we must continue to put forth our best efforts to increase awareness of driving hazards and, in particular, the dangers of impaired driving due to drugs and alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, it is through a concerted effort that we are seeing these results. Through increased enforcement, the introduction of new highway safety policies, the building of safer vehicles, and an increase in road safety awareness, jurisdictions across the country are changing driver behaviours behind the wheel.

As the busy holiday season approaches, I urge all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to take care as we venture out on the roadways, especially during snowy conditions. Please take extra time to avoid rushing your drive to work, beware of collision hazards, and never drive when fatigued or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The holiday season provides the perfect time to get together with those we love most. It also serves as a reminder of how much we have to lose if we are careless behind the wheel.

Mr. Speaker, National Safe Driving Week is from December 1 to 7, and it is a great opportunity for us to further improve road safety results. As we move forward into 2013, I urge all hon. members to join me in promoting road safety awareness in our Province, and to encourage all their constituents to slow down, buckle up, and watch the road ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for advance notice of his statement. It is good to hear that road accidents are down across the country, Mr. Speaker.

I think that this is an ideal time for Safe Driving Week for two big important reasons. First, this is our first experience again this year with snow conditions. Safe Driving Week would make us better aware of road conditions, and we experienced that in the capital city last week.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we are heading into the Christmas season and we are hopeful that there will be fewer accidents around Christmas. We all do know people who have lost loved ones at this time of the year due to road accidents.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good time to mention that the government has a commitment, and twenty-four hour snow clearing is very much needed in some areas of our Province. In areas like the Port aux Basques region, Mr. Speaker, and the Stephenville section of the Trans-Canada Highway where again today the Jaws of Life had to be put into action.

I think every week should be Safe Driving Week. I think it should also be extended to all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. Just today again, Mr. Speaker, we have seen another fatality on the Port au Port Peninsula. It is not good when we hear of these accidents and these fatalities, Mr. Speaker.

I commend the minister on his statement and certainly look forward to a lot less driving accidents on our roads.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. I would also like to say a thank you to those people who have been using the tools necessary to get impaired drivers and traffic offenders off our roads through the use of the 911 system. Hopefully that will continue with the expansion of 911 throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, if someone is going to drink and drive they should know the implications of that by now, surely. Taxis are a lot cheaper than the costs that can occur due to drunk driving. We have a veritable industry out there willing to help people home from partying.

Thank you as well to the workers on our highways who are taking that time to remove impaired drivers from our roads. That itself can be a dangerous job at times. Hopefully government will soon be acting on move-over laws to ensure better protection for you in the execution of your duties. We all wish everybody this season and every day a safe drive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources told the media that the Premier was going to walk away from the Muskrat Falls federal loan guarantee if it was contingent on the Maritime Link. The Premier did not walk away and instead signed a term sheet with Stephen Harper that is completely contingent on Emera's involvement.

I ask the Premier: Why did you cave in and allow Emera to be in the driver's seat?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday in this Province we saw the culmination of two years of hard work that brought home $1 billion to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Particularly to ratepayers, Mr. Speaker. There was no caving in. From the beginning, this government has been vigilant in protecting the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We did not falter before and we certainly did not falter last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier that we do not have the $1 billion value yet, and it will be contingent on Emera there and that is quite obvious. The Minister of Natural Resources has also said the Premier was firm that the loan guarantee should be available to Nalcor within the next few weeks. The Premier was not firm, because she signed a deal that will not see the federal loan guarantee kick in until at least September 2013.

I ask the Premier: How can you claim you stood firm when it was obvious that the two things that you wanted in the deal are just not there? What boondoggle are you backing this Province into?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, after two years as well it gets very tiresome in this House to have misinformation put forward by the Opposition Parties as fact. It is incumbent on them to try to understand, at the very least, what it is they are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, the federal loan guarantee works for Newfoundland and Labrador, it works for Nova Scotia, and it works for all of Canada, which is why we have the backing of the federal government.

The loan guarantee will be available to Newfoundland and Labrador when it needs it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I remind the Premier: We need it right away. You wanted it from the beginning and you asked for it from the beginning, and you did not get it.

Mr. Speaker, because of the failures of this Premier the people of the Province are forced to pony up $2 billion for the Muskrat Falls Project that is not covered by this loan guarantee. This is money that could be spent on other infrastructure projects.

I ask the Premier: Will you now have to borrow for other infrastructure projects, like the Corner Brook hospital, and at what rate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that has changed in the last week is that we have a binding agreement between ourselves, the federal government, and Nova Scotia that will bring a value of over $1 billion to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Signed, sealed, and delivered, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, it was always anticipated that we would borrow a significant amount of money to build Muskrat Falls. It has always been anticipated that we would make an equity investment, Mr. Speaker. Before we start spending inordinate amounts of money, we will negotiate our interest rate with the banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I remind the Premier, again, that from all reports, you spent almost $300 million already. Yesterday it was very clear in this House and it was very clear on the weekend that Nalcor has already said that we would use the cash reserves of the $2 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday that government cannot sanction this deal without a sanctioning decision by Emera on the Maritime Link. The minister further said that Emera will be sanctioning soon.

I ask the Premier: How can the minister talk sanction when Emera's Maritime Link project is still under regulatory review by the PUB and will possibly conclude not until 2014?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a significant difference between a regulatory review of rates and sanction, and you need to understand that. Every scenario has been anticipated in the negotiation of the federal loan guarantee, and remedies have been arrived at and agreed to by all parties for those different scenarios, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador will go to banks upon sanction, they will negotiate their interest rate, Mr. Speaker, and that will be available to them when they need to draw those funds down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier to be very clear: Has Emera and the Nova Scotia government committed to this Province that they will sanction this deal without regulatory review and regardless that we can count on Emera to participate in this deal, regardless of the outcome of the PUB in Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when Newfoundland and Labrador – Nalcor specifically, with the approval of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – sanctions this project, the loan guarantee will be available to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Once again, I ask the Premier: Will you sanction this deal without knowing Emera has sanctioned the deal in Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, every action we have taken in the preparation of this project has been in the best interest of the people of the Province. The fundamental question was: Do we need the power, and if we need the power, what is the least-cost alternative? The answer to both of those questions, not only by Nalcor and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but a notable list of experts in Canada and around the world who have said yes.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken every measure to minimize risk. Mr. Speaker, we taken every measure to find support for the project, particularly financial support from the federal government. We have it, Mr. Speaker. We are protecting the interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, it was not clear yesterday, it is not clear today. The question is very simple.

I ask the Premier: Will you sanction this deal without knowing if Emera has sanctioned the deal in Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a sanction decision will be made before the end of this year. The term sheet will be available to the people of the Province this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. As more information becomes available, especially when we make this sanction decision, everybody – and the Opposition parties in spite of themselves – will have to acknowledge that the loan guarantee is available to the people of the Province when it is required, Mr. Speaker, and that Muskrat Falls is the best thing to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador in a very long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, maybe three times lucky. The answer is very clear: yes or no.

Will you sanction this deal without the approval of the regulatory review and without Emera sanctioning the deal in Nova Scotia? Will you go ahead and sanction it without that commitment from Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition really needs to disabuse himself of the notion that sanction is dependent on a regulatory review of rates, which we know is not going to take place until the spring. Mr. Speaker, I have already said that a sanction decision in this Province is imminent, it will be made before the end of the year, and that the loan guarantee will be available to the people of this Province when it is required by Nalcor, serving all of the interests and all of the fiscal arrangements that have been made public intact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I can remind the Premier right now, I am very clear on what Emera has to go through in Nova Scotia. It is not just about rates. It is about the cost of the Maritime Link as well.

Mr. Speaker, an Order in Council from the Province of Nova Scotia dated October 4, 2012 makes it absolutely clear that the Maritime Link is contingent on regulatory approval. Sections 4 and 5 of the Maritime Link Cost Recovery Process Regulations specifically state that the regulatory approval is required by Emera to recover the cost.

I ask the minister, or the Premier: How can you say that Emera does not need regulatory approval for the Maritime Link when they clearly do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated yesterday, and as will be outlined in the federal loan guarantee, Mr. Speaker, what we will see is that the definition of sanction is simply that Emera and Nalcor, the proponents, have to make a determination of whether or not to proceed with the project. Sanction is not related to regulatory approval.

For the Leader of the Opposition, I would also point out that the word must is used in the Nova Scotia regulations or legislation, so that they must approve if it is the lowest-cost project. I think there are three options that they look at, being Quebec power, wind, and the Maritime Link.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, government through Nalcor has a 4.9 per cent equity stake in the Hebron Project, which means you are responsible for 4.9 per cent of the capital costs.

I ask the Premier: How much money have we put into this project to date?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not certain off the top of my head how much money we have put in. The 4.9 per cent equity stake is certainly one that will reap large rewards for this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Hebron is a great project, things are moving as we are hoping they will move, and we are all hoping that there will be first oil in 2017. However, I can find out that number for the member opposite and probably even have it to him before Question Period finishes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the mayor of St. John's is continuing his efforts – as are many others in this Province – to have the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre reopened after the Quebec centre was given a reprieve of one year.

I ask the Premier: Why has your government abandoned the efforts to have this sub-centre reopened in St. John's?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, this government is always advocating for advancements in regard to search and rescue in this Province. We have continual dialogue with our federal counterparts, being JRCC in Halifax or wherever it is.

Search and rescue is a priority of this Province and the safety of our citizens a priority of this Province. We will continue to advocate for better services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The CBC report on marine medical calls being routed to Rome is distressing and shows a total lack of respect for those who make their living from the sea.

I ask the Premier today: What assurances do you have since the closure of the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre that the safety of the fisher people of this Province is secure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and as a matter of fact, the question actually highlights the fast action of this government and our interaction with the federal counterparts in regard to the rerouting of calls to Rome. As a matter of fact, that happened sometime last spring, I remember, and I was up in this House and addressed the issue. That issue was reversed within twenty-four hours; a long-term contract was put in place with PRAXES out of Halifax to receive the calls, and now Canadian doctors take all those calls. That is some of the fast action.

The other thing that I might want to say as well is that the Minister of Fisheries is currently in Ottawa meeting with his counterpart, and one of the subject matters that he will talk about today is marine search and rescue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we are currently working on behalf of an individual who has been waiting months to have his case heard by the workers' compensation review board. Meanwhile, your own legislation states that these reviews are supposed to be done within sixty days.

I ask the minister: Why is the review board not meeting its legislative requirements?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The review board just finished its consultations, we are in the process now of appointing more people to the board, and we will get into that in very fast order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: I would say to the minister that the previous minister already appointed new people, and yet the number of decisions continues to go down. Last year you added new commissioners, you added new staff to the board, but it still takes up to eight months to get a case heard. The board only made 179 decisions last year, the lowest number since 2006.

So, I ask the minister: With added staff, why are we still seeing a drop in the number of decisions made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, cases are becoming more and more complicated every day and we are in no rush to make fast decisions. We do have the extra staff in place, we are looking at making revisions to the Commission, and as I said, we are taking it case by case and doing it right, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of IBRD. Minister, we know your department controls hundreds of millions of dollars through the Immigrant Investor Fund, funds which were to be used for economic development initiatives. You also said last week you have more than a $3 million surplus from investments to date.

So, I ask: is government prepared to commit a portion of that surplus to Regional Economic Development Boards in rural areas of this Province so those boards can continue to exist and do the valuable work that they do on behalf of rural communities in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a suite of programs; we work with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is rural broadband or RSDF – a range of programs, significant investments in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We made a call some time ago; the federal government stepped in and said they were not going to do core funding. We said right away we would not be able to cover that off. We have been engaged with the REDBs and the volunteers. Just last week we had a conference call with the Corner Brook region and their volunteers, they have moved on.

We are looking at now how we cover off any gaps or any shortfalls, and capacity on the ground. I was in St. Anthony. I worked with and talked to people up there, volunteers as well. We are moving ahead. We have great capacity on the ground but we are willing to work with municipalities, Chambers of Commerce to make sure any shortfall is picked up, and continue the good work we are doing in rural areas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, for a quick question.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Many of these boards are doing great work in rural communities. There are economic development funds in the minister's office that are not being spent and not being committed. Show your commitment to rural communities, Mr. Speaker, and allocate this funding so these boards can continue to do their valuable work.

Minister, will you support them or not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, this government came in, in 2003, with a couple of million dollars in terms of economic development. We are supporting. So thank you for recognizing. We are supporting. We are doing work we need to do in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: In all regions, $7.1 million in the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program to up skill, in Newfoundland and Labrador, employers and their employees; $42 million in RSDF that has leveraged another $200 million, 80 per cent of that is spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are working with rural Newfoundland and Labrador and our volunteers. We will continue to do it and we will continue to have success.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, the media received a briefing on the Muskrat Falls loan guarantee term sheet at 1:00 p.m. today. The one for members of the Opposition is not being offered until 2:30 p.m. when the House is in session. Such conduct is outrageous. This government obviously did not want the Opposition to come in here today prepared for Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why is she continuing to play games with the Opposition around the discussion of the Muskrat Falls Project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commitment I made yesterday was that we would release the loan guarantee today, Mr. Speaker. I indicated at that point that we had to consult with the other two governments involved, the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.

We did not receive the final document that we needed, Mr. Speaker, from Nova Scotia until 11:45 today. We then offered briefings to the media and the Opposition. To the credit of Liberal Opposition Leader, he is not complaining about that. He asked his questions. We offered the Opposition a briefing at 2:30. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, that briefing is before we even have the opportunity to brief our own members on the federal loan guarantee.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing what we can to accommodate the Opposition, but, unfortunately, with the Third Party it seems we also have to do their work for them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 slammed the door shut on information government does not want people to know. When Muskrat Falls begins to go over budget, no one outside of Nalcor and government will know. We will be relying on a government who ignored independent reports and avoided sending the PUB the information they needed to keep us updated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she promise this House bimonthly updates, including cash flow information, information on costs, and reports on construction deadlines for the duration of the project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you will see there is a Tweet from a media person earlier that the federal loan guarantee has been released totally ‘unredacted' so that the full guarantee is out there. We have been open and transparent in relation to –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, that is right. It is redacted or ‘unredacted'.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we have been open and transparent. We have released all the numbers in relation to this project, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to release the numbers because the cost overruns are obviously a question of concern to the people of this Province. We will ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to provide information – and I will have to look up the word and see which one is the right one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising their Muskrat Falls Project and still 77 per cent of people polled said they had a fair to poor understanding of the project.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she take her private member's motion off the table and replace it with a government motion so we can have a real and full debate on the project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, a significant part of that 77 per cent is over on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, despite our best efforts to provide information.

It is important that the people of the Province be engaged in this project, Mr. Speaker, that they ask questions about the project. This is a significant expenditure in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we have provided volumes of information on Web sites, in flyers. We have tabled information here in the House, but given the spin that we are seeing here today on the loan guarantee, Mr Speaker, I am not at all surprised that people are somewhat confused with the information coming out of the House of Assembly. It is not condescension, Mr. Speaker; it is an obligation to get the facts right. You can agree or disagree, but you should get your facts right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

We all know Nalcor has begun the Muskrat Falls Project, even though government has not formally sanctioned it. Mr. Speaker, it has been full steam ahead for some time.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Has Nalcor purchased or negotiated to purchase material, infrastructure, and/or equipment pertaining to the construction of work camps from Manitoba Hydro which will be used in the construction of similar camps for the Muskrat Falls Project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there were temporary accommodations purchased from Manitoba Hydro International. The major accommodations will be built in the spring, if the project is sanctioned, for accommodating approximately 2,000 people. The temporary camp will hold up to 250 workers, Mr. Speaker. This temporary camp can also be moved to other sites, if necessary. It is something that was required now in order to prepare if the decision on sanction was positive.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, based on everything I see today and based on the federal loan guarantee, there is no reason to think the sanction decision will be anything but positive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting the Minister of Natural Resources table the document he just quoted from.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The MHI, page 71, third paragraph, states that Nalcor will sell power to NL Hydro under a take-or-pay arrangement. We are supposed to get 40 per cent of that power. That means consumers could end up with having to pay for the power if they do not use it. That is my interpretation.

Question: Nalcor is selling this for a fifty-year arrangement; will the minister make public the details of the take-or-pay arrangement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I totally understand the question, but I think what it relates to is the issue of whether or not we are going to use the 40 per cent of the power. Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that by 2017 and 2019 there will increased peak demand for approximately 200 megawatts of power that we have to find somewhere. Mr. Speaker, again, as the Premier said earlier: Do we need the power? Yes.

Mr. Speaker, the question then becomes: What are we going to do about it? If we are going to need power, we either have to build Muskrat Falls or close Holyrood. We are going to close Holyrood, Mr. Speaker, which means, right away, we are going to use power. The 40 per cent of the power will certainly be utilized on the Island portion of the Province. There will be power purchase agreements in place, Mr. Speaker, and those power purchase agreements are standard, I understand, in the way these matters are dealt with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Natural Resources Minister cannot answer the question. I will ask the question again in a different way.

Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers and ratepayers are at risk with the Muskrat Falls deal under the take-or-pay arrangement. If we sign on to a fifty-year take-or-pay arrangement for the selling of the power, what happens if we do not meet the demand forecast for the power, for the people who are going to be buying this 40 per cent? Will the ratepayer and taxpayer be left on the hook for paying the difference that could amount to millions? It is a simple question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of basic points; one, we are going to need power as a Province no matter what; two, we are going to be paying electricity bills no matter what; three, if we continue to burn oil at Holyrood, we are going to pay a lot of money to offshore oil companies.

Mr. Speaker, the doom and gloom that comes from Eeyore and the group over there is not what we see over here. We see a Province that is going to bustle, that is going to grow, that is going to provide a future for our children and grandchildren. That is the difference between us and them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has the fastest-growing aging population in the country. In the age-friendly survey our seniors said housing is a key issue for them. Housing costs here are the fastest rising in the country, with historic high rental and low vacancy rates. Most seniors after a lifetime of work are subsisting on income levels below minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Will this government, with this growing housing problem, establish a specialized seniors' rental assistance program similar to what the Government of BC has done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel like I require the need once again to be repeating myself because the hon. member opposite is asking about some of the great and wonderful programs that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today to deal with issues surrounding homelessness and those people who need assistance and support most in this Province. That is where our focus is.

We have a great focus on seniors in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Some of the programs we do to assist seniors are programs like the Provincial Home Repair Program, where this year we invested $6.7 million. It helped 1,750 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it helped 1,750 homeowners in just this year. The Residential Energy Efficiency Program is another program that we use. We have expanded rent supplements now to the betterment and the benefit of more people than ever before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They do not seem to be working at all. Last spring the Health Council of Canada reported that 93 per cent of seniors want to stay in their homes, yet an increasing number are not receiving the hours of home care that they need to do so. In public consultations for government's long-term care and community support services strategy, people clearly said the cap on subsidized home care hours might save government money but it does not help seniors, yet the strategy has no concrete plan to increase home care.

I ask the minister: Will this government commit to allocate more funds in its next Budget to the regional health authorities to raise the cap on home care hours?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently serving a population of about 7,700 seniors within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and persons with disabilities to the tune of about $161 million a year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in terms of home support, we are always looking to augment that program. That is why we have a whole suite of programs within home support. We have looked at rapid response from hospitals, for example, as a means of ensuring that seniors can go home with the support that they need there. We are looking at something that is phenomenally different than anywhere in this country, which will be paid family care, Mr. Speaker, another means of supporting people who otherwise would be looking for home support.

Mr. Speaker, we have a suite of programs. We continue to evaluate them, to analyze them, and to find –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to raise a point of order that occurred during Question Period. It is with regard to the Tabling of Documents in this House. Yesterday we saw the Minister of Natural Resources reading from a document in the House; again today in Question Period we saw the same. According to O'Brien and Bosc, it says that any documented quoted by a minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled upon request. Indeed, a minister is not at liberty to read a quote from a despatch, an official written message on government affairs, or other state paper, without being prepared to table it, if this can be done without prejudice to the public interest.

As per O'Brien and Bosc, it is noted that in a previous ruling, Mr. Speaker, an hon. member is not entitled to read from communications unless they are prepared to place them on the Table of the House. The principle upon which this is based is that where information is given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the hon. member who may quote the document.

In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling and I ask the minister to table the document that he read from again today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to the point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking at a document entitled Key Messages, Temporary Accommodations, December 3, 2012. My understanding of the question was in relation to temporary accommodations. This is the document I have here, Mr. Speaker. I took the document out when I was asked the question. I in fact made a mistake. I referred to Manitoba Hydro International. It is Manitoba Hydro from whom the camp was purchased.

Mr. Speaker, you can take the document. I did not read from it. You can look at it yourself. What you will see is I looked at it. I looked down for notes to see and to make sure I had my numbers. I referred to 250 temporary workers like that and then I referred to 2,000.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we are allowed to use notes in the House to refresh memory and to help assist us in answering questions. Mr. Speaker, you can take this document. I really do not care if it is given to them or not. That is not the point. The issue is that there needs to be a ruling as to whether or not what I said in Hansard is a direct quote from this document.

There is the document that is headed Key Messages, Temporary Accommodations. You can look at it, Mr. Speaker, and make a ruling yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As has been pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, the directions around the quoting from documents are quite clear in O'Brien and Bosc. I leave it to you to make rulings on that.

We know that the practice is very clear across this country, too, in Legislatures. I have actually seen it when I have watched some of the other Legislatures. When a document is quoted from, it is immediately passed over and it is recognized that it should be passed over.

It was very clear in the answer to me today that the minister referred to a document very directly. He was not just refreshing his memory. He had a document and referred from that document.

With that evidence, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – I really do ask you for a ruling on this point of order with regard to the use of documents by ministers.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader to the point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, just to be clear, at no point in time has the minister refused to table the document as has been insinuated in the last comments. Secondly, directly to the point of order, the question from our perspective is very clear, as the minister stated. It is a question of interpretation. First of all, I have the document here and we are prepared to table it, but since we are on a point of order, we are not simply requesting a tabling of a document. We are debating a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it.

I will stick my comments on that line of thinking, that Bosc is also very clear as I read it on the kinds of documents you can ask a member to table in this House. I would just ask the Speaker in doing the ruling if you would give consideration. I reference 473 as one page by way of quickly looking, Mr. Speaker. There is a very clear difference between the types of documents a minister can be asked to table in this House. It is clear that speaking notes may not necessarily be one of those documents.

I would just ask the Speaker, in his consideration of a ruling on this, if you would take a moment and refer to the types of documents because – again, to be very clear, this is not about whether the minister is prepared to table a document or not. We are actually debating a point of order on what ought to be tabled in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has heard the point of order raised by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair and the comments with respect to the point of order. It is obvious the issue of what reference means is critical to the commentary with respect to the point of order.

Before I make a ruling, I want to review Hansard to ensure how the reference was made in the comment today. I remind members the word reference, in terms of whether or not there is an obligation, is whether or not the document was referred to either as citing from it or referencing it by name; however, referencing something as speaking notes a person may have and may glance on them as a reference to help frame comments is a very different use of the word reference.

The Speaker, before I make a ruling formally, I would want to review Hansard to see how the minister made his comments today and on tomorrow I will provide a commentary to the House.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I stand today on the family caregivers petition that I received from people from the Bay of Islands.

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

WHEREAS home care allows the elderly and people with disabilities to remain within the comfort and security of their own homes, home care also allows people to be discharged from hospital earlier; and

WHEREAS many people find it difficult to recruit and retain home care workers for their loved ones; and

WHEREAS the PC Blue Book 2011 as well as the 2012 Speech from the Throne committed that government would develop a new model of home care and give people the options of receiving that care from family members; and

WHEREAS government has given no time commitment for when government plans to implement paying family caregivers;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement a new home care model to cover family caregivers in the 2012-2013 Budget.

And in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again. I heard the minister again talking about the amount of money that is put into home care, but I remind the minister, Mr. Speaker, that this was a commitment made by the Premier during the last election, which is over a year ago. There was a commitment made that family will be able to take care of their loved ones in their homes. This was a commitment that was made during the election. This was a commitment that all people in Newfoundland and Labrador are expecting the government to honour.

We always hear about the most vulnerable people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, some can argue there are no more vulnerable people in Newfoundland and Labrador than a loved one who is at home and needs proper care, especially in rural Newfoundland and Labrador where people cannot find home caregivers. They just cannot find them. They are not available. The only way some people can take care of their loved ones is to find some way to go on social assistance or mortgage their house, Mr. Speaker. It is not fair in this society.

I know the minister mentioned today we are waiting for something new. Six months ago it was committed that it is coming very, very soon –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - yet, we are still waiting. While we are still waiting, I can assure every member in this House and every person in this Province who is waiting for this to be put in place, Mr. Speaker, that it is trying times for a lot of people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to follow through on your commitment, help the most vulnerable people in this Province and come through with your commitment and come through with a family caregiver program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I petition the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly showeth:

WHEREAS the residents of the Community Fox Roost – Margaree, of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, must use Route 470-10 on a regular basis for work, medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS Route 470-10 is in deplorable condition, such that the shoulders of the road continuously wash away and there are huge potholes in the road; and

WHEREAS the condition of Route 470-10 poses a safety hazard to residents and visitors to the Community of Fox Roost – Margaree; and

WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Works is responsible for the maintenance and repairs in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the local division of the Department of Transportation and Works does make periodic repairs to this route but these repairs are only temporary patchwork and this road needs to be resurfaced;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the users of Route 470-10 in their request to have Route 470-10 resurfaced.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a section of the roadway, I guess, similar to many sections of the roadway in this Province in that they are not in great shape, but this particular one is one that my constituents have made special note to me. Having been down there on numerous occasions, I can concur with them that the road is in a deplorable state.

It is no matter where I go in the area, I hear from people. I hear from taxi drivers who have to drive down there late at night and are worried about their safety. I have to hear from delivery trucks that are going back and forth and have to travel over this road, the road which is so bad that in certain cases there is only enough for one vehicle to go. You do not have two lanes; you have one lane which you have to go.

The fact is that this is one of the few areas in my district that I believe may have seen an increase in population. It is a growing area. It is a Local Service District, but there are people moving there, there are people building. They deserve to have the proper infrastructure and that means having the road resurfaced.

I believe it has been decades since that has been done, so I am asking this House to consider it in the next round of repairs. I know it might be difficult given the looming deficit that hangs over us, and promises to take away the money that is going to get any infrastructure done in this Province, but I feel it is incumbent. The department is aware of it; they have been out and been with me to drive down this road. I ask the House to please consider this and urge to have this desperate piece of work done as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I acknowledge the Leader of the Third Party, I would ask members if they would respect the fact that when the Speaker acknowledges someone who has the floor, if they would keep their conversations down to a minimum, and if they need to pursue it, that they would take it outside.

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party on petitions.

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

Once again I have petitions from people who have concerns with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project and the process. In their name I am very honoured to present this petition, which has been certified by the Clerk of the House.

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

WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities is the entity responsible for the regulation of electric utilities in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the Muskrat Falls Project proposal is potentially the single-largest expenditure the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has considered; and

WHEREAS the PUB is an independent, quasi-judicial regulatory body capable of providing an unbiased and apolitical decision on the Muskrat Falls proposal; and

WHEREAS government is breaking its own commitment to greater transparency and accountability by not allowing the PUB to review the Muskrat Falls proposal;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to mandate the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities to review the Muskrat Falls Project proposal, along with any and all alternatives available for meeting our energy needs.

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

I note in the petition that the petitioners are well aware of what the role of our public utilities body is here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They understand that the role of the public utilities body is not just to look at the simple fact of how much people pay for electricity and the rates that they pay; the public utilities body is also mandated with looking at developments in energy, developments of utilities, and to determine if the developments that are going ahead are good for the Province and for the people in the Province, and that they are justified. This is an extremely important point, Mr. Speaker.

