The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today's proceedings I want to acknowledge a special guest that we have in the gallery today. Today we are joined by Jeremy Mueller. In June of this year Jeremy was named the Special Olympics Provincial Male Athlete of the Year and in October was named the Special Olympics Canadian Male Athlete of the Year.

Jeremy has already competed provincially, nationally and at world levels, and in January of 2013 will be going to South Korea to compete in the Special Olympics World Games in South Korea. He is joined here today by his mother, Velma.

Jeremy, welcome to our gallery.

Congratulations!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Jeremy, we all wish you well in your competition in January. Enjoy South Korea.

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of The Straits – White Bay North; the Member for the District of –

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

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe, on a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday when we were here, the Member for Burin – Placentia West made a statement that I need to raise with you.

On the eleventh he made a similar statement and you asked him to withdraw it because the language was unparliamentary, and on the thirteenth he made another similar statement. The statement was, "Mr. Speaker, it is quite irresponsible for the member, I will say this, who made a statement just a couple of days that there were amendments in reference to the Schools Act and said there were changes. Mr. Speaker, people have asked me: Have there been changes made? Mr. Speaker, that is – now, I have to get this right – factually incorrect. This is simply factually incorrect. It is irresponsible of the member to be putting incorrect information out there, Mr. Speaker. The parents, the students, and the trustees deserve better than what the hon. member is" and no more can be heard.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of calling something factually incorrect, which you called him to task two days earlier, so he tried to skirt around the issue. The information that he is putting before this House is not accurate. I have never referenced the Schools Act in respect to this matter or in any other area.

If, in fact, he is referring to the practice of schools boards voting in secret by ballot, in fact that authority for them to do that comes by way of their constitution and their bylaws. Four of the five school boards have adopted bylaws, and the minister has signed off on the bylaws. They have signed off on the bylaws which say they are permitted to have a secret ballot. Eastern, Nova Central, and the French School Board all have these bylaws signed by the minister. The Western School District has no such bylaws. Their bylaws are under review; however, they claim authority there from relying on their constitution and Robert's Rules of Order. The Labrador School District can use the practice but in very limited circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is, what the minister is saying here being attributed to me is not accurate and furthermore that his couching the words that he is using is not making it more or less parliamentary than he tried two days earlier when he was taken to task by yourself.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House now for nine years and I have said coming into this job, I came into it with my integrity and I am going to leave it with my integrity. I have taken the member to task on a couple of occasions – and I will be careful how I couch this because he has built up hope in the people where the Schools Act and the school board's bylaws will not allow me, as minister, to do things that he has indicated. Now I cannot say the terminology that I want to use, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you one thing, he has put people who are on a very emotional track about a school closing and he has put them in a situation where there is false hope.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot, as a human being, just accept that. There have been no amendments to the bylaws. I, as minister, do not have the authority to overturn. The policies and the bylaws that are in place now with the school boards were in place even previous to 2003, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how to couch that any other way than to say that I will leave it at this: he has provided false hope where there is not hope, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker seeks some clarification. I want to make sure I understand the point of order being raised.

If the Member for St. Barbe could clarify, because there are two issues you have raised. One with respect to suggesting that there was unparliamentary language being used. The second point you are raising is with respect to comments that are attributed to you that you are suggesting you had not made. Are these the two points that you are raising with respect to your point of order?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely correct.

If, in fact, it is demonstrated that I have made those comments then clearly I would withdraw and apologize, and if in fact the other member is unable to demonstrate that I have said those comments then he ought to do likewise.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will review the record of Hansard for the days in question and provide a ruling at a future time for the House.

Statements by Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I listed off those who have members' statements for the day.

I will acknowledge the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North as the first member.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, people who make a difference often do not realize how much they give.

Order of Newfoundland recipient nurse Janet Cox dedicated forty years to ground-breaking research on hereditary colon cancer.

In my district, many deserving people received Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medals.

Joan Simmonds, with the French Shore Historical Society, helped coordinate the 20,000 hours of work that went into making an incredible historic tapestry now on display in Conche. Bern Bromley, previous owner and editor for the Northern Pen, is a former mayor who volunteers with many organizations.

This weekend, during their annual tree lighting service, the Town of Englee presented Diamond Jubilee Medals to three residents who have together volunteered almost 100 years with their town. The three retired teachers: Edgar Fillier, Robert Keefe, and Rudy Porter are well known for their commitment to and leadership in the town. Mr. Porter is the Mayor of Englee, and was a loud voice in the fight for the demolition of the Englee fish plant.

It goes to show how many dedicated people are around us all each day. I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these six good citizens who have done so much to enrich so many lives.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour a long-term resident of St. John's East who deservedly received an Order of Canada this year.

Bernice Morgan is one of the Province's best-known writers. Her first novel, Random Passage, was a sensation locally and nationally. In that novel, Bernice wrote about Newfoundland history in a way that was exciting to many residents of the Province. She wrote from a woman's point of view about the everyday life of early settlers in the fictional Cape Random.

Her other fiction – novels and short stories – cemented her reputation as a writer. She is also an editor, a tireless supporter of other writers, most particularly as a mentor of new and emerging writers, but also as an administrator.

She has been on the board of the Provincial Arts Council and the executive of the Writers' Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland Writers' Guild, and the Writers' Union of Canada.

Bernice has also had a long involvement with the St. John's Status of Women Council as well as the St. John's Library Board.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Bernice Morgan on her investiture to the Order of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Mr. Sam Alexander on the occasion of his ninety-eighth birthday.

Mr. Alexander currently resides at his home in Cormack in close proximity to his many family members. Mr. Alexander has had an amazing life that has included raising eight children, thirteen grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

Born in Stephenville on October 13, 1914, Mr. Alexander spent the bulk of his life working in the forestry business and as owner of a service station in Cormack. As a young man Mr. Alexander served in World War II for six years in the 59^th Regiment. It was during his military service that he met his wife Gwendolyn, whom he married in England in 1945. Upon completion of his military service, Mr. Alexander and his wife returned to Newfoundland and Labrador and soon moved to the community of Cormack and started their family.

Unselfish and noble actions are a reflection of a great life and to this, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to stand with me and congratulate Mr. Sam Alexander on the occasion of his ninety-eighth birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to congratulate a very special person in my district, Jeremy Mueller. Jeremy demonstrates the true spirit of a Special Olympic athlete, always encouraging and cheering other athletes whether he is racing with them or against them.

This year he won four gold medals in snowshoeing at the 2012 Special Olympics Canadian Winter Games in Alberta. Jeremy's performance earned him a spot on the Special Olympics Canadian National Team, which will be competing in 2013 at the World Games in South Korea.

In June, Jeremy was named as provincial Special Olympics Male Athlete of the Year. In November, he was named and honoured to be the Special Olympics Canadian Male Athlete of the Year.

Jeremy is a highly trained athlete who works hard to excel in sport. In 1998, Jeremy competed in the national Summer Games where he won two silver medals in swimming.

I am sure Jeremy would like me to recognize those who helped him: his family – especially his mom – his coaches, and many volunteers with the Special Olympics.

I ask all hon. members to join with me in wishing Jeremy good luck in South Korea. Have fun, and we know you will do well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize an outstanding lady in my district for dedicating thirty-four years of her time to volunteering and organizing the Lions Club Annual Carol Sing at Arnold's Cove. This event is one of the largest community fundraisers for the Children's Wish Foundation.

I had the great privilege of attending the thirty-fourth Carol Sing on December 10 and I was joined by my colleague for Mount Pearl North. Both of us were very impressed that communities came together and raised over $22,000 for the Children's Wish Foundation.

On that night, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Flo Peach was awarded the Queen's Diamond Jubilee award and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her on winning this award. Also, I want to congratulate the Arnold's Cove Lions Club for being the sponsor of this great fundraiser.

I ask that all members join me in saying thank you for your years of service to the Children's Wish Foundation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to acknowledge the passing of Hazel McIsaac and to offer sincere condolences to her loved ones.

Hazel McIsaac was the first woman to become a Member of the House of Assembly post-Confederation. She was a true trailblazer in Newfoundland and Labrador's political history and helped pave the way for women wishing to enter political life.

Born in Robinsons in 1933, Ms McIsaac was educated at the Sisters of Mercy Convent Boarding School in St. George's. Over the years, she worked at Harmon Air Force Base in Stephenville and managed two local businesses. She was later appointed as town clerk in St. George's, where she was the first woman to ever hold that position.

In 1975, Ms McIsaac set her sights on provincial politics and on September 16 was elected to represent the Liberal Party in District of St. George's as a Member of the House of Assembly. During her time in office, she was devoted to environmental and social issues. In 1980, Ms McIsaac returned to her role as town clerk in St. George's, where she was later elected as mayor.

Mr. Speaker, she was devoted to her community, contributing to the library board, local development associations, parks and recreation committees, Women's Institute seminars, and in the 1980s opened her home as a community residence for young offenders.

Mr. Speaker, as a tribute to her contribution to the betterment of our society as a strong and influential woman in Newfoundland and Labrador politics, the MV Hazel McIsaac ferry was named in her honour. Her legacy will now be represented in a very tangible way, long into the future.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ms McIsaac last year. Mr. Speaker, she served the people of this Province admirably and holds an important place in the history of our Province.

On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I offer my deepest sympathies to her loved ones.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Premier for the advance copy of the statement. I, too, would like to join the family and all members of this House in paying tribute to the life and the legacy of Hazel McIsaac who, as the Premier said, was the first elected woman to the House of Assembly.

You can imagine in 1975 coming into the House of Assembly, and just think as we look back and reflect on the people who were actually sitting in those seats on that day. All of us, I know, would have vivid memories of a lot of those MHAs and the role that they played in our history. Ms McIsaac is certainly deserving of that recognition as well. At the time, in 1975, she was the only woman elected in the House of Assembly, and certainly she became a role model to all the women who followed in her footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I did notice, because I did read the obituary in the newspaper over the weekend and the statement talks about her concerns for environmental and social issues, but one thing that stood out to me was that the obituary also made mention of thinking about the foster children that she had cared for over her years. I think this is important and really a recognition of truly the type of individual that Ms McIsaac was. In 2004, she was the recipient of the Provincial Woman of the Year Award, and indeed, her legacy, as the naming of the provincial ferry, MV Hazel McIsaac, is certainly a tribute to her, I am sure.

I join all members in this House today in paying tribute to Ms McIsaac; her memory will live on for a long time amongst all those people who followed her.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the Premier for an advance copy of her statement. I, too, would like to express my condolences to the family and friends of Hazel McIsaac. I was lucky enough to get to meet her once as well.

She truly was a groundbreaking figure in the history of women in public life in Newfoundland and Labrador. Hazel McIsaac was in politics for all the right reasons, in her dedication to community economic development and environmental protection.

After she left politics, Ms McIsaac carried on her contribution to her community, both in her work with organizations, and her personal commitment to helping the most vulnerable in our society rebuild their lives.

In her commitment to her community, Hazel McIsaac was a role model for all of us, both women and men, in this House. May her spirit live on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express our deepest sorrow and to offer our heartfelt sympathies to the families, friends, and colleagues of those tragically killed Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

We have all seen the news coverage and are shocked and horrified by what has transpired.

Mr. Speaker, twenty young children and six adults were killed in this unspeakable act of violence. I know that I have been personally haunted this weekend with the thought of exactly what might have occurred in that classroom and in that school.

In Newfoundland and Labrador we have worked and are working to ensure our children go to a school each day knowing they are entering a safe and caring learning environment.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage parents and educators to reinforce that message today and every day. No child should ever fear they will be subjected to harassment, intimidation, or violence of any kind inside or outside of school.

What occurred in Connecticut on Friday was, as one American news anchor said, "a horror beyond words". I know that all members of this hon. House will join me in sending the thoughts and prayers of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to the people of Newtown, Connecticut to let them know that we are thinking of them at this time of unimaginable pain and grief.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, if you would, to call for just a minute of silence to remember those.

MR. SPEAKER: We will pause for a moment of silence.

[Moment of silence observed]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of any child knows no boundaries, so what happens to one child, no matter where in this world, touches our Province, our communities, our homes, and our hearts.

What happened in Connecticut this past week will forever be etched in our hearts and souls and our psyche. We know that no amount of words can heal the deep anguish and the grief that will be with these families in their nation for a long time to come. Still we all share the tears and we send our inadequate words to Newtown from all of us here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

We were all shocked and saddened to learn of the senseless and tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut last week.

Those of us who are fathers and mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers, uncles and aunts were immediately drawn to think of our own little ones. Schools should be safe environments where our students can learn and grow without fear.

Our caucus joins all members of the House in expressing our condolences to the families in Connecticut. I hope we can all work together in this House of Assembly to make our own schools here in Newfoundland and Labrador as safe as they can be.

Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to highlight an initiative that promotes and engages youth in innovative activities.

Launched earlier today, the provincial government's Youth Innovation Call for Proposals has the goal of creating awareness among youth of the tremendous career opportunities that exist in Newfoundland and Labrador and the role innovation plays in harnessing them.

For each project funded through this initiative, the provincial government will contribute up to 80 per cent of total project costs to a maximum of $20,000. Those eligible to apply include not-for-profit organizations, schools in the kindergarten to Grade 12 system, post-secondary educational institutions, youth organizations, and industry organizations.

Since the initial call for proposals in 2009, the provincial government has invested close to $1.4 million in eighty activities that support youth innovation. These activities capture the creativity and volume of innovative thinking that is prevalent in communities and regions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, these initiatives hold the potential to spark the imaginations of youth and build skills today that can benefit future entrepreneurs and a stronger workforce.

Examples of some of the projects supported to date include support for the Town of Belleoram to host a conference for youth from the Coast of Bays region about the importance of science, engineering, and technology in advancing the local aquaculture industry.

In Pollard's Point we have helped Main River Academy to increase student awareness of advanced technologies and environmental issues such as wildlife, water, soils, and forestry throughout the Internet and smart technologies.

That is just a brief snapshot, but the message to youth is the same: regardless of age or where you live, you can be innovative, you can grow, and you can succeed.

Mr. Speaker, if previous projects are any indication as to where we as a Province are headed, I can say without a doubt the future of Newfoundland and Labrador is in good and capable hands.

I encourage all those eligible to apply to consider the possibilities, be innovative, and certainly creative. More information and details of the call for proposals are available on my department's Web site or at one of our twenty-three offices throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Encouraging youth to become aware and engaged in our career opportunities is a great initiative. Since a large portion of our youth lives in our rural regions, they are disadvantaged with fewer services such as high-speed Internet and cellphone coverage. However, we are well aware that in this Province and in this government there is a rural decline.

Among the greatest rural development tools were the RED Boards. Earlier this year the Harper government pulled the rug out from under these boards and with this government's compliance, all RED Boards were sacrificed. The Government of Nova Scotia was more proactive as they faced the same challenge. The very next day they went to work and they put together a taskforce to save their RED Boards.

Unfortunately, this government was not so proactive on this file with so many other files. Mr. Speaker, all those youth who would want a future in our rural regions and communities have been abandoned by this government by leaving out the RED Boards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I too thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I welcome the renewed commitment of investing in our youth to pursue science and technology projects which fosters a culture of innovation and creativity. It is good to see that the eligibility is quite broad to include non-profits, industry associations and municipalities.

Youth are today's leaders as well and we should give them every opportunity to tap their imagination. I encourage government to continue listening attentively to what youth are saying and where they would like to see the opportunities of future career goals, so that government can align its programming to fit these ever-changing desires.

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.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last night at 10:50 o'clock, the Premier sent out an advisory saying that there would be a Muskrat Falls announcement at 6:00 o'clock today.

I ask the Premier: Are you going to sanction Muskrat Falls today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there certainly will be an event at 6:00 o'clock this evening. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to join us there. I am not in a position at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, because of the relationship with our partners, to release any details until later this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might take the Premier up on her late dinner invite today – her invite.

Mr. Speaker, sanctioning Muskrat Falls at this point is irresponsible. All environmental approvals are not in place, the Aboriginal claims are not settled, the regulatory process in Nova Scotia is not even started, and the Premier refuses to deny any regulatory oversight onto this project in our Province. She has signed a term sheet really on cheesecloth.

I ask the Premier: With so many significant outstanding issues, how could you possibly sanction Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have said many times inside this House and outside this House, when the time comes to make the sanctioning decision all that needs to be in order will be in order, Mr. Speaker, and that remains true today, the same as it was a week ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday, government announced a deficit of $725 million and warned of pending layoffs and pension stripping. Four days later they seem poised to sanction a $9 billion Muskrat Falls Project.

I ask the Premier: How can you proceed with billions of dollars in borrowing when we cannot even manage a three-quarter of a billion dollar deficit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Finance last week, the financing of Muskrat Falls will be through a combination of cash and borrowing, Mr. Speaker. Again, as indicated by the Minister of Finance, the cost of Muskrat Falls does not go to our net debt, Mr. Speaker, because we have a revenue generating asset.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the Muskrat Falls Project will pay for itself. Therefore, the fact of the deficit, to try to connect the deficit to Muskrat Falls is simply irrelevant. We have not borrowed in many years and we are making an investment in the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the minister did not talk about was that this project will certainly not generate any revenue prior to 2017. Typically, we do not know where it is going yet because the overruns are not factored in there yet, and the minister knows that. The Premier does not have a stellar record on planning. She voted to scrap the FPI Act, and look at where Burin is today. She accidentally expropriated the Abitibi Mill, costing over $100 million, and last week we have a $725 million deficit.

I ask the Premier: Since you cannot manage an annual budget for even six months, how can we have any confidence in a fifty-year Muskrat Falls projection?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my record inside and outside this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I stood with the people of Burin back in 1984 and 1985 and saved the plant in Burin through those joint efforts. That plant has operated for over twenty-five years as a result of that community action, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, today we still feel the fallout of the closure of the cod fishery back in 1992. It is one of the issues we try to deal with on a daily basis with our partners in the fishery. Mr. Speaker, this government has done stellar work in terms of making sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is in the best place it has ever been in its history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure if you speak to the people in Burin today, there is no A plus there. They do not consider this to be stellar planning, Mr. Speaker. You heard the reports coming out of Burin this weekend. They are not so confident in the planning.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier might have faith in her information on Muskrat Falls, but the people of the Province are pleading for an independent review by the PUB. Our own office conducted a poll: 67 per cent of the people in this Province are suggesting we do an independent review of the DG3 numbers.

I ask the Premier: Will you listen to the people who elected you? Give the PUB the opportunity to do the independent review it desires before sanctioning Muskrat Falls.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to the people who elected us. This announcement of Muskrat Falls was made approximately two years ago. The Lower Churchill Project has been studied for forty years. The provincial load forecast and MHI confirm that we need power and that we have to do something about it. We have examined all options, Mr. Speaker, such as refurbishing Holyrood. We have looked at wind and natural gas. The reality is that Muskrat Falls is $2.3 billion cheaper than the next closest project. Mr. Speaker, the federal loan guarantee is in place.

At this point, what the member opposite forgot to outline is all the polls suggest the people of this Province are squarely behind the development of Muskrat Falls, Mr. Speaker, as they should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I would not be suggesting they are squarely behind it, but what I do know is they want to see an independent review. They would like to see that review done by the Public Utilities Board. The member opposite mentioned about Manitoba Hydro. Well, I can tell you, the people in Manitoba are not as proud today as they were of those experts, and the minister knows that.

Mr. Speaker, two bills relating to Muskrat Falls are on the Order Paper for first reading today. The Opposition Parties have an agreement with government to allow seventy-two hours of preparation time between tabling of a bill and debate in this House.

I ask the Premier: We know the record of rushed legislation, so will you honour your commitment and allow seventy-two hours of preparation time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of what the member opposite is talking about. Today the bills will be given first reading. They will be distributed on first reading, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition will be given briefings tomorrow, as we have been doing throughout this term.

The reality is that the bills will come to the House. They will be debated. The Opposition also has to do their own work, Mr. Speaker. I see that the Opposition, the Liberal Party especially, has been very good at having others try to do their work on Muskrat Falls. Now it is time for them to do some of the work, come to the House prepared and we will deal with the issues as they arise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Why thank you, Minister. The minister need not worry; we will be doing our work. You have had a year to do the work on those bills and we are just getting them today. That is what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker, after last year's election the Premier appointed Mr. Ross Reid as the deputy minister of the Voluntary and Non-Profit Secretariat which is now a division of the Office of Public Engagement. This week, the Premier appointed Marilyn Field as deputy minister to the Office of Public Engagement.

I ask the Premier: Do we now have two deputy ministers in the Office of Public Engagement? Or is Mr. Reid gone and if so, where?

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, last fall the Premier gave direction and set up the Office of Public Engagement. It has brought together five entities: the ATIPP office, Office of Youth Engagement, the Rural Secretariat, Strategic Business Partnership, and the Non-Profit Sector. That was basically to recognize the good work that has been done, but to build on that and bring those entities together to make sure on both ends that the information that we can release to the public is there and easily more accessible.

We have made some efforts in terms of that already; they will continue. As well, in terms of the dialogue and consultation in terms of social and economic policy, that continues again in the good work that we do.

Just recently there was a deputy minister assigned to head up the Office of Public Engagement, a well-qualified individual. We are looking forward to working with her, as a new department together, and the good things that we have done in the past and build on that with Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, having new ferries built in Marystown now seems very remote, if not impossible. All because this government cannot reach a settlement with Kiewit, yet they can support Emera with a possible $30 million grant.

I ask the Premier: What is the amount Kiewit and government cannot resolve? Why are you unable to reach an agreement with them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you I was very pleased and very proud today to announce that we are moving forward with replacing ferries – our aging ferry fleet in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we have to get on with the business of building these vessels. Building these vessels is for the people of remote parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. We announced two projects today. One to build a new ferry for Fogo Island and Change Islands to service the people of that area, which is a very busy ferry service we provide there; and, as well, to build a new forty-two metre swing vessel to replace those ferries that are undergoing repairs or in for refit. We have also taken great steps, Mr. Speaker, to improve the service to people in remote parts of Labrador like we have never done before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: I just want it on the record. The minister will not even give the people of the Province the answer that I asked about what the cost overruns are. Just to let you know, Minister, the same –

MR. SPEAKER: Please direct your comments to the Chair.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, that same announcement today for the Fogo Island and Change Islands was made nine months ago by the former minister. Just to let you know, you were not around.

Mr. Speaker, the Burin Peninsula is receiving blow after blow from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Despite this government's commitment to support the people of the Burin Peninsula, we hear today of another blow and new ferries will not be constructed in Marystown.

I ask the Premier: Why are you failing the people of the Burin Peninsula by putting the sustainability of Marystown Shipyard in jeopardy and throwing hundreds of people out of work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I lived, worked, and raised my family on the Burin Peninsula. I was a part of the whole controversy around the restructuring of the fishery back in the 1980s. I stood shoulder to shoulder with people in that region, Mr. Speaker.

As a government, we have gone back many times: investments in St. Lawrence; the reactivation of the fluorspar mines; Dynamic Air Shelters, tremendous support to that company in Grand Bank, employing many, many people on the Burin Peninsula, and working now with all of the parties trying to find a future for the fish plant in fortune.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, no doubt about it, an area of the Province that for all of its history depended so much on the fishery is going through a tough time, but we will go through it with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, yet another plant is closing on the Burin Peninsula, leaving more than 100 people out of work. Back in May, we encouraged government to lay out a development strategy for plants that were closing, including the one at Burin.

I ask the minister: What strategy and action plan has this government undertaken on behalf of the workers at Burin?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, our government certainly has a clear record of working with communities involved in the fishery. We have seen many communities challenged in recent times with closures of fish plants. We do have our fish plant support workers program in place. We do work with communities, and we will work with the people of the Burin and work with the community of Burin to see in the future as to what options are available. We have also made contact with the company to discuss the use of the building and possible new opportunities in the future.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we have done in every other case, we will certainly work with the community and see what we can do to help them in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there have been non-stop plant closures since this government took office, now Burin is closing. The role of government is to generate and manage prosperity, not stand by and wring their hands in despair with no solutions when setbacks happen.

I ask the Premier: Why has her government done nothing to find a new operator for the Burin Plant? Is it because government has been so focused on Muskrat Falls that everything else is being neglected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition critic has been following the news, he could see we certainly have been squarely focused on the fishery and that particular region – particularly around the Fortune OCI issue.

Mr. Speaker, the comment he makes, and I would like to point out, our government does not own plants. We do not operate fish plants, and, Mr. Speaker, we do not shut them down. We are fully committed through various programs, through my department, through Innovation, Business and Rural Development, to support workers. To see in what ways we can support them to have a future, Mr. Speaker, and we will certainly be there to work with their communities to see what options and opportunities are there, whether it is in the fishery or otherwise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DALLEY: We are firmly committed to work with the people of Burin, and he can mark that down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills announced that she was referring the review of the Bell Island adult education program to the RNC. There were no other details provided at that time.

I ask the Premier: What leads you to believe that there may be criminal activity associated with the program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills did a review in relation to the ABE program on Bell Island, and after we completed our review we felt that we needed to close every potential loop and we also felt that every lens needed to be applied; therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have referred it to the RNC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the MHA for Conception Bay East – Bell Island was directly involved in the delivery of the ABE program that is now under investigation. That member currently sits as Vice-Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. There is plenty of precedent to ask the member to step aside during the investigation. The Premier appointed him to the position.

I ask the Premier: Will you now ask the MHA for Conception Bay East – Bell Island to step aside until the investigation is complete?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, despite the spin from parties opposite, we are proud of our record of accountability and transparency. As the minister has said, to make sure that we have done a thorough investigation, that we have applied all the proper lenses, we referred this file to the RNC; but, there is a presumption of innocence, Mr. Speaker, and regardless of what they feel on the other side, I am going to continue to support that assumption until I am told otherwise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Bell Island ABE program has been referred to the RNC. We know required site inspections were not happening at other ABE sites across the Province and apparently, not all ABE programs were being audited.

I ask the minister: For years you have promised but failed to deliver on the Strategic Adult Literacy Plan. Would you agree this lack of oversight has set the stage for program irregularities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, I believe there are some great people in Newfoundland and Labrador administering the ABE programs throughout this Province. They come from non-profit community groups, Mr. Speaker; they are people who we certainly do business with day in and day out, and they do a great job in what they do.

Mr. Speaker, any time there is an issue or a concern raised, the department does whatever it can to do a review and to ensure that if there are any loopholes or anything that needs to be tightened up or reviewed with any particular program, we then apply that lens to other programs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to think that the non-profits or the volunteers who work in these organizations are any way demeaned by this action.

Thank you.

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 pomp and circumstance around government potentially announcing their sanctioning of the Muskrat Falls Project is a farce. We have a media advisory going on at 11:00 p.m. on a Sunday night –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – and then announcements at 6:00 p.m. in the evening outside the regular sitting hours of the House of Assembly.

This is outrageous behaviour by the Premier and her government, refusing to give the House the opportunity to question the sanctioning.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is she so afraid of?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to bet that if we had scheduled an announcement around regular sitting hours of the House, I would be castigated here in the House of Assembly for doing that and taking away from the importance of the House.

Mr. Speaker, there will be an announcement this evening. The House is going to be open tomorrow, the next day, the day after, tonight. I understand that we could be spending Christmas here in the House if the claims of the Opposition Parties are true, Mr. Speaker. I am going to be delighted to be here and answer all of the questions the Leader of the Third Party might have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, you know, refusing to have issues discussed and questioned in this House shows disrespect for the Legislature.

I ask the Premier: What is she so afraid of that she has to maintain complete control of the process? What is she keeping secret?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am hard pressed to know how to answer; does the Leader of the Third Party want to come over and help me plan the announcement, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, we are going to make an announcement. I understand that the House is going to be open tonight. We are not closing the House today. You are going to have Question Period tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. There is going to be Question Period for the rest of the week.

I understand from the Opposition parties that we might be here till next week, Mr. Speaker. I am looking forward to it. In all of those days there will be a Question Period and I will be happy to answer any questions she puts forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I will let the Premier know that I will be happy to collaborate on decisions that are made that concern all of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The cost of the work camp purchased by government for the Muskrat Falls Project from Manitoba Hydro was $4.7 million, and I do thank the Minister of Natural Resources for sending me that information.

Bill 29 ensures government does not need to let people know what their money has been spent on for the Muskrat Falls Project.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Was the government tendering process followed in this purchase?

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.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that we have tried to do with Muskrat Falls – we have been asked questions in relation to the members opposite; we have outlined the costs as they come along. We have outlined how the money was spent. I know that the Leader of the Liberals has asked on a number of occasions for costs. We have put that out there.

In relation to the $4.7 million, Mr. Speaker, I was in my office yesterday and I found the note that was referred to, and I sent the member opposite the answer at that time because I had indicated that I would.

Mr. Speaker, in relation to business practices, the procurement at Muskrat Falls is done in a way where you look at getting the best value for your money. There was a camp, a second-hand camp that Manitoba Hydro had; it was purchased, Mr. Speaker, and will get us to the spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister now – and I did recognize that he sent me the information yesterday - will he provide this House with documents to show how the transaction was completed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly have a discussion with Mr. Martin and people at Nalcor. As the members opposite are aware, there is commercially sensitive information that is protected as it would relate to Muskrat Falls. We have outlined the $4.7 million. In terms of the process, Mr. Speaker, I will find out the process and I will get back to the member opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, in the spring Budget we were told by the Minister of Finance that there was $1.9 billion in cash in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Last week the minister, during his mid-year financial review, said it is now $1.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us: What happened to $500 million of the people's money in the intervening months?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the answer and as the answer have been given here many times before, I hope this time that it sinks in.

Mr. Speaker, we have cash on hand. We use that to fund our infrastructure program and other needs that government has. Mr. Speaker, we have not borrowed in a number of years because we have the cash on hand. Therefore, we have not had to incur servicing costs. Every cent that we spend as a government is accounted for on a daily basis with the Auditor General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, government's Adult Basic Education programs are intended to help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians complete high school and improve their chances of securing stable employment. ABE students often struggle to overcome challenges as a result of low incomes, learning disabilities and a lack of community support.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills explain the deficiencies and oversight that led to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary being called in to investigate the botched delivery of Adult Basic Education on Bell Island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for St. John's North should know, once a matter has been turned over to the police an investigation will ensue, and that I would not be able to speak to that at this time.

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, this government likes to tout its openness and transparency, yet secrecy and doubt hang over like a cloud over the botched delivery of Adult Basic Education on Bell Island. People have a right to know how public money was administered in this case.

I ask the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills: Will she release to the public the report she has forwarded on to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, any ABE program administered by a community group in Newfoundland and Labrador relies on volunteers. I think we get stellar work from many volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike what the Member for St. John's North would think of the volunteers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my first answer and what happens once we turn a matter over to the RNC, to hear the subsequent question is absolutely bizarre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, the Province's Public Accounts Committee is intended to be a watchdog over the administration of public funds. The Minister of Advanced Education and Skills has cast a pall over the Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee by referring the activities of the botched Bell Island ABE program to the RNC without any explanation.

I ask the Premier: Will she appoint another member of the House to the Public Accounts Committee until such a time that the air is cleared (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as we had heard from the Premier earlier, any time there is an investigation or anything is being looked at, any matter by the police, in Canada we certainly have the right to assume that a person is innocent until proven otherwise. We will certainly maintain that value we have in our justice system and we will treat people accordingly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, last year government made investments to bring stability to last year's sealing market. The 2013 sealing season will soon be upon us. The trade barriers and other negative market forces hanging over the sealing industry remain.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the harvesters in my district and across the Province, I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What has he planned to assist the industry for the upcoming year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, the sealing industry has certainly helped shape our history and has carved an important place in our culture. We know all the stories of our sealing industry, and I think our government in recent years and certainly in the future will continue our support for the sealing industry and those harvesters who rely on that income in the spring of the year.

Over the past number of years, Mr. Speaker, we have made investments in the seal industry. We continue to provide $100,000 for advocacy and promotion. We continue to work with the sealers, industry, and stakeholders to promote the products and promote the industry. We are certainly committed to continuing to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, last year government extended a loan to the industry. Is that something that is on the table this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year's loan is not on the table this year.

There was a commitment by government to support the industry last year; the terms of repayment, Mr. Speaker, are in place and we are confident that the loan will be repaid. I will certainly update the House in the coming days as to where that is. At the moment, in terms of the future, we have no formal request to extend that beyond what the current agreement says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, in a press release today the government had noted the MV Apollo will be under contract until January 2013 and the Department of Transportation and Works intends to continue this service by issuing a tender for a ferry contract that will last until 2016.

Mr. Speaker, given that January 2013 is looming, this seems to be very poor planning, to open up a competitive tendering process.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Is this going to be an open tendering process for the Apollo?

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.

The announcement that was made today regarding replacement of ferry vessels for the Island portion of the Province, a new swing vessel, as well as a new contract to service the rural and isolated portions of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is the result of many, many months of very hard work by officials in the department and my predecessor, who was the minister prior to me in the department, as well. We are very pleased that we have reached this announcement here today.

This announcement, Mr. Speaker, will result in one of the most versatile ships ever being used in Labrador to provide freight, passenger, and vehicle transportation for people in remote Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

The Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following Private Member's Resolution.

WHEREAS the Province's Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program supports the development of the Province's independent fish harvesting industry by making available a government guarantee on loans offered by financial institutions, including banks and credit unions, for such things as:

One, vessel-related items such as construction, purchase, and-or refit;

Two, combining of enterprises and licence acquisitions;

Three, refinancing of loans owed to fish processors for fixed assets and-or licence acquisitions; and

Four, refinancing of loans previously obtained from chartered banks for vessel-related purposes and fish licence acquisitions ,concurrent with combining of enterprises; and

WHEREAS the program offers loan guarantees for combining of enterprises up to $3 million, vessel-related items up to $2 million, and licence acquisitions up to $1.5 million; the guarantee can provide up to 100 per cent of an outstanding loan; and guaranteed loans are offered at the financial institution prime rate, as negotiated between the harvester and the lender, to a maximum of prime plus 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent, depending on the term of the loan, and the harvester may choose a fixed or floating interest rate and a floating rate may be converted to a fixed rate at any time; and

WHEREAS the uptake under the program has been strong and benefits have been great, demonstrating the program's success and strengthening the Province's independent fish harvesting industry;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourages the provincial government to continue supporting the development of the Province's independent fish harvesting industry by maintaining the Province's Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program.

That is seconded, Mr. Speaker, by the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that the private member's motion just referenced will be the one that government will call from the Order Paper on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, but, Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, government would propose that we not do Private Members' Day and we would continue with government business, and in particular, debate on the Muskrat Falls legislation, this coming Wednesday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a request from the Government House Leader for leave of the House to do government business on Wednesday. Does the minister have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2012; and further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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 in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we are still receiving petitions to our office from people across the Province who are not at all pleased with Bill 29, who want to see this very restrictive and regressive legislation repealed. We just put together the top ten things we do not like about Bill 29.

Number 10, it is hard to find even one change that makes it easier for anyone to get information. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite. Number 9, there is no review mechanism for what constitutes a Cabinet confidence, thereby locking everything up.

Number 8, Bill 29 expands the definition of Cabinet documents exempting more of them from release to the public, now at a time in our history when we need even more access to Cabinet decisions, more accountability and transparency. Number 7, Cabinet briefing notes are now exempt from access requests for five years. We think, do most of these current Cabinet members still think they are going to be around in five years to actually defend themselves?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will.

MS ROGERS: It is possible.

Number 6, Bill 29 strips the Auditor General of right to access certain information and documents – again, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we need more transparency, more openness and more access to those documents. Number 5, the Citizens' Representative, the Auditor General, and the Child and Youth Advocate have terms of between five and seven years. The Information and Privacy Commissioner here in Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike the rest of the country has just two – just two years, Mr. Speaker, the lowest in the country. This is certainly regressive.

Number four, this government used to brag about having best access to information in Canada. It seems this bill, with its amendments, will give us some of the most restrictive legislation in the country. It has, and that is showing itself in the requests for information that are coming back all redacted.

Number three; Cabinet ministers are the final authority on whether a request is frivolous and vexatious. That is certainly a sign of democracy, isn't it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up now, and I look forward to presenting in the future more petitions on this.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition.