Right now, for example, over in Manitoba you have their Public Utilities Board looking at two dams that are being built by Manitoba Hydro; the Public Utilities Board is the body that is really questioning if those two dams are operating as they should, if those two dams are for the good of the people of Manitoba. It is not the government that is questioning it; it is the Public Utilities Board.

This is a process that happens everywhere in this country and used to happen here in this Province. The people who have signed this petition, the petitioners, are wanting the same process that they are used to having – the process that happens in other parts of the country – involved in the determination of Muskrat Falls.

So, I do ask the government, Mr. Speaker, to take seriously the voice of people who do want Muskrat Falls to be studied by the PUB.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Amendment Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has weakened citizens' access to information, and has reduced government transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own commitment for greater transparency, accountability, and freedom of information, which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal the passage of Bill 29.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that this government has developed some kind of an addiction; it seems to have developed an addiction or a bad habit of disempowering its own legitimate bodies that have been set up by legislation with a valid and an important mandate.

Not only is it, Mr. Speaker, disempowering the Privacy Commission, but also disempowering the Public Utilities Board. They have disempowered and weakened the role of the Privacy Commissioner by making sure his term is only two years instead of five and also lessening his authority to review requests on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are validly seeking information through the access to information act.

Mr. Speaker, we know people across the Province are strongly opposing this. They want to see this repealed. People are still feeling betrayed. They are reeling from the sense of betrayal they feel as a result of this legislation. This government promised to be the most transparent, the most accountable, and the most open, yet their actions are exactly the opposite.

Why they are doing this, not only to the Public Utilities Board but in terms of access to information, is quite puzzling at a time in our history when we do need more openness, more transparency, and more accountability. People of the Province rely on these very legitimate bodies that have been set up through legislation. They have a valid and important role to play. They have a valid and important mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I happy to be able to bring this petition to the House that people across the Province have been signing.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS our schools are the heart of our communities and we should do all that we can to preserve them long into the future; and

WHEREAS the proposal to reconfigure Immaculate Conception School in Colliers as a K-4 school denies students fundamental rights, including the right to a healthy, active, safe, and caring school environment; and

WHEREAS government is compelled to give school reconfiguration decisions some consideration, as was the case in 2005 when the PC government decided to ensure the continuation of a K-12 system in Bishop's Falls; and

WHEREAS parents of Immaculate Conception School students have been lobbying government for a school gymnasium facility since 1999;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Eastern School District is provided with adequate funds to maintain Immaculate Conception School as a K-6 school. We further petition the House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that a new school is constructed to replace the existing inadequate facilities at Immaculate Conception School.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the fall, I have had an opportunity to attend a number of public meetings regarding the proposed school closures and reconfigurations within the Eastern School District. The meeting is happening tonight, in fact, at Roncalli again, the second meeting, where parents and other community supporters will have an opportunity to speak to the school of trustees at the Eastern School District about the proposed change at Immaculate Conception.

I think one of the real interesting things that I have observed by talking to parents over the course of this whole process is how much overlap there is between the different school councils, the different schools affected, in terms of the issues that they are concerned about and the things that they believe. For example, that their school facilities are for the most part sufficient that they just need particular changes, such as in the case of Immaculate Conception which has been seeking a new gymnasium for a number of years.

There are concerns about busing. There are also concerns about bullying and mixing children in their younger grades with what has been traditionally high school, in this instance. I think there certainly is a difference of opinion in a lot of communities, whether it is Whitbourne or Colliers or what have you, about the way the Eastern School District has foreseen their future, whether that is population projections, whether there will be growth or decline.

We hope, Mr Speaker, that –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Your time has expired.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

Orders of the Day

MR. KING: I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2 under Motions, the reappointment of the Citizens' Representative, the motion as was read into Hansard by myself yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to stand today and speak in support of the resolution before the House to reappoint Mr. Barry Fleming of the Queen's Council as the Province's Citizens' Representative pursuant to subsection 3(1) and section 5 of the Citizens' Representative Act.

Mr. Fleming was first appointed as the Citizens' Representative for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by a unanimous resolution of this House of Assembly on December 6, 2006. That appointment, Mr. Speaker, was for a six-year term and expires on December 5, 2012.

The Citizens' Representative is an officer of the House of Assembly and is independent of both the political process and government Administration. The office investigates and resolves complaints about provincial government departments and agencies, and recommends corrective action, Mr. Speaker. Services are free and confidential.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Thank you.

Our government, Mr. Speaker, has consistently demonstrated our unwavering commitment to accountability and transparency. Not only with the Office of the Citizens' Representative but also through our initiative to bring the Auditor General back into the House of Assembly, through the establishment of a Child and Youth Advocate, and most recently through the establishment of the Office of Public Engagement.

We also consistently demonstrate through our significant ongoing financial investments a commitment to helping those in society who need it the most. Whether through social initiatives, such as poverty reduction or violence prevention, the far-reaching advances we have made in helping children and families through the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, or through investments in our justice system, Mr. Speaker, such as additional money for legal aid resources, an expansion of victim services, our government has clearly shown that we believe all citizens of the Province should have the opportunity to live in peace, security and fairness.

The Citizens' Representative is an office that facilitates access to fairness and equity for people who feel that they have not been properly dealt with. The person holding the post is an independent officer of the House, just as the Auditor General and the Child and Youth Advocate are.

Section 15, Mr. Speaker, of the act highlights the function of this particular post. "The Citizens' Representative may, on a written complaint or on his or her own initiative, investigate a decision or recommendation made, including a recommendation made to a minister, or an act done or omitted, relating to a matter of administration in or by a department or agency of the government, or by an officer, employee or member of the department or agency, where a person is or may be aggrieved."

The Citizens' Representative has considerable investigative powers which enable the office holder to get to the heart of a government decision and make a judgment about whether someone has been wronged and whether a remedy of some sort should be made. It is essential, Mr. Speaker, that such a post be held by someone of the utmost integrity and ability, who is seen by the public as being thorough, fair, and diligent in all dealings. Mr. Fleming has shown himself to be a person of such calibre as he has executed the duties of the Office of the Citizens' Representative over the past six years.

Our citizens are represented by a competent investigator, a fair and balanced adjudicator of facts, and an able advocate in Mr. Fleming. Prior to taking up the role of the Citizens' Representative in December of 2006, Mr. Fleming served from 1995 up to that point as the legal counsel for the Province's Human Rights Commission and from 2003 to 2006 as the Acting Executive Director of the Commission.

As the general counsel to the Commission and its staff, Mr. Fleming assessed initial complaints to ensure that they met legal and jurisdictional requirements. He assisted staff with legal aspects of complaints, prepared legal opinions, provided seminars and presentations on human rights law, and represented the Commission at boards of inquiry and in the Supreme Court Trial Division and Court of Appeal.

Mr. Fleming is a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. He had seven years of experience in private practice with an emphasis on small business law, human rights, immigration, and refugee law. He holds not just a Bachelor of Laws, Mr. Speaker, but also a Masters of Business Administration from Dalhousie, and a Bachelor of Arts with a gold medal in economics from Memorial. He has instructed business law at Memorial's Faculty of Business, and he has served as an instructor for the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador's Bar admissions course.

With his exemplary work in the past six years, Mr. Fleming has demonstrated a thorough understanding of public administration, including budgeting, human resource management, and accountability and transparency reporting. He has a well-honed understanding of the structure, processes and functions of various government departments and agencies. Mr. Fleming has also called on skills in both written and oral communication, research, community and media relations, annual report drafting, and accountable administration of funds, in his role as the Citizens' Representative.

In short, Mr. Speaker, he has done an excellent job for the citizens of this Province and has been thorough and fair in taking on the responsibilities of his post, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been well-served. I trust that other members will acknowledge Mr. Fleming's impressive qualifications and his track record as the Citizens' Representative, and agree with us that he is well-placed in this vital role.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to support this motion today for the reappointment of such a critical position for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Fleming has done an admirable job and is an outstanding choice to fill that role.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to rise and speak to the motion that the Government House Leader put forward today to reappoint Mr. Barry Fleming as the provincial ombudsman, or the Citizens' Representative in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this office was opened in 2002. It is an independent office of the House of Assembly; that I do know for certain, through my own involvement with the Citizens' Representative office.

Mr. Speaker, I was part of the government when we put this office in place in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, what would have been the ombudsman's office in earlier years was taken out and it should have never been.

The reason that you have a Citizens' Representative in this Province is to ensure that the people who do not have a voice do have one, and they have an independent voice. It is to ensure that those who feel they have nowhere else to turn when dealing with regulatory bodies, government policies, and injustices –social and otherwise in society – have a place where they can go, someone who can help them, someone who can assist them.

Mr. Fleming, as the Government House Leader has indicated, has held this position for some time. Mr. Speaker, I have found that in dealing with him, and in all of the reports that I have had from other people in this Province who have dealt with him, he the kind of individual who actually takes the time; he takes the time to listen to people's issues, no matter how small or big in scope. He takes the opportunity to look at a thorough process of trying to deal with what their issue is and looking for results for them. He is the kind of person – I have been told by people they found him really down to earth. I think that is important when you are going to be a Citizens' Rep in this Province; you have to be approachable to all people in all walks of life.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, one of the sad things – and it is not uncommon for a lot of people who do work in this capacity; oftentimes their recommendations are not always listened to. They put forward some very good reports, some very good recommendations. Many of them are adhered to; oftentimes, some of them are not.

Mr. Fleming has had a very challenging time in the time that he has held the position, there is absolutely no doubt about that. He has dealt with all kinds of inquiries from citizens throughout this Province as it relates to government and government departments and whether things are being handled fairly or unfairly. He has taken it upon himself to do a lot of investigative work on many different complaints.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at some of his annual reports, for myself, in learning more about this office and what they do, I am always impressed and sometimes surprised by the kind of work he does. They deal with cases of eviction notices, for example, with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, whether a person has been fairly or unfairly evicted from a property. They have dealt with cases regarding inmates, the release dates of inmates, and whether it was appropriate or not. He has dealt with cases where people have been denied MCP coverage in the Province. He has dealt with Income Support cases in the Province, when people were denied certain levels of support, whether it would be for lodging, for home care services, and so on. He has dealt with cases in which people with disabilities require specific equipment to help them in their daily lives in society. He has dealt with cases where people have not received the level of home care they felt they should be getting.

Mr. Speaker, the list just goes on and on. I name some of these examples because there are a lot of people out there who do not often understand what the job of a Citizens' Representative is.

They talk about cases where there is no housing or food. There are individuals who actually went to his office and asked for help with things like that. There are cases where public employees of government did not get the promotions they were guaranteed or did not receive the kind of action from government on performance issues they were bringing forward. Those issues were dealt with.

I remember cases I dealt with myself, Mr. Speaker, very publicly in the media, with regard to conditions at the Waterford Hospital and the treatment of certain patients and services of certain patients within the Waterford Hospital. These were issues that, as the Citizens' Representative, he certainly took a look at and dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of other issues. One of them in particular I remember I dealt with in the House of Assembly; it went back to 2007. That was when the first real realization to me of the Citizens' Representative and the amount of power this office actually had. It was dealing with a case in Labrador in which female inmates from Labrador were being held in Clarenville in Eastern Newfoundland. The issue here was to secure accommodations in Labrador and to secure proper accommodations whereby female prisoners could be held in Labrador, many of them of course were Aboriginal women and they needed the opportunity to be able to receive the services close to home. It was very overwhelming for them to be transported to Clarenville.

When Mr. Fleming investigated this issue and presented his report to government at the time, he recommended that there should be rehabilitation services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women who were being housed in our prisons. He recommended that the facility should be able to accommodate up to five inmates. When that study came out, I guess I was very hopeful that government would act immediately to ensure that these accommodations and rehabilitation services would be placed in Labrador and would be available to female inmates.

At the time it was the Member for St. John's South, who is now the independent member, who was the Minister of Justice at that time. I was not at all happy with the comments that he made, Mr. Speaker, because he said that the new facility would serve a very small population. He said they would consider the proposal but we do have to look at the practicality of operating a facility that on an average basis may house two, one, or maybe just three individuals at a time.

Mr. Speaker, those comments in my mind were not fair by the member at the time because we were dealing with cases in Labrador where women were being held over in penitentiaries where there were men, where women were being strip searched in these penitentiaries, where they were not being treated properly. This issue had to go to the Citizens' Representative in order to get the issue resolved.

After all that time, after specific cases, after recommendations you get the Justice Minister of the day, who was the Member for St. John's South, saying that because the population is small and we are only dealing with a few women, we are not sure if we are going to do anything or not. Well that is not the point. It is not the principle of what we were dealing with.

Mr. Speaker, after that there was tremendous public pressure that came to bear and the government did decide further down the road that they would indeed put facilities in Labrador to deal with this problem, but the story did not end there because it was three years later that government had to rethink that decision. What they had determined was going to be a $2 million for the detention centre, Mr. Speaker, was going to be a project that cost closer to $15 million in order to treat women and youth within their own culture and within familiar surroundings.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it became a big issue. I am recounting the story because I want to reinforce the impact that the Citizens' Representative has on issues like this in the Province, and how the recommendations of the Citizens' Representative may not always be accepted within its entirety by government but it becomes a catalyst for change. It allows the rest of us in society to build upon their findings, their research and their recommendations, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we do things in the best interest of the public.

One other very high profile case that I will cite, not one that I was involved in directly myself but one that certainly my colleague for Burgeo – La Poile was involved in and the former Member for Burgeo – La Poile was involved in. That is the investigation, Mr. Speaker, into the psychiatrist at Her Majesty's Penitentiary in St. John's.

The Citizens' Representative, Mr. Speaker, did investigate this. He recommended that the Justice Department needed to immediately replace Dr. Craig, a psychiatrist at HMP, who had been criticized by mental health advocates for his prescribing practices.

Mr. Speaker, that was the recommendation that was put forward by the Citizens' Representative, Mr. Fleming. However, Mr. Speaker, at the time, the Justice Minister, the Member for Placentia at the time, dismissed the report and said that the Citizens' Representative does not have the expertise or jurisdiction to review the work of a psychiatrist. He said he would order a review of Craig's work by another psychiatrist.

Mr. Speaker, once again a very high profile case. A case that was brought forward by inmates, by inmate's families, by members of the public to the Citizens' Representative who went out and researched it, investigated it and made recommendations around it.

While the Minister of Justice chose not to accept his report, it was the work of the Citizens' Representative that did again become the catalyst for a peer review and further reviews of what was happening at HMP. As a result, we have seen the new review made public. We have seen some changes occurring at HMP.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of cases, like I said, with regard to housing, with regard to patients who have been inappropriately billed at Eastern Health, whereby the Citizens' Representative got results immediately for those people. There have been bigger cases, more public cases. While his recommendations may not have been accepted in their entirety by government, they were the catalyst for change and improvements, and they became the premise upon which the public could continue to advocate for better services for people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is the role of the Citizens' Rep, and like a lot of offices in this Province, their success is often attributed to the people who carry out the work. I would like to commend Mr. Fleming for the work that he has done, the independence that he has brought to the office in doing that work, in being fair to those in society who do not have a voice and giving them that voice.

Mr. Speaker, we support the motion to reappoint him for another term as the Citizens' Representative for this Province and we wish him well in the work and the duties that he is about to execute on behalf of the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I, too, am quite pleased and honoured to stand and speak in support of the reappointment of Mr. Barry Fleming as the Citizens' Representative.

As has been pointed out by both the House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, it is an extremely important role that Mr. Fleming fills as the Citizens' Representative. It is a wonderful statement about our Province that we do have a Citizens' Representative. Every government needs it; every society needs it.

I know that Mr. Fleming and I have been around for the same period of time. I was elected in November, 2006 and he was appointed in December, 2006. I guess he probably was the first statutory officer that I was involved in the appointment of.

I have experienced his whole tenure as the Citizens' Representative. I have to say that I have always been so impressed by so many things about Mr. Fleming: his availability, his openness, his willingness to always be there to answer questions and to explain the work of his office. I really do appreciate the way in which he makes sure that we get to know his staff, the people who do the work with him. I have had a number of occasions over the last six years to be able to meet with him and to get to an understanding of his understanding of his role.

He is a person who really cares about people and cares about the system working for people, and that is what has really impressed me about him. He is a very straight-up person. He speaks very clearly and very openly about issues and he is not afraid to put out there what he is thinking about issues and about how our system is working. I have to say I really appreciate that.

I believe he has shown real leadership and real vision to us in the Province around what the Citizens' Representative can be. I notice in their 2011 Annual Report that he has a post script to his annual report, and in the post script he talks about the role of his office and his role in seeking fairness and finding solutions. I do think that is what he has really exhibited as the Citizens' Representative, that he is always looking for fairness and he doggedly looks for the solutions. That is what I like about him: he doggedly looks for solutions. He does not give up. He keeps at an issue.

He cares about people and he understands the vulnerable situations in which people find themselves, situations that they have not created, whether it is a situation inside of a family, whether it is a situation in dealing with a government agency, whether it is a situation inside of an institution that is run by government; no matter what the situation is, he understands how people experience vulnerability inside of certain situations. He understands that when people are in such vulnerable situations, they cannot by themselves deal with the situation and they cannot get themselves out of it.

There were a number of occasions over the last six years where I have been able to recommend to people who come to me, constituents who have come to me from difficult situations where they felt they were not being treated fairly by some departments or being treated fairly by institutions, where I felt very confident that I could actually send them to Mr. Fleming and that there would be a hearing. What I would like to point out is: it is not just Mr. Fleming himself. It is also the staff. It is the stamp that he has put on that office; it is the stamp that he has put on the staff. All the ones who I have met I find to be very, very caring people and people who really are committed to what he has in this year's annual report, committed to seeking fairness and finding solutions.

We have some of the things that he has done – he has done so much obviously. On a one-on-one level, he has dealt with some of the most nitty-gritty issues, like helping a citizen get a bathtub lift, a person who is disabled, and getting one from a health authority right through to dealing with the issues of, as was pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, female offenders from Labrador, women who are Aboriginal women.

He has done everything from the one-on-one, which has to be done, right through to the systemic. That is why he has done such a good job as the rep. He understands that if he has a repeat of people coming with the same issue and first it is one person, then maybe three, then maybe four, then the number keeps coming around a certain issue, then he realizes there is a systemic problem here. He then moves from helping the individual, which still has to happen, to seeing how he can help solve the systemic problem so that everybody will benefit from the systemic changes.

I think that was one of the things that drove him, for example, with regard to the investigation of psychiatric services at the provincial correctional facilities. He recognized a systemic problem. Because of that, we now have a report which I think does deal with things on a systemic level which I think is extremely important. The more we work towards making that system better, the more we work towards helping that system, then all individuals inside of that system are going to be helped.

I think that is something that he understands extremely well, is the systemic nature of change that has to go on. Sometimes it is easy for us to forget that, easy for us in government programs to forget that as well, where we just get used to taking care of the problems without also looking at the systemic change that is needed. I think that is something that Mr. Fleming brings to us.

I know that whenever I have met with him – and he did meet with our caucus after we were all elected in 2011 – that is something he talked about then, that it is something that he always brings forward. It is his understanding of the need for systemic change and working on a systemic level.

The same was true, too, when he did the report on the facilities and supports for female offenders from Labrador. We have to change systems. I really thank him for the legacy he is leaving as a Citizens' Representative. He is continuing, but when he leaves, if he were to leave today, he has done so much to benefit us. Now we can look forward to another six years of him doing this work.

I really appreciate, too, the way he totally gives of himself in terms of his time, his availability, and the way in which he goes around the Province doing the intake sessions, which is so important. He understands what it takes for people to have to come to him, to his office, and his staff, and that you need to go out and let people understand who the Citizens' Representative is and whom the staff of the Office of the Citizens' Representative is. It helps people become open. It helps them bring their issues forward.

I have to say that Mr. Fleming has really shown a complete dedication to his job and I am really quite delighted to be able to stand and say: Yes, I definitely support this motion. I wish him well. I can say to him that I will continue, and I know my caucus will continue, to be open to him and welcome him to bring issues to us whenever he needs to.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Motion carried.

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize for the lateness of this request, but I would like to ask if the Opposition would consider granting us leave to go back to Tabling of Documents. The minister has the loan guarantee that we would like to table before the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has leave.

Tabling of Documents

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have here before me the heading Agreement Providing Key Terms and Conditions for the Federal Loan Guarantee by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada for Debt Financing of the Lower Churchill River Project. It is signed, Mr. Speaker, by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Premier Kathy Dunderdale, Premier Darrell Dexter, Ed Martin, the CEO of Nalcor, and Christopher Huskilson, the CEO of Emera.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table this document.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Address in Reply, Order 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

What a time to start speaking, Mr. Speaker, just as we table a loan guarantee here in the House of Assembly. It is a significant time in our history. I will get into that a little bit later on, but before I do, for those that are out in TV land and the people here in the Province, and even the people in Atlantic Canada and throughout our country: these loan guarantees – and this one in particular – did not happen by accident. This took quite a bit of work; it has been ongoing for a number of months and even longer than that, and it has been quite a lengthy negotiation, up to last week; I know on Thursday it was touch and go with our Premier at the table bringing forth the thing to protect us, protect the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and get the best deal for the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: When the chips are down and things did not look like they were going so well, well, it was brought back to the table again. It was through the perseverance of the Premier of this Province with the able assistance of the Minister of Natural Resources that this deal came through. Mr. Speaker, I want to take my hat off to the Premier in particular who put the oar in the water and made sure that this happened at a very crucial time in this Province's history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, like many of us here in the House, I have never built a dam. I guess many of the people in the Province have never built a dam.

Many of the very good businesspeople in this Province who have invested in major investments in business and in construction and so on, what they do is go out, they get the best advice available, and then they make a decision. As a government, that is what we have to do. We have to go out and get the best advice available. The best advice we can find in this case, I would like to think that there is no one any more professional and with any more expertise than Nalcor has here in this Province. Mr. Speaker, this is a company that has been operating a hydroelectric facility for decades, and they bring with them a wealth of knowledge that is built within the company and around the company, and actually, we share that knowledge with other people throughout the world who are in similar positions.

Although we have gone out and we sought some confirmation for some of the work that Nalcor has done, there is nobody in my opinion in North America with any more experience than we have right here at home, a company made of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: It is something that I believe we should be very, very proud of and certainly, I think we are, as a people. It is time for us to go it alone, paddle our own canoes, as people say; we have the privilege right here of having the experts to do that, and it is certainly good to see.

Mr. Speaker, going way, way back, I got elected first in 2002, and one of the first things that I got involved with was the Holyrood generating station. It is because at the time I represented the people of Holyrood and I represented the people of Seal Cove. The people of Seal Cove actually were very close – and Holyrood, more so Seal Cove, because I grew up in Conception Bay South – friends of mine, people who I had played ball with, knew them regularly, went to their homes, knew their kids. So, Mr. Speaker, this was not a new issue for me.

I guess one of the first things, I think Ed Martin may have – and I said this before here in the House; I think it was the first week he was on the job, if not the first week, the second week he was on the job, I met with him. My whole thing and what I presented to him were some of the issues that we were facing in Holyrood. Included in that chat – it was a very informal get-together; we probably spent twenty minutes, half an hour together – I showed him a number of pictures of what comes out of the stack, what lands on people's properties, and so on. Mr. Speaker, I spent that time with him outlining to him that something had to be done. That was one of the first things I did when I met Ed Martin, and he agreed. He agreed, Mr. Speaker.

I have had the calls from the residents of that area and I have met with the committee in that area on many occasions. That committee was probably struck, I am thinking, early 1990s, mid-1990s for sure. It went on forever with no results. There was a time there was talk of some scrubbers and precipitators being put in. There were other times they changed the bunker they were burning, Mr. Speaker, that reduced some of the particulate matter to PM2.

Mr. Speaker, I do have a fair bit of experience from dealing with residents in that area and looking at some of the things that they have experienced. Let me just say, I have a number of things – I could go on here today for quite some time talking about the deal itself, and I am going to go into that in a little bit, but I really wanted to talk and bring some of the residents' concerns about the Holyrood generating station to the perspective, like I have done here in the House of Assembly before. I know I presented a petition here; I think it was in 2009, Mr. Speaker, when we were the government. I am going to show you a history of how important this issue was to our party going back to prior to us forming the government. When we sat on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, this was an issue for this party, and now it is an issue for this government.

Mr. Speaker, I visited people's homes, and I looked at toy bikes and swimming pools, and people's patio decks, and barbecues, and trucks, and pickups, and recreational vehicles, Mr. Speaker, that were covered in soot and ash. Now, one would say that is not the bad stuff. The bad stuff is the stuff you cannot see. That is the good stuff, the stuff you can see. The bad stuff is the stuff you cannot see.

Mr. Speaker, you can just imagine living next door to this facility. Especially, at one point it was up close to 45 per cent, I think, of the Province's energy, and then it dropped down as the mills fell off. Of course, it is about to climb again now, Mr. Speaker. So you can imagine when that has a hiccup.

Just last week, or early the week before, Mr. Speaker, I went home and had a phone call, a gentleman who lives outside my district now but a gentleman that I know quite well. He is not even part of the group that organized the people way, way back. He phoned me to say: Terry, you are not going to believe this. I am looking at a deck that is covered, my truck is covered, my house is covered because Holyrood had some kind of a hiccup at the time, blew up the ash and, of course, it went all over the neighbourhood.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that has been ongoing for a long, long time and something that gives all of the residents of Conception Bay South, in particular, a pain when they look at it and see the black smoke coming up, not to mention the people of Holyrood and the people of all of Conception Bay. It is blowing up around Conception Harbour, Colliers, and Harbour Main. Mr. Speaker, everybody has had their touch with ash in that area. It is a big concern, and I can tell you right now, there are not too many sad faces in Seal Cove and Holyrood because Muskrat Falls is being built, I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, just to point out a few things about Holyrood. I know Minister Hedderson did it so well yesterday, but because I also represented that area, and represent part of Conception Bay South, I thought I should point out ten important points about Holyrood. I am not sure people know, Mr. Speaker, certainly people throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the plant burns 18,000 barrels of oil every day. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in 2011 burning fuel at the Holyrood plant cost the ratepayers of this Province $135 million. The annual cost of oil to generate electricity at the plant is projected to be $324 million. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not chicken feed. As I have heard some other members of the House here say it is the equivalent of taking 300,000 vehicles off the highways. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly significant.

By doing Muskrat Falls and getting rid of Holyrood, Mr. Speaker, we will be saving approximately 1.1 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. It is also 1 million tons in Nova Scotia, and it is 2 million tons for North America. That is how much in greenhouse gas emissions that Muskrat Falls will save, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are 11,600 tons of sulphur dioxide alone that comes out of the facility. The plant is forty years old. I have met on numerous occasions with the people who run the plant up there, a gentleman who has been there now for quite some time, a friend of mine I went to school with. Mr. Speaker, I came to know that we need a lot of work at that plant with time. Obviously the maintenance costs, capital investments and upgrades are just a couple, Mr. Speaker.

Emissions control equipment; there was talk of putting emission control equipment there, Mr. Speaker, and that was going to be $600 million to $800 million, if I recall correctly. Plus, there is a $12 million to $15 million operating on top of that, Mr. Speaker, so significant investments.

As well, Mr. Speaker, and I guess something that we should all be very, very proud of with Muskrat Falls, is that Newfoundland and Labrador will now be powered by 98 per cent clean, renewable energy; a leader, Mr. Speaker, in North America.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I would like to make. I remember way, way back first when I came into the House, the House Leader of the government at the time said: One of the worst things about the House of Assembly is Hansard. Mr. Speaker, for those in TV land, Hansard is the thing that records everything that is said in this House. He was joking with me, of course, but Hansard is very important because it reminds members of what they have said through the years.