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

WHEREAS the lack of cellular phone coverage in Lark Harbour, York Harbour, and Frenchman's Cove is a major safety concern for residents, especially in times of emergency; and

WHEREAS the lack of cellular phone coverage restricts and negatively impacts local businesses in the area as compared to most other areas of the Province; and

WHEREAS the tourist destinations in our area are without cellular phone coverage, causing a safety concern and inconvenience for tourists who visit, furthermore the lack of cellular phone coverage can be a deterrent for people in choosing our region as a tourist destination; and

WHEREAS the residents of Lark Harbour, York Harbour, and Frenchman's Cove should have the same cellular phone coverage available as other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador have long had such service;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to support our request to obtain cellular phone coverage, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I presented many petitions concerning a lack of cellular phone coverage in Bay of Islands over the last year. The minister in the House committed that he was going to start negotiations with officials in Ottawa to see if we could come up with some provincial strategy for cellphone coverage. I do not know the update on those meetings or what the government is planning on doing with the cellular phone coverage, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: As we know, we are getting into a major deal with Emera, Mr. Speaker. Once again, we are putting $30 million toward their bill if they do not sanction the project, yet we cannot get the minister to have meetings with the federal government or update the Province if we are going to have cellular coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this government to get its priorities correct. The residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially the Bay of Islands, need and want cellular phone coverage for safety, for business reasons, for everyday use. We hear government members opposite, Mr. Speaker, on a regular basis say we have to get into the new era and we have to move forward, but yet they will not present the tools for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward.

I think the minister should stand and give us an update on negotiations with Ottawa, if he is or was having negotiations with Ottawa, because if he is, Mr. Speaker, there is no one in Newfoundland and Labrador aware of it.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the government to proceed with what you say in this House as in –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – that we need to get everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador into the twenty-first century. It is time for this government to act. Words do not mean anything anymore, Mr. Speaker, because we need action. Obviously, we are not getting action.

I thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for the time to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sorry for the delay there. I anticipated more petitions.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, December 17, 2012; and further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, for Motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, December 17, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 17, 2012; and it has been further moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 17, 2012.

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.

Mr. Speaker, Order 1, third reading of Bill 54.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, Bill 54, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 54 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and the title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 54)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Use and Expropriation of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project, Bill 60, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

Sorry, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill number is? I am sorry.

MR. KING: Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project, Bill 60, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 60 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project", carried. (Bill 60)

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Use And Expropriation Of Land For The Purpose Of The Muskrat Falls Project. (Bill 60).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 60 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Motion 5, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act and The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007, Bill 61, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act and The Hydro Corporations Act, 2007, Bill 61, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 61 and that the bill shall now be read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act and The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007", carried. (Bill 61)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, The Energy Corporation Act and The Hydro Corporation Act, 2007. (Bill 61)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 61 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I call Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER: When the debate adjourned, the Member for St. John's North had time left on the clock on the amendment to the bill.

I acknowledge now the Member for St. John's North to continue with his comments.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is a privilege for me to get up here and stand in my place and speak to Bill 53, and that is what we were speaking about when the House broke for the weekend, and I hope all members are back here in the House and are rested, because we have an important week, and indeed we could be sitting up until Christmas Day to discuss important matters related to Muskrat Falls.

We were talking about the implications of new developments in the Big Land, in Labrador, related to minerals development, Altius' Julienne Lake development, Alderon's interests in iron ore, Tata Steel, Labrador Iron Mines, the next stage of the development by Vale, and on and on. There is certainly a lot of momentum in the minerals industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed any reputable economist you speak to today will tell you that this certainly a bright spot on the horizon for us.

This bill – I was reading some media reports about it on the weekend, and of course, it has been touted as something we need, especially to give companies that are interested in coming in and doing work in Newfoundland and Labrador in this area, giving those companies a much better means, a better way, a more transparent way of calculating their future operating costs when they are looking at coming in here. So there is certainly –

MR. LANE: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: I was about to get to that, I would say to the Member for Mount Pearl South who seems to be very curious that he is yelling across the way about why we are speaking to this – he and the Member for Mount Pearl North.

So I will certainly tell you that the problem really here is with clause 4 in this bill. The clause says –

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Yes, I would say to the Member for Mount Pearl North, this clause is a state.

"The Act is amended by adding immediately after section 5.7 the following: 5.8 (1) Notwithstanding section 7 of The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961, as of January 1, 2015, the Public Utilities Act shall apply to all transmission lines and related assets located in Labrador, except (a) those in relation to the supply of hydro-electric power described in subparagraph 7(1)(b)(i) of The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961; and" – most importantly; those are my words – "those included in the Muskrat Falls Project."

I would say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, last year, just over a year ago, they ran on a platform that was called new energy. I think that should have been called free energy for Nova Scotia, because that is more or less one of the implications of this project. That is only if the Maritime Link gets approval.

In Nova Scotia they actually have an approval process for this project, unlike Newfoundland and Labrador. The Public Utilities Board was kicked out of the process, told that the government has no faith, no confidence in their own political appointees. They would not replace them; no, no, no just kicked them out altogether and impugned their ability to do work.

They often talk about the fact that the Premier of Nova Scotia is a member of my political party and that somehow he supports it, so we should too. Look, Mr. Speaker, if I was living in Nova Scotia I would probably support this thing too if I was going to get free energy for however many years that these people are planning on providing it.

Not everybody, Mr. Speaker, is in favour of this. As I was closing up I was reminding members opposite what their political cousins in the PC Party in Nova Scotia had to say about the Muskrat Falls plans in Nova Scotia. On October 30, Mr. Speaker, during an emergency debate – you see they had a debate in Nova Scotia. They have had several debates and they also had an emergency debate about the Muskrat Falls Project.

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: The Leader of the PC Party in Nova Scotia – and he did not have the Member for Mount Pearl North yelling across the way at him like I do now, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the PC Party in Nova Scotia had the following warning.

He said, "…I believe it's time to say, hold on, $7.4 billion is a lot of money… hold on, there are a lot of implications to this decision that we are going to make; hold on, let's not sign on the dotted line first as the Premier has done, and secondly, find out how much it's going to cost."

I will repeat that, "let's not sign on the dotted line first, as the Premier has done, and secondly, find out how much it's going to cost. Let's do the right thing for the ratepayers of Nova Scotia, for the young people of Nova Scotia who are going to live with this decision for the next 50 years…".

That is what we are talking about. That is what the PC Party of Nova Scotia is saying. They are worried about the impact of this Muskrat Falls plan on ratepayers in Nova Scotia. They are worried about the impact of this Muskrat Falls plan on taxpayers in Nova Scotia. They are worried about the impact of this fifty-year deal on future generations.

The PC Party here in Newfoundland and Labrador should get in touch with their political cousins in Nova Scotia. Pick up the phone for it. They have been trying to send you a message. On October 30 they tried to send you a message and you are clearly not getting the message.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is our task also here in the House of Assembly to always remember from the Upper Churchill to chocolate bars and rubber boot factories, Newfoundland and Labrador has been the victim of bad government business deals too many times in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY: Too many times government has let the people of the Province down by forging blindly ahead with poorly thought out deals and foolhardy plans, bad deals and plans that the taxpaying public has been forced to pay for. Back in the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, the PC Party had another idea for spending the money of the hard-earned working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. LANE: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Yes, I am glad the Member for Mount Pearl South is yelling across the way, Mr. Speaker, because that plan was to grow cucumbers in Mount Pearl. That plan had questionable economics from the start as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: Questionable economics, because the Sprung Greenhouse cucumbers cost over $1 to produce but sold for just sixty-three cents in Atlantic Canada and for twenty-five cents in the United States.

This ill-fated plan was such a gamble, Mr. Speaker, that the PC government of the time brought the gambler himself in. The gambler himself came in to try and salvage the Sprung cucumber plant. That is true. After he played a show in St. John's in March, 1989 – that was the year I graduated high school – the PCs tried to shore up their failing cucumber plant, in one of the members' districts in Mount Pearl, by courting the great country music star Kenny Rogers. What a pickle they were in, Mr. Speaker. I say, what a pickle they were in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member, I am certainly prepared to give you some leeway, the hon. Member for St. John's North, but I remind you that we are speaking to an amendment. I would like to stay a little bit close to that amendment. I think that was a little far away.

I remind all hon. members to speak to the legislation and the amendment.

Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say that this particular section of the clause about the Muskrat Falls Project, the reason why I bring this up, Mr. Speaker, is because we are going to be in a pickle again now. We are going to be in another pickle, Mr. Speaker, with Muskrat Falls. I think it is ironic and perhaps it is foreshadowing, perhaps it is foreboding that the gambler, Kenny Rogers, appeared at the annual George Street Festival again this year. He came back again.

It marks another poorly thought-out decision of government. I think it is foreshadowing, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is a sign, gambles and mistakes that have taken advantage of people's hopes for prosperity, self-sufficiency and jobs, gambles that spend their hard-earned money and return nothing in the end but a bill that must be paid off, Mr. Speaker. That has happened too many times in our past.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that with the Muskrat Falls Project, which is part of this amendment, a part of this particular bill, Bill 53, what we are saying is that we should refer this to be considered more thoroughly so we do not end up in another mess like the pickle with the cucumber plant, the pickle in the Abitibi Bowater situation, all of the other messes that have been created by government in haste in our history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If I could excuse the hon. member just for one second, please.

There was a point of order raised on the last sitting day. I have a ruling on that point of order.

On Thursday, December 13, during debate on the amendment to Bill 53, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order about comments made by the Member for Lake Melville. I have reviewed Hansard and rule that there is no point of order.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly gives me great pleasure to stand in my place today and speak to the amendment and legislation regarding Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite for St. John's North, I am going to speak some facts here. I am not going to get into political rhetoric or political grandstanding.

Mr. Speaker, the reality of this legislation, there are two very positive outcomes that will happen when this bill is enacted, and this is the reality of this legislation. Nalcor and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be able to charge fair market value for industrial electricity. Secondly, the new policy will establish clear and fair rules for industrial customers.

Charging fair market value for industrial electricity is a good thing for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as it will allow the Province to earn extra revenues it currently does not enjoy. Just as importantly, Mr. Speaker, it will help ensure industrial customers present and prospective can better plan into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to speak about the benefits that will come from charging fair market value in terms of how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will benefit, and indeed they will benefit. Mr. Speaker, IOC and Wabush Mines have paid approximately $110 million for power over the past ten years. If this power was sold under the competing Hydro-Québec rates, this power would have been sold for $900 million. By increasing the Labrador industrial rate from 0.6 cents to approximately 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour by 2020, which this policy will enable us to do, we as a Province will see tens of millions of dollars if not hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, diverted back into the Province.

Mr. Speaker, our Energy Plan has always maintained that receiving fair market value for our energy resources is a priority. By implementing this new policy we will be doing exactly that. Our goal of developing our natural resources to the maximum benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is something we all understand. I can assure you that is something I get; I think the members of the Official Opposition, from hearing them earlier, certainly get it as well. It is unfortunate that the Third Party are not getting that message, Mr. Speaker.

As we move towards an era of energy security and independence in this Province, we have the ability to attract new businesses and new industry, in particular in the mining sector in Labrador. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, while attracting new business with fair industrial rates, we also recognize the ability to generate revenue from our hydro resources.

The mining industry relies on significant blocks of electricity to run their operations. Through the Twin Falls block and the Churchill Falls recall block, and with the eventual coming on stream of Muskrat Falls, the opportunity to monetize our water resources through industrial expansion is greatly enhanced.

Mr. Speaker, we see the monetary benefits through the sale of electricity to the people of this Province that we will enjoy. I would now like quickly to speak to the benefits that will be realized by industrial and new potential industries that are considering setting up operations in Labrador.

From the benefit point of view of the industries, the new rate policy will establish a clear and fair rate for all industrial customers in Labrador, competitive with other jurisdictions – including Quebec, and that is very important.

We want to encourage industrial activity, so let us make sure we are clear on that. We want to see more things happening in this Province and, in particular, in Labrador. This will help industrial proponents make business decisions by providing certainty in planning regarding investments in Labrador-based projects. This is consistent with best-practice not only in Canada, but around the world, Mr. Speaker, and I will get to that in a minute.

Right now, there are a number of large developments being considered, including Alderon's Kami project; New Millennium-Tata Steel's LabMag project; Vale underground mine is in consideration; and the Grand River Iron Sands. Several other projects are being looked at, Mr. Speaker.

So we are looking at $10 to $15 billion of investment in Labrador mining projects –

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. CRUMMELL: Ten to fifteen billion dollars, and the proponents need to fully understand the availability and cost of power.

Mr. Speaker, encouraging industrial development is desirable for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for many reasons, and this is an activity both developed and developing countries are fully engaged in.

By establishing a single published electricity rate – which, by the way, will be recalculated annually as part of this new policy – we will keep this Province competitive with other jurisdictions in encouraging development in Labrador. The new rate is expected to be competitive with the lowest industrial rates in Canada, so we need to keep this in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on what other jurisdictions have had to do to attract industrial development. This is a little outside the box, so let us speak about this for a minute. For example, when we look to our country, Ontario, for example, recently announced a program in June of last year to aggressively target large industries to set up shop in their Province. Eligible companies could qualify for a reduced electricity rate if they create new jobs and bring new investment to Ontario. Companies that make a minimum investment of $250 million will be eligible for stable industrial power rates at a rate much lower than the current Ontario industrial rate. Ontario's Energy Minister, Chris Bentley said, "We want to make sure you land that extra line of production here, we want to make sure you open up that mill in Northern Ontario, rather in the States or somewhere else…" "…as long as it does not increase costs for existing families and businesses."

Mr. Speaker, while Ontario's program and Newfoundland and Labrador's new electricity rate policy for Labrador industrial customers are different in that we are raising rates and they are lower rates, the fundamentals of encouraging investments are basically the same. So, we are actually raising rates, but we are still encouraging industrial development. They are lowering rates to encourage industrial development. We will see much more benefits in the people of Ontario than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a very good, positive thing. This is something Ontario has to do. While the new rate policy will allow us as a Province to earn market value for electricity rates, the competitive rates we are establishing will not detract investors.

Mr. Speaker, our resource sector competes in the global economy. It is within this context that I would just like to call out another example of what other jurisdictions in the world are doing to encourage industrial development. What we are doing here is identical, the same thing, only we are doing it differently.

In September of this year, Brazil's Energy Minister announced a new program to reduce Brazil's energy cost. Brazil, which is the world's sixth-largest economy but has the world's third-highest electricity cost, decided to reduce electricity costs to bring much-needed relief to Brazilian industries, especially in the energy intensive areas, such as mining and smelting and petrochemicals. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? The government has stated that it hopes this action will help Brazilian companies lower their sky-high production costs and improve their competitive edge abroad.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the difference to what Brazil is doing and what we are doing as we move to more competitive market value and industrial rates is obvious. The end goal is the same, but with far more benefits for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We are raising the rates. We are going to maximize the benefits from hydroelectricity while other jurisdictions are actually lowering their rates to encourage business to move in.

Mr. Speaker, competitive energy costs are important for the competitiveness of existing industrial firms. As well, it is important in our ability as a Province to attract new companies and investment to the Province. We need these companies to have a stable business model.

In the January 2010 edition of Area Development Magazine, a survey of corporate location decision makers showed that energy availability and rates ranked third in importance when companies decided to locate a business in a particular jurisdiction ahead of other factors, like corporate tax rates, availability of skilled labourers, shipping costs, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, we understand a number of projects are in the pre-feasibility stage and it is important to ensure proponents have a clear understanding of the benefits of setting up business in Labrador.

What government cannot control, we must do. By publishing industrial rates and by ensuring competitive rates, we will be helping and encouraging industrial expansion. Over the coming months and years, I am confident the interest in our iron ore developments will result in numerous larger developments. I am confident as companies realize the right conditions exist to establish operations, that they will be encouraged to spend more and more in exploration in hopes that the next Voisey's Bay is just over the horizon.

Mr. Speaker, in a world where there is economic uncertainty, there is no safer haven than a strong resource-based economy to insulate a Province or a country from external economic forces. That is not to say we do not need a strong global economy to maximize the benefits from our natural resources, but during uncertain global economic times resource-based economies always weather the storm far better.

Mr. Speaker, we see this happening right now in Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly see what is happening globally, in Europe. We see what is happening in Brazil. We see what is happening in the USA with the fiscal cliff.

Mr. Speaker, our economy here is red hot. It is firing on all cylinders. We see ourselves insulated from the global economic forces around us. It is because we do have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to our natural resources and what makes us viable as a Province and in our economy.

When we look at resource development, it is important to protect us from the outside influences. It does affect us when it comes to our bottom line in terms of royalties, and we have seen examples of that lately. Overall, the economy is moving ahead, it is moving ahead quickly. This will only bode well in the very near future when the global economy rebounds.

We will again see the benefits from the royalty regimes; we will see the benefits from our resource-based economy. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we certainly will see the benefits for ourselves here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundland and Labrador in general in terms of jobs, employment, tax benefits, tax rates. As we continue to develop our natural resource, we will continue to grow our economy, make it a more secure future for those who come after us.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, Bill 53 will help establish clear and fair rates for all industrial customers in Labrador. It will keep rates competitive with provinces right across this country, and in particular Quebec. It will allow the Province to earn market value for electricity rates, and, Mr. Speaker, the industrial rates policy will not affect Labrador residential and commercial rates. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is very important to the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits are many for the people of this Province when it comes to establishing this new policy. For this reason, I am confident this bill will be passed with a large majority of the House. I encourage all members of this House to vote in favour of this historic legislation.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today to speak on the amendment that was made by the Third Party here in this House. Mr. Speaker, it is an amendment that this bill be withdrawn and the subject referred to the Resource Committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the House of Assembly, on many occasions there are many issues that come forth here in the House of Assembly. On many occasions, Mr. Speaker, we always banter back and forth about what is right and what is wrong and we are all put in a position to try to do the best we can for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who elected us, and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, mainly deals with industrial rates in Labrador and the potential development in Labrador mainly and what we can do to strengthen that.

The amendment put forward by the Third Party, Mr. Speaker, is something that on several occasions has happened in the past. I go back, I think it was in 2002-2003 when we had an all-party committee here in the Province on the fishery. I am not sure how many people were here. Probably there were a few members who were here at the time when we struck up a committee for an all-party committee in Newfoundland and Labrador to make a recommendation to Ottawa about our fisheries in the Province.

Several people who were here at the time, several members, Mr. Speaker, can remember that.

As a part of the government at the time, there was an all-party committee – which the Opposition at the time, the PC Party sitting across now thought it was a great idea, and something that we should do, something that is in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They all agreed to it, and I ask the question: Why don't you agree to it now? Why don't they agree to it now, Mr. Speaker?

Do you know why? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because I am willing to bet that they have orders from Nalcor, from Ed Martin –

AN HON. MEMBER: Premier Martin.

MR. JOYCE: No, he is not the Premier yet, but I am sure he is going to be running for Premier. He might be calling the shots, but we cannot classify him as Premier. He might be calling the shots: Here is what we are doing, take it or leave it. Most people over there are saying: Yes, okay, we are going to go and just follow the steps and move on with it.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening here. If anybody in this House can answer me a question, if Muskrat Falls is not going to be on until 2017-2018, if the power from Muskrat is going to be put into this pot, in the TwinCo pot now up in Labrador and is going to be used, and one of the big issues is that we are going to exclude the PUB in 2017-2018, that gives us almost five years to hold hearings to see what we are going to do, if we are going to do it right, what is the rush? We are not going to using a lot of this power from Muskrat, for example.

Then, it is my understanding that this bill does not that effect until 2015, so we have three years. What is the rush? Why not go out and have public hearings? Why not go out, sit around and say okay, what is the best approach that we could take here? Why not leave the mining companies with this and let the people have an opportunity to have a discussion?

No one can answer me that question. Do we get elected in this House of Assembly and once we get elected in this House of Assembly all of a sudden we know better than anybody else out there in the general public? All of a sudden, do we become these brainstorms and whatever we say is correct because we said it? What have we come to, Mr. Speaker? What have we come to?

Are you telling me, Mr. Speaker, or is anybody in this House telling me that the people who have been working in the industry for the last forty, fifty or sixty years do know better than the Member for Bay of Islands on these issues, do not know better than the Member for Humber West and better than the Member for St. John's West? Of course, they do. That is why we have to go out and seek their input. That is why we need information brought forward in the House. That is why we need the stakeholders, the people who are going to be adversely affected on it.

Mr. Speaker, I will just give you a few examples on why we should hold public hearings so we could get a lot of information and not rush. Mr. Speaker, 2015 is when this bill is going to take over for part of the electricity.

Let's look at Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, brought up in the news last Friday by the Supreme Court of Canada who said: No, the government was not correct. I think it was section 50 of the Supreme Court of Canada reading, where it said it was just a money grab when we expropriated the mill – mistakenly, I might add, mistakenly expropriated the mill.

The Premier at the time, she was the minister. We rushed through the House. The Premier said we have to have it done. I know the members opposite here, Mr. Speaker, had a briefing with the Premier. The Premier said we have to get it done; we have to get it done. They asked the question: what is included? They were told – what did the Premier do? Picked up the phone, phoned Ed Martin, and said: give these people a briefing on it. They sat down; they asked them point blank, eyeball to eyeball: is the mill included? He said, no, it is not included. Are you guaranteed? We are guaranteed it is not included. Guess what, Mr. Speaker: it was included.

Guess what? Ed Martin is the same one who is running this whole show on all of this. Should we ask questions? Should you ask questions? Of course we should ask questions.

You know the funny part about it? Mr. Speaker, I get back to this Abitibi, they are looking up for a certain amount of money from Abitibi to clean up; the Supreme Court of Canada said: no, this is only a money grab. When it came back to Newfoundland and Labrador, they said: oh, we do not have a price tag put on it yet; we do not know how much it is going to cost to clean up. So how much did you ask for of the Supreme Court of Canada? It is amazing, Mr. Speaker. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, of why we need to ask questions.

Another reason, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier about the committee we set up years ago on the fisheries; that brings me back to another issue that we had here in the House of Assembly that I spoke of, Mr. Speaker: the FPI Act. I would challenge anybody in this House, I will challenge anybody out there looking now to go back and look in Hansard; when I stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House and I said: we do not have enough safeguards in this proposal to scrap the FPI Act to protect the people who are going to be adversely affected. I said it in this House, and I said that is one of the main reasons why I could not support dismantling the FPI Act because I knew it, Mr. Speaker: the minute the act was unenforceable, these plants were going to close.

I said it in this House, Mr. Speaker and I said it publicly. I said it. Mr. Speaker, just to give you a little example of why I ask a lot of questions in this House –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: I know, Mr. Speaker, they cannot handle the truth over there. I know that.

The Premier at the time was the one who brought the changes to the FPI Act in. The Premier at the time brought the FPI Act in, Mr. Speaker. We stood up and we asked to hold hearings. We stood up and asked to hold hearings for the FPI, but guess what? Not a chance. See you later. We know what is better. Guess what? The Premier at the time, the Member for Humber West, never even voted. He abstained, Mr. Speaker – he abstained. I am not sure, but I will find out; there are two or three others who abstained from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to this amendment by the Third Party referring to the Resource Committee. If we had to go around and discuss a lot of this around the Province, we would have gotten the true feeling from the people. A lot of people did not want the FPI Act changed, Mr. Speaker. Look at today, what happened because the government said: No, we know better than anybody else. We know what we are doing. Go down and ask the people in Marystown who spent thirty and forty years working at the plant. What do they think of the scrapping of the FPI Act?

What happened in government: Oh, I am Big Brother. I know more about it than anybody. I am going to walk in. I know what to do. We are going to scrap the FPI Act. We are going to be better, but the man who brought it in never even voted for it. So, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask questions.

Look at Burin. I feel sorry for those people down there, Mr. Speaker, because they put faith in the government. Once again, Mr. Speaker, they are asking people in Labrador and the Province: Put faith in us. We know what is better than anybody else. We do not need to talk to you. We do need to go out and have hearings. We do not need to go out and see who is going to be adversely affected. We know. It is getting arrogant, Mr. Speaker. The whole attitude is getting to the point now where you are almost like Big Brother.

I say to any member opposite: Go down to Burin. It is a sad day down on the Peninsula, a very sad day, Mr. Speaker. I see you are nodding your head. You agree, Mr. Speaker. It is a sad day down in Burin because when that FPI Act was scrapped, that was taking them all and saying: Okay, when the clock turns and the time is up, clicking, out the door, see you later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Take the offshore quotas, Mr. Speaker, we are using there. We are going to have hearings on the offshore quota, just like we asked for here. We asked to set up an all-party committee, the same thing we are asking for here. Guess what? It was never, ever set up. It was never, ever done, Mr. Speaker. That is why we need to have input.

There is no rush on this – there is absolutely no rush. If we had to go and have the hearings like we are asking for here, Mr. Speaker, we would have found out the offshore quotas were to supplement the plants that FPI owned. That is how it was set up. It is almost like the same is being set up for electricity. There are some offshore quotas where you make profits. You supplement the plants that are not making, but it is still our quota. We are keeping people working and we are keeping the product here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why it was set up. They are asking us to do the same thing with Labrador, the exact same thing. Look at what happened with the FPI Act without proper oversight, proper input, without hearings. Look at what happened. Just go down to Marystown, go down to Burin and see what happened.

A lot of these people here were not around at the time, Mr. Speaker. A lot of members were not here. I was here, I stood in this House. I stood over on this side and I said it, that if we do not have proper oversight – and then when you get all the information in front of you, then we can make a proper informed decision. Then we can say we had an informed decision.

Mr. Speaker, I will just give you another example – and I challenge anybody here to say committees do not work. Public Accounts; guess what, Mr. Speaker? When we hold hearings here – the Member for Terra Nova is over there shaking his head in agreement. He is over there, Mr. Speaker. When we have hearings in Public Accounts, guess what we do, Mr. Speaker? We call witnesses, Mr. Speaker. That is what we do, we call witnesses.

Mr. Speaker, if we are having a Public Accounts meeting here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are the committee and we are allowed to come in this Legislature – we just had I think five hearings, Mr. Speaker. We had five hearings and we had five sets of witnesses over here on five different issues. We went through line by line, every question we wanted answered.

Guess what? The general public demands that we do that with Public Accounts, demand it. For the six or seven years, Mr. Speaker, there were none, absolutely no meetings and no hearings. When I was appointed, and the Chair here, the Member for St. Barbe was appointed, we made an agreement that we are going to ask – and I have to give the members credit on the Public Accounts at the time, that we all agreed we had to have public hearings and that we are going to call witnesses and we are going to pick topics. We all agreed to that. I have to give everybody credit. We all agreed to that, Mr. Speaker. That is what we did.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? With that Public Accounts Committee that we set up in this House, that we are using and making good use of it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, my question is: Why can't we do it for the Resource Committee? Why can't we do it for Question Period? Why can't we do it? That is my question.

MS SULLIVAN: Do it in Question Period.

MR. JOYCE: I hear the Minister of Health over there, do it in Question Period. What is the use? I cannot get any answers on the hospital. What is the use? I cannot get any answers on the hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member to speak to the Chair, please.

MR. JOYCE: Can you tell the Minister of Health I cannot get any questions on the hospital because I can't, and the people in Corner Brook do not have any answers yet either, Mr. Speaker. So just let her sit back, relax.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MS SULLIVAN: Whenever the member opposite has asked questions with regard to the Corner Brook hospital or anything else to do with health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, I have stood and I have answered those questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just let her go back in Hansard when I asked: When is construction going to start? No answer.

Mr. Speaker, once we get into the Public Accounts, the members opposite are also a part of it, and we worked well together. I have to say, we worked well together. We were all in agreement. We sat down and we set the guidelines of what we were going to discuss. We set the guidelines on how we were going to speak. We set the guidelines for how long everybody was going to speak.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? From my understanding – and the people can correct me – this is going to be the first report presented to the House of Assembly and to the department on Public Accounts, Mr. Speaker, in about seven years. This is the first report that is going to be presented to the House on the Public Accounts, on the hearings that we had and presented to the ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you a question, and I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: What is wrong with holding Public Accounts meetings, that we are demanded upon by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, having witnesses here and presenting our reports to the House of Assembly? Everybody is saying you should have more. Why can't we do that for the Resource Committee? Why can't we do it? Why doesn't someone answer me, of why we cannot do it?

The Public Accounts is working so well, which it is, and it is a Committee of the House of Assembly set up by this House, adhered to all the rules by the House of Assembly, have to call witnesses and have to present reports to this House, to the ministers involved that we hold hearings. Everybody in this Province agrees that Public Accounts this year was all out in the public. We had the media there at the time, Mr. Speaker, we had witnesses there. We had other people sitting in on it and it worked well. All of a sudden now because, for some reason, this big deal with the electricity going to Labrador, it goes into a different pot and we are not allowed to have a committee to go and ask questions on it.

I always have to ask, Mr. Speaker, why can't we have a committee to ask if there is nothing to hide? I have to ask that. If you look at Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, and we look at the oversight of Bill 29, that is just an overarching policy: Nalcor is now exempt from public tendering, exempt from public scrutiny. The Auditor General can go in, if they find anything wrong, they have to report it back to the Cabinet – the same ones who appointed it, Mr. Speaker.

My question is: Is this some kind of secrecy? I have to ask. The reason why I have to ask is because history has proven itself on many occasions, Mr. Speaker. I ask anybody – this bill is not going to take affect until 2015 – what is wrong with setting it aside, saying we are going to have some public hearings, we are going to invite people in, we are going to do up a list of witnesses who want to come in, to sit down, make a presentation. We are going to sit down then, Mr. Speaker, with any stakeholders that are involved. We are going to sit down with any communities or municipalities that are involved. We are going to sit down with the unions that are going to be involved, if we create employment up in Labrador. What is wrong with it? What is the big bogeyman about doing all that, Mr. Speaker?

It just amazes me that all of a sudden we get elected and then all of a sudden we just know better than everybody. I hear the Member for St. John's South over there now, you have your –

AN HON. MEMBER: Mount Pearl North.

MR. JOYCE: The Member for Mount Pearl North has his mouth going. You have your new buddy there now, Ross Reid, telling you what to do, so you go out and take your notes there. You go out and take your notes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Speak to the bill, please.

MR. JOYCE: I am sorry, but can you tell the Member for Mount Pearl North to go out and get his notes because obviously he does not know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker, what he is saying over here across to the House. Him and his buddy, Ross Reid, can go out there and have a little chat and come back, because I am not going to sit down here until I am finished with what I am going to say.

I will be back, Mr. Speaker, speaking on this –

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: Okay, leave is finished for everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

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

I do not know if anybody else over on this side feels the same way as I do, but it almost feels like I am involved in a game show where the members opposite would stand up and speak on something and we are supposed to guess on what they are speaking about. I do not know what the rest of them are talking about, but I would like to speak to the amendment today and the motion.

I would say to the member across I was shaking my head at him, but it was in disbelief because he went everywhere from cucumbers to offshore fishing quotas, which I have absolutely no idea what the relevance was.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, if I say something, I do not mind admitting it, but if the member wants to listen to what I said, please say what I said. At no time did I mention cucumbers. I know the member gets his speaking notes and someone says here is what you have to say.

So I ask the member to withdraw. At no time did I bring up the word cucumbers. You are not even listening to what I am saying. You are not paying attention, but you are trying to make up – I ask him to withdraw the remarks. You heard it. I did not mention it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MR. JOYCE: So I am allowed to say anything now.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

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

I was referring to all members across the way, and I would know that the separation between the two parties is getting closer and closer every day. I was referring to the members opposite. The Member for St. John's North spent about ten minutes talking about cucumbers and pickles, which is great and which is a fair subject, probably not too relevant today. The other member, as I said, went off on a tangent and was talking about offshore fishing quotas as well as Abitibi, I believe. I was following him for a while and then I just strayed off. That is fine. Mr. Speaker, I see the member now is nodding in agreement that actually was the case. I am glad we are all on the same page.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about –

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not mind anybody questioning what I say, but at no time did I say in this House that I am in agreement. For him just to get up and say that I am in agreement is not – what am I supposed to say, Mr. Speaker, when you say something that is not true in this House? How would you phrase it, Mr. Speaker, to ensure what he is saying is accurate? I am not just going to stand here and let him make comments which are simply not true that are attributed to me.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova, please.

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

Back to what I was saying, the new rate policy is needed and there are simple facts why it is needed. When we debate a topic for an amount of time sometimes the main messaging gets lost. If I could just reel it back and bring it back to why we are discussing it and what we are actually discussing.

Unlike the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, Labrador has no industrial rate set. To tell you the truth, it surprises a lot of people to know that is the fact because we know there is a lot of heavy industry in Labrador. To not have industrial rates set as in the rest of Canada is obviously somewhat problematic and surprising to a lot of people. It obviously creates challenges to companies when they come in, when they do feasibility studies, and when they are looking at wanting to do business in Labrador.

We know over the last number of years many companies have looked at doing business in Labrador. Many companies are in Labrador as we see it right now. Labrador is booming, unprecedented. We have never seen anything like it.

Before companies come in it is all part of the business plan. You have to know what you are going to be putting out before you know what you are going to be taking in. It is only the same thing if you are going to rent a house, you need to know how much you are going to be paying in electricity bills in order to know if you can afford the house. It is the same thing when companies are looking at going into Labrador. They have to know everything. They have to have all the information on the table.

Before they can even tell if a company or an operation would be feasible, they obviously have to know industrial rates for electricity. It is vitally important and is something that is quite obvious. It is a little bit concerning, because in the last number of days leading up to this, the Official Opposition seemed to be completely in agreement with this. Now I do not know if it is just particular members of the Opposition, but it is seeming now that they are not so much in favour of it. I cannot really find out why they are not. As I mentioned briefly a little while ago, they never really spoke to that part of it; they were speaking on other topics that probably were not overly relevant.

I would ask them: what now is the issue? I know your House Leader was in total agreement with it, if I can interpret her words from the past week. I heard the member on a local radio call-in show speaking about it, I believe, as well as speaking here in the House. Everything seemed to be kosher; all of a sudden it is off the rails. I do not know if that is a member in particular or if it is the party's stance as a whole. It seems like pretty obvious legislation, legislation that is going to have huge positive impacts on Labrador and the residents thereof.

As I said, there are a number of companies that are interested in Labrador and we hear them all the time when we are talking here in the House of Assembly, and we hear them in the media. There are already two that have progressed into a feasibility study as we speak right now; of course, that is Alderon and Tata Steel. They are already into the feasibility study. There is also a number, I believe an additional four to five companies, in the pre-feasibility study as well.

We have a huge amount of interest in Labrador; without setting these industrial rates, there are going to be huge problems and there are going to be delays. That is something that we are trying to address here. If we can set these industrial rates, obviously everybody knows what the score is and they can come in, they can get on board, they can do their pre-feasibility, feasibility, go into construction phase, all that good stuff and all the things that follow. This is something that is vitally important and I hopefully look to all members to support it.

Like the incoming companies, Mr. Speaker, existing companies like IOC and Wabush Mines will need to know what rates will be once their current agreements expire in 2015. Currently, there are two, as I said, Wabush Mines and IOC, operating under this arrangement. The arrangement that they have right now is quite lucrative. I was surprised to hear how lucrative it was. They are now paying, I believe, 0.6 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity, which is extremely low.

This is a number that really stuck in my head, and I think it really resonates with people: in the past ten years alone those two companies have paid approximately $110 million, while that same amount of electricity would have cost $900 million in Quebec – $900 million. That is almost $800 million in the difference.

To put it in perspective, you look at Quebec. Quebec has some of the lowest industrial rates, not only in Canada but in the industrialized world. You have Quebec, where they would be paying $900 million, and in Labrador, $110 million. That $800 million is basically taxpayers' money that is left on the table, money that we could have been recouping but we did not. That is a huge deal. I do not know if everyone else sees it as that, but it is great to get these industrial rates in place so we can start recouping some of that money.

This is only two companies, Mr. Speaker. When we see the others, like Alderon, and when Tata Steel and the rest come on board, this is huge; this spells huge revenues for the Province. It is obvious it is something that we have to do and it is something that we will do, certainly.

While this makes obvious sense, as I said, Mr. Speaker, it will have an impact on IOC's and Wabush Mines' bottom line, so we cannot talk about this without recognizing the fact that obviously, if a company is paying 0.6 cents per kilowatt, that is going to go up, obviously, and has to, and it is only going to be brought up to the fact where it is going to be comparable to Quebec.

Again, we have to recognize, this arrangement is what this company has been operating on since the 1970s. Their production and their whole operation have been based on this low rate. Obviously, there is going to be some transition, some growing pains for those two companies, but there has been a huge amount of consultation done between government and those companies. The biggest thing was comparative rates, the biggest thing that was on the mind of these two companies; they have to be competitive and they have to be comparative.