Mr. Speaker, it is always very important, it helps you build your case. I suggest to other members here in the House of Assembly, they should always keep Hansard in mind when they are up talking and making their cases because in some cases it will help support you, but in some cases, Mr. Speaker, it will go back to bite you right on the rear pretty hard. I warn members, when they say what they say I hope they mean it. Whether they are sitting on that side of the House or whether on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, let's hope that they stay to their word.

I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker – and again, this came from Hansard. Mr. Speaker, to tell you how far this party has gone back on the Holyrood issue; I am here now looking at a petition that was brought forward just before I came to the House by a then member of the PC Opposition. It was quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and he went on to say how much Newfoundland and Labrador raised its electricity rates at the time. The reason it raised the rates was to offset the cost of Bunker C fuel, Mr. Speaker, to produce electricity at Holyrood. Those were the reasons that the increase was happening throughout, Mr. Speaker, was because of the cost of Bunker C fuel. That is why, and continues to be the case, that every time we get a blip in the oil market, then obviously the rates go up. Mr. Speaker, that was a petition that was presented back in 2003 to lay that out.

Mr. Speaker, a former member of the House, who is now a federal MP, was the Leader of the Third Party – who has moved on to greener pastures, I might add – is a big supporter of this. The former Leader of the Third Party, the NDP, who is now a federal member, supports this wholeheartedly and has been unrelenting in his support for this, Mr. Speaker. In 2004, he was in this House of Assembly and these are the types of questions that the member from the Third Party was asking then.

The Third Party and their policy at the time was reflected in these questions. Mr. Harris is the gentleman's name and represented Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi. How ironic, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Third Party today being totally against it, representing the same party when we have here –

AN HON. MEMBER: The same district.

MR. FRENCH: The same district. When we have here, the member representing the same district who was the leader at the time in total support of Muskrat Falls and these were the types of questions he was posing at the time, Mr. Speaker.

He was concerned. The generating station at Holyrood is in the top five of ten polluters in Canada in its release of particulate matter into the atmosphere causing environmental damage. Serious concerns for him at the time were heath concerns because he was seeing and hearing about this particulate matter.

He said: Why will ministers not order that scrubbers be installed in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and generating units? Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the member opposite of the day. You are not going to believe who was answering the questions at that time. It was not the Third Party – I think it was Fourth Party. There is another person way over there, way down on the end, and he was responding to the questions.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who left here and now, in this response, he was very concerned. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, and I would find it hard to imagine that the hon. member, when the vote comes in this House on Muskrat Falls, that he will not be able to stand and support it based on the responses to the questions of the day from the Third Party who supported it.

I will be looking forward to that vote because I know in his heart of hearts, Mr. Speaker, he is an environmentalist – a true one. He represented the environment very well when he was on this side of the House. I certainly hope he represents and thinks about the environment again now that he is on that side of the House. I really and truly believe he does.

Mr. Speaker, this is from in December of 2009 there was a Ministerial Statement and the Ministerial Statement was from the Premier of the day. The Premier of the day was very clear that significant steps had to be taken to reduce emissions from the Holyrood Generating Station. Mr. Speaker, she was not the only one who was concerned. Mr. Speaker, it went on.

The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi spoke to it. She had some concerns as well, but the best, Mr. Speaker, of all came from the Leader of the Third Party. This was December 16, 2009, not that long ago. It is not like you were thinking one way back then and you have changed your mind now on environmental controls and emissions in Holyrood.

At the time, referring to the Holyrood generating station, this is what she said, "While I know there has been some impact on that" – the Holyrood Generating Station – because of some wind farms, because of Central Newfoundland, and on the Burin Peninsula, "we should be more proactive with regard to getting rid completely of the Holyrood Generating Station."

That is, Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Third Party was unequivocally supporting: getting rid of the Holyrood Generating Station. Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago they were up there, a big protest. They were up there with cans of orange drink and they were up there running around the end of the road. I did not know what was going on up there.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier, this was a little odd for me, and rightly so. In 2007, Mr. Speaker, I presented a petition in this House with some 5,000 signatures on it to get rid of Holyrood. It is not often you see somebody in government presenting a petition to your government. It is unheard of in a lot of ways, but it happens more so when the people who you sit with in your caucus and in your government really believe in what you stand for. Mr. Speaker, this was a party who stood for cleaning up Holyrood for a long, long time. I know because I was there when we were in Opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I am here today. I am very proud of the way people responded.

Mr. Speaker, here is the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair on June 1, 2010, not that long ago. Here is what was said June 1, 2010 when the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, like sometimes only she can do with her theatrics, stood up with great pleasure and she started with, "What is the plan for Holyrood? Are you going to live up to the commitments you made in the Energy Plan?" Mr. Speaker, that is what she asked the Premier in 2010.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the important part is how the Premier responded to that. This is what the Premier said, "In terms of commitments that we have made to the people of the Province, including the people who live in the area of Holyrood generating facility, Mr. Speaker, we will live up to our commitment," and get rid of Holyrood generating station.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people – oh, my God, I have another – who support this: Dean MacDonald – a former Liberal candidate, I suppose he was, he was playing with it for a while; Jack Harris; labour – it would be interesting to ask the Third Party where labour stands on this. Apparently they captivate the labour industry in this Province, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about that. I have spoken to an awful lot of people who are working in trades, Mr. Speaker, and are very much in support of this project. Jack Layton, Bob Rae, Tom Mulcair; Yvonne Jones, Mr. Speaker, supports this project; a former Premier, Mr. Speaker, supports this program.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

I say to the member: it is quite all right to refer to other people who are not sitting in the Legislature by name, but people who currently sit in the Legislature, refer to them by their district, please.

MR. FRENCH: I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker; I realize that, but I was tangled up with a whole list of names, and that is why hers came out: the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, I can go on; there is Peter Woodward, a well-known businessman; there is a group of businessmen from here in the Province who support it; we have economists like Wade Locke; we have business coalitions; we have Bob Cadigan from NOIA, who recently said, "Nalcor Energy and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador conducted a thorough analysis…", "NOIA is satisfied that the process and information provided is valid." That was in The Telegram, November 2, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, the St. John's Board of Trade, the vice-chairwoman, Sharon Horan, was happy what she saw, she said, on Tuesday: "the numbers would demonstrate that Muskrat Falls would continue to be the best-cost option…" and "...the lowest-cost option". "I think as a business community we really appreciate that".

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time for speaking has expired.

MR. FRENCH: Can I have leave just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: I just want to end with this quick point, Mr. Speaker, quick point. I could go on; I have a list there of probably dozens, for sure, that support this cause.

Every now and then you get a letter from your district. I got one not too long ago; I have gotten multiple letters of people who support Muskrat Falls. This is from a gentleman with no skin in the game, no skin in the game whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. He is a man, honest man, raised his family in Conception Bay South. He is retired from one profession; I think he might pick around at something now, Mr. Speaker, but still a devoted family man. I thought it appropriate to touch on some of the quotes that he made.

This is not a fellow with skin in the game; he is not going to make any money off this. He is not an activist; he is just a regular guy doing a regular job in his lifetime, a family man, Mr. Speaker, very well-respected in the community, a volunteer.

I will just leave you with a couple of points that he made, Mr. Speaker. He said to me: Terry, I am writing to voice my support for Muskrat Falls. Another quote: release of Decision Gate 3 information has led to my full endorsement, opportunity we have is tremendous, move to Muskrat Falls to sanction.

We can be an energy leader, Mr. Speaker, a place of prosperity where our youth choose to stay, live, work and raise their families. Quantum leaps in progress take brave, bold, and strategic action, Mr. Speaker. Take our own know-how and expertise to build our own future.

Mr. Speaker, we have the knowledge, experience, and strength to think bigger, dream bigger, and make our lives and our children's lives bigger. Mr. Speaker, I support Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I am ever so pleased to stand in my place in this House today and enter on the debate in regard to Muskrat Falls and how important it is to this Province, probably the single most important decision that this Province has made in decades, Mr. Speaker.

In the meantime, since 2003, this government has made some substantial decisions in regard to the direction that this Province has taken since 2003. As a matter of fact, we have taken many decisions since 2011, since the Premier took over the leadership and gave us a new direction, a new purpose as a government, and a new life – not that we ever lost it, but I tell you she actually added so much to this caucus and to our Cabinet in regard to her direction and her leadership, Mr. Speaker.

When I listen to some of the things that are said from the Opposition parties across the way in this hon. House and some of their remarks in the media and outside this House, it gives the impression that this government has taken the Muskrat Falls decision very lightly in regard to where we are and where we should be in this Province.

I remember when I came into Cabinet in 2005; one of the first presentations made at that particular time was on Muskrat Falls. That is how engaged we were in regard to that project way back then. I would not be able to count how many presentations were given to us and how many reports that were shared with us over the years in regard to getting to this point that we are at today. I have heard in regard to scrutiny, probably the most scrutinized project ever in the history of this Province is the deal on Muskrat Falls.

We have heard the Minister of Natural Resources, we heard the Premier, and we have heard many ministers talk about the reports of wind, natural gas, and Holyrood. It all goes back to the actual project, that Muskrat Falls is the least-cost option to deal with the issues that we will have to deal with in the very near future in regard to our own electricity needs; also, as well, to move from a non-renewable resource economy to a renewable resource economy, which we have to do, Mr. Speaker. We absolutely have to do it because in time, oil will run out. In time, minerals will run out.

What are we going to do in regard to a revenue source besides the taxation of our people to support the projects that we have to support in the Province; health, education, Child, Youth and Family Services, not to mention the municipalities in this Province. Where are we going to get the money besides taxation? Are we going to rely on the fishery, which is really the foundation of our whole society, but we all know full well that it will not be able to support us in regard to the projects that we have on the radar for this Province.

As I just said, in regard to hospitals – I have also heard many, many times: Well, let's wait until 2041. Let's wait until the Upper Churchill comes back to us. Wait three decades in regard to having enough electricity to take care of our own needs. They forget that we do not control the Upper Churchill. In regard to the shareholders of the Upper Churchill, CF(L)Co, two-thirds is owned by us as a government, Newfoundland Hydro is owned by CF(L)Co, and one-third is owned by Hydro-Quebec.

So you cannot predict in the future what that will mean when 2041 so-called reverts to this Province. Quebec has interests as well, and they have a legal binding agreement in regard to the Upper Churchill. Will we benefit from the Upper Churchill in 2041? Absolutely! Can we wait for 2041 in regard to our needs? Absolutely not! Absolutely not, the time is now. The time is now to deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and take our rightful place in Canada.

Then I think about what the hon. member just before me, the Minister of Tourism was saying in regard to Holyrood –

MR. KENT: What a member.

MR. O'BRIEN: What a member he is, and how he puts things forward in regard to the things that are keen to his own district, but also in Newfoundland and Labrador. He mentioned about the emissions in Holyrood and what that means to the quality of life we have in that area and also in regard to climate change on the world stage, which is a big issue as well in Holyrood. He mentioned Hansard and some of the statements that were made about Holyrood.

Do you know what comes into my mind the most? It is a picture I will have forever in my head, it is the Leader of the Third Party standing there, taking a photo op, looking up at the smoke stacks with sad eyes, saying: We got to get rid of this. Now all of a sudden it is our salvation. They are putting it to the salvation, making us reliant on oil for the rest of our born days. When you miss the opportunity in regard to economic opportunity in the United States and Southern Ontario, it is missed. It is gone. It is gone forever. That is called good business sense and good deals.

Those big brown eyes there, standing up and looking up at the smoke stacks, and all of the soot coming down: We have to get rid of it. We have to get rid of it forever. That is what I saw, I say to the hon. Minister of Tourism. I do not mind what she says in the House of Assembly and all that kind of stuff, but she goes out and goes for the photo op. Then she comes back and says: No, we cannot do Muskrat Falls, we cannot do this, and we cannot do that, no vision whatsoever and no strategy for the Province. I tell you, a total lack of leadership, I guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: As a matter of fact, I will say, too, in this House, I do not mind saying it. They are afraid of their own shadow is what it is in regard to doing the right thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are afraid of their own shadows, I guarantee you that.

There are generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I tell you, I grew up on the Southern Shore in a little community called Ferryland. I knew about the Churchill Falls. I knew about that deal. I knew about the Upper Churchill when I was about that high, when I was about ten or eleven years old. It was the subject of conversations in my kitchen many, many times in regard to that deal and what it meant to Newfoundland and Labrador. I have heard it many, many times. It resonated on me.

As a matter of fact, it dictated, it absolutely dictated the outcome of business dealings in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, it contributed to the defeatist-type nature of us prior to 2003. I have often said in this House of Assembly, one of the most important things this government has done is actually incentivize us to have a sense of pride in this Province and a sense of direction and integrity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I hear them and they throw things out there all the time: Let's get out of the deal – let's get out of the deal. Boys, listen, the bottom line of it is that we have a binding contract in regard to that deal. A binding contract which has been challenged many times in regard to the Supreme Court of Canada and the courts in Quebec, it is a binding contract. It is what it is.

Yes, we have some things in front of the courts now and hopefully they will come back in the favour of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not going to address our energy requirements in 2017. It is not going to address another revenue source into our coffers to deal with the issues that we will have in the future for Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will tell you something else: I am proud to stand in my place and know full well that I have three children who are going to live in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have a bright future, I say to the hon. members in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, 2041 will come – 2041 will definitely come. It will come in thirty years and some people would say that thirty years is a long time. Thirty years is not a long time when it comes to a Province, and thirty years is not a long time when it comes to the history of this Province. Thirty years will come quickly, I say to the hon. member. I say to the hon. member that it will come quickly.

I guarantee you that right now that if we do not get ourselves set and get ourselves through that thirty years, I hate to see Newfoundland and Labrador. I shudder to think – and my sadness goes through my soul, just like the sad eyes that I see in the picture of the hon. Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi looking up at the smoke stack saying we have to get rid of them, we have to get rid of them. Then in the House here now promoting we have to keep it, we have to keep it. Talking about of two sides of their mouth, I say to the hon. member, I guarantee you that.

We just cannot take the power back from the Upper Churchill. It cannot be done; it is a breach of a contract. If anybody understands law in Newfoundland and Labrador and law in Canada would understand that it would be a breach of a contract. You would end up paying big dollars into Quebec and they will be right to get it as a matter of fact in regard to a breach of contract.

Do we agree with the contract that was signed and binding? Absolutely not, but it is reality. It is absolutely reality that it is a binding contract, I say to the hon. members. We have to move, and we have to move now. We have to move when the iron is hot, when people need our power. If we miss the opportunity, they will go on and develop other sources of power to address their needs down in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and in Southern Ontario.

That is what they will do; they will produce their own, I say to the hon. member, the expert of the NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Table them I say to the speaker, Mr. Speaker. I want to question the hon. member because he seems to be the expert.

We looked at everything in regard to good faith action, the whole shebang. Is it right? Is it wrong? Would it be the right thing to do for Quebec to really move on that? Absolutely, but listen, the bottom line of it is that we have been under the thumb of Quebec for a generation now, for way too long, a generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They have blocked everything that we have tried to do because of the geographical position in Canada, and they are trying to block this.

You heard them right away. What was the reaction? What was the reaction on Friday? What was their reaction to the announcement in regard to the loan guarantee?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Absolutely, because it means a lot to them. They are forced now. They will be forced on 2041. We are in a damn good position when it comes to 2041, I say to the hon. members.

I tell you, when you have people over across this House who do not understand the deal and what it means to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador – the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have changed since 1969. Mr. Speaker, 1969 is when the Upper Churchill was first commissioned. That is when it was commissioned but we changed. We have. I said we had a defeatist type nature about ourselves because we did not feel that we were equal. I firmly believe in my heart and my soul that it was there just because we did not have the backbone of this government to take on, at all odds, anything and everything that we believed in, in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly what we have done since 2003.

We did great things in Newfoundland and Labrador; we absolutely have. In regard to the new deal and the offshore oil and that kind of stuff, where do you think the money comes from in regard to infrastructure requirements in Newfoundland and Labrador? Where do the fire trucks come from? Do we just buy them out of taxes? Absolutely not. That is the smallest portion of our revenue source in this Province. We have to have the revenue sources.

You listen to the Third Party over there with the money tree going. As a matter of fact, it was only in this House today they are spending more money and spending more money. I have said many, many times that they have no definition to the word budget. They have do not have two clues what it means, just say it. The same thing as what they said about Holyrood, the same thing as what they are saying about any other development in Newfoundland and Labrador: Do it, whatever meets the need.

They will be out there with a big old rally tomorrow. They will have their guitars out there and all that kind of stuff. God Almighty, there are people out there, if they were not born with talent they would be starved to death, I say to the hon. members in the House of Assembly. That is the people that they will have out there and they will be saying whatever those people need to hear. That is what they will be saying – whatever they want to hear, I should say. That is what they say, anything and everything, wherever they go around, door-to-door.

As a matter of fact, I heard they were going door-to-door last night trying to get a petition on the go and all of this kind of stuff. How foolish is it at all?

Be engaged. Be engaged; learn something from the process. Have a look and read. Read the reports; do not read the executive summaries, read the actual reports. Learn something. Learn something and be a part of Newfoundland and Labrador. Be proud of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister if he could direct his comments to the Chair.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, no problem at all, but I did not think you needed any convincing in regard to Muskrat Falls. I am trying to convince the naysayers in this House, is what I am trying to do. I apologize to the hon. Speaker, because I know full well that you are well versed in regard to Muskrat Falls. You know what the future in Newfoundland and Labrador is and you want to get there because you know full well this government has the strategy and our Premier has the strategy to get us there. I say that to the hon. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I know my time is running out. I do not know what the process is, but I would not mind tabling a document. I would not mind tabling a document in this House of Assembly today; as a matter of fact, it is an article written by Paul McLeod of the Ottawa Bureau. I will only paraphrase a couple of things, the only couple of things that person wrote in regard to our Premier, in regard to the direction of Newfoundland and Labrador. I quote: "In the meantime, the revolution starts now. After decades of being kicked around and ripped off, Newfoundland and Labrador is finally in a power position."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: "There are many ways to view Dunderdale, who now sits in the driver's seat of a province that is about to transform a region." Not a province, a region, Mr. Speaker – a region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I will table that document and hopefully the Pages will take many copies and distribute it to all members in the House, especially the ones across the House.

I tell you, something really struck me about it when I read that article and I printed it. I will tell you what struck me about it. It was actually, when you look at it – and I do not know who this guy is; I have not got two clues, but you know something? When I read it, I swear he was a Newfoundland and Labradorian, for the simple reason: he wrote it with pride. He wrote it with pride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: As a matter of fact, he wrote it with pride and envy, because his envy was that he did not have a Premier in his province the worth of our Premier and the leadership that she is showing. Yes, absolutely, we went through a process on Thursday and she was at the helm.

Here, Mr. Speaker, could you pass that over to the hon. member to have a read? It might straighten them up, enlighten them, and make them proud to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. They are not proud now. They are naysayers. As a matter of fact, as I said in the House of Assembly, the biggest fear they have is waking up happy, Mr. Speaker. That is it exactly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: They hate to see success. We have often seen in the past when business people in Newfoundland and Labrador are successful – as a matter of fact, it is actually quoted in this article as well, Mr. Speaker; some years ago, you might see one or two exotic cars in St. John's. You might see one or two exotic cars in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, you see many. That is called prosperity. That is what it is called: prosperity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I am proud of those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are making dollars, and that they are employing Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I tell you, that is their biggest fear: to see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians get ahead. That is their biggest fear, I say to the hon. Speaker. I say to the hon. members, too; I will start speaking back to you now in a minute, I guarantee you that.

We have been a government that has been governed by strategies and having a game plan, not only for the immediate future but the future, and I mean the future. We go down in regard to that thirty years and decades, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what we plan for and envision.

We have been called visionary by others in Canada. We have been called visionary by others in the world, Mr. Speaker. All over this world we are the envy of people because we have taken our own destiny.

Like the Premier has said many, many times: What do you want to do? Do you want to manage decline or actually control your own destiny, Mr. Speaker? I want to control my destiny. I want to control the destiny, help my children, help their children, and make Newfoundland and Labrador great. That is what I want to be, and a part of this government does as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: I look across the House, I just look and listen. I was sitting here listening to the hon. Minister of Tourism when he spoke, and all of a sudden that picture came into my mind. They talk out of the two sides of their mouths. Whoever is listening, they will say whatever that person wants to hear, not what they need to hear. There is no strategy, no vision, no nothing. That is what I say to the hon. member.

The Minister of Tourism mentioned the past leader who was for the project. I have often said in this House: Come back, Jack. Give us some leadership. You should be giving solid opposition, asking questions, but not asking questions for the sake of asking questions.

The only question that you have been asking in the last couple of days is put it back to the PUB, because you cannot come up with anything. You cannot fault the reports. You cannot fault the project. You cannot find any way. As a matter of fact, I say to the hon. member who seems to be the expert on oil and gas or on gas anyway – I am not sure if it is natural gas or gas in general.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: I say to the hon. member, read the reports to see if you can (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the minister his time for speaking has expired.

MR. O'BRIEN: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has, according to a recent ruling –

MR. KING: Five minutes to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader has asked for five minutes leave to clue up.

MR. O'BRIEN: Just give me leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have five minutes leave for the minister to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I see no objection.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs, by leave.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I heard one of the hon. members say give him thirty seconds. I am sorry to say I am pretty good but, listen, I will never be able to educate you in thirty seconds when it comes to Muskrat Falls. You need a lot of that, I can tell you that right now.

I am offering me to you, I am telling you that right now. I will sit with you any time, anywhere, and we will discuss Muskrat Falls and we will discuss the future of Newfoundland and Labrador to you. No problem whatsoever. Do you know something? I think maybe we will be successful.

I say to the hon. member, that if I look back at the past of the NDP or the Third Party, that I say quite honestly since Jack left, the party has taken on a totally different direction. As a matter of fact when Jack was here in 2003, he provided leadership; as a matter of fact, he was down to two members. They gave better questions in the House of Assembly than now that we have five.

I was there; we can go back through Hansard and go through that. That is not an issue with me. Absolutely, I will lay it on the table – more informed questions. As a matter of fact, more importantly, when the hon. leader of the day, Mr. Harris, saw something that was to the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador, he actually recognized it, as he has recognized that Muskrat Falls is a good project for Newfoundland and Labrador. He has, and he has done that publicly. As a matter of fact, he stood at the mike at their AGM just recently at the Battery and stated ‘uncategorically' that this is a good project for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The past Leader of the NDP nationally has stated as well, ‘uncategorically', it is a good project for Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, he actually lobbied the Prime Minister to sign on to the loan guarantee and said it will be the right thing to do for Newfoundland and Labrador, the right thing to do for the region, and the right thing to do for Canada. That is what your leader said, nationally. That is exactly what the leader said, no problem whatsoever.

Then, I will be honest with you, I do not understand at all your direction, but sometimes I do understand because what comes back to me each and every time when I try to understand and try to logically figure out where your focus is to, I actually come down and back to: no leadership. That is what I come to, and that is what you are lacking. No leadership, that is where it is to.

To get up there and ask questions for the sake of asking questions, no substance to it whatsoever –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. O'BRIEN: Listen, I just spoke about moving from a non-renewable resource economy to a renewable resource economy and I shudder to think that if we do not move that and we start running out, in regard to our revenue sources going in that, we will not have any more farms in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the hon. member, because I know that your focus is on farming. We have good agricultural programs in government and we will move towards that, but in order to have a big farm down in Lord's Cove we are going to have lots of revenue and we are going to have to do a lot of blasting, I say to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish now. I am going to finish in regards to this document right here. This document actually speaks volumes to the leadership of this Province. That is what it does. This is The Chronicle Herald of Ottawa. This is a guy, the editor, of The Chronicle Herald who writes this and writes this with pride, wrote it with pride as if our Premier was the Premier. That is exactly what it is.

I table this document and I dare you to read it because you might get some pride in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After that address I see my colleague is having a drink of water, a well-deserved drink of water after that, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if I will be able to have the passion in it that he has, Mr. Speaker. As the members on this side have said, everyone who has gotten up has said that we have been pleased to speak to this.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read a quote here. It is attributed to Michelangelo. It says: The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss, but that it is too low and we reach it. I am going to repeat that because the greatest danger for most us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it. Mr. Speaker, that quote I do believe speaks to exactly where we are and where we see Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, I brought along with me today, and I know we are not allowed to read from it, but I brought along a copy of the Energy Plan. This Energy Plan that came out in 2007, there is an address by the Premier at the time, Premier Williams, and the then Minister of Natural Resources, our present Premier, and a quote from the Energy Plan said there was two objectives, economic self-reliance and environmental sustainability. That was in her address, a letter from the minister.

Then at the top of the next line in the paragraph, it says: Why an Energy Plan? This speaks to it: Our Aboriginal and European ancestors were attracted to this rugged land by its abundance of natural resources, the wealth. Too often in our history, however, this wealth was managed and controlled for the benefit of outside interests rather than for the people who live and work there; therefore, the basis of our Energy Plan. It is for our people, the use of our resources to the benefit of our people.

I have been in this House since 2003, and I have to admit, Mr. Speaker, there are sometimes things that come before the House, the bills and the housekeeping part of it, that are not all that interesting, but I tell you this place holds a special spot for special moments. I have to be honest with you; I will never forget the day that the Nunatsiavut Government was officially formed. They were here. It was in December. Those galleries were full. I sat in the corner over there. I just sat and I said to myself: Do you know something? This is a special moment in the history of this Province. You knew there was pride amongst the people who were in the gallery and who were in this House of Assembly.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they passed out a brochure type of thing. I had it signed by the Premier of the day, the ministers of the various departments, and the members in Opposition who were from Labrador because I knew it was a special moment. There are other special moments that happened in this House. Mr. Speaker, when we sanction the Lower Churchill it is going to be one of those moments that we will not forget during our time in this Legislature. It is going to be something that will be remembered in history and something that you can celebrate. You will celebrate it as something for the entire Province, for the people of this Province.

My colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, spoke to being briefed, the many, many times that we have been briefed on Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, we have been briefed many times by the people from Nalcor. Now, I am not anti people from outside of the Province, but I am certainly pro people within the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: When we listen to presentations from people like Gilbert Bennett, Ed Martin and these people, you know there are two things about them. They are genuine in the cause and what they are working at. I am certain these people are not going to put their reputation on the line. You never know what can happen in years to come. They are making a decision that is based on the information they have.

The other thing about them, Mr. Speaker, these people, what amazes me is they do not think about today, a year from now, or five years from now. Their vision is thirty to forty and fifty years out. These are the visionaries, Mr. Speaker. These are the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are our own people working on our own project to make us independent and, Mr. Speaker, make us sustainable into the future.

My colleague mentioned the Third Party. I cannot help but mentioning this. We know how well the Avalon is doing, and in particular the St. John's, Mount Pearl, and CBS area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The members opposite from the Third Party, I have to wonder sometimes what their constituents actually think of them, because the benefits that they are going to get from Muskrat Falls are huge, Mr. Speaker, and yet they stand day after day and bemoan – and when we look at the late Jack Layton, who supported their leader; their MP, Jack Harris; the various people who support it; Tom Mulcair; and here they are getting up day after day. I have said that dark cloud that hangs over their head day in and day out, boy, it has to be demoralizing. I would not be able to operate under that kind of world, I have to tell you.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are worried they are going to wake up happy.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, they are worried they are going to wake up happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ryan Snoddon.