So, I think the two companies recognize, obviously, they had a sweetheart deal, and that was good. You have to go back to recognize the history of it and how that all unfolded, and that is all good. Again, 2015 – they saw this expiry date coming up, they knew they were going to have to deal with it, and that is what we are doing. So, while we cannot continue to offer 0.6 cents a kilowatt, what we are going to do is put in place competitive rates. As I said, they are going to be competitive to the tune of Quebec, the neighbouring province, which has, in itself, fantastic rates. What is going to happen when rates go up, there is going to be something that takes place; if they actually go in excess of Quebec's rates, we are going to be able to go back and take a second look at it.

So, basically what this legislation does is it keeps the rates low or comparative to Quebec. There is going to be a mechanism in place that kick-starts if those rates ever go in excess of Quebec. So, I think the two companies recognize this as a reasonable measure; certainly they may have to adjust operations to the increase in electricity charges, but it is going to be an equal playing field right across Labrador, not only for the two companies that I have just spoken about, but also the other companies coming on board. It is sound legislation that is going to offer competitive rates, and that, at the end of the day, is the most important thing.

So, Mr. Speaker, Nalcor's intentions are obvious and they are simple. The Energy Plan states that we must receive market value for our energy resources, one, while maintaining a competitive environment for industrial customers. These are the things that we keep going back to; we need to get value from our resources.

I just spoke a moment ago about how much money was left on the table, almost $800 million, just those two companies alone. So we have to ensure that this does not continue, that we are leaving money on the table but yet we are getting proper compensation for our resources. Again, that number, while it is huge right now, is only going to continue to get bigger as more industries and more companies come into Labrador and avail of the resources there, the bountiful resources that Labrador has.

I think what we are going to see over the next ten to twenty years is just going to be mind blowing. Hopefully, if I am fortunate enough, I can be standing here in the next decade, or whatever the case, and looking back at this today and saying, just imagine the amount of industry that came into Labrador just over the last decade. We have seen unprecedented growth there. I think, again, what we are going to see in the next ten to twenty years is going to simply blow our minds. This is why this is so utterly important.

Something I just wanted to touch on before I take my seat, with regard to all of this legislation, we have to understand that this is only affecting industrial rates. It is something very important to note, because I would not want the residents of Labrador thinking this is something that is going to affect the residential bill because it is not. This is strictly involving industrial rates. You can rest assured; this is not going to affect your household electricity bill, your monthly bill. This has nothing to do with this. It is strictly industrial rates.

I think anyone who looks at the facts and sees the money that was left on the table in previous years and sees the amount of industry coming into Labrador – and industry that wants to come in there, knocking on our doors. Again, we have to lay out the groundwork so they know what the score is when they come in here. They need to know what they are going to be paying for power and they need to know that it is going to be competitive and comparable, if not better than Quebec rates. Quebec, right now, is known as having extremely low rates. So that is something we can still be very proud of, that we are going to have extremely low rates. Again, that is a huge incentive for companies wanting to come in.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. Again, while reading through this – and I should say before I sit, I would like to thank the officials in the department for the briefing. It was a very good briefing, very informative, things there that I had not realized before.

When I went through the briefing I was thinking, always trying to think, where is the Opposition going to come from on this one? It is a win-win situation. I cannot pick holes in it. I know an amendment was offered up. I really do not see the sense in that, but fair enough. This is just really sound legislation and very important. I think if you had to go to the residents of the Province they would see the worth in this and see how vitality important it is.

With that, I will take my seat, and thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It gives me, I do not know if it is pleasure, but thankful, I guess, for the opportunity to speak to the referral motion. The more I thought about it the other day when we had sat down as a party and talked about getting this referred to Resource Committee, the more I thought that it was a very good idea.

This is almost like an opportunity that would be the last shot for government to make sure that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. I would hope that government would be supportive of the ideas, considering this is probably one of the most important projects of our day. There may be no other project that will come along in our lifetimes that would rank upwards as this one does.

Ironic as it is with the twenty-first anniversary of the passing of Joey Smallwood, who was the father of the Upper Churchill, this government prepares to sanction the Muskrat Falls Project on the same day. As a historical note, this is one that will be long remembered for all of us as politicians.

When we sat down the other day and talked about this referral motion, it was to be about giving the government that chance to step back and have that conversation with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and say: Wait a second, let's go back and let's do some more due diligence on this because maybe we have been doing a few things wrong. Including taking out the Public Utilities Board before their work was done, as they did not do in other jurisdictions. For example, in Nova Scotia, of course, we know the PUB is going to be able to have a chance to look at their end of the deal.

Having said that, a couple of the reasons that I wanted to get a chance to speak on this one is a bit of an understanding of what is happening out there in the markets right now and how it can affect Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and how it is affecting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Of course, we saw the other day that the Province is in a massive deficit situation right now. We also have Wade Locke coming out and saying that we are going to be dealing with ten years more of deficit spending.

I think that is a strong point that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador should remember right now, that we are talking about $7 billion or $8 billion of the people's money that is going to be going into this project, that we are going to have to pay for one way or the other, no doubt about it. Whether it is going to be a loan or whatever, it all has to be paid back. The party across the way has to remember the fact that nothing comes for free. We all understand about sacrifice and everything, but at times like this we have to ask ourselves if sacrifice in this particular case is too much.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we want it referred to Resource Committee: so that we can have a good second look at this before government proceeds. If everything is done fine, well then, so be it; the project will go ahead.

I wanted to run a couple of things by the government on the other side, because one thing that I have been watching, of course, is the energy markets, in particular oil pricing, and in some cases electricity pricing to see what has been happening. A couple of notes came to mind so far in debate that were kind of alarming, particularly when it comes to the government's use of a formula of some kind when they are talking about the regulation of prices on a year-by-year basis to the energy companies.

One of the things that really stood out was something that the Minister of Natural Resources said in the House on December 12, and I had to make note of it and check this out. Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources can confirm this later on, probably in Committee. He talked about Manitoba pricing of $37 a megawatt for electricity, but, Mr. Speaker, in the same breath he talked about $32 a megawatt is the bar in the make and break when it comes to the generation component of the Muskrat Falls Project. He said: anything less and this project loses money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the situation that is happening in Manitoba right now, electricity prices, like I said, are going for $37 a megawatt, and for our viewers and listeners out there, that is about 3.7 cents a kilowatt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) industrial rate.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, we are talking about the industrial rate that you are talking about setting.

One of the reasons why Manitoba pricing is after going so low is because of the shift in natural gas and shale oil in the markets, particularly around the Dakota region. We have that much energy in the Central US right now that the Manitobans are selling electricity through their own grid; Manitoba Hydro is selling electricity that they are generating so cheap just to try to keep up and keep a niche in the markets for themselves.

In that regard, over the last couple of years, since 2003 pretty much, they have been failing, because what they used to be getting was somewhere around 6.5 cents; now they are getting 3.09 cents a kilowatt hour, according to one article that I was reading the other day, from the Winnipeg Free Press. I will table that document if the other side wishes to see it.

The numbers have been literally crashing when it comes to the electricity grid. So, we have the question of volatility, what it can do here to the viability, for example, of our own Muskrat Falls Project, and what it would mean to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Let me go on a little bit farther than that. When you are talking about the unknowns and the vagaries that are in the markets right now, we are playing with fire. I really think that we are playing with fire here. If you are talking about $32 a megawatt is the bar, and again, any less with the project and we lose money in the selling of electricity.

I will give you a couple of examples that I think – and I am asking myself the what if question all the time. It is not necessary true that government would be wrong on this, but I bring the points forward because I think it is kind of important that we talk about these things.

Talking about them in the House right now is the only thing that we can do because we do not have a Resource Committee, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason why we need it: to keep asking these same questions.

Let me bring this point forward for government's consideration. We already talked about the pricing pressures right now that Manitoba Hydro is undergoing and it is going to get worse. Like I said, if Manitoba Hydro is selling it for 3.09 cents for a kilowatt hour of electricity on the grid now in the Central US – Manitoba Hydro's power, remember, is already down below the 3.2 cents industrial rate that we are talking about selling to the companies right now, and if we go below that bar of 3.2 cents a kilowatt hour or $32 a megawatt hour, we lose money.

Who pays? The answer is: somebody else has to pay, if the companies that the hon. members across the way are talking about developing power, talking about the need for the development of power so that they can develop their own projects, mining projects and everything – the who happens to be me and you. It happens to be the consumers who are supporting the project. In other words, right now, based on Muskrat Falls, if you were to take Muskrat Falls and sell it into the US grid in the geography the same as what we would have in Manitoba, we would be losing money on the project already.

Here is the second part, and the Minister of Natural Resources can possibly explain this too, because I am going to bring it up. It happens to consumers all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) anything you need to know.

MR. MURPHY: Well, then, that is fine and dandy. Mr. Speaker, I would like him to explain the possible role –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: –that predatory pricing could have in the market if the marketplaces keep on changing in the US Northeast. For example, if they want to keep on using their natural gas that they are coming up with in the Central US – there are twenty of these gas fields right now, something similar to the Bakken oil fields right now in the US; we are talking about the possible development of oil shale on the West Coast of this Province, Mr. Speaker. That is how fast this industry is changing, the oil industries.

The availability of petrochemicals, natural gases, and shale oils is literally changing things overnight, and we are talking about developing this project at one of the most volatile times in the energy markets that this Province and North America has ever seen.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring up the simple point about predatory pricing. For example, if what happens in the US markets result in natural gas being able to be developed at a cost that is so low that all their operational costs or capital costs and everything are going to be covered off by let's say one cent – let's say somebody came up with a scenario where they were going to develop electricity for about one cent a kilowatt hour, that would be $10 a megawatt hour, to be sold out there on the markets for industrial use. What happens then, knowing that the US wants to see inter-provincial agreements and the ability for provinces to be able to ship power down to the US markets, the same works in reverse, doesn't it? Isn't that what the US is looking for?

The ability for them to ship off resources into Canada the same as what they are asking for, when it comes to a Canadian basis of competition based on what the US manufacturers would require. I do not see what the difference is here. What I am trying to say here, Mr. Speaker, is that if somebody decides to sell power, let's say they were in Vermont, let's say there is another natural gas field down there that they want to generate electricity with and ship it off up to Labrador West for one cent and use whatever way is there for transporting electricity over an electrical grid. What power would we have to even stop them? What power would we have to even block them from the marketplace? What would stop somebody else against using some other argument to go ahead and do that and to undercut the prices that we have, a make or break price of 3.2 cents a kilowatt-hour, $32 a megawatt hour, into Western Labrador?

I would really like to get an answer. If the Member for Mount Pearl South would really like to know as well what cost it would be. If the power is going to be sold from another market to undercut ours, for example, I am pretty sure that the seniors that he deals with every week on a week-to-week basis – God love him, he likes to get out and see his seniors. I wonder if his seniors are asking the same question: My hon. member, what is it going to cost me as a resident of Mount Pearl, what extra cost am I going to see on my income taxes even, let alone my electricity bill, what kind of increases am I going to see on my various bills because we cannot afford to sell the power?

Mr. Speaker, like I said, those are a couple of scenarios that I wanted to bring up. I will ask a what-if question –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I am not afraid to deal with the what-if question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate it. I know they are in a bit of a panic on the other side not knowing about some of these facts, but like I said the facts are the facts when it comes to the electrical industry right now. The facts are the facts when it comes to the energy questions we have to be asking, too, at the same time. I merely asked a what-if question. I would hope that the Natural Resources Minister would be able to get up and answer the question: What if, when it comes to predatory pricing and what if, when we go below those 3.2 cents on the generation component of electricity? I would not mind if he would just be able to answer those easy questions.

Mr. Speaker, I will go on with the Manitoba scenario and what has been happening in Manitoba. It is important. There are several similarities between what happened in Manitoba and what can potentially happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, Wuskwatim faced many challenges brought on by the US economic downturn and electricity was no longer needed, to start off the case. After that, we saw a massive boom in the Bakken oil shales and what was happening when it came to the alternative uses of energy down in the States and where they could get it from. It actually devalued electricity.

Again, we have a government here that refuses to recognize the fact that something else can happen that would screw up the whole works in Labrador West right now when it comes to this project. Government has to recognize the fact that conditions change. They have not recognized the fact that they would have to have a plan there that would be adaptable to change. It is not there.

It is right on the border with the US. There are no physiological obstacles to construction that would have made it any less competitive than what we are dealing with Muskrat, for example. Muskrat is thousands of miles away and we are talking about Wuskwatim, which is essentially a walk right across the border from the US. It is very close to the market and here they are with an excess of electricity they cannot sell: 3.09 cents a kilowatt-hour, as of the other day, and the industrial rate right now is $32 a megawatt, or 3.2 cents a kilowatt-hour. There is a problem here that government needs to recognize. It does not have a market right now with the volatility that is happening in the markets.

Let us look at the role of the Public Utilities Board and what is happening in Manitoba. We have a case now where Manitoba Hydro has gone back any number of times looking for an increase on the part of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to be respectful of the speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

If they paid that much attention to what I was saying and what has been happening in this Province and what has been happening in the energy markets over the last couple of months, they would reconsider some of the steps that they have been making. These are serious issues.

I will bring it back again to Manitoba Hydro. There were many rate increases used to keep Wuskwatim's head above water and the PUB was there to fight it every step of the way in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. What do we have here? While the PUB can step up and carry the fight when it comes to looking at customer rates, they are not looking at industrial rates. Now that right is going to be taken away from them and some other mechanism is going to be set in there.

I can appreciate regulation, and I can appreciate the fuel price regulation when there are standards there. When we are talking about fuel price regulation to consumers, Mr. Speaker, we also have a bottom line when it comes to predatory pricing. I will ask, I will bring it right back again, do we have any facts here that are going to be protecting industrial users or even in this particular fact, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when it comes to predatory pricing, when it comes to electricity markets? I will ask that question. It is not a problem. I will wait all week if the Minister of Natural Resources wants to give us the answer to it.

The project in Wuskwatim, Mr. Speaker, is $1.7 billion. With all their overruns it was three times – 36 per cent overruns when it came to the project. They are dealing with three times our population. Our project is somewhere around the $8 billion mark.

I will ask the government the same question: Did they do a proper analysis, for example, when it came to the carrying on of social programs here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Did they? Because I did not see anything when it came to how government is going to be supporting programs, particularly when it comes to if – if, I say again to the minister, if again I say to the other side –the project starts to lose money.

With the Wuskwatim project, Wuskwatim is not projected to make any money for the Manitoba government until the year 2022. That is how bad the markets are. If we carry on that same scenario with Muskrat Falls, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources, if we carry on for five years past 2017 when Muskrat kicks in, if we are going to be dealing with the same kind of a market on the East Coast of North America as they are right now in the Central US and Central Canada, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have a problem here. We are not going to be able to pay for Muskrat Falls, and somebody has to pay for it.

If it is not going to be the ratepayer, it is going to be the person who is going to be filling out the income tax return because the money is going to have to come from somewhere. Failing that, if they desire, I guess government can go ahead and say: Well, sorry, we lost on the Muskrat Falls Project. We are going to have to sell it anyway and recoup our losses. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is up for sale.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you really believe that?

MR. MURPHY: I honestly believe that. If you do not believe it – Mr. Speaker, if they do not believe it over on the other side of the House, they can go back to Open Line on June 29 of this year when Minister Marshall himself, excuse me for saying his name, but the Finance Minister himself went on Open Line and said that could be put up for sale to recoup some of the losses if it ran into the hole. It is just like that.

It is just as easy like that for the government to go ahead and take a bet with the people's money and then go ahead and sell off the project like that at the end. That is why something like this, Mr. Speaker, should go under as much scrutiny as possible, because I am in the same boat as you and our constituents are going to be the ones who are potentially going to have to pay for this project.

Mr. Speaker, it could be going to a Resource Committee. We could have sat down as a party of one, Liberal, NDP and Conservative, and work this out all around the committee table. We would have been able to call in witnesses or call in people to come in and answer these questions as regards to the volatility of what has been happening in the energy markets, Mr. Speaker.

We know the markets are changing overnight. The other side should recognize that the markets are changing overnight. The only thing I will say to governments voting against this particular motion, because I know they will vote against this particular motion about sending this to Resource Committee, Mr. Speaker, is that nothing is as blind as those who cannot see.

I will leave it at that until the next time around.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting afternoon in the House of Assembly. Here we are debating an amendment to Bill 53. Bill 53 is a bill that would amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 to enable the implementation, for the first time, of a Labrador industrial rate policy.

Instead of taking this debate seriously, Mr. Speaker, instead of having constructive, positive dialogue in this House that has purpose, we hear the Member for St. John's North get up and talk about cucumbers. That is what we are dealing with in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker.

Then, the Member for the Bay of Islands jumps to his feet and talks about countless things other than the bill, Mr. Speaker, or the amendment that was brought forth by the New Democratic Party. He talked about fishing. He talked about the Corner Brook hospital, which seems to be the only issue he consistently raises in the House of Assembly on behalf of his constituents. He talked about Abitibi. He talked about fishing. What he did not talk about was the need for a policy to address industrial rates for Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Then we heard the Member for St. John's East get up and talk about lots of things related to Muskrat Falls, things that were discussed weeks ago if not months ago related to Decision Gate 2 and other aspects of the project, but we did not really hear him talk about Bill 53 and this ridiculous amendment that is being brought forward by the Third Party.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really unfortunate that we are seeing such a show of disrespect for this hon. House.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The Member for St. John's North, on a point of order.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not an amendment, Mr. Speaker. The motion on the floor is a motion to refer this bill, Bill 53, to committee for further consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the education I am receiving from the Member for St. John's North and I know education is certainly a passion of his. I know when he is not in this hon. House he is busy working at Memorial University and that does take a lot of time and –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Mount Pearl North to please make his comments relative to Bill 53 that we are discussing.

For the purpose of the House, I would refer members, please, to Standing Order 48(2) in our Standing Orders. The Speaker will be guided by this as we continue with debate. This particular Standing Order says: "The Speaker or the Chairperson, after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee…" –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is the right one.

"…to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or needless repetition, may direct him or her to discontinue his or her speech…"

The Speaker will be guided as we continue with debate today and tonight on this important bill and I just want to give all members fair warning that if a member persists in irrelevance, the Speaker will stand, ask that member to take their seat, and I will recognize another member to speak.

I am asking all members to make their comments relative to the bill in which we are discussing. We are in second reading and we are now discussing the principle of the bill.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly will respect the guidance that you have provided this hon. House. I urge all members to do the same. The discussion so far this afternoon has been about anything but the referral motion and Bill 53, which I find rather unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because this is actually a really important piece of legislation for a variety of reasons.

Instead of dealing with it in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, instead of getting an electrical rate policy in place for Labrador industrial customers that is going to support progress and that is going to support the development of industry in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about that, we have seen a delay tactic by the NDP: a referral motion, a proposal to simply defer this, stand still in the middle of the road – which seems to be a solution proposed regularly by opposition parties, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is really unfortunate.

I sense that they may be afraid that we are going to continue to make progress building an economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador and building a future in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think they may be very concerned that we will continue to see growth and progress in the mining industry throughout our Province and especially in Labrador. They seem fearful, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to succeed in turning Newfoundland and Labrador into an energy warehouse. So, the Member for St. John's East suggests we should step back, and that is exactly what they continue to propose to do on a daily basis in this House, Mr. Speaker: propose that we just step back or stand still.

We need new businesses to continue to set up in Labrador, and we need affordable power, we need a consistent supply of power, and we need stable, predictable, competitive electricity rates for development to continue to progress in Labrador and throughout the Province.

We, on this side of the House, want Newfoundland and Labrador businesses to operate in a competitive environment, and we want those businesses to be competitive. Based on what I have heard so far today, Mr. Speaker, that is obviously not a view that is shared by certain members across the House.

So, I do not know whether members opposite are having difficulty understanding Bill 53 or whether they are just intent and fixated on disrupting the business of this House. I find that offensive, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to have an opportunity to rise and speak about the motion that is being put forward – which I think is absurd – and also about the larger issue of Bill 53.

What we are trying to do here is put an electricity rate policy in place that is going to establish clear rates and fair rates for every industrial customer in Labrador now and in the future. What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no published industrial electricity rate for Labrador today. There has not been, and that is different than the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker. So, it is an obvious gap that we want to address, but apparently some of the folks opposite do not.

There is no published industrial electricity rate in Labrador, and this provides challenges for companies that are interested in coming to open shop, and to create jobs, and to grow communities, and to develop the economy in Labrador. Not having these rates really provides uncertainty during the planning process for any major industrial enterprise.

The new electricity rate policy will establish a single, published electricity rate for both generation and transmission and that would apply to all industrial customers in Labrador. This rate policy that we propose to put in place, Mr. Speaker, is going to help keep rates competitive with all provinces right across the country.

We are proposing that the new electricity rate policy would be implemented in January and it is necessary. Based on all of the activity and all of the potential and all of the opportunities that we know exist in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, we cannot simply defer decision making and defer progress, as the NDP suggest that we should.

This new rate would be recalculated annually. It will help keep rates and keep the Province competitive with other jurisdictions in Canada. We really think that the new rates that we establish will be competitive with the lowest industrial rates anywhere in the country and that will really help advance the incredible interest that we continue to see in mining developments in Labrador.

Over the next decade, Mr. Speaker, we believe that upwards of $10 billion to $15 billion of investment will occur in Labrador mining projects just over the next decade alone. That means that we have to have power available in order to grow these industries and develop these industries.

Mr. Speaker, that is a high priority for this government. Not only does the power have to be available but it has to be affordable. If these projects do proceed, which I know frightens the folks opposite, then we are going to see major economic benefits for the Province. We are also going to see significant opportunities for service and supply companies throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That is progress, Mr. Speaker, and that is what Bill 53 is all about.

In terms of this motion to simply not make any decisions, put everything on hold, stand in the way of progress in this Province, shut down the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador, instead of taking that kind of approach we are intent on getting this policy in place and it cannot wait. It is a policy that is needed based on the incredible demand for development in Labrador and all of the interest that does exist.

This new electricity rate policy is going to be developed based on guidelines established in our provincial Energy Plan. It will also meet a central principle of the Energy Plan. That principle relates to industrial rates and it suggests that industrial rates consider market value for energy resources. Mr. Speaker, all of the work that we have been doing around hydroelectric development, the work that we are doing in terms of Bill 53 and establishing an electricity rate policy for Labrador industrial customers, it all ties back to our Energy Plan which outlines some clear principles in terms of how we will move forward with creating the energy warehouse that we know is possible right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The new electricity rate policy that we are proposing will also allow the Province to earn market value for electricity sales. The industrial rates policy will not affect Labrador residential and commercial rates. It is very unfortunate, it is disheartening, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Opposition would stand and talk about issues that have absolutely nothing to do with Bill 53 and what we are trying to achieve by putting an electricity rate policy in place for Labrador industrial customers.

That is what we are here to talk about. Not the issues raised by the Member for Bay of Islands, certainly not the issues raised by the Member for St. John's North, and not even the broader issues related to Muskrat Falls that were raised by the Member for St. John's East. We are here to talk about putting a policy in place that is long overdue that is actually going to ensure the availability and the stability of power rates for Labrador industrial customers. We see the tremendous opportunities that exist to grow industry and to grow the economy in Labrador.

That is what Bill 53 is about. I urge the members of the NDP to rethink their strategy, if they have one. Deferring this and referring this to a Committee and waiting for months to deal with these important issues, it is irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, and the folks opposite should be ashamed of themselves.

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

MR. KENT: Here we go.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, on a point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Mount Pearl North is referring to something that is in our Standing Orders. Our Standing Orders very clearly say that this House can refer significant projects to the Standing Committees of which the Resource Committee is one. What I have actually heard the Member for Mount Pearl North –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member to state her point of order.

MS MICHAEL: The point of order is that we have a member in this House calling something that is in our Standing Orders nonsense. What I did was do something under our Standing Orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly respect and appreciate your ruling. I was about to conclude my comments.

Here we go again, we are talking about important public policy issues, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about economic development in a vital region of our Province. We are talking about stable electricity rates, predictable electricity rates. We are talking about creating a competitive environment for businesses that want to invest in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and the proposal by the NDP is to simply put all that off: let us just stand still in the middle of the road.

Instead of talking about important public policy issues – which is what we have the opportunity to do every day in this House of Assembly – we hear two of her members, Mr. Speaker, talk about cucumbers and Decision Gate 2 numbers and other issues that have nothing to do with Labrador industrial rates and the need for a policy that this government is proposing to bring in. It is irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

We have a lot of important business to do in this House and this irresponsible approach that we are seeing, particularly from the Third Party, is really disrespectful.

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this motion. I think it is another attempt by the NDP to stand in the way of progress in this Province. It just shows disrespect for the proceedings of this House and they really should be ashamed of themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the amendment proposed to the bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

I cannot see why all aspects of this bill, Mr. Speaker, would not be referred to the PUB. I mean, it is an entity there that is created for situations of monopoly such as Nalcor Energy is. Certainly I would support any amendment that would call for regulation, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to talk a little bit about some of the issues that have not been visited on this whole project and questions that have been asked that should be asked in reference to this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

When the initial project, the Muskrat Falls Project, was announced, there was absolutely no reference for power in Labrador. It was not even in the proposal. Certainly, as time pushed forward, as we pushed it forward as the Opposition, all of a sudden we started hearing about 40 per cent power available for industry in Labrador. I think it was the Member for Labrador West who brought it up the first time. It is good to see the government across the way, Mr. Speaker, going from no power available for anyone in Labrador to power being made available for Labrador West.

We look at the companies that have come forward in Labrador West, Mr. Speaker, over a short while, and projects by companies in Labrador, mega projects, mega companies that have come forward, all looking for power and looking forward to more than the 225 plus the fourteen megawatts now in the blended power rate, making up the 239 megawatts available.

The other things that I would like to talk about are the impacts that projects like this bring. Mr. Speaker, in Labrador West we have heard of all the housing shortages and the housing affordability problems going on. With all the construction that is going on in terms of iron-ore-related mining activity, Mr. Speaker, and the increase that is projected, it is hard to find a place to stay in Labrador West and it is hard to afford to pay for a place in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, as this project comes into play, what are we looking at in Lake Melville? We are looking at a lot of construction, five to six years of major construction. Where is the concern with respect to the social impacts in Lake Melville?

Is the Town of Happy Valley-Goose Bay ready to support such a project, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EDMUNDS: The demand on community resources –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that this Bill 53 is about the industrial rate policy. We are talking about the amendment. The amendment was to refer the bill to a Committee. You can talk about the amendment or you can talk about the main motion of the bill, the industrial rate policy. That will be all that is relevant at this time. I have been waiting for the member to tie his comments to that. I would ask you to be relevant.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker. All this is relevant, I assure you.

You are looking at a major project such as Muskrat Falls; as I talked about the housing issues in Lab West. We are going to see them in Lake Melville, Mr. Speaker. We are starting to see travel through the southern highway into Lake Melville with tractor-trailers on a gravel road. It is certainly safety concerns. Hotels are already filled in Goose Bay and you have to book in advance now.

Mr. Speaker, I have been getting a lot of calls from Lake Melville, and I am sure my hon. colleague from Lake Melville is aware of this. If not, Mr. Speaker, he should be because right now a lot of people who live in the area cannot get jobs with the start up of this project because they are not part of the unions. They are seeing people who are coming into Lake Melville and filling jobs that they feel they should be entitled to, being from the area. Jobs that they are –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for Torngat Mountains, once again, to make his comments relevant to Bill 53, the industrial rate policy of Labrador. I have yet to see the relevance. I will allow the member one more time to make his comments relevant to the industrial rates policy in Bill 53.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I am bringing it up, Mr. Speaker, it is all relative to the power rates that are scheduled to change come January, 2015, and how it will affect people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador West has enjoyed some very low power rates since IOC was started in Lab West. When you see an adjustment coming – and I understand it is inevitable, that is the reason for this bill, Mr. Speaker. The question I have is with the number of companies that are over there working now in iron ore mining and are staring in iron ore mining, Mr. Speaker. New mines are developing and they are all looking for power, and these people are residents of our Province, they are taxpayers.

The iron ore companies in Labrador have been good to the residents in Labrador, in Lab West, by providing reasonable power rates. You have companies over there now that are actually entering some form of negotiations for power with Quebec. Certainly the government on that side, Mr. Speaker, is not very comfortable with that. They have come out publicly condemning Quebec when it comes to power consumption and negotiation; in no uncertain terms, I might add.

Manitoba Hydro, which has done a lot of the work on Muskrat Falls for the government, Mr. Speaker, has its own project that has gone way over on cost overruns and is actually threatening the failure of one of its projects. To come out with a 12 per cent cost overrun prediction for Muskrat Falls leads me to believe that our taxpayers are in trouble. It leads to having an independent regulator.

Most of the major megaprojects, major hydro projects worldwide, Mr. Speaker, have come in between 54 per cent and a staggering 108 per cent in cost overruns. Certainly, this is 42 per cent less than what our Confederation Building has gone over in cost overruns, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the member, I am not satisfied that the comments you are making are in any way relevant to the bill.

Are there any further speakers to this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: Question.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment as put forward by the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi pass?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is defeated.

Motion defeated.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Standing Order 43(1) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KING: Under Standing Order 43(1), I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has to take a minute to consult with the Table Officers and do a little procedural analysis. The House will take a brief recess and we will come back and resume proceedings within a few minutes.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

Prior to taking a brief recess, the Government House Leader moved the previous question in accordance with Standing Order 43. A call to the previous question is always in order. Just so that the House is well informed, what this now means is that we will now be debating the previous question. All members will have an opportunity if they so wish to speak to that, after which we will be voting the main motion or the bill in second reading.

There can be no further amendments put forward to Bill 53 at this point. What we are debating is the previous question. In your debate, speakers will be relevant to the text of Bill 53. You can speak to Bill 53.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a privilege to get up here today and speak a few words on Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and Electrical Power Control (Amendment) Act, 1994. I think that is what we are here to debate today.

We are after hearing a lot of different debates about different things here today, but the main thing we are here is to realize what the minister brought in the other day. I listened to him for an hour and I have to say it was very informative, all the different things, when you look at where we are in relation to rates right across the country and rates actually all over the world, how you could say competitive, but we are a little bit more than competitive when it comes to rates.

Mr. Speaker, also it was interesting to listen to the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs the other day – very informative; we heard about what is happening in Labrador. When you look at what is happening in Labrador right now, it is a pretty exciting time for this Province. I am sure that if any province in this country or anywhere in the world had the opportunities that are in front of us right now when it comes to mining and when it comes to exploration of different developments that are happening in Labrador, would be so excited to see what is actually happening in Labrador.

We as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very excited because we realize that mining is such a huge part of our economy. It is a huge part of what we are; it is a huge part of how we can afford different things.

People look at the oil industry and they say it is the reason why things are going well; we can afford to do the different things that we can today. When you look at the mining industry – and I did not realize it as much until the other day when I had the opportunity to listen to the two ministers speak, how important it is and what a role it plays in developing and making sure that we have money to do different things.

Mr. Speaker, when I looked at this the other day a question was asked to the minister –

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for the Bay of Islands, I ask for order.

The Member for Cape St. Francis, to continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the other day it was mentioned, the minister wanted to know how many people were employed in the mining industry just in Labrador right now. I think the answer was approximately around 9,000. Mr. Speaker, that is such a huge industry. The revenues of 9,000 people working there and right now, if you look at the spinoffs, I say the spinoffs sometimes are five times the actual people. The whole industry is there. I know there are issues down there with different people looking for housing, but that is part of what is happening with things –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at iron ore prices in the last little while, in 2004, iron ore was going for $50 a ton. Granted, in 2011 it really went up to $180 a ton and in September this year it was at $100 a ton. The experts have forecasted that the price of iron ore will probably stabilize in the next little while and should be $90 to $100 a ton, but that also depends on what is happening in the rest of the world. I think the Minister of Natural Resources spoke the other day about what is happening in China, India, and different parts of the world.

It is a market that is pretty versatile but also, Mr. Speaker, it is a market that we are a big supplier to – a huge supplier to. There are a lot of different industries looking to Labrador to go on and do mining. Mr. Speaker, these people need to have some certainty. They need to know what the rates are going to be. If I am going to go get investors to invest in these projects, I need to know how much that electricity is going to cost because no one is going to go into it not knowing that listen here, if electricity is at $6 a megawatt hour or if it is at $90 a megawatt hour – it is going to make a huge difference to the people who are going to do these investments.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Province right now we are very, very competitive. Even right here on the Island part of the Province we pay $48 a megawatt hour right now, which is competitive with all of Canada. If you look in Quebec, right now Quebec are paying $49 an hour; Manitoba, $37 an hour; and BC, $49 a megawatt hour. The Canadian average right now is $68 an hour. Currently, Mr. Speaker, IOC pays $6 a megawatt hour and Wabush Mines pay $4 a megawatt hour.

It is great that they are paying such low rates. I think the companies are being consulted and they have been talked to for a long period of time because they know that the term is over in 2015, so something has to be done. I think, understanding from what the minister said the other day, we are not just going to jump in and say guys, listen here, you are going to pay $50 a megawatt hour. It will be phased in to help the companies be able to adjust the cost. I think a figure that he used to the other day that if we jumped right up, it would cost $6 a ton right off the bat for them to absorb the extra costs.

Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke the other day about in 2017 we are looking at IOC probably paying $27 an hour for s megawatt hour of electricity and Wabush Mines would probably be on the same thing. That will still make us more than competitive because, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at our neighbour, Quebec –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS: – and see what rates they are paying. We want to make sure that we are more than competitive with Quebec. I believe that in Quebec if we go up to 2017, we will be looking at Quebec probably paying $48, and Manitoba will then gone to $40 an hour and BC will be up $54 an hour. The Canadian average then will be $73 an hour. If we keep IOC and Wabush Mines at $27 an hour, the electricity, they are not going to get anywhere else in Canada, or I do not say a rate anywhere else in the world that will be that competitive.

That is important because these places are looking to do expansions. For investors to come in, they have to be ensured that it is going to be competitive – actually, it is going to be better than competitive. They are going to be paying the lowest rates in Canada, regardless of what it is all over Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is an exciting time in Labrador.

I know the other day the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair she went on and she named off a couple of different mining companies. I am sure we are all familiar with IOC and we are all familiar with Wabush Mines, but even she said the other day, in the future we are going to hear Julienne Lake and I do not know what other ones – Tata Steel. There were all kinds of different ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: LIM.

MR. K. PARSONS: LIM.

Mr. Speaker, those are huge investments for this Province and not only for the Province – we talk about Muskrat Falls. This stuff will still have to go ahead without Muskrat Falls. This really has nothing to do with what is happening with Muskrat Falls.

Meanwhile, it is going to make it more competitive. It is going to make Muskrat Falls even better to do. These companies are still looking today to do these investments in Labrador because they see the potential. They understand we have resources in this Province that are second to none in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I just had a quick look at some of the studies we have done. Like I said, we have been studying Muskrat Falls for the last number of years. Different questions came along the lines of if we need the power and what is the lowest cost. There were people who asked questions about Labrador mining and the potential in Labrador mining. I know the Minister of the Department of Natural Resources did a whole booklet on what is happening in Labrador with the mining prospects. If you look at it, it is just unbelievable, because we are talking $10 billion to $15 billion in capital investment in the next number of years – unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Any province in this country would be jumping up and down, going mad, to say: listen, this is what is going to happen in our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. PARSONS: You are right. They would become the envy all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have a resource and we have the power to supply to these companies to come and make these investments. These investments generate revenue to our bottom line. It generates revenue so we can supply all kinds of social programs to the people who need them in the Province.

I understand and we all understand right now in Labrador West it is booming. It is a trying time for Labrador West. Yes, the majority of the people down there – I have a friend of mine who works at IOC. I think his daughter works now there also. He was telling me about driving one of these big trucks or whatever they are. He said the wheels are just unbelievable, how big they are. Anyway, it is just amazing what is happening. Revenue that comes from all of this exploration is unbelievable. We get the tax base, we get the spinoffs, we get the jobs, and that is what we need to have to make this place run.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today on this bill is just making it more – we are still keeping the competitive edge there for our companies here in the Province, but we are bringing them in line with the rest of Canada. These investors will know when they go into Labrador – we have a rate here, like I said earlier, $48 in the Province – that: Listen, here is what we are going to pay for our rate. Right now it looks like $27 at IOC. The rate will be set.

Mr. Speaker, it will create a stable market for all the people wanting to invest. Like I just said, if we look at $10 billion to $15 billion, that is what these investors need to know. They need to know there is stability here, that when they come in and they invest their millions and billions of dollars in this Province, they have to know what the rate is. They have to know that rate is going to stay stable.