MR. JACKMAN: Yes, and I can agree with the member opposite: they would put a cloud over Ryan Snoddon. They definitely would.

Mr. Speaker, I have spent the majority of my life dealing with children. I am a father, I am grandfather, I did some fostering, and I am in the Department of Education. I have always been motivated by the desire to do well by children, always have. I have taken that responsibility very seriously, and I continue to take it very seriously. That is why I am proud to stand here today for no other reason than to say that we are doing something historical for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. That is as simple as it gets, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: That is what this Muskrat Falls is about. We know there are the economic benefits of it, there are the benefits to the businesses, there are benefits to the provincial coffers, and there are benefits in Labrador, in terms of improvements to infrastructure and the work that will come out of it, but it is the long-term benefits, the legacy – the legacy that we are leaving our future generation. That, Mr. Speaker, may be the most important thing of all.

We know that there is going to be a guaranteed source of energy. We talk about oil; we know oil will someday be depleted, but as long as the water keeps flowing, we are going to have that electricity flowing.

Mr. Speaker, we have often talked about and we know about the deal that was made with the Upper Churchill. One of the things that amazed me the other year when I was in Lab West and went out: they tell me – and I am hoping I have this right – that the Upper Churchill displaces 110,000 barrels of oil a day.

Now, if you talk about the part that we can do for our environment, then just think about that. Just look at everyone; even very young children are very much aware of the term climate change. Fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years ago, if you mentioned it in schools, I doubt very much if people would have known what we are talking about. All we have to do is look at the change in weather patterns. Children are very much aware of it and children want to do their part for the global environment.

I have heard some people say that we are such a small Province that our impact on what we can do globally to change climate change is minimal. Mr. Speaker, you know the important thing about all this is that if every part of the world did their own little, small part, it often amounts to a bigger thing that can in effect alter climate change. To think that through the development of the Lower Churchill and us eventually getting back the Upper Churchill – just think what our contribution is to the diminishing of global change in terms of climate, and that we can share some of that energy with other jurisdictions.

We are 500,000 people, Mr. Speaker, but we can certainly do our part. This is one of the legacies that we will leave the children of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I think most importantly for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is that it makes us energy self-sufficient.

I think we have all felt the bitterness that has come with the deals that we did not foresee in the future, an energy deal that allows our resources to be used for the primary benefits of others. As I said from the beginning, that is one of the things that this Energy Plan spoke about: that we take control of our resources, develop them for the benefit of our people, and that we reap the returns and the benefits of those resources for our people and for future generations.

I do not think there are any of us in this Legislature who would want us to return to the day when we see another Upper Churchill take place. I certainly am willing to put my name on anything that says that I support this project for the future of our children. That, Mr. Speaker, to me, is one of the bottom lines as to why I am up speaking to that.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we can just imagine that Muskrat Falls will put us on an energy grid that will be 98 per cent green. I think that is amazing in itself. You think and look to other jurisdictions and see where other jurisdictions are, and that we as a Province can say that we are 98 per cent green. Not only is it a positive statement for our Province, Mr. Speaker, it is a positive statement for our country and it certainly would leave an impression on the global scene.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs talked about where we are in terms of our place, I suppose, in Canada. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. Our place, and the strength of us as a government and us as a people, has changed from where it was even fifteen years ago. I think we often looked at ourselves as maybe the poor cousins of the country.

I can tell you anywhere I go as a minister right now, and I bet I can speak for all of my colleagues: anywhere we go in this country and we speak about Newfoundland and Labrador, there are none of us who hang our heads. I can assure you of that. I go and I speak second place to no one. I, in fact, raise my head and say to anyone – and I say it proudly – that I am from Newfoundland and Labrador. I take no back seat to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I think of thirty years from now to see when the young students in our schools are going to be the leaders in the Province. In preparing for this, I took a look at some – I could not find many of them, but I did find a few documents about the Bay d'Espoir Development. For so many years, that had been in concept stage. There was the debate: Should we do it, the costly investment? What will it mean for the future? I am wondering if anybody would look back now and say it was a bad decision. I doubt it very much.

This one has been on the go for equally as long. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that this is going to happen. We can take pride in the leadership of this government, our Premier, and our Minister of Natural Resources. All you have to do is speak to them on certain days and you know the stress they are going through in getting this moving and progressing. Mr. Speaker, they brought it there. They are going to bring it before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, I will be surprised if even the folks on the other side do not get up and nod their head in support of this.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope they will.

MR. JACKMAN: My hope is that they will. I am certain there will be some of them over there that will get up and, Mr. Speaker, it will be great day.

The thing about this, Mr. Speaker, the thing that we are leaving our young people, they are doing it from a position of strength. I like to see that, because this is a legacy that we are leaving them, our future generation: a clean, renewable source of energy and power. I think we can take that word both literally and figuratively. Literally, that we are going to provide them with power, and figuratively, that we are providing them with a future. They have the power in their hands that they become leaders within this country and that they will progress into the future as a strong, strong body within the nation, and, like I have said before, globally.

We have been fortunate, Mr. Speaker. We have seen the benefits of our oil riches; there is no doubt about that. We have lived in a time when we have seen the Province come from being a have not to a have status. I do not know if anybody could have envisioned that twenty-five or thirty years, and maybe even as recent as ten years ago. We cannot always rely on the oil. We know that it is going to run out and therefore we have to plan for the future, Mr. Speaker. That is what this is all about.

As long as the Churchill River will continue to flow, we will forever have that energy, Mr. Speaker. I do not foresee it drying up anytime in the near future. Every parent, Mr. Speaker, wants to leave the world a better place for their children – every parent. As we have our children – and you always look at it, maybe your children have it a little bit better than you. We always want to have a better place for them in the future. Every responsible citizen wants a cleaner environment for future generations.

Do not tell me there will not be a celebration the day that we finally bring an end to the Holyrood generation station. All we have to do is look back to some of the news clips over the past ten, fifteen, twenty years and see what some of the stories are about the emissions that come out. I remember one time the cars were coated with soot and the houses were coated with it. I imagine that the folks out in CBS will be quite pleased and quite proud as we should be as a Province. It is one of the highest emission emitters in Atlantic Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: One of the worst in Canada.

MR. JACKMAN: One of the worst in Canada, and we can say we are going 98 per cent green and we are doing away with that facility. That in itself is an amazing feat, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone wants to give their children options that will allow them to lead a healthy, prosperous life. Mr. Speaker, that is what this project is all about. We are doing it because we are thinking of the future, not just our future, but the future of our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, we know that demand for electricity is rising. I have said to a few people, did anyone see what the car of the year was this year? It is an electric car. Mr. Speaker, that tells you where the world is eventually going.

Mr. Speaker, we in this Province are in a good place. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, and I look to the history books being good for this project, I am proud to get up and speak to this project and I am pleased that I am going to be in this government and in this House when this project gets sanctioned.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased today to be able to make a few comments in the Address in Reply.

Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to speak today on some of the great things that have happened in my district over the last year, some of the great initiatives that are taking place in Placentia and St. Mary's from water and sewer, capital works investments, and summer celebrations and so on, but I will get a chance to do that in time to come. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on what has been the recent topic of late, and that of course is Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, there is little that has not been said. Muskrat Falls has been on the minds and the lips of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians now for two years, since the announcement was first made in October at the Sheraton Hotel in 2010. Mr. Speaker, no project in this Province's history has had the scrutiny that this project has had, or had the discussion that this project has had. No project in the history has had so much information released, so much information given out, so much documentation provided by this Province and by Nalcor.

There has been an ongoing information campaign, Mr. Speaker, since the fall of 2010, for two years. With regard to providing information to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, on this project, no stone has been left unturned, no i has been left undotted, and no t has been left uncrossed with respect to the amount of information that has been disclosed on this topic. The media is full of it everyday, and has been for two years. The Open Lines –

AN HON. MEMBER: They are full of it.

MR. F. COLLINS: Not my comment, Mr. Speaker.

The Open Lines have been rampant with it, the newspapers are also full of it, the TV. It has been a topic at council offices, at beer taverns, at moose hunting expeditions, and kitchen tables, Mr. Speaker. Everywhere on the lips of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, since the fall of 2010, Muskrat Falls has been the topic.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition constantly refers to Bill 29 and the negative impact it has on getting information out on Muskrat Falls. If that is the impact Bill 29 has, good for Bill 29, because more information has come out on this project than anything else in the history of this Province. In the last month alone, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the release of volumes of documentation and reports supporting this project. We have seen reports from MHI, we have seen reports from Ziff, we have seen reports from Wood Mackenzie, and we have seen reports on alternatives, natural gas, wind, environmental effects and rates.

Mr. Speaker, with constant requests by the Opposition for information, every question that could be answered has been answered, every question that was asked has been answered, and every matter in which the Opposition required clarification for has been addressed. Mr. Speaker, there is no project that has been scrutinized and given more information than this project. Of all that information, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is abundantly clear. The bottom line is abundantly clear. We need the power, and Muskrat Falls is the lowest-cost option to get it. As a result of all this information coming out, Mr. Speaker, that question is abundantly clear.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy Plan has been referenced in this House several times in the last couple of days, and that Energy Plan was developed some years ago with the intention of developing this Province into an energy warehouse. Mr. Speaker, that plan continues to evolve, our Province continues to evolve, and our economy continues to evolve from one based on non-renewable resources to an economy based on renewable resources – a renewable resource-based economy.

As was already mentioned today in the House, our non-renewable resources are exactly that: non-renewable. The oil will run out. As far as the Energy Plan is concerned, to quote the famous poem Desiderata, the universe is unfolding as it should.

Mr. Speaker, the current Premier was the Minister of Natural Resources at the time who spearheaded that Energy Plan. It provides a future direction for this Province. Mr. Speaker, it could be described in a number of ways. It could be described as vision. It could be described as being masters of our own destiny. It could be described as securing a future for our children and our grandchildren. It could be described as new energy. Whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, it shows the evolvement of our national energy program and national Energy Plan, and how we are the envy of this country with that program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, there was a quote today, let me go back to it, from the previous speaker, the Minister of Education. I did not copy down the exact words, but it is something to the effect that the danger is not to aim too high and miss but to aim too low and reach it. I think it was something like that, that the minister quoted.

Mr. Speaker, this government has proven that we are not afraid to aim high.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: We are not afraid to take risks, if that risk is properly analyzed and every measure is taken to mitigate that risk, and that is why we did. The impact of this project has been evaluated, the future direction of the Province has been evaluated, taking all of this into consideration, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to take this momentous decision, a milestone, a historical occasion, a defining moment in this Province. So, we are not afraid to aim high.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be a characteristic of the other side of this House. They have been quoted by the Premier, and I think rightly so, as being the masters of management of decline. That is not us. That is not this side, Mr. Speaker. We have shown we are prepared to make big decisions, to take the reins in our own grasp, to move through uncharted waters, Mr. Speaker. We have the best possible people around that we could get, the best possible advice we could get. With that, we are prepared to make a momentous step forward in this House during this week when we sanction, or as soon as we sanction this Muskrat Falls Project. .

Mr. Speaker, we have always had the support of the Newfoundland and Labrador public in this project, as witnessed in the last election. The Newfoundland and Labrador people in this last election returned a massive majority in this House, based on our vision and plans to move forward with projects like Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, as I go through the district today I find very few, if any, negative comments about Muskrat Falls. In fact, when I went to the district in the last election I knocked on a door of a constituent who never voted for me before – never voted for the Tories before. He said: I am voting PC this time because of Muskrat Falls. That was what was reflected in the last election, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in my district, I have long-time Liberals, people who never voted Tory before saying to me: Get on with it, cut the BS, that is enough of it, get on with it, it is time to move. These are not PC Party members. Mr. Speaker, of course the polls in the last few weeks show strong support for this project.

Mr. Speaker, we have our naysayers. We have had them. They are our armchair experts – Monday morning quarterbacks. They try to politicize the process. The same old crowd, still around; we will not get rid of them and they refuse to give up. Even after the announcement on the loan guarantee the other day, Mr. Speaker, they are still pooh-poohing that. They will continue to find roadblocks and negative comments to make because they politicize the process. When you politicize the process, you cannot get out of it. That is what happened there. You cannot save face.

My goodness, to see the reaction of Quebec to the loan guarantee, sure that in itself should be enough. That should be enough in itself to convince this Province. Premier Dexter, Mr. Speaker, said it very well last week. Premier Dexter said it very well in response to the reaction from Quebec. He said: All Quebec's reaction will only do is it will strengthen the resolve of Nova Scotians. Quebec's position will strengthen the resolve of Nova Scotians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a minute or two to talk about this infamous debate or the debate that never was. We heard from the other side for months the need to have a full and open debate in the House of Assembly on this topic. The Premier agreed, no problem, that is what we wanted to do. We agreed to a full and open debate in the House of Assembly. Then they said: We want all the information we can get on this project so we can have a full and open debate. We gave them every bit of information that was available. Every shred of evidence that was available we gave to them. Then they said: We have too much. You are overwhelming us.

Mr. Speaker, guess what? In order to debate, you have to have a counterargument. You have to have an adverse argument. You have to have something to come with. Mr. Speaker, there was never any intention to have a debate. There was never any intention on the other side to debate because they had nothing to come with. Every question has been answered. Every report has been produced. All the issues have been addressed. They cannot find an expert anywhere they could bring to counteract what we presented.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. F. COLLINS: There may be one tomorrow at the wake.

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. the member from the Rattlin' Bog.

MR. F. COLLINS: The Rattlin' Bog crew.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. In order to have a debate, you have to have a counterargument. You have to have something to come with. They have nothing to come with. The people of Newfoundland support it. How can you take a position contrary when the people of Newfoundland support it? You lose all political credibility. In order to save their political credibility, they decided not to debate. It makes sense if you are sitting on that side.

If you cannot debate the project, Mr. Speaker, then the next best thing is to try to debate the process. That is what they are coming with now. The only questions day after day in the House: turn this thing back to the PUB. That is the only thing they have. They cannot debate the project. The only thing now: bring it back to the PUB. All their arguments have been shot down. All of their questions have been answered. There is no counterargument coming in. They cannot argue the substantive nature of this project anymore. It is copper-fastened, so all we can argue now is the process.

Bring it back to the PUB for an independent – and I quote, independent – analysis. They have no experts. They cannot bring any experts. They do not have any, or at least what we have seen, I do not think they want to go with. They could not participate in debate because they had no case, so let us go back to the PUB.

Mr. Speaker, suppose we did go back to the PUB. Apart from the refusal of the PUB to come up with a recommendation in the first place after spending $2 million, forget that. Suppose we did go back to the PUB. Now, the PUB, with all due respect to the members sitting on the board – there are some good people there, intelligent people with qualifications, but they do not have the expertise to analyze this project. So what will they do? They will go out and they will get expertise. They will get an expert, an independent expert. Where did they go the last time? Manitoba Hydro, MHI, that is where they went.

So if you go back to the PUB, who would they want to go to now for experts? Are they going to go back to MHI? Why would they not? That is where they went the first time; if they were good enough the first time would they not be good enough to go back the second time? They chose them. We did not choose MHI, by the way. We did not choose MHI; these are the PUB's experts, the ones they used. So, one would assume, if it went back to the PUB, then they would go back to their own experts, to MHI.

Now, what we are doing, we are short-circuiting that. Why bring in a third party, why go to a third party to go to MHI, spend another couple of million dollars, when we can get the information directly from MHI? If MHI was good enough for the PUB, why is it not good enough for Nalcor? Why is it not good enough for Nalcor?

So, if the PUB went back to MHI and got an opinion from their second group of experts to get an opinion on what their first group of experts did – one group of experts reporting on their own report, or if they get a new set of experts, then the second set of experts reporting on the first set of experts; how far do you bring this thing? How far do you go with it?

Then, to follow that up, Mr. Speaker, will you ever, ever get a group of people that they would consider independent? It would not matter what you came up with, because they politicized the process, so now they are stuck with it. We took the experts the PUB had. Why would we not? They are experts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple more points in the length of time I have. I will make reference to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has spoken in this House several times. The Minister of Finance is regarded in this Province as one of the great communicators in politics – one of the great communicators in politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: When the Minister of Finance speaks, he exudes confidence. He exudes trust. He is accepted by people. He is a great communicator. He responds to the questions people ask on the debt. The naysayers will say we are going to drive this Province deeper in debt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. F. COLLINS: Muskrat Falls is going to sink us with regard to our debt.

The Minister of Finance has quite expertly pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that this is a revenue generating project that will pay for itself. It is not like putting millions of dollars into something you are going to get nothing back from. It is not like borrowing money to go on a vacation. You come back, your vacation is finished, your money is gone, and you have nothing to show for it.

This is a revenue generating project. It will pay for itself and will provide a dividend at the end of the day for this Province, whether it wants to spend it on improvements to reduce rates, whether it wants to build hospitals, whether it wants to build roads, whatever. Mr. Speaker, that is the best I can offer in the debate on Muskrat Falls. It is a project that pays for itself and moves us away from a non-renewable based economy to a renewable based economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak briefly about the loan guarantee. I want to congratulate the Premier on the tremendous job she did on that. The loan guarantee is the final cog in the wheel. There is no need to get into the details of it, the watershed moment in our history. To our Premier, I say bravo and a job well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee also means that this project, as the Prime Minister stated, is a game changer for Atlantic Canada. It is recognized. The fact that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Government of Canada approved this loan guarantee means that this project is recognized as a game changer in this country of Canada, support of all the federal parties.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the crowd on the other side, it is time to come onboard. This project is too important for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, too important for Atlantic Canada, too important for Canada in general. Mr. Speaker, it is recognized and appreciated by the Government of Canada, by the Prime Minister, by the NDP, by the Liberal Party, by all the leaders.

Mr. Speaker, come with us, take our hand if necessary, we will lead you. Save your own political credibility, come with us. The game is over. You are not going to get over – there is no possibility of getting over time, the game is over here. Stand with us. At the end of the day, stand with us. Stand in your place and support it. Be part of the future. Be part of a legacy. Show that you care about this Province. Stand in your place.

I want to finish off, Mr. Speaker, with a quote of a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian who currently sits in this House, the Member for Cape St. Francis. Mr. Speaker, my wife is worse on names than I am. She cannot ever remember his name so she calls him St. Francis. I want to quote the Member for Cape St. Francis. In his speech the other day, he said: Members of this hon. House, this is a great time to be living in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): I remind the hon. member his time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to speak in this historic debate on the most important project ever to affect our overall economic well-being in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is key to becoming an energy warehouse for all of North America, a renewable energy source that will generate billions of dollars of new wealth, not just for today, Mr Speaker, but for the very long term. Indeed, this development will not only benefit our Province but, in fact, the entire Atlantic region, Canada, and the Eastern United States as we all enjoy clean, green energy and the thousands of jobs its generation will bring.

This has been a very interesting and informative debate, and I thank my colleagues for their input and perspective. I have also listened to the public debate, Mr. Speaker, that we hear on the airwaves. From people that I meet, as I go grocery shopping, in the mall, or just going for a walk down the street, I find, Mr. Speaker, that overwhelmingly, Muskrat Falls has very strong support. For the most part, people are saying: When are you going to get on with it? It is a great project, get her done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: While I recognize that there are pros and cons to this, or any multi-billion dollar development, Mr. Speaker, for that matter, based on my understanding of the impact that this development will have on our economy and our environment, I will most definitely be voting to support the motion to proceed with Muskrat Falls.

There are so many aspects that one can cover on this topic, of course, Mr. Speaker, but we have limited time in this hon. House so I am going to focus on the key reasons why I arrived at the decision to support the motion to build Muskrat Falls. The key reason for me, Mr. Speaker, is the economic benefits, especially those for my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Now, the economic benefits are far-reaching. Muskrat Falls is good for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, it is good for Atlantic Canada, for Canada, and for North America.

In my district, we know the difference that a major hydro development can have on its surrounding communities. Since the late 1960s, the Bay d'Espoir area has been a major producer of electricity for the provincial power grid. The plant provides 2,657 gigawatt hours of energy annually, which is 616 megawatts, while the Upper Salmon has 84 megawatts and Granite has 40 megawatts, all from the Bay d'Espoir watershed.

Prior to the establishment of a hydroelectric dam, we were a rural town with limited economic or social prosperity. That all changed with the hydro development as new skills were developed for local people in trades during construction, followed by the creation of over seventy permanent jobs that we still have today. These jobs, Mr. Speaker, play large role in sustaining our grocery stores, gas stations, recreation facilities, and the like.

We also have two other potential developments in the Bay d'Espoir watershed, Mr. Speaker: Island Pond at 36 megawatts and Round Pond at 18 megawatts. Based on current studies, these options, which are part of the Isolated Island concept, are not the optimal least-cost option at this time and they cannot be considered without the continued use of Holyrood at this time. However, I am still very excited about the potential they will have down the road because I believe that as a result of Muskrat Falls, the ensuing economic growth in business activity will one day lead to increased demand for power on the Island once again. We will be able to provide this from Bay d'Espoir.

Furthermore, we will see immediate benefits from the Muskrat Falls Development as well, as there is going to be a power line built from the Bay d'Espoir Generating Station to the Avalon. That is going to create local opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the Bay d'Espoir Development. That was done in the 1960s, and as some previous speakers have already alluded to, there was a lot of opposition to that at the time, like we see from members opposite here today.

What would have happened had we not developed Bay d'Espoir? We would have been in the dark a long time ago. If we were to try to build that same facility today, it would cost billions of dollars. It was a visionary project at the time and we are reaping the benefits today. The same will happen, Mr. Speaker, with Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: In terms of the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, as many speakers have already alluded to, the demand is proven. We are building about 3,200 new homes a year. Vale Inco is expected to come on-line around 2014. We are seeing more box stores across the Province and electricity demand is projected to grow by over 12 per cent in the next six years.

First and foremost, Muskrat Falls is going to ensure that we have a reliable, secure power source to meet our opportunities and future growth.

Again, talking about the security and reliability of the source, for the very first time in our history we will have transmission interconnection in two directions to the North American continent. This provides reliability improvements for consumers as we can now import, if necessary, to cover any shortfall situations, and we have a backup in place. Furthermore, if we have excess power, we can sell it and make a lot of money.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Muskrat Falls development, contrary to what the opponents have been saying in terms of increasing our debt, actually improves our asset sheet. While those opposed to the project cannot see the big picture – I sometimes say it is like they cannot see the forest for the trees – those of us who are visionaries can see that in actual fact, this development significantly enhances our asset sheet with a hydro-generating facility worth billions of dollars in present-day value as well as renewable, reliable revenue generation for decades and decades and decades to come.

Now, let us talk about the jobs, Mr. Speaker. During the peak construction phase, Muskrat Falls will employ more than 3,100 men and women with an average of 1,500 jobs each and every year of construction. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be the primary beneficiaries of these employment opportunities and the project is expected to generate, over its lifetime, 9,100 person years of direct employment in the Province with 5,800 of those person years, Mr. Speaker, in Labrador.

Of course, the first consideration for employment for the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric development will be provided to the Labrador Innu, as outlined in the New Dawn Agreement, then all Labradorians, and then Newfoundlanders.

The Gender Equity and Diversity Programs we have negotiated emphasize our commitment to achieve maximum benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Engineering and construction jobs in more than seventy occupations will be available right here at home as Muskrat Falls progresses. In turn, the businesses supporting this sector will grow, hiring more local people as a result.

Employment opportunities, Mr. Speaker, will be felt even further than the trades and construction field. Indirect spinoffs will create jobs in areas such as the service sector, and we will see more people working in retail, busier gas stations, restaurants, and the like.

When you factor in the indirect and induced employment opportunities that the Muskrat Falls development will provide, over 18,400 person years of employment will be generated in this Province and 47,800 person years for the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, the construction and development phase of Muskrat Falls is only the beginning. The power it generates will facilitate other developments, such as large-scale mining in Labrador. These are opportunities we cannot afford to miss. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to put the power in place that is going to attract these large companies that are going to employ our people for generations to come.

Muskrat Falls will provide over $1.9 billion in total income for labour and business in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a significant boost to our economy, Mr. Speaker, and we will be receiving about $320 million a year for our Province alone in tax revenue. In addition, projections are over about $525 million in federal tax revenue. So, certainly a large revenue generator with dollars that can then be reinvested, Mr. Speaker, into improving our infrastructure and our social programs that we have.

Now I am going to move on to the Atlantic region, because the benefits continue on. Through our strategic partnership with Emera, we are leveraging a knowledgeable partner, strengthening our ability to be a key contender in the global energy market. In a newspaper article last January, the hon. Peter MacKay referred to Muskrat as a nation-building project that stands to benefit the region and country for years to come, calling it a landmark agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, with economic impact comparable to the Alberta oil sands.

For Canada, the development of a stable, reliable, and environmentally responsible renewable energy source will provide the country with the opportunity to increase electricity trade with the United States. It will generate over $3.5 billion in labour and business income for the country by the time the project is done. In a time of economic uncertainty worldwide, this is the type of project that is visionary, prosperous, and strategic, Mr. Speaker, as we position ourselves toward a future that is bright, successful, and responsible.

Let us talk a little bit about what it does for North America. It is going to create new opportunities for energy markets by opening new routes for the sale of electric power. It would link us to North America's power grid and provide us with the ability to export any power surplus to our domestic needs to other markets.

Interconnection to the North American grid will open up two access routes for export sales, one through Quebec and one through Nova Scotia. The two routes provide Nalcor with access to a diverse set of markets including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, New England, Quebec, Ontario, and New York. The value we can derive for any excess power generated will be significant.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is being developed first and foremost to meet energy demands in Newfoundland and Labrador; however, the link to the North American grid does create opportunities for us unlike anything we have ever seen before.

In terms of demand, there is a need for renewable power in the Maritimes and the States of New York and New England. The markets there are open and competitive. We are participating in these markets today and the arrangements we have with Emera will allow us to go into these markets in the future and make money – money for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The development of Muskrat Falls is a crucial step, Mr. Speaker, in fully developing the entire Lower Churchill Project and further solidifies Newfoundland and Labrador's position as an energy warehouse, placing us amongst the world's energy superpowers.

In terms of timing, Mr. Speaker, planning for electricity needs, especially future electricity needs, is critical and we must do that planning now. Government must take action to ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have access to reliable and affordable energy. At present day consumption rates, Nalcor knows that by 2015 we must build something to meet usage needs, or we will be facing electricity shortages. We cannot afford to debate, reanalyze, re-evaluate over and over and over much longer. The time for action is now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Muskrat Falls is by far the best option economically, environmentally, and financially. Furthermore, our Province's current fiscal capacity, as a result of excellent Conservative leadership over the last nine years, low interest rates, the federal loan guarantee and the New Dawn Agreement, now is all the more reason, the timing is right to develop Muskrat Falls.

I am going to hone in a little bit more on some of the reasons why I believe, Mr. Speaker, in Muskrat Falls. Rate stability is number one. It will ensure our rates are stabilized for consumers. As many people have already stated in this hon. House, and as some people refuse to acknowledge, the actual fact and the truth of the matter is that without Muskrat Falls we will have the problem of doubling rates. Muskrat Falls frees us from that problem and will actually ensure that rates will be lower for the consumer in years to come. Island electricity rates are currently the fourth-lowest in Canada, and Labrador electricity rates are the lowest in Canada due to significant subsidization. Muskrat Falls will keep our rates among the lowest in Canada for decades to come.

Expertise is reason number two. Nalcor has taken a prudent, practical, and strategic approach to evaluating our energy options and is ensuring that due diligence and best practices are being followed in all aspects of project planning for Muskrat Falls.