Also, the other thing that the minister mentioned the other day, Mr. Speaker, was that we will look at the rates. If the rates happen to drop somewhere else in the rest of Canada, say for example Quebec drops their rate, then we can adjust so that the rate will be more than competitive. That is what we are being; we will be more than competitive.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. It is a great bill for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a great bill for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that is what we are all here about, is the future of this Province. This is what we are doing; we are making sure that the future in this Province is going to be great for our children and our grandchildren, because that is what we are here all about, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much and I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is certainly a privilege for me to stand here and to say a few more words about Bill 53. I think it is unfortunate that the Government House Leader decided to move in the fashion that he did, because I really think that the referral motion made a lot of sense.

Our concerns about clause 4 of the bill are certainly substantive concerns. There is a lot of reason for any piece of legislation, this one, or the ones that we have considered some of them already, or some of the ones that are going to come up between now and Christmas Eve, or Christmas day, or New Year's Day, or May 24 weekend, whenever it is when we conclude our debate here on this particular legislation that the government has tabled for this sitting.

I want to echo the comments of the Member for Cape St. Francis who said that he really appreciated the opportunity to get a full briefing from staff in the Department of Natural Resources. We ought to have all of the information that we need; we ought to have all of the arguments in favour of these changes. We ought to know the specifics of changes in legislation, such as the ones being proposed in Bill 53, to make sure there are no problems, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we are not going forward blindly with legislation that could adversely impact us down the road. Only in recent days we heard a lot about that with respect to the Abitibi debacle.

It is good to get full briefings. We have, I believe, an understanding with the governing party that we will be provided briefings on particular pieces of legislation well in advance. That is something that we appreciate having.

Of course, one of the key arguments for this bill is the promotion of industrialization in Labrador. As a number of members have said while we have been debating this bill, industrialization in Labrador is something that is a bright spot on the horizon. It is something that has, over the years, contributed a significant amount to provincial coffers, and we can certainly look forward to that happening down the road. That is not just Labrador; there are lots of opportunities on the Island. Down on the Burin Peninsula, where I am from, they are looking at a significant gold find.

If you look all across the Island and up in Labrador, you can see there are new deposits that are being found, known deposits that we can take advantage of. Hopefully, with any luck, the European economy will resurrect itself, things will improve in Europe in the relatively near future and the global economy will improve. Multinational corporations that do business with us will be able to raise the sorts of capital they need, find the markets they need, whether they are in India or China or other emerging economies around the world, to find those markets for us to sell our products to.

I think one the more interesting things about industrialization in Labrador is that it is a relatively young thing, relatively speaking. There was always some knowledge there were significant ore deposits in Labrador for a long time, but it was not until the 1950s and the 1960s that things really gathered steam.

The two mines in Labrador West were constructed in the 1960s. The Carol Lake project in 1962 and Wabush Mines started producing in 1965. So that is really not a long time ago. That is just shortly before I was born.

The Twin Falls hydro plant on the Churchill Falls tributary, that is coming off Churchill Falls, started –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member, you are talking about industrialization in Labrador but the bill is about the industrial rates. I would ask you to make your comments relative to bill.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North, to continue.

MR. KENT: Oh, it is definitely not me.

MR. KIRBY: St. John's North, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North, to continue.

MR. KIRBY: I was speaking about the need for power and the history of the delivery of power in Labrador. Part of this Bill 53 deals with the power generation at the Twin Falls hydro plant, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to illustrate, that really was not a long time ago. The industrial power in Labrador, the power that is discussed in the bill that it refers to, is in part something that has grown out of that situation in Labrador when it comes to power.

One of the other things I just wanted to say is that Churchill Falls, when it started producing in 1967 was capable of producing 21 per cent of all the electricity generated in Canada. That is an interesting point.

One of the things the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair had discussed when this bill was put on the floor last week was the whole issue of secondary processing and whether or not this bill adequately provides the sort of incentives we need for secondary processing of ore in Labrador. Right now, IOC does do that. It basically mines the ore, it concentrates the ore, and it pelletizes the ore in Labrador City. At Wabush Mines, the ore is mined and ground, but then it is shipped to Quebec by rail where it is pelletized there.

One of the things we would want to see is more of that secondary processing that gives more jobs to Labradorians, gives more jobs to people in our Aboriginal communities, and more jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If the industrial rate plan is set in a way that it could incent that, then that is something that is worth looking at. I say that because there is no question, with the current industrial rates in Labrador we have a lot of strengths.

The mining industry that exists in Labrador today, which grew up around the availability of that very cheap industrial power, power at an industrial rate, has built a strong industrial culture. There are lots of skilled workers in Labrador who would work, who want to work, and who work in the mining industry, and certainly that culture has developed as a result of the mining industry that has grown up around this availability of power. In fact, Labrador West and Labrador, a large portion of it at least, has certainly already been branded, if you want to use that in a corporate sense, as a mining centre, a place where one can go and do work, get reasonably priced power, power that is at a competitive industrial rate, and to either expand on the current mining developments that we have or to build new mines. That is something that we are seeing.

Of course, as I mentioned, when we were discussing the referral motion, that is something that the industry has clearly said that it wants to see. It wants to see an open and transparent process for the setting of industrial rates for power.

There is an abundance of iron ore and other mineral finds in Labrador that could be developed with this power. There is absolutely no question about that. Of course, there are all sorts of other raw materials as well in Labrador, all sorts of other natural resources that can be used in one way or another to support industry, whether we are talking about the vast forest in Labrador, for whatever use; if we could find a way to in an environmentally sustainable way use those resources, those are there. Labrador, obviously we are talking about building hydroelectric projects; it evidently has an abundance of water, water moving at a very high speed, obviously on the Churchill Falls. In a couple of particular areas it is almost a natural wonder.

Labrador West and other communities in Labrador have certainly built up communities that are attractive to people who would come and work in those industries that would be either expanded or newly introduced and developed as a result of having this competitive, transparent industrial power availability. There is all sorts of tourism and extracurricular, if you will, sorts of activities: fishing and hunting, snowmobiling, kayaking, canoeing, hiking, snowshoeing, skiing, mountain biking, everything.

Cultural tourism or Aboriginal heritages in Labrador are rich. I believe they are cultures and heritages that we ought to share with the rest of the country, the rest of the world. Increased industrialization in Labrador with more people coming in, more attention to Labrador brings a greater opportunity for that.

I think as we go along, there are challenges related to transportation. We have an East to West rail link. One of the mining developments that is being discussed is looking at the potential for an eastward rail system that would allow for minerals to be shipped eastward taken by boat then on to international markets. We are more proximate to markets to the east of us.

Relatively low power rates, the ones that we have had, we will have had for forty years by the time the full force of Bill 53 comes in. That has been a source of strength for the development of mining industries and other associated activities in Labrador.

As we go forward and these new mining developments come on stream, they will provide greater opportunities for regional economic co-operation and development in Labrador. The Combined Councils of Labrador and the chambers of commerce in Labrador do a very good job now. I think we will be seeing a lot more co-operation, at least I hope, between those organizations on the Island part of the Province and Labrador as we look forward to those developments.

Another thing that has really developed as a result of reasonably good incomes, at least in the mining sector that spun off through the availability of relatively cheap industrial power, has been spending power: that people have dollars to spend. They spend it in retail enterprises in Labrador, so there is a strong retail sector in Labrador, and there is certainly a potential, with all of the proposed new development, to see growth in that area. I hope that we can have wages in those areas, in the retail sector, the service sector in Labrador, that are certainly robust and ensure that people who work in those industries will at least have something approximating their family members, their friends, and neighbours who are going to be working in the various ore extraction and then, as I said, secondary processing areas.

So there are lots of new mining developments and major expansions on the horizon. There are challenges as well as we go forward, not only transportation – and I did talk about rail, but certainly there is a challenge when it comes to air transportation, whether that is the schedules, the availability of flights, or the costs. We hear all sorts of horror stories from people who need to come to the Island or go to other parts of Eastern Canada or Central Canada to just visit with friends, let alone to see family members who are ill and those sorts of things. There are lots of problems in those areas that I hope we can resolve.

Housing availability has certainly been a challenge in Labrador West. Certainly, as we go forward with the Muskrat Falls development, in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, no doubt, there are and there will be growing pains when it comes to housing. Everybody has a right to be housed in sensible conditions, that those people will be able to find housing. Of course, there have been disasters recently. There was a new building that burnt down in Labrador City, and it was almost completed.

So, there are certainly deficits in housing. Those will need to be addressed, because people cannot live just in camps and it cannot just be fly-in and fly-out. We want Labrador to develop sensibly, and we want people who want to live there, raise a family, send their kids to school, we want them to be able to be there, and we want them to be able have a –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I will ask the member to make his comments relative to the bill, which is about industrial electricity rates.

MR. KIRBY: Sure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am talking about the challenges that will –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the member to make his comments relative to the bill.

MR. KIRBY: Sure, absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, when we in our briefing on this particular bill, Bill 53, and we were talking about the consideration of a fair market value of this electricity down the road, we want to make sure that the rates that are set under this legislation and whatever processes that are used to set rates are competitive because we know that big industry is going to come into Labrador and they have other options. We have a bountiful resource in Labrador. We are quite fortunate to have the ore deposits that we do, but there is certainly ore in other places around the world.

The setting of industrial electricity rates, of course, is a key part of attracting industry to our Province and certainly to Labrador. We have to make sure that we are competitive, but we have to make sure that we do not sell out either. It is a delicate balance that government has to play, that whomever is responsible for doing the regulation has to play. We have to make sure that we get our fair share for our energy resources, but we also have to make sure that we are not selling the shop and that it is not the cheapest place in the world to do business, because we saw the effects of that in lots of other parts of the world.

If we can do this properly, we can leverage development. We can leverage sensible development in Labrador, provide for people's needs, while providing a decent rate of return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, those funds that are raised in that way are used to support all the programs and services that people have come to rely on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for.

I think the other thing is – and my colleague, the Member for St. John's East was discussing some of the questions when we were on the referral motion, questions around competitiveness with other jurisdictions. We want our industrial rate to be an industrial rate that is competitive with other jurisdictions approximate to us.

Of course, Quebec is awash with electricity right now. They have quite a lot of electricity. They have more developments coming on stream. They have developments that are coming on stream before Muskrat Falls. They had to mothball a natural gas plant at one point in the not so distant past because they are awashed with electricity. We have to be attentive to what our neighbours are doing with electricity, energy policy and the setting of industrial rates, because we need to be competitive if we are going to have industry incented to come to our Province, to come to Labrador and develop.

Those are some of the reasons why this bill is important and some of the reasons why we would want to see a proper system for setting the industrial rate in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, colleagues.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill 53, and I do apologize in advance if I stray away from the total intent of the bill. This has such a positive benefit for not only the people of Labrador but also the people of this Island that I may stray a little bit. I do apologize in advance and I do ask that you pull me back to the intent of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who grew up in a mining town, I do respect and understand the need for affordable and accessible energy. In this case, we are going to do both. We have been in a process now, and sometimes we have been labelled as giving power away too cheaply, of an agreement that was set before our time, by another Administration, and put in place – and I do not mind saying, Mr. Speaker – for the right reasons. To entice industry to come, to entice industry to stay, and to entice to be profitable so that it could give back to the community, it could employ local people and it could get our professionals there, and could help develop some communities.

In this case, the agreement that was in place around the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 to enable the implementation of Labrador industrial rates policy worked to achieve those two goals, Mr. Speaker. Labrador has flourished. It has been a great asset to the whole of this Province. It has contributed dramatically when it comes to the economy. When we lost some of our other major economic boosts through pulp and paper and through the fishing industry, this was an industry that helped keep us afloat. It got us over the hard times.

While the world may be in a recession, this is an industry – it is a part of this whole process we have in place that will continue to move us forward as we go through a world recession and move things forward. It goes back to our whole policy in this Administration to diversify our income. While the oil industry is very important to us, we do realize there are other industries here that have been around longer than the oil industry and are continuing to supply affordable employment, industrial development, and communicate to our residents that there is a good future here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what this whole new act will be about, it will be about actually giving us an opportunity to have control over some of the revenues we need to have, while at the same time guaranteeing that these companies will get affordable electricity in-line with our counterparts in the other parts of the country, but particularly in Quebec. That is the neighbouring province we have to compete against.

At the end of the day, this was an original deal that was in the good gist of what it was intended to do. The companies had given up something to give to us that we would administer through Churchill Falls. In turn, they would get very affordable electricity, thus then using those profits that they would not have to spend to put back into the industry.

As you can see over the last four decades, that has gone back into it. It is why in Labrador City and Wabush now we have viable mining. It is why we have industry thriving up there. It is why we have invested in new hospitals, new colleges, and all kinds of recreation and infrastructure. It is because the monies that are being invested there have been part and parcel of the contracts and the good working relationship that we have had with these industries. We want to continue that.

Mr. Speaker, in continuing that, we have to be fair to the taxpayers of this Province. We have to be fair to our children and our grandchildren. We have to be fair to the investment we are going to have to make in Churchill Falls to bring it up to par over the next twenty years. To do that it takes money. It should take money from industry that is profitable. We know both mines have been very profitable up there, particularly IOC. We know Wabush Mines is a profitable mine. It needs to diversify on the amount of ore that it produces and the markets that it has. We know it is in competent hands and they will be able to move it forward.

The one good thing about this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that consultation has already taken place. Our officials have sat down with representatives from IOC and Wabush Mines and have talked to them about where we are. We know it is going to mean a different bottom line in their profit margins, but we are preparing them.

This is not just an overnight, we do not legislate stuff that changes the world for the benefit of us only. We co-operate with industry. It has been made very aware that we are open for business and we are open to be profitable for the people of this Province but also the companies that invest in this Province. That is what we do, Mr. Speaker, and we want to do that again here.

We do know there are other industries up there and there are other mines now that want to come onboard. They realize, because we are in the world market, that things are not free anymore. They have to pay their fair price to get fair energy. In this case, we are going to give them a fair price and we are going to give them good energy, reliable energy.

As we develop Muskrat Falls and some of our other entities, we are going to be able to guarantee as they expand they will have that energy at their disposal. They will not be slowed down because of the fact that we do not have things in place. That is part of our planning here when we do this for the people in this Province.

As we develop this, we have already outlined the intent of what the bill will do. It is fairly simple. The bill will give the people in this Province an opportunity to gain monies back from the electricity that is going to be supplied to these companies and new companies that will come in.

The Labrador industrial electricity rates, Mr. Speaker, will serve to really connect the mining industry in Labrador and make it more viable. We are going to do that in many ways. We are going to take the existing block of power we have at a specific rate that is affordable to these companies so that we do not overburden them with a financial loss automatically and that they can curb their books accordingly to make it work.

What we will also do is take another block that will be a little bit more costly, but less costly then any other markets out there, and still supply the necessary power they need because we are going to be adding that much more to the grid.

As we do that, the new companies coming would know what to expect; the existing companies would know that they are still going to get a good break on that, but they have the ability then to draw on other power as they expand. We know there is major expansion going on in Labrador and all of these companies want to be part and parcel of that.

We know now that the TwinCo block provides 225 megawatts, Mr. Speaker, and that goes to IOC and Wabush Mines. That will be broken down, but they will still get their fair share. Any new customers coming in will have their fair share of that at a specific rate; then our new block, which will be available for everybody else as they develop, will be at a different rate, which in turn gives us a profit margin that is more useable back into the communities for all kinds of social programs, for all kinds of education programs, for all kinds of investments, if it means paying down our debt, if it means looking at how we develop some other types of industry.

We want to show that while we are being diversified, we want to make sure that those who are in the mineral industry are taken care of; at the same time we want to make sure we invest in other types of industries and the money that can be generated from this, Mr. Speaker, can go to those other industries. The aerospace industry, the technology industry that we are becoming worldwide for, these are things that we want to be able to have the revenues to support in new programs and services for some of these companies, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: – and we have been very effective at that.

The recall block, Mr. Speaker, will be an extra 300 megawatts of power. As we know, if all the potential development that comes on stream in Labrador happens, these companies are going to want that and they may want more. The more they want, the more profitable it is for us. The more industries developing in Labrador, the more this Island also benefits and the better collaboration we have between all the industries in this Province to make sure that things move forward.

Let us look at some of the rate comparisons. Right now we are probably, from a Canadian average, one-eighth of what it costs for these companies. We are not saying we need to be at the Canadian average; that is not what we are looking at right now. We are looking at bringing it up so that it is still affordable for these companies and profitable for us. Over the term of the number of years that are left in this agreement up until 2015, we want to give the companies opportune time to adjust how they do their business, how to make it profitable. If they want to keep their profit lines at that, they know what additional expenditures are coming with the power grid, so they need to be able to build that in.

We are also being able to add to the power availability for them and as a result they can expand. If they expand, it may cost more on one side, but they are going to make more as they sell their ore on the world market.

We know right now the iron ore markets are probably tapered off because we are still in a recession in this world, but we know in the next couple of years things will change; what will happen in China and India and the United States and all of some of the other industrialized world will increase. As that increases, so does the demand for iron ore, so does the customer demand that IOC and Wabush Mines have, so do the new mines that are about to come on stream and the customers that they have secured.

As a result, they will know exactly what it is going to cost them. We want to move it up. We are cheaper now, five-fold from Manitoba, from BC, from Quebec. We know, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is going to be our competition. We do not say that in a negative way. We say it as a reality, because it is a neighbouring community and part of the mineral reserves cross that border between Labrador and Quebec itself.

We do not want to entice anybody to leave Labrador, to go across the border to do their business and buy their power from Quebec. That is not what we are going to do, so we are going to be competitive. In being competitive we have a process in place that will give – if for some reason, as the whole process is being looked at, it goes over that rate, we do have an ability to go back and review the rate to make sure we are in line with the national average, particularly about what is being offered across the board from our competitors. In this case it would be Quebec. That is how we will do it.

The current industrial contract, as I mentioned, will expire in 2015. There are two full years for them to be getting ready for it, to understand what they are doing, for us to put the process in place, for us to be able to start banking for where we are when it comes to the revenues that we will have down the road to be able to benefit all of the people in this Province.

We know the potential new mining development expansion in Labrador is going to dictate; those extra 300 megawatts are going to be used within a number of years. We will probably have to develop beyond that. That is why, as we develop Muskrat Falls, we will have that ability for the extra power to be transferred to Lab West and benefit all those industries that want to develop in that area.