Number three: It will enable Newfoundland and Labrador to take greater control of its energy resources and its own economic security, in effect creating a promising future, as many have stated in this House, for our children and our grandchildren.

I want to, here, emphasize a point that the hon. Minister of Environment talked about yesterday. Let us look at that Quebec deal again: $20 billion to the people of Quebec. They have some fine hospitals, some fine schools, and some fine roads. What do we have? One billion dollars over that same time frame. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker, and we are about to right a very severe wrong.

Reason number four: Muskrat Falls will bring significant business and employment opportunities, as I have already outlined.


Reason number five: We will be a climate change leader. Now, we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, a project that will result in our Province being 98 per cent renewable energy, carbon free. Eventually we will develop Gull Island as well, Mr. Speaker. The opportunities will be available to us because we will have the prosperity as a result of Muskrat Falls. These two projects combined could produce the electrical equivalent of 225,000 barrels of oil a day forever. These projects have to be done, Mr. Speaker, and we are in a position to do them now.

Reason number six: It breaks the stranglehold that Quebec has on us. Muskrat Falls eliminates Quebec's stranglehold on this Province and allows us to access the Maritime and United States markets through a second route. This project will be managed by the Province, majority owned by the Province, and developed for the benefit of the Province and of the Atlantic region.

As stated by Premier Dunderdale recently in her speech to the Board of Trade: Quebec will hold the cards no more. Our new strategic partnership with Emera gives us the transmission access into these lucrative marketplaces on our own terms.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a long-term revenue generator for Newfoundland and Labrador. In a climate where the demand for clean energy continues to grow, we will be more than able to create the energy required and the revenue required for a healthy, prosperous Province. It is great employment, great schools, great health care, great road networks and social programs. Mr. Speaker, the development of Muskrat Falls will enable us to reach that place in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak again a little to the critics. If we were to follow what the critics want, this is what would happen: we would be wasting dollars today for a short-term fix. We would still be in dire need of power, facing blackouts. We will have lost the opportunities for business expansion in Labrador. We will have lost a new route to export our export power. We will have no money because the oil is non-renewable. When the oil runs out, if we do not have something renewable in place, we will not have any money.

That is what the critics want, Mr. Speaker. At that point in time, of course, we will have no means of generating any money – because we will once again be a poor Province – so how could we possibly invest in Upper Churchill in 2041 and beyond?

I find it, Mr. Speaker, absolutely incredulous that some very intelligent people fail to see the larger picture and the bigger picture of what Muskrat Falls means for Newfoundland and Labrador – not just those of us here today but for our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and so on.

I believe that we must look at this historic Muskrat Falls agreement for the long term, not just today. The benefits are numerous and far outweigh the short-term risks we have to face. Muskrat Falls will transform Newfoundland and Labrador from an economy dependent on non-renewable resource revenue to an economy built on renewable, sustainable energy resources.

In the future, as a result of this pivotal industrial development, Newfoundland and Labrador will be one of the richest jurisdictions in North America, Mr. Speaker, with a small population, huge resources, and sitting next door to the largest market in the world. Now, who wants to hold us back from that position? Incredulous.

Muskrat Falls is the least cost –

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member her time is up.

MS PERRY: Can I have a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: One minute to clue up.

MS PERRY: Muskrat Falls is the least-cost solution to the Province's increasing energy requirements and the best option for positioning us for future growth and prosperity. This is one of the very few occasions where we are in a position to take control of our natural resources, and that is exactly what we should do. We will be an energy warehouse and our government has the long-term focus to 2041. This is our opportunity to get it right.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, my last final comments, I would like thank our current Premier for her excellent leadership and vision in bringing us forward, as well as our former Premier Danny Williams for his vision in this project as well. It is a great day in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the best is yet to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I saw the hon. Member for Lewisporte.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Just on a point of order, has the Speaker made a decision on this? As a point of order, what is the Speaker's ruling? The Speaker's ruling is final, as I understand it. Who are you recognizing?

MR. SPEAKER: I saw the hon. Member for Lewisporte first.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Normally, in the House of Assembly under debate, our Standing Orders allows for a debate to go from one side of the House to the other. Normally, Mr. Speaker, in Address in Reply it is no different. We are doing Address in Reply today and once government members speak, then it is the option of the Opposition members to be recognized and it goes back and forth.

I ask that you have a ruling on that because we have a member who has been standing and did not get recognized.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker was looking in the direction of the Member for Lewisporte. He saw the Member for Lewisporte. Obviously, the first person I saw was the Member for Lewisporte. I asked the hon. Member for Lewisporte to speak.

MR. JOYCE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Island, on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging the Speaker or explaining what the Speaker should do for his job, but as Speaker, when it goes back and forth, even though we have three people left, it is the Speaker's responsibility to look on both sides to see who is standing. It is the Speaker's responsibility. Mr. Speaker, no Speaker can assume that you just look and say: Here is who I am going to recognize.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Did you look on this side to see if there was anybody standing?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure to be able to stand in my place today and, after being dually recognized by the Speaker of the House to stand, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak in Address in Reply today. I am going to take this opportunity in Address in Reply to speak about Muskrat Falls. We have been debating Muskrat Falls now through Address in Reply –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been debating Muskrat Falls in Address in Reply for several days now. I want to take this opportunity as the Member for Lewisporte district to speak on behalf of the people I represent on this very important issue.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune just finished her debate she thanked the Premier for her fine work on this file. I want to start off –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind members that Hansard tracks comments made in the House and they are recorded for the public record, but the person sitting in the Chair can also overhear comments in the House. The Speaker will rule on comments heard by the Speaker from the Chair even though it may not be recorded in Hansard.

With that, I want to remind members that when the Speaker or presiding Officer makes a ruling, that ruling is to be adhered to by members of the House. The Speaker will not tolerate that ruling being questioned, even though members may not be recognized to speak as they may question the Speaker's rulings.

I ask all members to be mindful of their responsibility to accept the rulings of presiding Officers. Those rulings are final and the House will be guided by those rulings.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I am finding it a bit difficult to keep my train of thought together here now today, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, I want to start by saying a big thank you to the Premier first of all, for the tremendous amount of work she has done on this file. I also want to say thank you to the Minister of Natural Resources, to the officials at Nalcor, because people have been at this for quite some time and they have been persevering through all the details.

They have been persevering through all the legalities, through some of the critics that have been out there, and they brought us to the point that we are today. We have moved quite a ways on the continuum towards sanction of this tremendous project, Mr. Speaker. It has not been without the very hard work, long hours, weekends, meetings, all that kind of stuff, by a group of very dedicated people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the House if any of us ever experienced the loss of electricity. I think most of us have had times when the power has gone out. There were storms, it could be high winds, it could be ice build-up on the lines, or it could be lightning struck a transformer. There are times when the power has gone out in our homes, and for all of us, I think we will all agree it has been a very frustrating experience and a terrible inconvenience. I will also say, we all agree that none of us want to live without an affordable and a stable, and an economic source of electricity for our residents.

Mr. Speaker, as a Province, we have charged the responsibility for securing power in this Province to a group of talented and capable experts. They work at a Crown corporation called Nalcor, and they are led presently by CEO Ed Martin. Nalcor subsidiary, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, have been providing for our power needs for around forty years now. That is right; they have been fulfilling their mandate to ensure that we have a stable supply of electricity at the lowest-cost possible for a very long time. Mr. Speaker, they are continuing to do that work today.

The experts at Nalcor have determined that Newfoundland and Labrador, this Province, will have an electrical supply deficit within the next few years. By 2015, it is expected that we will not have enough energy to meet peak demand on the Island. In actual fact, by 2019, 2020, we will have an energy deficit on the Island.

We as a Province have experienced tremendous economic growth and this prosperity has resulted in a greater demand for power. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since 2002, the Island residential demand for electricity has increased by 16 per cent and commercial demand has gone up by 10 per cent. There are approximately 18,600 more residential customers on the Island now than there was in 2006; new home construction with nearly 90 per cent of new homes across the Province having electric heat as their primary source; and we have industrial development that is also taking place. All of these things have driven the demand for power and have driven Nalcor to the point where they said we need to plan for the future need for our Province.

To ensure that none of us experience the power outages that I talked about a few minutes ago, and also, I might say, Mr. Speaker, with a vision for future economic growth, Nalcor has proposed a plan that will secure our energy well into the future. Furthermore, Nalcor has examined several ways to ensure the security of supply. They looked at wind generation, other small hydro projects, the refurbishing of Holyrood, natural gas, et cetera. The option that guarantees a secure supply of electricity for the people of this Province at the lowest-cost option confirmed by Nalcor and confirmed by other experts around the world is the development of Muskrat Falls.

Some people do not accept the expertise of our own people and some people do not believe that we have the capability of having the brightest and the most intellectual minds right here in our own Province. As a government we accept that some people have some doubt. To ensure complete openness and transparency, and to add an increased level of comfort in the minds of the people who have some doubt about the work done by Nalcor, we have gone out and we have sought other opinions.

Manitoba Hydro is the energy expert that was selected by the Public Utilities Board to review the Decision Gate 2 numbers on Muskrat Falls. In fact, Manitoba Hydro International has reported that Nalcor's work is skilled, well founded, and in accordance with industry practices. This is high praise from an objective outside source and also a strong endorsement of the work done by our people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people employed at Nalcor.

Navigant Canada is a part of a worldwide network of over 1,700 professionals across the globe. Some people have said: Who are Navigant? In 2009, Navigant did over $700 million of business. This company, Mr. Speaker, gets their livelihood from providing advice to governments and companies around the world. Their reputation is their future and their reputation is their livelihood, so when they give us advice, they do not tell us what we want to hear, Mr. Speaker; they are giving an independent analysis of the figures that they have been asked to look at. Their independent analysis is verified. Again, Muskrat Falls is the lowest-cost option to meet our needs.

We have had other people who have looked at the project, Mr. Speaker. Other members on this side of the House have talked about them here over the last few days and I am going to repeat some of them.

An economist at the university, Dr. Wade Locke, did an independent study verifying once again that Muskrat Falls is the lowest-cost option.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. VERGE: The Consumer Advocate has come onside saying Muskrat Falls is a good project and we need the power. Others, including the federal government, the Government of Nova Scotia, the federal NDP, and the federal Liberals, have all recognized Muskrat Falls is a good project for Newfoundland and Labrador – a good project for all of Atlantic Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: In addition to all of these experts, we have also sought the opinion of one of the world's most reliable energy market analysis groups, PIRA. PIRA International is retained by more than 500 companies in more than the sixty countries. We sought their advice because, again, we need to ensure we are making the right decision in accordance with the most reliable and the most current information that is available to us. In the long term, Mr. Speaker, the price of oil, according to PIRA, will stay up despite the short-term fluctuation. We have had studies done on wind generation, natural gas, isolated options, and waiting until 2041. All the reports, Mr. Speaker, verify that Muskrat Falls is the best way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about rates. Most of us do not spend much time thinking about where the electricity comes from. We just expect it to be available when we flick a switch.

As I travel throughout my district, I have to be honest; I have met only a few people who actually wanted to talk about Muskrat Falls and the power generation. What I have found is that people generally are not interested in the intricate details of the project. They do not ask how many megawatts are being produced, how fast the turbines will spin, how many cubic metres of cement will be used. They do not even ask how much the project will cost, Mr. Speaker. They have not even been asking about the federal loan guarantee, which we are, of course, really excited to see come to fruition in the past few days.

What they have been asking me is: How much will this cost? What will be the impact on my electric bill? Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure to explain to my constituents the impact that Muskrat Falls will have on future power rates in this Province. People are always pleased to know that the development of Muskrat Falls will actually save them money when compared to the other options. The only way for our Province to continue to have electricity rates that are among the lowest in all of Canada is for this government to sanction the Muskrat Falls Project.

When people examine their electric bill they will see that rates have gone up between 2000 and 2011, more than at any other time. They went up 32 per cent. Between 2011 and 2016, Mr. Speaker, we expect that it will go up a further 16 per cent. This has nothing to do with Muskrat Falls, but it does not take long to see, Mr. Speaker, that without Muskrat Falls our electricity bills will continue to increase and our dependence on the ever-increasing and fluctuating price of oil will continue. The answer to stable rates is Muskrat Falls.

The Opposition members have said in the past that Muskrat Falls will cause electricity rates to double. Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect. We know that the answer to stabilized rates is Muskrat Falls power. It is the least-cost option to meet our future domestic, industrial and commercial needs. The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that a decision to do Muskrat Falls is a decision in favour of the ratepayers in this Province. To change the pattern of volatility and to ensure electricity is stable and affordable, then we need to proceed with this project.

Mr. Speaker, doing Muskrat Falls makes sense for a whole lot of reasons, not just good rates and the jobs it is going to provide, there are lots of reasons. One of the reasons I want to talk about – and I will hit as many as I can in the next few minutes that I have left, Mr. Speaker. Muskrat Falls releases the stranglehold that Quebec has over the potential growth of our Province.

By partnering with Emera and the Government of Nova Scotia, we will establish a new route for electrical transmission to the mainland and on toward the Eastern Seaboard and potential markets in the US. Some would have us depend on supply from Hydro-Quιbec to meet future demand in Labrador, and also on the Island portion of our Province. To do this would make our Province dependent on Hydro-Quιbec for the indefinite future. Muskrat Falls secures our energy independence, and in short, ensures that we are masters of our own economic growth and of our own destiny. It will enable us to plan for future prosperity, dependent only on ourselves, not on Quebec, Mr. Speaker.

As we look at some of the reaction in the news after the announcement that our Premier made on Friday with Prime Minister Harper down in Goose Bay, an announcement that secures a loan guarantee from the federal government, and we look at how that will save the people of this Province, the ratepayers of this Province approximately $1 billion – and, Mr. Speaker, who is upset? Who is upset? Well, we have some people on the opposite side are a bit upset, and we have people in the Government of Quebec who are upset. That is who is upset, Mr. Speaker. Well, thanks to the good work of our Premier in digging in, digging down, and sticking to it, we end up with a contract, a loan guarantee, that will be in the best interest of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, developing Muskrat Falls is a means of diversifying our economy. It is creating jobs. It is creating an environment in which our energy generation is 98 per cent green. It is benefiting the people of our Province on so many fronts. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Muskrat Falls at this time in our history. We need the power. There has never been a better time to do it.

I will ask this question, Mr. Speaker: How irresponsible would our government be if we listened to the members on the opposite side, members who say do not listen to our own experts, members who say do not listen to the world-renowned experts who have verified Nalcor's numbers, members who say do not listen to the federal government and do not listen to the federal parties, rather just listen to us and a few critics we have around us? How irresponsible would we be as a government if we made decisions just based on that?

Mr. Speaker, our rationale is sound. The project is a good one. I am very excited and I will be very pleased to stand in my place with this government to vote to see the sanctioning of this project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I move that the House do now adjourn.

MR. JOYCE: There is time left on the clock, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is.

The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in this House before, Mr. Speaker, when I have something to say there is no government member over there going to shut me down. I came in here today and I was supposed to speak at 5:00 p.m. It was all agreed to, Mr. Speaker, because I wanted to have a few words, and I am going to speak. As long as the people of Bay of Islands elect me, I will be speaking on major issues in this Province. I will not be sitting and I will not be shut up by anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker; I can guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as we see here now, we are having debate. This is Address in Reply, and we can speak of whatever we like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being 5:30 p.m., Standing Order 9 dictates that we will now adjourn until 7:00 p.m. and return then.


December 4, 2012                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLVII   No. 63A


The House resumed sitting at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

I have just been advised that the bells are still not working outside of offices.

The Speaker acknowledges the Member for Bay of Islands who is standing in his place, if he wants to continue with his speaking time, his time has now started.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to stand in my place. As I said earlier at 5:30, that if I have something to say at least I am going to stand up and say it, Mr. Speaker, at any time – just because they can bring in Bill 29 and try to shut down the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I will also, Mr. Speaker, speak about the backbenchers later and a comment the minister made today.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by the people of Bay of Islands and Corner Brook to bring up Address in Reply to the Throne. There are a lot of issues pertaining to Newfoundland and Labrador that I was asked to bring up in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you I am going to do it.

Mr. Speaker, today there was an opportunity, but I guess through some manoeuvring they tried to ensure that I would not speak. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not happening here in this House. Myself and the Government House Leader knew that I was standing up next to speak, Mr. Speaker. He knew how much time I had and asked me to sit down. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to say what was on my mind and speak on behalf of the people on some of the issues.

Muskrat Falls is one of the bigger issues. Then we have the hospital out in Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker, which is a major, major issue that this Province is not addressing. We have the public sector strife. We are spending like drunken sailors.

MR. MARSHALL: What strike?

MR. JOYCE: Strife I said, I say to the Member for Humber East. If you are so concerned, why don't you stand up about the hospital?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I direct the member to direct his comments to the Chair, and not engaging members on the opposite side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, can you ask the member that if he wants to speak, he should stand up and speak about the hospital and the $1 million which was a slap in the face to the people in Corner Brook. That is what it was; it was a slap in the face. He was out saying how construction was going to start back in 2011, and here we are now in the pre-design stage. That is the kind of issues that are affecting out in Corner Brook. That is the kind of issues that we need to address here. That is the kind of issues that Muskrat Falls is going to take priority over.

The Premier sat down for a meeting with the city council. Mr. Speaker, the Premier sat down and said: If it is $600 million or $700 million for the hospital, it is not on – not on. Mr. Speaker, when I stood in my place and asked her questions, she said she did not deny it. She did not deny it.

Councillor Leo Bruce publicly said that is what the Premier told them, the city councillor of Corner Brook, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of issues we have to be facing here in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the big Muskrat Falls, the lack of commitment for the hospital in Corner Brook that was supposed to be built by 2016.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, was saying it is $750 million. The Premier is saying if it is that much, it is not going to be on. One of those two from the Corner Brook area should stand up, Mr. Speaker, for the people in Western Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about a debate in the House on Muskrat Falls when the Premier said: I do not have a choice. Well, she did have a choice, Mr. Speaker. As the Government House Leader said before: We open the House; the Opposition closes it. She could have brought in a wide-ranging motion on Muskrat Falls, have a full and open debate, debate all the agreement here in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, but the Premier did not do it. She just did not do it.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about what was said here in this House today. I know the Minister of Natural Resources said it, and there is no reason for me to disbelieve what he said today, Mr. Speaker. Every person in this House and every person across this Province heard the last two days, members opposite standing up saying they support Muskrat Falls. They were standing up giving the big debate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Did you hear what the minister said today, Mr. Speaker? Do you know what the minister said today, Mr. Speaker, about the loan guarantee? The Opposition is going to have it before the backbenchers – but every one of them stood up and said we are going to support it, and never even saw what is in the loan guarantee.

So, how can you make an informed decision, you do not even know what you are going to make a decision on, Mr. Speaker? How can you do it? How can you honestly stand in this Legislature and make a decision on a $9 billion project, Mr. Speaker, and not even have the details on it? Every one of them stood up and said: I support it. The minister today said they never even had the loan guarantee, yet they all stood up and voted, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are asking questions. That is why we are standing on our feet. That is why I will not be giving into Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: – because I can tell you, no one is going to tell me what to do unless it is in front of me. I am going to be responsible. I am going to stand up and I am going to be responsible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Now, Mr. Speaker, you watch in the news tonight, people should be scared – people should be scared. You think Bill 29 was bad for this Province, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? You think Bill 29 was bad, Mr. Speaker? We heard tonight the Minister of Natural Resources – once again, I have no reason to disbelieve the minister – when he said the rates from Muskrat Falls, the PUB is going to be taken out of the picture. The safeguard for every resident in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to be taken out of the picture now. Who is going to set the rates? The government.

The reason why, Mr. Speaker, they have to do that – in the loan guarantee, the big fabulous loan guarantee they are supposed to get from the federal government, it says the proprietor has to pay for the cost. Mr. Speaker, because the cost will be so high to the ratepayers in Newfoundland and Labrador, the only way to ensure that it is going to be paid for is take the PUB, the regulatory board – which is unheard of, Mr. Speaker, unheard of anywhere in Canada – and put them over in the corner and we say, we will charge you what we like because Muskrat Falls now is our little domain. We will charge you what we like to ensure that we can cover the cost to keep Stephen Harper happy up in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker.

Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? People in this Legislature –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East again is over there. I am not going to say anything to him because I have to direct them to you. Can you tell him if he has something to say, stand up and talk about the hospital? Mr. Speaker, ask the Member for Humber East to stand up and talk about autonomy that he committed in 2010 in the Speech from the Throne.

When the Minister of Finance talks to me, I will say one thing to him, Mr. Speaker: Go out and see if that wing of the long-term care facility is open. It is still not open, Mr. Speaker. When the Member for Humber East wants to say something to me, let me tell you I take it with a grain of salt, Mr. Speaker.

When we have the PUB taken out of the picture, moved out of it – and all the members over there now are going to stand up and say yes, take the PUB out of it so we can set the rates so the Minister of Natural Resources, the Premier and whoever else, and the rest of the bunch like they did on the whole thing with the Muskrat, they never even saw the loan guarantee but stood up and said I am voting for it. The same thing is going to happen with the rates in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Seventy per cent will not even know that the rates are going to go up. They are not even going to know. The Cabinet is going to set the rates for Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is just shocking. I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, right now, if you think Bill 29 is hard on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, wait until 2017, 2018, 2019, when the cost of this project starts escalating and the only way to find the funds to do it is raise the rates for the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

You think seniors now, Mr. Speaker, are finding it rough. You think people on fixed incomes finds it rough now, Mr. Speaker, wait until 2017, wait until 2018, wait until this government gets the opportunity to start raising rates as they see fit. It is a scary notion. Mr. Speaker, tonight when I heard that the PUB is going to be taken out – and the people want to know why we are going to be in this Legislature for a number of weeks debating it, that is going to be one of them: taking the PUB right out of the picture. That is unheard of in Canada, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, we look at what they are doing in Nova Scotia, and we look at this big loan guarantee everybody is so happy about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: We look at this big loan guarantee everybody is jumping up for. Fine, we have the stranglehold of Quebec off us. If that is true, I congratulate the government. If we have the stranglehold of Quebec off Newfoundland and Labrador, I applaud the government.

Do you know what you did? You gave it to Nova Scotia. That is what you did, Mr. Speaker. That is what this government did. This loan guarantee does not kick in until it is approved by Emera and it goes through the PUB in Nova Scotia.

Do you know when they start hearings, Mr. Speaker? Do you know when the deadline is to put in an application to the PUB in Nova Scotia? It is December 31, 2013. They have until July 2014. They have 180 days to hold public hearings. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I think it is clause 5. I can table it if anybody wants to see it.

Do you know one of the things the PUB in Nova Scotia can do, Mr. Speaker? It can look at the dam and the line from Muskrat Falls to Soldiers Pond, look at the engineering design, look at the cost, and look at how much it is going to be to maintain it and how much you are going to need. The PUB in Nova Scotia has that authority but, guess what? We cannot. We cannot.

How can anybody in this Province explain to me why a PUB in Nova Scotia will have their authority to come down and look at the connecting line from Muskrat Falls down to Soldiers Pond, yet we cannot? It is unconscionable – it is actually unconscionable, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Now, Mr. Boy Scout, you stay quiet over there. You had your chance over there. You stay quiet over there now. You just take it easy there now.

Mr. Speaker, here we are. If we are going to do something, Mr. Speaker, we should be open and accountable. We should be open and accountable for it all. The Premier stands up in this House, Mr. Speaker, and we have the details not even finalized because we have to wait on Nova Scotia and because we have to wait on Emera, yet we are supposed to stand up in this House to vote for something that we do not even know what the final details are. We do not even know.

I know a lot of the backbenchers here, Mr. Speaker, stood up these last two days and raised their hand: I am for it. Finally, we see the loan guarantee today. They heard it was good, but they finally saw it today. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: I will not be doing it until I see all the details of it, I can guarantee you that. I will not be standing up and voting for something I do not have the details of.

I tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: I will use Leo Power. I know Leo Power personally. I knew Leo Power back in university days. Leo Power is a good guy. He is part of this group now that is for Muskrat Falls. I know Leo Power. I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that Leo Power, as the businessman that he is, would never sign a deal where he never had the final copy in front of him to look at the details. He would not do it. I know what type of businessman he is. He is a good guy. He is a great guy. He is a friend of mine. As a businessperson, Leo Power would never, ever, ever, sign a deal unless he had it in front of him, passed it over to a lawyer, passed it to an accountant, and said: Go through this for me. It just would not happen. Yet, we are told here in this Legislature that we have to vote for it, even though we do not have the final deal. It just cannot happen, Mr. Speaker – it just cannot happen.

Mr. Speaker, the big question has to be asked here, and this is what all the people that I speak to want to know: How much will it cost the ratepayers? How much is it going to cost me? What will my monthly bill be? Mr. Speaker, do you know what the answer is? We cannot tell you. It is scary. I know, I agree with some of the members shaking their heads. I agree; it is scary. It is actually scary to know we are doing this big megaproject, already increased up to $9 billion, yet we cannot tell the ratepayers of this Province how much they are going to have to pay for it.

What is even making it scarier, they are saying we do not know what you are going to have to pay for it on your monthly bill, but just in case it has gone through the roof, we are going to take the PUB out of it so we can make sure we charge enough back. That is exactly what the government is doing: ensuring that they can pay for it, is taking our regulatory board.

We always ask: Do we need the power? How much was it last year? Three hundred megawatts; we did not even use that last year, Mr. Speaker, never even used in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Never even used, Mr. Speaker.

We look at Labrador – we have this talk now. First, we are going to be this big energy power in the US. We cannot bring it down to the US any more, Mr. Speaker. Now all of a sudden, we are going to sell it over to Nova Scotia. Oh, you cannot do that because Emera and Nova Scotia have not agreed to it yet. Then we are going to bring it up to Labrador to the mines. Oh, we will worry about the transmission line later. It is all over the map.

My biggest question, again: If we need the power in Labrador, which I think we do, why are we giving it to Emera? Why are we giving it to Nova Scotia? Because some cabin owner down on the Southern Shore in Nova Scotia wants air conditioning in the summertime? Is that what we are doing, giving him a cheaper rate so while he is out to his cabin, Mr. Speaker, and wants to be cooled off, and turns on his air conditioner at cheap rates, Newfoundland and Labrador is doing it, while the taxpayers here are paying for the cabins over in Nova Scotia on the Southern Shore in the summertime so they can have air conditioning and a consistent supply of power.

That is what it is, Mr. Speaker, and we are paying for it. Now, the government is going to say: Just in case Nova Scotia wants more power, they are not going to pay any more, so we have to increase your rates to make sure he has a supply of power in Nova Scotia for air conditioning, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we go on Bill 29. We cannot get any information. Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 – I will just give you an example. This was so funny, Mr. Speaker. Ed Martin was out to the Mayors and Municipalities Conference, and the minister was out there also. Ed Martin gave this speech on Muskrat Falls. Three hours prior to that, Mr. Speaker, the mayors sat down in a session with the minister's staff. Do you know what the big issue was? You have to make sure everything goes to public tender. You have to make sure you do it properly. Then Ed Martin stood up a few hours later talking about the big contracts he gave, but he does not have to go to public tender.

Every municipality in this Province was told: You have to go to public tender; you have to cross your t's, and you have to dot your i's. The only one, Mr. Speaker, that does not have to do it in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is Nalcor; it is Nalcor. That is it. Then with Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, you will never know what is happening over in Nalcor. You will never know.

With the PUB taken out of the equation, we will never know what the rates should be, Mr. Speaker. I think it is shocking, Mr. Speaker. It is absurd, Mr. Speaker, that here we are in the House of Assembly voting on something that we do not even have the final details on. We are going to vote to take the PUB out of the picture.

This government, Mr. Speaker – I will just tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government that is going to do that are the same ones who brought in Bill 29 to make sure we could not get information in the first place. Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of thing that I refuse to do as a parliamentarian.

I will ask for leave to finish off for five minutes like we gave the Minister of Municipal Affairs today.

I ask for leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave to clue up, so there are two minutes to clue up.

MR. JOYCE: Two minutes, thank you. I thank the Government House Leader for leave. I know he loves to hear me speak, so I just thank you very much for the leave, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs today. We always give leave when people want to clue up as usual.

Mr. Speaker, as I have been saying, there is another issue as this Address in Reply, is the hospital in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, if anybody in this Province thinks that Muskrat Falls is not connected to the hospital in Corner Brook, they have to be on that side over there. Every person I speak to in Corner Brook, every person I speak to in Humber East, every person I speak to in Humber West says we were committed. The only reason why we are not getting the hospital now is because of Muskrat Falls. Mr. Speaker, I believe them.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know, the people in Corner Brook on the West Coast, is that when the Premier met with the city council and the Minister of Finance, the Member for Humber East's good buddy Leo Bruce, when he said in the media that the Premier met with us and told us: If it is $600 million or $700 million, the hospital is not on. I asked her questions in this House, she did not deny it.

Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, or the Premier to deny that she made this statement so the people in Corner Brook do not have to be worried, they can have their long-term care facility. They are still trying to get that wing opened that the minister committed to three years ago with the funds, Mr. Speaker. It is still not open. So you wonder why people are a bit nervous in Corner Brook about the hospital. They should be nervous, Mr. Speaker.

I know, Mr. Speaker, I am not allowed to talk directly, but the Member for Humber East is over there laughing at it. Let's go out in Corner Brook and have a debate about the hospital in Corner Brook. Let's go out and have a debate, Mr. Speaker, ask him. I will go out and have a debate with you in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, he will not accept it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development that we adjourn debate on Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn debate on Address in Reply.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Order 5, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 47, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals, now be read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Council And Tribunals". (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the Member for Bay of Islands for finally participating in the debate on the Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: It was nice to get some input from the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, Service Newfoundland and Labrador has legislative –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands on a point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the member: at least I stood up for the people for the hospital, not like you did on the rescue centre here in St. John's, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Service Newfoundland and Labrador have legislative responsibility for thirteen statute regulations governing the appointments to eighteen boards, panels, councils, and tribunals. Service Newfoundland and Labrador is announcing amendments tonight to the acts which govern these boards, councils, and tribunals in order to streamline their administration and operation.

The key groups being addressed this evening, Mr. Speaker, are: the Certified Management Accountants Board, the Certified General Accountants Board, the Certified Accountants Board, the Public Accountants Licensing Board, the Architects Board, the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, Engineers and Geoscientists Board, the Financial Services Appeal Board, the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council, the Public Safety Appeal Board, the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, and the Buildings Accessibility Appeal Tribunal.

The changes being made address two key areas this evening, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it provides a continuation of board, council, and tribunal member appointments upon the expiry of appointed terms until reappointed or replaced, and secondly, it prescribes varying length appointment terms to prevent the simultaneous expiry of appointments. This would be staggered appointments where such provisions do not exist currently in the legislation.

These changes, Mr. Speaker, are important, as they will bring consistency to these legislative provisions within the acts.

Mr. Speaker, this type of consistency is aligned with the principles of regulatory reform and will simplify the administration of the boards, the councils, and the tribunals.

Mr. Speaker, I guess, before I get into the act and the amendments we are making or offering there, there are some key points I would like to make. The reason that we are doing this is we want to streamline the administration and the operation through the Department of Service Newfoundland and Labrador and also to make this government more transparent.

Service Newfoundland and Labrador, as I mentioned earlier, we have thirteen statutes and regulations and this takes care of eighteen boards that this will account to. All of these boards, Mr. Speaker, are filled with voluntary positions: the Certified Management Accountants Board, the Certified General Accountants Board, the Certified Accountants Board, the Public Accountants Licensing Board, the Architects Board, the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, the Engineers and Geoscientists Board, and the Financial Services Appeal Board all are 100 per cent volunteer. The Public Safety Appeal Board, Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, and the Buildings Accessibility Appeal Tribunal are also 100 per cent voluntary. The Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council is a volunteer board, but by legislation we have to have the CEO of Occupational Health and Safety as well as the Assistant Deputy Minister sit on that board, so their positions are paid positions.

Changes being made address, as I mentioned earlier, two key areas, namely to provide the continuation of the board on the councils of tribunal members upon the expiry of their appointments, because what we are finding is that if we do not let them continue in the position when their time is up or served on the board, and if we do not wait until we reappoint them, then we end up with vacancies on boards at times, quite often realizing that a quorum cannot be met and therefore business of the board cannot be continued.

Secondly, it is to prescribe varying-length appointment terms to prevent the simultaneous expiry of the appointments where such provisions do not exist currently in the legislation. The reason for that is because what we are finding is quite often what is happening on a lot of these boards, all the members are appointed at the one time, they expire at the one time, and you end up with a complete new board. A lot of business is halfway through; you come in with a complete new board and they are really not sure where to go, so this is, again, for consistency and continuity within the boards. It helps the board that everyone does not come on the one time and leave at the exact same time and business carries on, business as usual at the end of each day.

These changes, as I mentioned, will bring consistency to these legislative provisions within the acts. This type of consistency is aligned with the principles of our regulatory reform and it will simplify the administration of the boards, the councils, and the tribunals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just run down through some of the changes within the act, Bill 47. As I mentioned, this is an act to amend various acts of the Province respecting appointments.

When you get into the act, first of all in the Architects Act, 2008, number 2, "Section 6 of the Architects Act, 2008 is amended by adding immediately after subsection (7) the following: (8) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years."

What will happen, is once that happens the first time we will get into the staggering of appointments. The first ones, like I said, will be there for two years and then each appointment after that will be three years. When your two-year appointments are up, they will then go to three years. That results in the staggering of board members.

Under the Buildings Accessibility Act, "Section 18 of the Buildings Accessibility Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (2) the following: (2.1) Where the term of a member of the board expires, he or she continues to be a member until reappointed or replaced." What will happen there, Mr. Speaker, is when an appointment is terminated and completed, by the act then with this amendment it gives us the opportunity to keep that person sitting on the board until they have been replaced or a new appointment is put in place.

"Section 18 of the Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (3) the following: (4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 2 years." That is under the Buildings Accessibility Act. Again, as in the act I read before, it will put in the staggering of appointments which gives us continuity within the boards.

Under "Section 20 of the Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (3) the following: (3.1) Where the term of a member of the tribunal expires, he or she continues to be a member until reappointed or replaced." Again, it gives us the opportunity to keep a full board until we either replace or reappoint board members to the board for the Buildings Accessibility Act.

Under "Section 20 of the Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (4) the following: (5) Notwithstanding subsection (3), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the tribunal shall be for a term of 2 years." Again, Mr. Speaker, what that does is give us continuity so that we do not end up with a full board resigning at the one time.

Section 4, in the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008, "Section 4 of the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008 is amended by adding immediately after subsection (7) the following: (8) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years." Again, under the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008 that gives us continuity within the board so we can continue to have a full board, full quorum and work can be continued.

Under the Certified Management Accountants Act, "Section 6 of the Certified Management Accountants Act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (7) the following: (8) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years." Again, that provides us with staggering within the boards.

Under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008, "Section 5 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008 is amended by adding immediately after subsection (7) the following: (8) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years." Again, under the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008, that gives us continuity within the board so that we have staggering appointments on the board.

Under the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, 2008, in (8) Section 4 of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, 2008 there will be an amendment made "(7) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years." That is the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, 2008 to give us a staggering in the appointment of board members.

Under the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, 2008, clause 9, section 5 of the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, 2008 we are recommending an amendment. The amendment is "(8) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years."

The next one is the Financial Services Appeal Board Act under clause 10, section 3 of the Financial Services Appeal Board Act, there is an amendment being suggested, "(7) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years." Mr. Speaker, you can see all of this is simply to continue continuity within the boards so that we can remain with full boards.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, clause 11.(1), section 14 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, we are suggesting an amendment that after subsection (3) it would be "(3.1) Where the term of a member expires, he or she continues to be a member until reappointed or replaced." Once their term is up, we have the ability or the opportunity to keep them on the board until we reappoint them or replace them with a new board member.

Subclause (2) under section 14 of the act is amended by adding immediately after subsection (4), "(5) Notwithstanding subsection (3), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the council shall be for a term of 3 years."

Under the Public Accounts Act, clause 12, section 4 of the Public Accounts Act, we are suggesting an amendment that immediately after subsection (8) that "(9) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years."

The next one is the Public Safety Act. We are recommending that clause 13, section 25 of the Public Safety Act will be amended by adding immediately after subsection (7) the following, "(8) Notwithstanding subsection (3), at least one half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years."

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of these amendments that we are recommending here is to give us good transparency, good governance and good continuity within the various acts of the Province that are all respecting to appointments, to boards, councils and tribunals.

The whole idea of this, as I mentioned earlier, is to keep clarity there. One of the biggest problems we are finding within our boards, councils, and tribunals is that when we have a resignation or someone finishes their term on a board is when they resign, quite often, we cannot move forward with that board and make decisions because we do not have enough people sitting around the board for a quorum.

I guess the whole idea of this is other entities such as agencies, boards, commissions and Crown corporations will at times need to negotiate compensation, which negotiates and reflects responsibilities and accountabilities to the positions they are filling.

As I mentioned, in all of those boards, councils, and tribunals there is only the one, and that is the Occupational, Health and Safety one that there are paid members sitting on the board, and that is the ADM of Occupational Health and Safety as well as the CEO. All of the rest of them are volunteer positions without remuneration.

I think this is a fairly clear piece of legislation. The amendments we are recommending are to do some housekeeping, clean it up, and make it tighter for transparency and continuity. I hope that the members on the other side of the House will certainly support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to speak to Bill 47 this evening. Just going through the bill itself and listening to what the minister had to say, it is pretty much straightforward in the focus of tightening this bill up. I think the whole purpose of this bill is to stagger appointments on some of these boards or committees. It also allows for members to continue beyond their expiry date – as the minister just pointed out – until replacement board members can be chosen.

Mr. Speaker, going down through what the minister just read, I think the variance on the staggering on these committees – two years and three years – I do not see any reason why there should be a problem in terms of vacancies on the boards with due time, two years or three years, to have someone appointed. Certainly, having a board organized in a staggered structure, Mr. Speaker, allows for experience to stay on the board and it also allows for new ideas, new visions coming in with new people. Most of these boards included are boards that are self-regulating professions that make decisions on criteria that is relative strictly to the board, or members of the profession. Some of these include, as the minister had spoken about: architects, certified accountants, embalmers, engineers, financial planners, and accountants, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I support any board structure that allows for staggering and to allow for new ideas and new blood to come onto a board, Mr. Speaker. I think all government boards should have this process applied to it, where you have a staggered appointment process. It would certainly improve the corporate memory and ensure good governance.

For example, I do not see why Nalcor is not included in this, Mr. Speaker, instead of hand-picked members for this board. Certainly, the government has approached this new idea, but it is only applicable to boards that they would like to see there. When you have boards like Nalcor and the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation or Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, these boards control multi-million-dollar budgets and they give their approval on essential services, but we do not see these boards included; if you are looking at good governance, I think boards like Nalcor and NLHC should also fall into the category of what the minister is recommending.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see all boards included in this. Once you have boards that are picked by government, then they are obviously working for the government, and this is when you get into situations where the board will make recommendations, Mr. Speaker, based on the government's advocating or what the government is looking for from a board. We are certainly seeing that in Nalcor, in the process now.

Sometimes I question myself with respect to Muskrat Falls, Mr Speaker: is the government or is Nalcor running that site over there? That question is warranted when we see people on the board of Nalcor that are hand picked by the government and to see the government now come out with a more democratic stacking of the boards, Mr. Speaker. Allowing for these amendments, I would certainly like to see this government come forward and apply this method that the minister talked about in its entirety, Mr. Speaker. I would like this amendment or this bill carried forward to affect every single board and council or tribunal within the government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 47, Mr. Speaker. This particular bill is basically dealing with the appointments to boards, councils, and tribunals. Basically, what the government is doing is they are looking at staggering certain appointments for certain boards and councils in the Province and tribunals and making those appointments similar to that of disciplinary panels. We have passed a whole realm of bills in the House in the last two years with regard to disciplinary panels and how they affect professional groups and professional organizations and associations and so on within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what this would do is, allow appointed members to continue in office up until the expiry of their terms and until they are reappointed or replaced where those provisions are not currently included in the act. Now, Mr. Speaker, this applies to certain groups of professionals, which the minister outlined in his address already and which I will speak to as well in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what you have to realize here is that all of these people are still being appointed to a certain extent by government. There are provisions for professional associations to appoint some members to their own professional organizations or associations, but a lot of them are still appointed by government as well. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we always have cases where people actually resign from boards. It is not just a matter of a person staying on a board until their term expires.

There are lots of cases where people leave, even though their term is not up and even though it is not time to appoint someone else. They leave for different reasons, because of differences of opinion with the group or organization they are involved with. Sometimes they leave, Mr. Speaker, because of personal issues, sometimes they leave because of other professional issues that restrict them from continuing. In a case like that, there also needs to be a provision for timely appointment of board members.

We have a lot of boards in this Province today where there are vacancies that have existed for well over a year, where people have not been appointed and right now they are still vacant, Mr. Speaker. That provision needs to be addressed as well. These appointments are government appointments. They are not vacancies that have been left by professional associations or organizations. They are vacancies that are left because government has not yet reappointed people to those particular boards, tribunals or organizations.

Mr. Speaker, under this particular act the government is actually outlining provisions that will affect a certain number of groups. They deal with things like the term of office. They deal with things like how long a person will be appointed and what the duration of the term will be. It talks about staggering these appointments so there is consistency within the organization or board, tribunal or group, and that is all fine. I have absolutely no problems with that. I have no problems with anything that is being asked for here.

The only thing I would say to the government is that under any of your boards, any of your councils, or any of your tribunals that you have out there in the Province, when a seat becomes vacant and a person leaves because of personal choice, do not leave those seats vacant for a year or two years. Appoint people to the positions so that the public are always better served.

Mr. Speaker, architects are affected under this. We all know what architects do in the Province. Many of them have independent firms. They are contracted by government to do work on an independent basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for somewhere, I am not sure, St. John's North wants to speak but they are going to have to wait their turn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, architects in this Province are a professional organization and they also have a group that represents their professional organization. On that group there are a number of people, some who are appointed by government, some who are appointed by the professional association. Many of them, Mr. Speaker, do have a background or involved with architectural businesses or companies, or organizations.

The Buildings Accessibility Act falls under this. This is, of course, a group, a board, Mr. Speaker, that deals with building accessibility in the Province. We know what that is. We know there are a lot of buildings out there that are not accessible to the public, especially people with disabilities, and ensuring that there is access.

We heard the other day, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile was speaking in the House, talking about courthouses in this Province that are not accessible, Mr. Speaker. Those are the kinds of things that will be dealt with by the Buildings Accessibility Act. They have a board. That board is comprised of people who are appointed by government for a certain term.

What the government is saying is where the term of a member of the board expires, that person will continue to serve on that board until they can be replaced or reappointed. That is not such a big issue but, once again, the issue becomes when that board member has to retire or resign, or step aside for a reason other than the expiry of their term and government neglects to reappoint someone to fill that position and it is just left there.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, when they talk about the accessibilities board, the Buildings Accessibility Board, they talk about the tribunal, the term of members that are part of the tribunal when that expires and they also talk about the terms of the appointments to the board. They also talk about staggering these appointments.

The same thing, Mr. Speaker, applies to general accountants in the Province. We know that there are a lot of general accountants out there. We know that there are many of them who have their own accounting firms. We know that there are ethical codes that accountants are governed by, like a lot of other professional organizations. We know that there is a certification process that accountants have to apply to and be accepted under in order to practice in this Province, or in order to be a Certified General Accountant. All of these things also are governed by boards. Mr. Speaker, those appointments are made, they are made for a period of time, and the appointments are staggered.

There are a number of changes in here with regard to the Chartered Accountants Act. Mr. Speaker, in many of these cases the chartered accountants do appoint people, as well as the government. Most of the people who comprise the board are Certified General Accountants themselves, and therefore they outline what the certification process is and how that process needs to be met.

Also, Mr. Speaker, they talk about engineers and geoscientists. Under this particular act, it is basically the same. We have a lot of engineers within government as well, not just professional engineers who privately operate, but many who work in the public service. We have geoscientists, Mr. Speaker, who works in the public service as well. We have a combination of both that comprise this particular board. Also, the act pertains to all of them who would be practicing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act is amended under this particular section as well. It is amended as well with regard to the duration of the terms of office and the fact that there would be staggered terms of office for members who are appointed to this committee. As we know, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important board as well in the Province. We have seen fraud occurring within funeral homes in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially out on the West Coast back a few years ago, where people actually went in and bought their burial packages, and then the funeral home goes out of business. Where does that leave the people who have already secured their burial packages for the time when they would require it? It takes that stress off their families.

So, when you look at this, it needs to be regulated appropriately, and it needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that funeral directors that are out there practicing in this Province are not taking people's money and frauding them and scamming them, and ensuring that when they practice in funeral homes as embalmers, they are licensed to do so in a very ethical and very moral way, Mr. Speaker, to respect the individuals and to respect the families. There is a process that goes along with this. All of that is regulated in our Province; it is done as well through a board that looks at all facets of these kinds of things.

There is also the Financial Services Appeal Board, the Occupational Health and Safety Board; I could get into a lot of detailed explanations about all of these boards. We are all aware of what they do in the Province. It is important to point out what they do.

The Public Accountants Act, Mr. Speaker – it is important to point out; the Public Safety Act – the Public Safety Act is a critical piece of legislation in this Province. There is a board that looks at the Public Safety Act. This does not affect just one area of the population or one group; this affects everybody in the Province. It affects the public safety of people; it affects everything that government does, decisions that you make, in terms of how they impact upon people's safety. How does it impact upon people's safety? How does what you do as a government, decisions that you make, affect the citizens of this Province? How does that protect them? How does it keep them safe, Mr. Speaker? That is very critical.

So, Mr. Speaker, when you hear about the important boards that we are talking about here today – we know that government is making the appointments; we all know that this government is not unlike any other government that I have ever seen in my time here. When you are a government, you tend to appoint people who favour the government, who favour the government's perspective, who are supporters of the government. It is the way I have always seen it.

When you do that, it is important as well to have oversight. That oversight has to come in the form of legislation, in the form of acts, in the form of policy that regulates it, that gives it a guideline for people to follow. For all of these political appointments, for all of these appointments that the government makes, there has to be a regulatory policy that they follow in doing the work that they do, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I know the Member for St. John's North wants to get up, but the member is going to have to wait because I am not quite finished, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about some very important points here right now.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, when these boards are appointed, in many cases – not in all – that I just outlined, these people are not entrusted with a great deal of money. We do have a lot of boards in this Province. We have a lot of boards and councils in this Province that are appointed and are entrusted with huge amounts of money – huge amounts of money – on behalf of taxpayers and on behalf of others that they have to administer. Whenever you see cases like that and people are being appointed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, not in all cases but in some cases we have boards and councils in this Province that are established and entrusted with huge amounts of money that they administer and make decisions on, on behalf of the government and on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure that not only are we appointing people and filling seats on these boards, but we are appointing the best people and we are appointing people who are knowledgeable and who have tremendous understanding of the responsibilities they are being tasked with. That is so very important because when you do not have the best people, when you do not have people who are knowledgeable about the field in which they have been entrusted and are not responsible or accountable in terms of the role they have to play, that is when the people's interests are not properly being served.

Any time that government fills these positions, whether they are being filled with political appointments or not, they should always be filled with the best and the brightest people, Mr. Speaker, who can ensure the confidence of the public and ensure the task they are entrusted with is being carried out in the best possible manner.

The only people who I hold responsible at the end of the day for making sure that happens is the government themselves because they have the final say. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council makes all of the appointments, Mr. Speaker, to these boards and committees on behalf of the people of the Province. It comes down to a Cabinet decision at the big round table upstairs, Mr. Speaker.

At the end of the day, when these people take their seats at these boards, councils, and tribunals they have taken their seats there because the government made a decision to put them there. If the best people are not there, Mr. Speaker, then the people will not be best served.

I would say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that there is nothing wrong with the bill that he has brought forward. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a necessary part of how we govern in this Province. We bring in acts, we bring in policies and we bring in regulations, and then we entrust people with the responsibility to oversee them, to make sure that it is carried out appropriately. That is the prerogative of the government to do that, Mr. Speaker.

It is important to ensure that you have streamlining in these boards, that you have the best possible people on those boards that you can put there, and ensure that these boards are fully serviced with people because we do not need vacancies. When we have boards that have a lot of vacancies – we see it a lot with health boards in particular – then the public is not properly being served.

Mr. Speaker, that needs to happen and we certainly do not have any problem with this bill. We do not see any amendments that we would be bringing forward in the bill at this particular time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to stand and to speak on Bill 47. I would like to call attention to the boards in the following four acts, the Building Accessibility Act, the Financial Services Appeal Board Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Public Safety Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call attention to one particular aspect of appointments to boards. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the people who serve the public so well, the people who serve on these boards. They are all volunteers and they do a great job on behalf of the – Mr. Speaker, I can hardly hear myself speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One particular aspect of the appointments to the boards is that all boards should have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very, very difficult when the Minister of Natural Resources is bellowing across the floor at me there. I can hardly hear myself speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, one particular aspect of appointments to boards that I would like to speak about is that all boards in fact should have gender parity, particularly boards such as the above four where members are appointed by government and they carry out government business. These boards serve very important functions with huge responsibilities that serve the interest of the people of the Province, all people of the Province.

In October, 2005, Mr. Speaker, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women gave an update on gender balance within government stating that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is very difficult to hear myself in the House right now.

Government is committed to gender equity in its hiring – this is what the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women said. She gave an update on gender balance within government stating that government is committed to gender equity in its hiring –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: - and appointment practices for all departments, agencies, boards and commissions.

In this update, the minister noted that public college and university boards, rural secretariat, regional councils and regional health authorities were roughly gender balanced. She also noted that in 2002-2003, 34.4 per cent of board appointments went to women, 35 per cent in 2003-2004, and 36 per cent in 2004-2005. There was 38 per cent to 43 per cent in the first half of 2005 and 2006. The minister said we will continue to work hard to raise opportunities for women within government and to improve on the level of representation for women in these roles.

I have a little story to tell you here, Mr. Speaker, that the House may be interested in. Since there have been no similar announcements, no mention of the issue in annual reports or strategic plans, we called up the Women's Policy Office to see if there are any policies or guidelines for achieving gender parity in publicly funded boards, advisory councils and the like. We called up with a very easy, very straightforward question. I simply wanted to know: Is there a policy for gender parity that is specific for the appointment to boards?

Do you know what we were told, Mr. Speaker? We were told by a senior staff person that she was not allowed to talk to us, that she was not allowed to talk to any members of the Opposition. We were told by a senior staff person that she was to refer any questions from the Third Party caucus office to the Executive Assistant of the Minister Responsible –

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader, on a point order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have provided, and you have provided, great latitude to the speaker in her comments. I would ask you to consider that she is way outside the boundaries of talking about appointments to boards and commissions. She is now into story time for the House, which I submit, Mr. Speaker, has no relevance to this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind members, the Speaker does provide fair latitude to ensure the member has an opportunity to express an opinion with respect to any legislation before the House. I do remind all hon. members, if you want to stray a little bit to make and emphasize a point, you do have to come back to the point and the bill itself before the House. I would ask all members, as they speak to bills in this Legislature, to stay relevant to the bill at hand.

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

This point is very relevant because in fact what we were trying to do was to do research about how appointments were made to these very important boards. What we needed to know is if there was a specific policy on gender parity in the appointment of boards. It is very much connected to the whole issue of appointing to boards.

We were very surprised in fact, Mr. Speaker, that she was told she could not speak to us. So, we could not get that information, Mr. Speaker, a piece of vital information that we needed to know about how appointments are made to the boards. These are civil servants with whom we have regular communication, and are not allowed to speak to us when we are trying to do research specifically about this piece of legislation.

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I revisit the point I just made. We are now talking about a totally different issue unrelated to this bill whatsoever. The member has spent, by my estimation, five minutes talking about her role with senior bureaucrats in trying to secure information.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, how they do research on preparing for this House is irrelevant to the discussion that occurs in here. We are talking about appointments to boards. We are not talking about the relationship the member opposite has with senior staff in the public service.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member speaking to the point of order?

MS ROGERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that, in fact, this is very relevant, to try to get a full understanding of how appointments are made to the board, and in order to be able to do that we need that relevant information. This information is key to how appointments are made to the board and how we are able to speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. I would agree that the issue around how boards are appointed and the composition of boards is relevant to a degree. The relationship that parties in this House may have with senior officials in government is irrelevant to the bill at hand. Speaking to the composition of boards and how boards get appointed is relevant, but relationships with public servants are not relevant to the bill at hand.

I would ask members to confine comments to the bill at hand.

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

So at this point we do not know, in fact, if there is a policy on gender parity for appointments to the board. It is a piece of information we would particularly like in terms of how it relates to this bill because we do know that these boards are very important, that they serve all the people of the Province. That, in fact, in order to serve all the people of the Province there has to be a representation of all people of the Province.

It is unfortunate that we are not able to get that information. Our concern, as well, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not people on the boards will be instructed not to speak to us. Is that how far it will go? It seems to me that it is following Bill 29 once again.

Recent compositions of boards, Mr. Speaker: Research and Development Corporation in 2009 had three women and five men; Fish Processing Licensing Board in 2009 had two women and three men; the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission in 2011 had two women and five men; the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division in 2011 had one woman and four men; the Heritage Foundation Board of 2010 had four women and seven men; Nalcor Energy and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in 2012 – Mr. Speaker, a very important board, we know that is a very important board, particularly right now – had one woman and four men; Nalcor Oil and Gas in 2012 had five men, Mr. Speaker, five men and no women; the College of the North Atlantic was doing a much better job, that board was much more representative of the population, had eight women and five men; MUN in 2012, eight women and seven men; and The Rooms in 2012, five women and six men.

I would also like to speak, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of the Building Accessibility Act Advisory Board. I would like to talk a little bit about the blue zone parking. Now, the building accessibility regulations were amended in September to require that blue zone parking –

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hesitate to interrupt the speaker, I really do, although I have done it three times, but, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite – we are debating Bill 47, An Act to Amend Various Acts of the Province Respecting Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals. The member has just introduced a new topic in her speech, accessibility and blue zone of public buildings. Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the relevancy to the debate here on this particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, to the point of order.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, the bill itself talks about the buildings and accessibility act and it also talks about the composition of people and boards. The law that is put forward does not allow accessibility to the buildings, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair has made in earlier debate. I see it as relevant, as what the Member for St. John's Centre is putting forward.

MR. SPEAKER: If I could, the issue of relevance – and I want to remind all members that we are at stage 2 of the debate. We are dealing with second reading, and second reading deals with the principle of the bill.

I know this is an issue of time, and I am encroaching on the member's time, but this is the third or fourth time relevance has been raised. It is important that we all understand what we are focusing on. I would ask members as they speak to this bill tonight in second reading, we are talking about the principle. We are not talking about the acts that these boards are responsible for administering. We are talking about the boards. To help guide members, I would remind them to turn to the inside cover where it talks about the Explanatory Notes. Those Explanatory Notes provide an explanation of what the bill is about in principle.

If members need some guidance in what is relevant and not relevant in dealing with second reading, I would bring members attention to the Explanatory Notes. It is very clear here that we are talking about boards and appointments to boards. Each of these boards may be responsible for a particular piece of legislation but it is not the legislation that these boards are responsible for that is the subject matter of the bill. The bill deals with the appointments to the boards.

I would ask members to be guided by that, and I really do not want to have numerous interruptions on one very minor point here. I would ask the member to stay focused on the Explanatory Note in the bill and not drift away from the topic at hand.

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

I will try not to drift. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, to get back to – particularly, I am looking at the Buildings Accessibility Act Advisory Board. The relevance, Mr. Speaker, here is the fact that when we look at the interpretation and the work they do, that it is very clear that it is so important that the people who, in fact, are appointed to such boards, whether it be in a staggered manner, is that it is very important that they have a full understanding and interpretation of the needs of the people of the Province, in terms of the specifics that this particular board serves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS ROGERS: I know you are all waiting to hear what I am going to say next. I can tell.

Mr. Speaker, again, the relevance is about the people who comprise the boards and how they are appointed, whether it be in gender equity or the specific experience of people who are appointed to the boards in terms of the legislation that those particular boards cover, whether it be the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, and the great role that these boards play in undertaking and ensuring the application of the legislation and ensuring the application of policy that these particular boards cover.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very brief tonight. It is a great night to be in the House debating Bill 47. I am delighted to be on my feet on behalf of the residents, the constituents of the great cultural district of Port au Port, who elected me to represent them in this hon. House.

Bill 47, Mr. Speaker, an Act to Amend Various Acts of the Province Respecting Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals; this bill would amend: the Architects Act, 2008; the Building Accessibility Act; Certified General Accountants Act, 2008; the Certified Management Accountants Act; the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008; Engineers And Geoscientists Act, 2008; Financial Services Appeal Board Act; the Occupational Health And Safety Act; Public Accountants Act; and Public Safety Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is worthy to note as well that the groups being addressed in this bill are: the Architects Board; the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board; the Buildings Accessibility Appeal Tribunal; Certified Accountants Board; Certified General Accountants Board; the Certified Management Accountants Board, Engineers and Geoscientists Board, Financial Services Appeal Board, Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Board, Public Accountants Licensing Board, and Public Safety Appeal Board.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that our government and its entities hire employees, including executives, with the necessary skills and experience required to effectively manage, administer, and deliver programs and services that will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and which expend public funds. There is also an established pay structure for executives within government that we deem to be fair and, without a doubt, fiscally responsible. Other entities, Mr. Speaker, such as agencies, boards, commissions, and Crown corporations will at times need to negotiate compensation that reflects the responsibilities and accountabilities of the position they are serving.

Mr. Speaker, when appointing to the boards, we look for the best-qualified and skilled people to serve our Province and our people on these agencies, these boards, these commissions, and these Crown corporations. Of course, Mr. Speaker, when we select members for these agencies, boards, commissions, and Crown corporations, consideration is given to geography, cultural diversity, gender, background, experience, and knowledge. Like I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we want the best to be serving our Province and our people on these boards.

These amendments tonight, Mr. Speaker, will provide the appointments to these boards, councils, and tribunals to be staggered, to reappoint or replace members at different intervals so that it creates continuity and regularity. Why we are doing this with these amendments is so that boards will be appointed on a staggering basis so there are no voids and no vacancies. It will assure that the boards will have continuity and that business of the day continues in the Province.

These changes, Mr. Speaker, that are being made would allow appointed members to continue to serve on the board, council, or tribunal upon the expiry of appointed terms until they are reappointed or replaced. What we are saying is that these members will stay on the board until they are reappointed by the minister or replaced. That is what we are doing with these amendments tonight.

Mr. Speaker, also the terms prevent the simultaneous expiry of appointments where such provisions do not currently exist in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, we are tidying up the legislation to make sure that it is consistent with what we are trying to achieve here. These changes will bring consistency, uniformity, and evenness to the legislative provisions within the acts.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues who are in this House tonight, three weeks before Christmas day, to join with me and approve Bill 47, the amendments that we are proposing tonight.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to a bill, An Act to Amend the Various Acts of the Province Respecting Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals. The acts that are in review are the Architects Act, 2008; the Buildings Accessibility Acts the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008; the Certified Management Accountants Act; the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008; the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, 2008; Engineers and Geoscientists Act, 2008; Financial Services Appeal Board Act; the Occupational Health and Safety Act; Public Accountants Act; and Public Safety Act. There are significant amendments that are put forward in each of these acts.

What the bill is looking at doing, Mr. Speaker, is looking at how these eleven acts have a provision to stagger terms of members on boards, councils, and tribunals here in Newfoundland and Labrador. What is it proposing? It is about appointing at least half of all the future members for three terms and the remainder for two terms.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat on boards and I have also been in organizations that have had boards that had used staggered terms. It has been very useful when it comes to consistency, when it comes to retaining institutional knowledge, when it comes to making sure that there are less vacancies, especially in hard to fill positions. This seems to be very positive that afterwards a member would be appointed for a two-year term to continue that transition period.

In a point where there are no provisions already, making sure that there would be no vacant seat while waiting for a replacement, the member could continue beyond their term until a replacement is found. If we look at the acts that are in play here, they are very professional associations in many cases in which you may require someone with a special skill set or expertise to serve a term. There may be a need for that term to be extended because there may be a real difficulty in filling a role.

I worked for the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geoscientists in Alberta and understand that if you are looking for a very specific skill set when it comes to something like hydrology or someone to serve in that role depending on what is being there, there may be a very limited number of geophysics out there in a specific case to fill a position.

These are things that we need to look at. I think this is really cleaning matters up and in these eleven acts when we have boards, councils, and tribunals we will have less vacancies and there will be a greater ability to move forward when it comes to how the work and how the business gets done. Because in many cases we see that there are times when things get delayed, there are significant wait-lists in applications going to a tribunal, going to a council or appearing before an appeals board.

Having a full complement of board members and the expertise there is certainly something that is important. I would like to go back and state it is very critical as the Member for St. John's Centre, my colleague, had talked about gender parity on boards, looking for a complement of having that and having that composition.

I see what is placed in this act put forward, which is really allowing the eleven acts to have a little bit more leniency when it comes to the members and making sure that they have their positions filled.

I certainly thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having the opportunity to raise these points, to raise these concerns, and to speak about the bill and the eleven acts that are going to be amended based on the legislation that is put forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand in this House and speak to this Bill 47. Again, it is nice to finally get the opportunity to stand up, as we were doing the Address and Reply and I never had an opportunity stand up in this House today and speak to that. So, now I will get an opportunity to speak to Bill 47. I will certainly endeavour to keep my remarks relevant to the piece of legislation that we are looking at, which really is another piece of what I would definitely call housekeeping or cleanup legislation, Mr. Speaker. We are taking a number of pieces of legislation, which the minister did go down through one by one, and what we are doing is making amendments to the board structure.

Again, it seems fairly standard. Some of these pieces of legislation deal with groups or jobs that we can easily understand what they deal with: the Architects Act, 2008, the Certified General Accountants Act, 2008. Some of them as well, if you are not in this House and have an opportunity to speak to these bills, you really have no idea that they existed or what they had anything to do with. I look at the Buildings Accessibility Act, that is not something that I would have ever had an opportunity to review or speak to or any reason really. The Financial Services Appeal Board Act is another one that I was not very aware of prior to this bill being put forward.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation is very similar. The amendments that are being suggested are very similar. I think they are fairly uniform throughout in that what they are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, in each one there are one to two amendments being made for each piece of legislation saying that notwithstanding a certain subsection, at least one-half of the members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement shall be a term of two years and the remainder for a term of three years. The whole purpose of this is to, as they say, stagger the composition of boards.

The fact is that we have all had an opportunity I would presume, many of us, to serve on boards perhaps prior to coming to the House of Assembly or maybe even during your time in the House of Assembly. I know myself, I was very happy for a number of years to work with Minor Hockey so I sat on a board there and the chamber of commerce. I know members on all sides coming here were involved in a number of organizations and sat on boards.

One of the tough things is that when you come on a board, having that prior experience there, if you come on the board as a rookie, it is necessary in my mind for not just continuity but for good governance. It is nice to be able to come on and not try to figure it out as you are a rookie, but you want to be able to rely on people who have been on the board for a number of years. In most cases, you do not see boards' clean house all at once, but it has happened in different cases. You see a board that completely vacates the board, all the directors are gone and what you are forced to do is try to figure out how the board operated.

In this case, what we are just saying is we are going to make sure that all these boards, we will stagger them so that there is always somebody, a veteran there and a new one there. I think that is a great thing. I did not know – and I am glad the minister brought it up – that only one of these boards or pieces of legislation has paid employees, the rest are volunteers. It just shows the good community mindedness that is a part of the people, not just employed in these certain jobs, but just in the communities to be able to stand up and take ownership of their vocation and the board that governs them. That is a great thing.

What I would say, there are other boards that do not have these that are sort of controlled or very involved with government and one of them is Nalcor. Nalcor does not have these provisions in them in that the board is going to be staggered and have people coming at different times. I think that is unusual, especially for a board with the importance of Nalcor's as we see here on a day-to-day basis every day. I find that interesting. What we need to make sure is if that is the case then they could all be replaced at the same time for no cost.

A board such as Nalcor's really should have staggered periods of membership as well. If it is good enough for the general accountants, if it good enough for the engineers and geoscientists, or if it is good enough for the architects, then really it should be good enough for Nalcor. They should have good governance procedures and practices put in place as well.

We should also probably look at something like term limits to make sure there is regular turnover, there are new ideas and perspective, and it is not just a dumping ground to put friends in. We need to make sure that boards like this that handle huge projects have the right people and we have that constant influx of fresh ideas and knowledge. In a case like that, a board of that nature, you would also I would assume want House review of the membership and of the appointments to ensure these people are qualified and professional. There is no point having these individuals on the boards if they are not qualified and professional. If not, they really should not be appointed. If they are appointed, it does not seem to have been for a good reason.

There are other government boards, too, that do not have these same governance safeguards put in place. The Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation does not have that, as well as the board for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing – again, very important boards and boards that are arm's-length from this government. They are independent, but we all know they fall under the government purview. We need to ensure that everybody has good governance.

The fact is there are changes being made now to cover off a number of people, the embalmers and funeral directors, the Public Safety Act, and the Certified Management Accountants. Why not make sure that all the other boards are given the same procedures as well so we do not tuck people away in these boards just to have them there to take care of them? We need to make sure they are there and they serve a purpose and a cause.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. I certainly intend to support it. It is good and it is necessary. I am hoping government will take these measures they are putting in place here and make sure to spread them to the rest of the boards that the government has the opportunity to appoint people to.

I am glad the minister put this forward and I am glad I finally had a chance to stand up and speak to this today. I had the liberty of sitting here patiently and listening to the members from the government side speak. I am glad I had my opportunity here to speak to this, and I look forward to speak to whatever other legislation we bring up here this evening.

I understand there are other members of this House of all sides who want an opportunity to stand and speak. Without getting into that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to take my seat and continue.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I will stand and just have a few words on this act. I will stick to the act, Mr. Speaker, unless I am provoked. There are a lot of times you get provoked and you get a bit sidetracked, but as usual, I am going to refrain and stick to the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, as we can see here, a lot of this is housekeeping. I will be supporting this bill. I will be passing on some comments on it, though.

As you go through the groups that are going to be affected – and I will use one there, for example, Mr. Speaker, that I know very well: the Buildings Accessibility Act. In one of the volunteer boards that I was on, the Canadian Paraplegic Association – and I am going back late 1980s, early 1990s – we were very active in promoting accessibility throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the things that I see on this act, Mr. Speaker, that I commend the minister on is that if a person's period of time is up, they will not just remove them; they will let the person stay there so the board will be active and have a full complement until other people are reappointed. So, that is a great move, Minister, because something like that, we always need that for accessibility throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the boards, as we can see, are going to be staggered. Just for the minister, I am on a national board now, and the last number of years, that is what we put in: a staggered system so that you do not have five or six people just move out and all the experience move on. We implemented a staggered system probably about six years ago, Mr. Speaker, and that would ensure that there is continuity on the board, a bit of history on the board, and a bit of experience on the board; that is not saying that the people that are on the board may not put themselves up for re-election, but it is to ensure that if two or three put themselves up for re-election and they lose, that there are still two or three left on the board to keep the continuity. So, I think it is a good move to ensure that.

There are some issues, of course, Mr. Speaker, with some of the boards that I see. My colleague from Burgeo – La Poile mentioned Nalcor. I do not think any of this refers to Nalcor, because it is appointed by the government; they can walk in, clean slate, and move everybody aside. I understand the difference of it, I understand all that, but that is something that we should look at. I understand the political appointments to Nalcor; I understand all of that, but is there some way that we can look at it: if we are going to move a few people just to ensure that we cannot have a clean sweep of it?

That is not just for this government; that may be for if a new government comes in, instead of cleaning everybody off the board to ensure that you cannot do it and you keep the continuity, this is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is by no means a way to say: well, you have to move people out, because you can keep the same people on the board for a number of years.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the board makeup and how it is done, but I will use the school boards, for example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I know the Government House Leader is familiar with the school boards. The school boards are elected in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the concerns; I do not know if any of these boards are in that type of atmosphere, that when there is a vote coming for a school board – I will use an example, Mr. Speaker; next week there is going to be a vote for two schools, three schools, four schools, whatever the number to close, and there are going to be some amendments made.

I ask the minister, with the school board, if one person on the board says: I want a secret vote, it is a secret vote. The people who are affected by the school closures will not know how people voted.

I think it is wrong. I honestly think it is wrong. When we go through this, Mr Speaker, and we look at some of these boards; I ask the minister in closing if he can explain this: if these boards here have the same format or if there is some vote before the board, is it a secret vote like the school boards or is it an open vote?

With the school boards it is a secret vote and it is never recorded who voted for what. All you get is: ten yea, ten nay. You do not know, Mr. Speaker, you just do not know. I am not sure, and the minister can answer that when he stands up. I use the school board as a good example; there are some issues coming up with that, Mr. Speaker, and there are a few members opposite who know that.

When they stand to vote next Wednesday night, when people stand up and say they are going to vote, one member says: I want a secret vote; no one will ever know who voted for that board to close which school. It should not be. It should not be. The reason why I say it should not be, the reason why it should not be, Mr. Speaker, is they are elected –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has given the member a fair bit of leeway there, but I would ask you to now bring your comments back to the principle of the bill which we are debating.

MR. JOYCE: Okay, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry. I was just using that for an example, just to ensure that these boards are not the same makeup. There are some boards, Mr. Speaker, and I know a lot of these, as was mentioned by my colleague for Burgeo – La Poile, a lot of these are volunteer boards. There is one paid board.

I will use the Western Appeal Board. Mr. Speaker, we have been trying for a long while now to get people appointed to the board so people can have appeals. I ask the minister again, you can explain this minister when you stand. The paid board itself, which the appeal board is a paid board, you get a per diem for sitting on the board: Is there a certain period of time that these groups have to meet? If there is an appeal process, is there a certain period of time – the board here that is paid – that they have to meet and hear an appeal? It is very important to people to hear their appeal in a timely manner.

With the volunteer boards – and this is something, again, the minister could speak about when he stands up. I know with the Western Appeal Board out on the West Coast, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to get an appeal, very hard. I ask the minister: In these positions here on these boards, is there a time frame that the minister is going ensure there is 180 days, 150 days for an appeal, if there is an appeal? Especially for the paid board, if there is any type of appeal.

We can see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people on these boards are volunteers. Obviously, we have a bunch of individuals in the Province who are very concerned about their professions. Again, we must thank them for putting themselves forward to serve on these boards, to ensure that these boards are run efficiently, in a manner that is open and transparent for all new members. It is very important for any government to ensure that if there is a board under your jurisdiction, that it is open and transparent, and that the people and the members who are part of the association are well aware that their rights are protected, their ideas that are put forth are going to be looked at in a proper and a fair manner.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with that. I will say to the minister, I am going to support this bill because I think it is a great idea to ensure that there is a bit of continuity on the boards. As I said many times, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly, if we as parliamentarians can improve any service of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are doing our job.

Minister, this is something that I think everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador will agree with, to uphold accountability, to uphold a better structure for all these groups, and to assure anybody who is involved with these groups that we are concerned about their welfare, we are concerned about their organization, and we are doing our bit as parliamentarians to ensure their interests are being looked after.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting the bill, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Service NL speaks now he will close debate in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank everybody here in the House of Assembly who stood and spoke on this bill tonight for the amendments to acts respecting appointments to boards, councils, and tribunals. It is very important that we do tidy up these acts with the amendments we have put forward. There are some questions I would like to respond to, or comments that were brought up, just for clarification more than anything.

One of the things I think is very important we clarify here is that all of the appointments to all of these boards are done through consultation. It is not just government appointments where we decide who sits on the boards. We consult with many of the professional agencies these boards represent. For example, sitting on these boards we have lawyers, we have chartered accountants, and we have architects. Each board is consulted with before the appointments are made and we look to have professionals sitting on these boards so that professional, intelligent decisions are made with each board.

One of the other things I noticed was the resignations during a term. There was a question put forth by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. She wondered: What happens if somebody resigns throughout their term? If that happens we do our best, again through consultation, to have that particular vacancy fulfilled for the duration of the term, so that would happen. Again, we would do that with consultations with the professionals.

Terms of office are very important because quite often – myself over my years as a volunteer – you get what we call burnout. People stay on organizations too long and they end up with burnout. Setting a term of office at two years or three years is very important because then you get new blood coming in representing a lot of these boards. I feel that is important.

The representation on the boards – the Member for St. John's Centre raised a point and I would like to bring to her attention that quite often in many of these boards, it is actually something that we factor in when placing people on all of these boards: gender is always a factor on these boards. We try to have a balance of gender on all of these boards. Whether or not we are successful in having gender balance, sometimes we are not, and that is not done through favouritism; that is done through the professionals that come forward and put themselves forward, quite often for certain boards.

Unfortunately, we cannot always have gender balance, but it is a factor that we take very seriously when we are looking for appointees to these boards.

In the administration and constitution of all of these boards they dictate – to the Member for the Bay of Islands – each one of the boards has a separate constitution, so the constitution dictates how they administer their business. We have no control over their constitution, but we do hope again, through having professionals sit on these boards, that in their constitutions, in their bylaws, they will set standards that will certainly address your issue there.

Again, when it comes to boards such as appeal boards that you have spoken to, the paid boards, it is done on a case-to-case basis. There are time limits there. We always try, once a case is open, to have the case moved forward expeditiously; unfortunately at times it does take time to get to each case, but it is on a case-to-case basis.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I think that all of the amendments that we have put forward here, a lot of it is housekeeping. I think it will tidy things up and, most importantly, it will give continuity to a lot of these boards.

I respectfully ask that all of the members of the House of Assembly will support Bill 47.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 47 be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils and Tribunals. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

MR. KING: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister for Service Newfoundland and Labrador, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 47.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 47.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 47, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals.

A bill, "An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals". (Bill 47)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few points with regard to Bill 47, now that we are in the Committee stage. Obviously, Mr. Chair, this particular bill, An Act to Amend Various Acts of the Province Respecting Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals. As we know, Mr. Chair –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: I will, just a minute. I will do that for you.

Mr. Chair, as we know, under our governance structure in the Province there are a number of boards that are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. There are a number of tribunals that are set up for different purposes, mostly to handle appeals in lots of cases; appeals where people feel that regulatory acts or policies that are enacted in the Province are not appropriate and do not fit within where they are and they want to make appeals to have those looked at.

Mr. Chair, there are a number of those that exist in the Province. What this act is doing tonight is making amendments to a number of those. They include: the Architects Act; the Buildings Accessibility Act; the Certified General Accountants Act; the Certified Management Accountants Act; the Certified Management Accountants Act, 2008; the Chartered Accountants Act, 2008; the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act, 2008; the Engineers and Geoscientists Act, 2008; the Financial Services Appeal Board Act; the Occupational Health and Safety Act; the Public Accountants Act; and the Public Safety Act.

Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister if there are any other acts or groups, committees, tribunals, boards that are not included here that will also have to see provisions or amendments made in order for them to fall within the same guidelines here, or is it just those particular groups I have just read and is contained in this act that needs to be changed and all others will stay as they are?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: For now, Mr. Chair, we are just looking at these acts. I really cannot answer what is going to come up in the future.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under the legislation, one of the acts that it refers to is the Architects Act, 2008. It says that it is immediately amended and "after subsection (7) the following: (8) Notwithstanding subsection (2), at least one half of the" board "members next appointed or reappointed following the commencement of this subsection shall be appointed for a term of 2 years and the remainder for a term of 3 years and all subsequent appointments of members to the board shall be for a term of 3 years."

I just want to ask: Is this the normal term of office for most of these boards, or is this just a new standard that is being set? Is this the standard for most boards in the Province, or if there is a reason in particular why you would want to have the terms on these boards set in that way? I know the purpose is to stagger them, but it could have been for one year and two years, as opposed to two years and three years. That would be one question.

The other question, Mr. Chair, is when the minister was closing in second reading, he was responding to a question that I had asked earlier with regard to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: – how these vacancies would be filled on the boards. What we are understanding now is this amendment would outline that if there are people whose term expires – say, for example, the Member for Ferryland is appointed to a board, and he is appointed for a three-year period. At the end of those three years his term is up, and maybe the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is going to now appoint a different member, the Member for Port au Port. Until that appointment is made, I understand the Member for Ferryland would stay on that committee.

What happens in a case where the individual chooses to leave – and I know you were addressing it, and I just want you to elaborate on it for me – and then there is a vacancy? Because we do know of cases where that exists today and if there is going to be some time frame or some goal at least to try and fill those vacancies within a certain period of time. Those are the two questions with regard to the terms of office and also with regard to vacancies on boards.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Concerning the terms of office – and I think I addressed it during my closing of the bill there – if there is a vacancy in the middle of a term, we reserve the right to fill that term and we would fill that term basically for the time that was left on the term. The purpose of trying to fill a vacancy throughout a term, a term that has not expired, the whole purpose of trying to refill that would be to have a full quorum, if need be, to have a full board there in place.

With the second question – I think actually that was to your question, sorry. Your first question was about the terms, the two years and the three years. The whole purpose of that is for the continuity on the board, to keep continuity throughout the board so that we do not end up with – and I will use as an example, Mr. Chair, I sat on a board in my district where we had an organization that was non-profitable which became very profitable.

On the board, Mr. Chair, we had a youth group that thought: Well, there is an awful lot of money here and we can get access to this money –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MCGRATH: They actually set it up so that during the AGM they could come in and they ended up with a majority vote on that board, and that youth group actually took over this organization. Now, fortunately for us, they very quickly realized they were not able to manage the organization and we took back control of it. That was when we took that organization and we moved to a staggering effect. The whole purpose of that, I guess, is for guarantees to the boards and continuity within the board.

Your second question, the whole purpose of it was so that we would end up with quorums when we need quorums.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question for the minister is: There are eleven different acts or boards here that have been amended; did your department have consultations with each board to discuss whether this was desirable or wanted by each board? Is this something they were having issues with before? Is it something that they were aware of or knew they were going to bring in, or there were any discussions that happened prior to? Because some of these – again, it is one thing to say that it is good practice, but it is up to them whether they want to accept that it is good practice or not. So I am just wondering if your department had those consultations.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Member for Burgeo – La Poile for the question. It is a very good question. My answer to that is that the department does consult with the boards on a regular basis, and there was certainly consultation with these amendments.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just wondering, to follow up on the question from the Member for Burgeo – La Poile: In your consultations with these various boards, was there any discussion at all about the frequency with which these boards meet? I am particularly concerned about the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, which has very infrequently met, though it has an important role in ensuring that there is physical access to public buildings.

Was there any discussion about ensuring that there was some continuity or regulatory with which that board or any of the other boards, for that matter, meet? Because it does not appear to me, and it certainly does not appear to individuals who I have been speaking to in the disabilities community that people are well served when these boards do not meet with regularity.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: I will take your question under advisement and I will get back to you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, there is so much noise here with the people out working, it is almost like the Member for Humber West up speaking.

Mr. Chair, I ask the minister: When you were speaking earlier about the length of boards, two years, three years, you mentioned that they would not go too long before burnout, can you explain to me how long can a person stay there. Can they stay for a longer period of time, or is there a set limit, that a person could stay three terms, four terms, five terms? Because you just mentioned the burnout and I did not know how long it would take for each one to – or does each one of these boards have different time limits that people can serve?

I know in some boards that I served on, people only could stay for five years, some ten years, and some cannot stay in a position more than one term. So, I will just ask that for the minister, please.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify my comment there about the burnout, the burnout is a possibility. A lot of these boards have a period of time to the term, but the opportunity of re-election is there and there are no limits on the amount of reappointments if somebody decides. They have an opportunity after a certain period of time as to whether or not they feel that they have outlived their service on the board.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of specific questions around the Buildings Accessibility Act, just the language that is written, section 3(1) on page 4: "Where the term of a member of the board expires, he or she will continue to be a member until reappointed or replaced." Mr. Chair, this only appears under the Buildings Accessibility Act and also the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Are these two specific acts where they have board members, are they very difficult to fill appointed positions? This language is not mentioned in any of the other acts. I am just wondering, for consistency and clarity: does this play into all the other acts or are they just specific to those two acts?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: They are not specific, but that is where we saw they were needed most.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just want to follow up on my previous question. The Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, the last major review that government did around that accessibility act and regulations was in 2004. The advisory board has only been active within certain periods within certain years in the last decade: 2004, 2005, 2008, 2009.

Can you tell us if that board is going to start meeting again to start reviewing any of these building accessibility issues that seem to be cropping up? Whether it is access to the courts or even access to polling stations during elections, there seem to be periodic complaints about building accessibility, ones that are government funded, government operated, and even commercial buildings that are newly going up within the city and on the Northeast Avalon. Do you have any idea whether this is going to meet with more regularity?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will take your question under advisement again and I will get back to you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his frankness in his comments and his answers. I thank the minister. There are times we have questions because we would like to know also.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: I can be nice. Like I always say to people, Mr. Chair: If you do not believe me, ask mom.

The second thing I ask the minister, Mr. Chair: You mentioned you consult with people; who makes the final decision? That is one part of the question. One thing is to consult. This is no reference to the minister whatsoever. I am just using this in general terms. This is no reflection on the minister, Mr. Chair. Some people can say they consulted, but then what is the meaning of consult – to say: here is what we are doing? I am not suggesting that, Minister, in this case, but in other cases it has happened.

I ask the minister again: When you consult, who makes the final decision? That is one of the questions I would like to ask. Who makes the final decision for those people to be appointed? The second part of that question, Mr. Chair, is most of those boards are professional people who are going to be guiding, for example, Certified Management Accountants, chartered accountants, and engineers. Mr. Chair, are the people who are appointed from the organization or can you get people from outside the organization to come in and to have them appointed? Those are the two questions I ask the minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Chair, in response to the first question, we live in a democratic society. Those boards are made up of professionals. We consult with the professionals. Then there is a professional decision made between the board and the governing body. It is fair for me to say there is collaboration around the decision that is made.

Secondly, the second question you asked: Could people from outside come in and sit on the organizations? By all means, any time there are appointments available to a board, we look to have professionals sit on the board. In placing those people on those boards through the consultations, we hope to find the best people available to sit on the boards.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: What I meant, Mr. Minister, is probably because I did not understand the composition of the board: Does government have the decision or does the board of each one of these organizations make the final decision? That was my question. I did not make it clear enough. Sorry, Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the Member for Bay of Islands for clarifying his question. The government would have the last say in who would go on the board, but again, we do it through consultation. Through those consultations, from the professionals, we take their advice very seriously.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to a question I asked about the Buildings Accessibility Act and the Occupational, Health and Safety Act when it comes to if a member has served a term of three years, then serves their term of two years and they are not able to find somebody to fill that position, they are reappointed until they are able to be replaced.

What type of approach will the Department of Service NL do to ensure that they are filled in a timely manner? I know that when I sat on boards like the Regional Economic Development Board there was a set term, it was posted on a Web site, it showed when your term expired, it was very open and transparent when it came to how long that the person is serving beyond their term.

Will the government be taking an approach like that? How will they explain or show that somebody is going beyond their term indefinitely?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Chair, if you open up the cover on your paper, it is in the Explanatory Notes. Your answer is right there.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: I just want to go back to something the minister said earlier about the consultation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: What form did these consultations take? Did you e-mail these boards? Did you meet with them face-to-face? Did you meet with them by teleconference? Was it just with executive directors or the presidents of these organizations? Did you meet with all of them? Did you meet with whoever chaired those particular boards?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: How did the consultation take place? What was the format of the consultation and then how thorough was the consultation with the particular boards that we are talking about?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think if he had been paying attention during the discussions in the bill, you would have had your questions answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I thank the members for clapping when I am standing again. It is good see, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: I am glad you are enthused when I stand and ask a question, and I thank you for that.

Mr. Chair, one of the boards that I am on, our bylaws is reviewed by several departments in the federal government to ensure that we are living by our bylaws and our constitution.

I ask the minister: Is there any mechanism in government for these boards whereby the government would go in and look at their constitution and look at their minutes to ensure that they are fulfilling their mandate for the people they serve, and also to ensure the public then that their minutes are being reviewed and that it is living within government mandate?

I use the MCP, for example. Sometimes there can be just checks – just send in a check just to do a review, just to do an audit. So, I am not sure, and I ask the minister: Does your department do an audit of any of these groups to ensure that their board minutes are in place, that they follow their mandate, their constitution, to ensure that they are living within the regulations of the government?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Again, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would not say that we audit their constitutions, but when we consult to have these boards filled, we do try to have the boards filled with professionals, and normally with professionals that have to do with each particular board. For example, the lawyers, the architects on the architect board. So, we would hope that when the professionals are sitting these boards, when they read their constitution that they would abide by a constitution that would be in their best interest.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a couple of questions with regard to the section here under Buildings Accessibility Act. I am not really sure how the committee is set up or how it is structured, but I know that within the regulations for building accessibility in this Province, there are all different sections. I also know, Mr. Chair, that they deal with new buildings that might be constructed – the act does. It deals with renovations and reconstruction.

I know, for example, that the Buildings Accessibility Act also speaks to things like blue zones where when we go into a hospital or you go into a public place, you actually see parking areas that are specifically allocated for people with disabilities and so on. Under the act I know it speaks to all of that as part of the regulatory process. I also know, Mr. Chair, that in the act there is a provision whereby you can apply for an exemption, for example, depending on the kind of business that you are into, depending on the age to which that business was established and what the cost would be to bring it to an accessible stage, and that you can be granted certain exemptions and so on.

What I am not clear on is what kind of board or committee falls under that, which governs that particular act? Is all the board appointed by the Province, or how many people are on the board, or how is that board set up? Are they the people who would make the decision with regard to things like exemptions, look at construction plans to see if they are meeting the codes, look at things like wheelchair accessibility? Is all of that done within the department or does it fall somehow under this board? If not, what does this board do? What is the regulatory process for it?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service –

[Technical difficulties]

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, when I get up (inaudible) somebody blocking my speech when I (inaudible) and I will use next Wednesday for an example. Some people here already know that there is going to be a vote and the vote is going to be secret. Elected members to the board; yet, when one person says I want a secret vote, the vote is going to be secret, which I think a lot of people will not have the opportunity to see who voted for what and how they went.

I ask the minister: On these boards, are you aware that if there is any vote to change the constitution or if there is any vote that is going to directly affect any of its members that the vote is going to be secret, or will it be open so everybody of the general membership who attends the meeting can actually see how people voted, or check and see if there is a secret vote at any of these boards, is that there may be changes to the constitution? People may stand and say we do not know who changed it and why, and there is no one accountable on that.

I will use the school board as an example, and that is going to happen next Wednesday. I ask the minister, are you aware or will you just take it under advisement?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we appoint to these boards we are appointing professionals and they quite often conduct their constitutions and set their bylaws. I am not familiar with each and every one of the constitutions or the bylaws, so I really cannot give you a distinct answer to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I ask the minister on the Buildings Accessibility Act, and this is more for information and to see if there is some way we can strengthen it. I will use the Western Appeal Board, for example. I know I spoke to the minister on that. It is a bit of a lengthy process, once someone leaves the board to get people back and appointed to the board. What happens is the appeals back up.

I ask the minister: In the case of the Buildings Accessibility Act, which we are all concerned about, if one or two people leaves the board, is there a time frame for people to be appointed? Within thirty days or sixty days to reappoint somebody so that you can ensure the board has a full contingent of board members, that if any issue comes up they can have the vote, ensure the regulations are being followed, and it is all being done in a proper manner?

A lot of times on these boards, Mr. Chair, when one or two people leave, or two or three, and there is one or two missing because they are volunteers, you cannot get a quorum. Then if you cannot get a quorum, there is no work done.

I ask the minister: Is there a time frame when you must appoint people? I just use that board because that is very important.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Chair, the Member for Bay of Islands said earlier he would be sure if he was not provoked. Now he is leaving me no choice but to provoke him. We have just spent the last two hours almost debating this bill. We were talking about and coming up with answers to the question that he just asked about.

The whole idea of what we have been debating here this evening was to avoid exactly what you just said so that we do not have boards with vacancies on them. The whole purpose of these amendments is so that if we do end up with vacancies, we can allow somebody to remain on that board even if their term is expired until we can replace them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I guess the minister does not understand my question or he does not understand the appointments of the boards. You are saying if someone's term is up you can keep them on the board until –? What happens if someone passes away? That is what I am talking about. What if someone moves outside of the Province?

It is not that I am trying to provoke you, Mr. Minister. I am asking a question, and I do not think I should be condescended upon because I am asking a legitimate question. If you did not understand the question, just ask me.

Mr. Chair, what I am asking, as this is a volunteer board – it is a very important board to all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially people with disabilities, where accessibility is a big part of their life. On this board, if there are seven people on the board, if two or three happen to move away and they have a meeting – they have to have a quorum of four; if one or two cannot make it, if they are out of the area of St. John's or wherever it is, my question is: if three or four move away – I am not talking about somebody on the board extended – if they resign from the board for whatever reason, through death, through work commitments, moving away, getting burnt out, my question to the minister – and I use the Western appeal boards; that has been going on almost two years and not appointed: Is there a timeframe that the minister, by law – and if not it should be in there – to fill the vacancy on this board, to ensure that if there are any major issues that come up in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador concerning accessibility, Mr. Chair, that it is filled?

That was my question. I was not trying to be flippant, I was trying to get a serious answer, because there are too many times – and it is not just this board; it is a lot of boards, but it just happens to be the accessibility board that we are talking about tonight – that the board itself goes vacant without people and you cannot have a meeting. We see it all the time. I know I am repeating myself, but is there a timeframe and can the minister put in the regulations to ensure that there is a timeframe that the board has to be appointed and make sure that it has a full contingent of people on the board?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to ask a follow-up question to the minister – and I can review Hansard whenever that is released and ensure that the answer indeed was given previously and I missed it.

I just wanted to ask again about how thorough these consultations were with the various boards, councils, and tribunals, and the nature of those, because government often does consultation and uses that to bring in legislation.

We just think back to the Cummings commission; when they did consultations, the Commissioner himself pointed out that there were not very many individuals who came out to give feedback on access to information legislation when those consultations were going on around the Province, yet when government brought in Bill 29 –

CHAIR: I ask the Member for St. John's North to keep to the legislation, please.

MR. KIRBY: I am, Mr. Chair. When that legislation was introduced, the Cummings commission consultations were used as an argument –

CHAIR: I ask the hon. the member to stick to the legislation. We are talking about boards and tribunals.

MR. KIRBY: Absolutely.

As in that case, and as in others I could name which are equally relevant, I would say, I am just wondering about the nature of those consultations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Were they thorough? Did they consult with all of the members of the boards, councils, and tribunals, just the heads of those? What sort of record of that was kept? Are there individuals out there who are sitting on these various public bodies who will be surprised, or sitting on these particular agency boards who will be surprised to hear about these changes because they are obviously implicated? I am just wondering about how it is communicated to them, how they were able to provide feedback on this particular bill. That is all I am asking.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the minister for his answers to my questions that have been provided so far when it comes to, obviously, staggering boards and filling positions. That is very important.

There are problems when there are vacancies and when there are also members who will be sitting on a board indefinitely if there are not regulations.

Will the minister look at a point – because obviously this has come forward because of some issues around filling board seats; will there become a point where the Minister of Service NL will look at restructuring boards, because it is having difficulty over the long term of filling a position that has become vacant, or a member who has been serving a term well over five years into the long term? Will that be something the minister would consider, looking at restructuring the boards?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The questions I have for the minister are with regard to gender equity. I noticed they listed some of the boards here that are component of men and women on the boards, Mr. Minister. For example, Research and Development Corporation in 2009 had three women and five men; Fish Processing and Licensing Board in 2009 had two women and three men. It seems to be a good mix of men and women.

The question comes further down to the list of boards, for example, that may be affected. I am wondering about government's own policy when it comes to it; Nalcor Energy and NL Hydro in 2012, one woman and four men were (inaudible) –

CHAIR: I ask the hon. member to stick to the legislation.

MR. MURPHY: My question is – and I think it is very relevant when it comes to the status of women on some of these boards, Mr. Chair –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: My question has to do with the relevance of women when it comes to the board. With government's own policy when it comes to women, we are not quite sure, so I am curious about government's position when it comes to the appointment to these private boards that are going to be affected under the act. I wonder if the minister can answer that question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Chair, I am not sure where the member was while we were talking about that. We talked about it during the debate, and then the Member for St. John's Centre got up and asked the exact same question. In my closing comments, I answered that question, so I suggest you check Hansard. I am not sure where you were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Chair, I will tell you one he did not answer in Hansard: the question I just asked you about the accessibility. I do not know why, Minister, you will not answer it. It is a legitimate question. It is something dealing with people with disabilities in this Province that we are all concerned about, supposedly. It is a legitimate question, Mr. Chair. I do not know why he will not answer it. I think it is something legitimate that I put forth here to ensure that these boards, especially this board itself, the Buildings Accessibility Board, will continue on.

I ask the minister again – now, I will try to keep it pretty plain, because it is Christmas and I am trying to be nice, but, Mr. Chair, when the minister does not even give you the opportunity to answer a question dealing with such a major issue in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and then you have the minister standing up all the time talking about disabilities and all that all day yesterday, Mr. Chair, the minister will not even answer a question. I ask you the question, minister, I will make it simple.

If there are seven people on the board, if two or three have to get off for whatever reason, for whatever reason – it is a legitimate question. It happens all the time; people move away for work, people pass away, people for illness cannot sit on the board.

If you do not have a full contingent of a board, you cannot have proper meetings. If you do not have proper meetings, you cannot carry out your duties. So, if the minister is not willing to answer this question, I have to assume that they do not want the board to carry out their duties, because the question is very simple: if three or four people from the board move aside, is there a time frame that the minister has in legislation to ensure that the people are appointed?

It is a legitimate question, and people with disabilities and some of the groups have told me on many occasions that it is hard to get meetings, hard to bring things forward. I use the Western appeal board as a good example; going on a year-and-a-half, people cannot get appeals. We just cannot get appeals.

Yesterday, we had the National Day of People with Disabilities; here I am asking a disability question and the minister will not even give me the courtesy of answering it. It is a legitimate question because I deal with people with disabilities. I have for the last twenty-something years. This is a concern to them.

I ask you again, Minister, if there is nothing in the legislation, would you consider, as the minister responsible, putting something in the legislation that if it is thirty days, sixty days, ninety days, you can appoint people to ensure that there is a full contingent on the board, to ensure that if people who want to carry out their duties as part of the board will be appointed in a reasonable time frame to ensure that the board can carry out its duties? That is my question to the minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I really appreciate the fact that the Member for Bay of Islands raised that point, because I think it is particularly important. We have been told by advocates in the community that the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board really ought to be conducting a new review of the Buildings Accessibility Act and Regulations. In fact, they have been telling us that they want government to adopt the Canadian Standards Association building accessibility code as regulation. It has been done in a great many other provinces across Canada.

I ask the minister, is there any intent at the moment to follow the advice of individuals and disabilities advocates groups in our community?

There is actually a new video that has been posted on YouTube since the annual general meeting of the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities called Afterthoughts. It illustrates in the St. John's area and the Northeast Avalon the extent to which even parking lots, just getting up from a wheelchair into a building, are not accessible. The Miller Centre, for example, the Waterford Hospital, other government facilities –

CHAIR: I ask the member to speak to the bill, please.

MR. KIRBY: Sure, yes. I am asking the minister then, when these new regulations are passed, when Bill 47 – in the event that Bill 47, An Act To Amend The Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals becomes law, is this what we are going to see happen? Will government follow the lead of advocates, individuals, and people with disabilities and carry out such a review, to ensure that this sort of situation does exist, that people can access – there is equity in accessing the built environment in our society? That is important not just for societal reasons. That is important for economic reasons, and we have to have that.

CHAIR: I have asked the member on several occasions to speak to the legislation.

MR. KIRBY: I will not repeat the question again. I do not know if the minister answered that earlier as well. Perhaps he could tell us.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the minister and it falls under the Buildings Accessibility Act and specifically the board that handles this piece of legislation. Buildings accessibility is something we talk about – yesterday, actually, I brought it up in my response to the minister's statement on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

An issue I recently saw at the courthouse in Stephenville was that the staff – which is something individuals from your department monitor and in some cases can write tickets to cover off people who commit regulatory offences. In that case there was a spot that was recently painted to designate a person with disability's parking spot. What I am wondering is: That building –

CHAIR: I remind the member, please speak to the legislation.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Chair, I thought I was discussing buildings accessibility –

CHAIR: The Explanatory Notes –

MR. A. PARSONS: I am just wondering if that is something that board would cover given that the building is not accessible, Mr. Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

Just before you start, hon. member, I ask hon. members, considering the lateness of the evening and all the rest, to once again review the Explanatory Notes and please have your questions relevant to the notes.

Thank you.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly, I understand the intent of the bill, which is about staggering the committees and their terms. I have asked several questions specific to that. There are eleven acts that are currently followed under this act. There is obviously reason for it.

I ask the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador if he could provide us with the current makeup of each of the committees who serve on the board and the vacancies as to why staggered terms would be needed. There must be an evident amount of people who have vacancies on the eleven different acts that are followed because that is exactly what this board is. There has to be intent to move forward.

I am wondering if the minister can say why these acts were selected. Are there a significant amount of vacancies on these current boards?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MITCHELMORE: I do not need people.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am flabbergasted the minister does not know the answer to that question or will not answer. I am actually flabbergasted, Mr. Chair. It is amazing to me – I asked the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, or the Member for St. John's West, the Parliamentary Assistant, who put out a minister's statement yesterday of International Day of Persons with Disabilities, if they could intervene to try to help out people with disabilities to ensure that there is a full complement of people on the board.

I am flabbergasted, Minister, that you do not know the answer. I am actually shocked that you do not know the answer, or if you do know the answer that you will not even consider making sure that this board always has a full complement of board members to ensure that it is functioning properly.

I am flabbergasted, Minister. It is such a question that this is so relevant to all of the boards here in this Province. We saw yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills stand up so proudly, which she should, on the International Day of Persons with Disabilities, yet we cannot get an answer to help out people with disabilities. Mr. Chair, don't you find that kind of ironic?

It is kind of ironic, Mr. Chair, that here is a government one day touting the International Day of Persons with Disabilities and here is another day that the minister either cannot – if you cannot, just take it under advisement, that is fine. Do not just sit there because I could tell you, Mr. Chair, I am going to stay until I get an answer. I can assure you of that, Mr. Chair, I am going to stay. It is like 7:00 o'clock or 5:30 o'clock today, I am going to speak. I can assure you of that, Mr. Chair.

MR. HEDDERSON: Absolutely, a real hero.

MR. JOYCE: The minister over there is singing out I am a hero. I might not be a hero, Mr. Minister –

CHAIR: Order, please!

Please ask the question.

MR. JOYCE: The Minister of Environment is out saying that I am –

CHAIR: I ask the hon. member to ask his question once again, please.

MR. JOYCE: I am. He is out saying that I am a hero. I might not be a hero I say to the members opposite, but I sat on enough boards with people with disabilities that I know what their concerns are. I might not be a hero, but I know that much.

I ask the minister once more and I will keep asking, Mr. Chair: If it is not already in the legislation, will you ensure that there is some time frame to ensure that the board will always have a full complement so that they can operate in a timely matter? That is not a hard question. If it is not already in the legislation, I ask the minister: Will you please consider putting it in your legislation? It is better for all of us.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to comment that this government takes disabilities very seriously. That is why we have a disability office. That is why yesterday I joined some of my colleagues, and colleagues from the other side the House, but that is why we were there, so we could hear firsthand of some of the disabilities that are happening here and we bring it back to the disabilities office.

Not just with that particular accessibility act, but with all of these acts we try to make sure we have full boards in place so that we can move forward. So, I will take your question under advisement and I will try to make sure that it is corrected. That is something this government does on a daily basis, to make sure that we run efficiently.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I thank the minister for taking it under advisement, because it is an important issue for all of us people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand, from my reading and my notes on the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, that it is comprised of a chairperson, representatives of persons with disabilities, one representative of the department – and I guess that is the minister's department, other than the director – and then other members that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint, and it is funded by the minister's department.

The last report that was released on this particular board stated a number of values that the board had. It said the work environment of the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board is focused on improving accessibility to public –

MR. KING: A point of order.

CHAIR: A point of order, by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said before, I hesitate to interrupt, but it is my recollection that the Chair on several occasions has reminded the Member for St. John's North of the relevance to the debate. Now, it is very clear in Explanatory Notes that there are two principles to this bill: staggered appointments to boards, and continue to serve upon expiration of a term until somebody is reappointed.

I fail to see the relevance or the point he is introducing about building accessibility and reports produced. That is not relevant to the debate we are into today, and the member has been asked to confine his comments to this bill on several occasions.

CHAIR: Thank you.

There is no point of order, but I do remind the member that I am asking for relevance to the bill and preamble to the bill, please.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is particularly relevant to Bill 47, the Act to Amend Various Acts of the Province Respecting Appointments to Boards, Councils and Tribunals. If I could continue where I left off, in the most recent report that was released by the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, it stated a number of –

CHAIR: I ask the member to speak to the legislation –

MR. KIRBY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: – and I do not consider right now you are speaking to the legislation.

MR. KIRBY: Well, I will get to my question that is specific to the legislation, but this information is –

CHAIR: You cannot challenge the Chair. I ask for the question.

The hon. member, get to your question, please.

MR. KIRBY: Absolutely.

There are a number of values that are set out here in this document which relate to accountability. It says each person accepts responsibility for their actions and follows through on requests and commitments. Then, with respect to –

CHAIR: I am going to ask the member for the question, or I am going to ask the member to sit down.

MR. KIRBY: Well, I guess I could table this document for –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KIRBY: I did not really finish the introduction to my question, but I guess I could say: How are these values ensured? How is this upheld within this particular body? How do you ensure, Mr. Minister, that the members of the Buildings Accessibility Advisory Board, through these appointments, uphold those values of accountability, integrity and respect?

Is there some reporting process that you do with whoever it is that you appoint to Chair or preside over the meetings, or the business of those bodies, those councils and tribunals, those boards? Is there a particular reporting mechanism that you use on an annual basis to ensure that –

CHAIR: I ask the hon. member to ask the question for the final time.

MR. KIRBY: That is my question, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to go back to a question I asked previously for a reason, because in the Auditor General's report the Marble Mountain Development Corporation had a number of board members who had lapsed terms, they were completely out of order when it comes to looking at maybe doing some of the business.

I ask: With the eleven acts that are currently in play, are there members right now in the board composition who have expired terms, who are lapsed, and are not able to conduct the business of the board because they are currently out of order?

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 13 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 13 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 13 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals. (Bill 47)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 47.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader has asked for this Committee to rise and report Bill 47.

The motion is that the Committee rise.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 47 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 47 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, Bill 50, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 50, An Act To Regulate The Practice of Pharmacy, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 50, entitled An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy". (Bill 50)

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

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to stand in this hon. House tonight to introduce this bill, a bill entitled An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy. This is a great piece of legislation, particularly in light of the very good work that this government has done around pharmacy, around the generics bill and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: As everyone in this House would know, Mr. Speaker, one of the most progressive pieces of legislation around generics bills in this Province, where seniors in this Province who are covered by NLPDP pay no more than $6 for a prescription; this particular act tonight, Mr. Speaker, will speak to a number of amendments to the practice of pharmacy in the Province, which is currently regulated by the Pharmacy Act. The bill that we are introducing tonight will repeal the current law and replace it with the new Pharmacy Act, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, we are really fortunate in this Province. We have 670 licensed pharmacists who are working at the moment. They work in our community pharmacies, they work in our hospitals, in academic settings, and in government. Some of them even sit in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that close to 38 per cent of our pharmacists work in rural and remote areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is one of the highest percentages in the country. In 2011, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest number of pharmacists per capita in this country. That is something that we are very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Pharmacists are highly respected by both the residents of this Province and other health care professionals as the medication management experts in the health care system. The traditional role of pharmacists is expanding, Mr. Speaker, as we all know. Today pharmacists collaborate with patients and other health care providers to provide appropriate patient-focused pharmaceutical care.

Mr. Speaker, given the increasing number of available medications, the complexity of treatment protocols and the evolving role of pharmacists in the delivery of health care, government has an obligation to ensure that the legislation respecting the practice of pharmacy remains current. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have brought to this House Bill 50.

While the bill contains more modern legislative language, updated references to other statutes, and has been slightly reorganized, what I will do tonight, Mr. Speaker, is focus my remarks on the major differences from the current act.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the board must act in public interest. That is one of the very basic premises of this new act. The bill emphasizes that the primary function of the Pharmacy Board is public protection.

Section 7 of the bill clearly states that the board shall regulate the practice of pharmacy and the pharmacy profession in the public interest. While this provision does not change the primary mandate of the board, Mr. Speaker, it emphasizes and confirms that the board must act in the interest of the public.

Regulatory bodies are not advocacy bodies for professions. They are required to regulate the profession in such a manner as to ensure, insofar as, possible public protection.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, sets out specific objects of the board which include the promotion of high standards of practice, the promotion of continuing competency and quality improvement through continuing education, the administration of a registration and licensing program, the establishment maintenance and development of standards for the operation of pharmacies and ensuring that the public interest is protected in all matters relating to the practice of pharmacy.

Mr. Speaker, the bill itself requires the Pharmacy Board to maintain a Web site and sets out the minimum content to be included on that Web site. It is very important, Mr. Speaker. As we know, a lot of people access the Web site now to obtain information that they are looking for.

The bill also provides that a person may obtain a paper copy of anything on that Web site from the board and that the board may charge a reasonable fee for the paper copy.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to governance, this bill proposes a significant change from the current act to the governance structure of the Pharmacy Board by adding additional members – a very important aspect of this new bill.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board is established by legislation. It is a regulatory body for the pharmacy profession. The board presently consists of seven elected pharmacists and two people appointed by the minister to represent the public interest. The secretary-registrar of the board also sits on the board as a non-voting member.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill, though, the new proposed bill, we propose to amend the governance structure of the board to add a seat for the Dean of the School of Pharmacy at Memorial University. Mr. Speaker, in this House and in this Province we can all be proud of the excellent School of Pharmacy that we have at Memorial University. It provides cutting-edge theory to pharmacy students, graduates are taught to work as part of a health care team, putting the needs of the patient as the primary focus.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to report that the school is an acknowledged centre of excellence in clinical practice training. I have had occasion on a number of different times to visit the School of Pharmacy since I have been Minister of Health and Community Services; in fact, I have attended at least two of the white coat ceremonies with the school, had opportunity to meet with the Dean, to meet with some of the students, and I can tell you that they earn their reputation as being a centre of excellence in clinical practice training.

I was so impressed on every occasion that I have been at that school, Mr. Speaker. I know that my Parliamentary Secretary, who has been with me to the School of Pharmacy, can report the same thing. It is an exemplary school and we ought to be proud of it here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: So, Mr. Speaker, the addition of the Dean of Pharmacy to the board will provide significant expertise at a time of rapid change in the profession of pharmacy. The board will also benefit from a pharmacy technician representative to bring forward the technician perspective on their role in the practice of pharmacy – something that is exceptionally important. In a few moments I will discuss in more detail the regulation of pharmacy technicians.

Mr. Speaker, the important role that public representatives play on our health profession governing bodies cannot be overstated. The bill proposes the addition of two more people to represent the public interest. These appointments will be made by the board; the appointments will be in addition to the two public members appointed by the minister. Public representatives ensure that the perspective of the patient is brought forward and considered in board discussions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to registration of pharmacy students and interns – this is another important aspect of the new bill – the current act permits the board to register students, but the proposed bill sets out in greater detail the prerequisites for student registration. The bill also states what registered students are able to do in a pharmacy setting as part of their clinical practice experience. The bill provides that pharmacy students who register with the board can perform tasks within the scope of practice of a pharmacist but only under the direction supervision of a pharmacist. Only registered students can complete practical experience requirements in pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. The sections of the bill that address student registration are similar to those passed by this House during the last sitting pertaining to optometry students.

It is I think important to understand that requiring pharmacy students to register prior to beginning their practical placement provides the board with a method of monitoring student placements and creates also an enhanced accountability. Not only for the board itself, but also for practicing pharmacists who act as supervisors for pharmacy students during their clinical placements.

Mr. Speaker, the current Pharmacy Act does not specifically address the registration of pharmacy interns but the bill before the House today will include a provision for the registration of pharmacy interns. Eight-week internships are completed by graduates from schools of pharmacy as a final clinical placement before registration as a pharmacist, Mr. Speaker. Longer internships are completed by pharmacists who move to the Province from another country, to allow the Pharmacy Board to assess their knowledge and ability to practice in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on, if time permits, to the registration of pharmacy technicians. In keeping with the trend across Canada, Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes the role played by pharmacy technicians in the practice of pharmacy. Pharmacy technicians assist pharmacists by carrying out some tasks traditionally done by pharmacists but they work under the supervision of a pharmacist.

The pharmacy technician designation is given to individuals who successfully complete a course of study to gain knowledge and skills relevant to the technical and clerical aspects of the pharmacy profession. They are also, Mr. Speaker, required to write and pass a national certification exam.

Pharmacy technicians are not currently regulated in this Province. This bill includes sections which will provide for the registration and regulation of pharmacy technicians in a manner similar to how the Dental Board regulates dental assistants under the Dental Act, 2008.

Pharmacy technicians will free up pharmacists' time to enable them to provide more counselling to patients. A very important aspect of what we looked at under our new generics bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It now being 10:00 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 10, this House now stands adjourned. 

Tomorrow being Wednesday, the House will reconvene at 2:00 p.m., and the debate on this particular bill will resume on Thursday when the House meets again.