The absence of policy, and clarifying for each challenge for planning investment decisions, right now that will not happen. They will know in advance. They will know exactly over the course of the next number of years what their power rates are going to be, what it means for the bottom line, what their investors can expect in their dividends, what it will cost for a ton of ore, what markets can they break into, how quickly can they move the ore. They will know again what their competitors are going to be doing because they will know how much power their competitors are going to want. That is going to be very transparent here. As that happens, Mr. Speaker, so does the market in this country increase and so does our ability on the world market to be viable.

Right now, the principles behind the rate setting is the consideration for the market value for energy resources. We know we have a number of them, so we know we can be competitive with the companies and we can now be in the driver's seat; but to be in the driver's seat, you have to be open for good business and that is what we have been doing here. We want to keep the power rates viable for the industries that are going to be developed there, whatever they may be. Particularly, in this case now, it will be the mining industry, because we know the mining industry needs a lot of power. A lot of development has to take place. They have a lot of industry that will be put forth.

The transmission system is treated as separate from the Island because of the specific needs that are not just based on ratepayers, they are based on industrial. They are not even commercial. That is a difference that people must be clear on here: the difference between industrial rates, commercial rates, and residential rates. That is why we want to keep them separate. The difference before was a lot of the commercial and industrial rates were covering some of the costs to develop some of our projects in this Province. Right now, the revenues we will generate from this will go back in to help develop other programs and services, but it may help develop a process where we improve our system we have now that reduces, potentially, some of the rates for commercial or residents in this Province, particularly some of those in Labrador. As we develop that, the potential for moving and connecting some of these other communities may exist. As we develop all of this, it opens up other potential benefits to the people in Labrador.

We want to be competitive with our other jurisdiction. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is the jurisdiction we have to be competitive with, for a number of reasons. They have the smelters over there. They have their Hydro-Quebec offering rates and giving incentives to some of these companies when it comes to the cost of the electricity. We want to do that. We want to make sure a lot of the industrial development is done on our side of the border, and that Labrador and Labradorians and the people on this Island benefit the most from that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: We want to keep the uniform industrial rates in the Labrador interconnected system. We want to make sure that as people come into the system, they will have an equal rate across the board and be consistent, and it will be consistent with the rates being offered in Labrador, and we would hope, in most cases, a little lower so it becomes more attractive to stay on this side of it. There is potential for all kinds of other industries to be developed there, and we want to make sure they understand what it is we are offering them.

We are encouraging industrial activity in whatever way, shape, or form. We know the more power used, the easier it will be for us to be able to keep those rates low, because we will have the potential to be able to offer that power when Muskrat Falls is fully developed as we move that forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL: Labrador residents and commercial customers retain the first right to recall. That is one of the things we wanted to build in here, that we are not doing this at the expense of commercial clients or residential clients right now, they will have first dibs on the recall power. So, if all of a sudden it is necessary that our commercial industries are developing, that our residential industry is developing, that it is a need for that, they will get first kick at it, and the industrial groups will have to avail of some of the other power that we may have.

So, at the end of the day we are not leaving the average Newfoundland and Labradorian out in the cold, by no stretch of the imagination – nor are we leaving the commercial businesses out. They are a very big priority here. At the same time, we think we can have a happy medium between industry, commercial, and residential – and that is what we intend to do with this whole process.

This will apply before, Mr. Speaker, and after Muskrat Falls. People think this is what we are trying to do now to either justify Muskrat Falls, or to offset some of the cost – far from it. This is a system that has been talked about for the last twelve years, and will continue, will start before Muskrat Falls and go on beyond that.

This happened to be something that we were tied into for the last number of years, and that contract expires. As that expires, Mr. Speaker, we will be taking advantage of that to encourage industry in Labrador, but at the same time make sure that there is money back in the coffers of the people of this Province and the taxpayers so that the programs and services they deserve will be delivered. Like we have with the oil industry, Mr. Speaker, and like we have prior to that with the industries that have sustained our tax base in this Province, be it the fishing industry, the other parts of the mining industry, and the commercial industries here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear too. There are two industrial electricity rate components here. It gets a bit confusing for some people. As we went through the briefing, you got a better understanding of what we are talking about and why certain entities need to be involved in setting the price and why certain ones do not need to be.

It is the generation rate and that is unregulated. That is done for various reasons. That is at a specific cost. Then it is the transmission rate, Mr. Speaker, and that is regulated. The cost of service is basic and that is how that works. Two of them will be integrated so that we get a fair shake and a fair understanding of what the cost would be, and then we will be able to pass that on to our industrial customers, while at the same time protecting the residential and commercial customers in this Province.

The generation rate calculated will be under a developed block, as I said earlier. That is already fixed there, 239 megawatts that is the contract price. We will divide that among the existing companies and new companies that come in will get a parcel of that, so they will get a certain rate break there. As we go into the market block, they will move to the next level and that cost will be factored in. From there, they will know exactly what their cost for electricity will be at any given time and they will factor that into their bottom line.

The market block will be power above 239 megawatts, and that will be based on the demand and what we have available. I want to make it clear and I said it a bit earlier: We do not do this at the expense of commercial clients or residential clients. They are first and foremost our most important people. At the same time, we know we already have a block there that we can help drive the industry in Labrador. As we are driving that industry, we can also look for expansion. We know expansion is coming, so we are planning for that, and we have all that in place, Mr. Speaker.

One thing about this, we talk about transparency and accountability, it is all there. Rates are going to be published annually. Any group can look at it from the Opposition to interest groups, to chamber of commerce, the companies. The world markets can look at what it is that we are going to be asking for these rates. They will be published and put under the formula that makes sense. They will be done in advance so companies will be able to start planning for their next budget lines. That is how that will be developed.

They will be triggered and as I mentioned earlier, if they are triggered, if they are higher than Quebec, then there will be a process where you go back and do a review. Our intent here is to stay at the level of Quebec or less. We want to make sure that the industries in this Province are given a fair hearing and are given an opportunity to be competitive. That is what we do, that is what we do every day. We do it in every industry that we do here.

We try to do it in our shipbuilding industries. If they are competitive, we will give them due diligence. If they are not, we will have to go somewhere else that we can do that. In this case, Mr. Speaker, we have managed to be able to do it because we own the hydroelectric power here. We own it. That is why we have taken the lead on Muskrat Falls, to make sure we move it to the next level. We will be able to do that for the ratepayers in this Province, be it residential, commercial but in this case the industrial ones, so that we can develop the next rate we are going to.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about where we are. We talked about the phasing-in process. In 2012, we know our cost here is minimal. In 2015, we will probably quadruple that. By 2020, we will be at the same level as three or four of our major competitors in this country. We will be at that level there.

Again, as I mentioned, we have that ability to re-evaluate what level we are at so that it does benefit the people involved, from every angle. I want to note, when we get to 2020 our rates will be much less than the Canadian average and on par with BC and Quebec. They are the people we are going to be looking at, particularly as we look at the Quebec thing.

We look at this amendment, Mr. Speaker, this benefits everybody in this Province. When we come into 2015, this whole new process will come in. The whole act will be ready to go. As we get close to that, we will do that as it benefits everybody. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this will be a major benefit to everybody in this Province, and I am looking forward to supporting the amendment to that act.

Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, and based on the practice, I move that we now break for supper and return at 7:00 p.m.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): It being 5:30 o'clock, we will now take a brief recess and reconvene at 7:00 p.m.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Before we recessed at 5:30 p.m., Bill 53 was before the House, the previous question had been posed, and the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island had finished his comments. The debate now is open for the floor.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 53. I understand today there were some changes with regard to the debate around this bill and I was disappointed to learn that. Mr. Speaker, Bill 53, which is An Act to Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, really is amendments to allow for industrial power in Labrador to service industry and to how that power was going to be regulated, how it was going to be charged, and how government would move forward in terms of power purchase agreements and the involvement of the Public Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the government today used the rules, the Standing Orders of the House, to shut down the debate with regard to amendments on that bill. I was disappointed to learn that. Even though I am supporting the bill, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Even though I am supporting the bill, I really believe this place is an opportunity for all members to have debate and for all members to put forward any amendments they want with regard to legislation, whether it is Bill 53 or not. Mr. Speaker, it is also a place where people have the opportunity to express differences of opinion and ask that legislation be strengthened. Mr. Speaker, I really believe that even though the debate on this bill might have been a difference of opinion between some people in the House of Assembly, I always believed there should be the ability to debate it, to do it fairly, and have ample opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen section 43 of the Standing Orders used very often in this House of Assembly. I think back a long time ago I did. I was aware of it, but I very seldom ever saw it used. I just cannot believe – the fact that government is using it today on Bill 53, which in all probability is a good bill in my mind, just shows me the insecurity of this government when it comes to debating legislation in which there is a difference of opinion. That is sad and unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, we also know how the Standing Orders work. Section 43 can only be implemented when other members do not stand. I am not sure what happened today with regard to the Third Party or why a member did not stand, Mr. Speaker. I understood there was supposed to be a member who was supposed to standing to speak to the bill. As a result of it, the prerogative existed to call that section, Mr. Speaker, on the floor of the House of Assembly. I guess debate works both ways; if you want a debate, you have to be here, you have to stand up, and you have to be able to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, having said that, it still is no reason for the government to try and stifle anybody who might have a dissenting opinion or view with regard to this bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is happening right now is that under section 43 – I have already spoken second reading – I am getting another opportunity to speak, because once you bring in section 43 of the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, every member again has the opportunity to speak. That is the reason that I am standing up this evening.

I am standing up with regard to this bill because even though I did not agree with the amendment that the Third Party brought in – I did not think it was necessary, Mr. Speaker; there were amendments in this bill that are necessary and they can be dealt with in committee. I did not think it needed to be done in second reading and, in fact, I did not agree with the approach that they were taking with regard to the bill, but having said that, it is still not a reason why you should not be able to speak.

Mr. Speaker, governments, no matter what legislation they are passing – whether it is Bill 53, whether it is Bill 60 that we are going to deal with in the next few days, whether it is Bill 61, which we are going to debate probably on Christmas Day at the rate this is going – they should be able to defend the legislation, not look for ways to skirt around it, not look for ways to bury that debate under a section in the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, because that is exactly what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, it is. That is exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

That is not fair. That is not the reason that we are here. We are all here, Mr. Speaker, to do what we feel is right – what we feel is right. They obviously feel that the project for Muskrat Falls is right and whatever legislation has to be put in place to make it happen they are prepared to stand and support it. That is what the party in the lobby was all about tonight. That is what the dinner-hour party, Mr. Speaker, was all about this evening, saying: we support it and whatever we have to do we will do to make it happen. That is fine. I have no issue with that. That is fine, Mr. Speaker.

What I have issue with is when you use the big stick in the House of Assembly to try and shut down members that are elected to do a job. That is what Section 43 in the Standing Orders in essence does. What we have seen is that right now there will be no other amendments that will be able to come forward to Bill 53, and even if it was another bill, Mr. Speaker –

MR. KING: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I granted a lot of latitude before rising, but we are almost seven minutes into the debate and the explanatory note on this bill indicates that this bill is now enabling implementation of a Labrador industrial rate policy. I have yet to hear the member make any mention whatsoever to the particular act that we are supposed to be debating here today, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that it is irrelevant to the debate on the House of Assembly floor.

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

MS JONES: No, Mr. Speaker, I am just continuing my debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has provided some latitude. We are operating under House Standing Order 43, which is the previous question. The member is speaking to the process, but I do remind the member that the subject of the bill is the focus of the debate. Given the fact that we are operating under Standing Order 43, I provided some latitude for the member, but I do ask her to get to her point some time soon.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just had a long flight from Labrador – where Muskrat Falls is, by the way, for people who have never been there or seen it. Mr. Speaker, I just got in on the flight. I drove for several hours today over a gravel highway in what was not the best of conditions in winter driving in Labrador. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I stood up to speak to the bill and forgot to mention the bill. I will get to the bill in just a moment, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am debating section 43 of the Standing Orders is because it was my understanding that the government members today, the Government House Leader invoked section 43 in debate under Bill 53. I am explaining for the people who are listening what that means. Not a lot of people in the Province, Mr. Speaker, actually read the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly. Anyway, that was my point, and I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you have given me some leeway.

Mr. Speaker, this particular bill, as I said in my debate a few days ago in the House of Assembly, is allowing for industrial development in Labrador, and that is something we have asked for as an Opposition. We have asked for that right from the beginning. When the first term sheet was signed down at the Sheraton Hotel – was it the Sheraton or the Delta or whichever one was it. Which one did they sign it at? What one did they rent?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members, the Speaker has recognized one person only to speak. I ask members present to be courteous and polite and listen to that member who has the floor to speak. Everybody will have a chance to speak on this issue if they so desire. While someone has been recognized, I ask members to respect that and to listen to their comments. If you want to have a private conversation or be entertained, please leave the Chamber.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I figure they had entertainment enough over dinner. I thought they were finished dancing for the evening, Mr. Speaker, and that they were ready to go to work for the rest of the evening.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said, when the term sheet on Muskrat Falls was signed down at the Sheraton a couple of years ago, one of the first things we observed with that is that there was no mention of Labrador or benefits for Labrador. There was no talk about industrial power for the mining industry. In fact, if you look at the agreement, the only place Labrador is, is in the title of the Province, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we started asking that there be industrial power, that Labrador be looked at and be considered. We asked day after day after day.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, Hansard will show many responses from the government before they ever committed to say that we will look at it in Labrador. It was months and months and months before we even got them to that point, Mr. Speaker. Finally, we got them there. Then the pressure started to come to bear.

The markets for iron ore started to go up. The potential was bigger, more finds were there. People wanted to spend their money. They wanted to get the deposits out of the ground and they needed power to do it. So, some pressure started to come to bear on the government. That was the reason, Mr. Speaker, they started to look at industrial power. When they did, they realized, we have no legislation around this. We have no mechanism by which we can do this – because in the past they always had direct negotiations with IOC and Wabush Mines on power agreements. We know those agreements are going to expire in 2015.

Government is now in a situation where, what do we do? If we bring Muskrat Falls power on it is going to be higher cost power; whereas, the power that is already there is a low cost power. We cannot have different standards for different companies. Is that fair? How are we going to deal with IOC? If we start bringing in a different price they are going to have to pay more. All of these things were going through the minds of the government in terms of, how are we going to achieve this? What are we going to do so that we can treat everybody fairly and equally?

That is the reason we are seeing Bill 53 today, Mr. Speaker. Now, if government really believes they are doing the right thing – and they know, Mr. Speaker, that we supported this bill. I spoke on it on Thursday and I said that we did. I said we had amendments. I gave them copies of those amendments and said we would bring those amendments into the House of Assembly when we got into committee. Then, Mr. Speaker, what does the government do? Shut down the debate in second reading by bringing in, under the Standing Orders of the House, section 43. People have to understand what this means.

Government has the ability to shut down debate when members do not stand to speak. I understood today, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: No, I understood today the Third Party was supposed to have somebody sit –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker indicated earlier to the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair that I provided some latitude to talk about process, but I think we have passed that point now. I ask the member to focus her attention purely on the principle of the bill and we continue this debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will certainly do that.

I guess the purpose of the bill, as I said, is to have a debate around how industrial power should be provided in Labrador. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is some differences of opinion with regard to that in the House of Assembly. I guess we will get to hear those opinions as the evening goes on.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Province knows it was the Liberal Party and the Liberal Opposition who continued to push for industrial power for Labrador, who continued to push to ensure that these companies would have access to power, that there would be a transmission line for them to plug into. That it was not just good enough to say that we are going to give you power. You have to tell them how you are going to give it to them, how you are going to do the agreements, what you are going to charge them for that power. That is where we kept pushing and kept pushing and kept pushing the government, Mr. Speaker, to do that. As a result, we have this bill.

Now, we believe there is a way that we can strengthen this bill. We believe there should be further incentive offered to companies that want to create more jobs and secondary processing. We believe government needs to look at the economic return as well as the industrial rates, Mr. Speaker. We feel when they are negotiating these power purchase agreements under Bill 53 that they need to look at where they can strengthen the economic benefits for the people of the Province.

For example, if there is a company that wants to come in and they want to get industrial power, are they prepared to set up secondary processing in Labrador to do that; and if they are, is there a way that they can be given a better agreement, a better price on power? At no cost to the taxpayer; we are not talking about taxpayers subsidizing power for the mining companies here – no, not at all. They are going to subsidize enough of that for the crowd in Nova Scotia. The people in Labrador in the mining industry are going to pay for their own power, but there is a way to do the agreements so that those who create more economic activity and contribute more to the people of the Province get a greater return.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I talked to a mining company a few days ago about Bill 53 after it came to the floor of the House of Assembly. This is a company that will develop a mining operation that will be operating for many years. They are going to be a big player in fact – a huge mining company. At this stage, they have no plans to do secondary production in Labrador, but if there were options and incentives being provided to them maybe they would. Maybe they might not be prepared to settle on doing it today, it might be five years out before they are prepared to do that, but those options would be there. That is why we think that although government has captured the essence of what needs to happen to establish industrial rates for industry in Labrador, there is still some ways that we can tweak this to make sure that we capture the greatest economic return for the people of the Province as a result of it.

Mr. Speaker, that is basically where we are as it relates to this particular bill. We would have hoped that we would have gotten an opportunity to have a full debate around the bill before we went into Committee. I guess when we get into Committee we will look at those amendments and see what happens, but as I said, because of what happened in the House today with regard to the Standing Orders, that prevents further amendments to the bill. While I have a tolerance for a lot of things, shutting down debate is certainly not one of them.

I am all about defending the position that you take, supporting the position that you take, regardless of what side it is, who disagrees or who agrees. If you believe in something and support something or you do not believe in something and you are against something, I think we all should have the ability to have full debate on that in the House of Assembly.

That is what we are elected to do, by the way. That is what we get paid to do. As people home would say: That is what we pay you the big bucks for, so you can stand up and represent us and talk about the issues and talk about the positions on bills like this and what your position is.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would just say that in the meantime I will leave it as it is. I will not get into the different clauses in the bill. I know some of my colleagues are going to do that as the evening goes on. As we move into Committee, I will have an opportunity to speak again and I will propose some amendments at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that we do now adjourn the debate at this point in time on this bill, and I would like to go back to the Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that debate on Bill 53 now adjourn.

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 from the Order Paper under second reading, Order 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, Bill 56.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that Bill 56, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 56 entitled An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act". (Bill 56)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to rise here today to introduce this bill for second reading, Bill 56. As some would recall, some who were here in the Legislature would have participated in the debate, we actually did some amendments to this particular bill in the last sitting of the House of Assembly. Some of the changes have yet to be implemented. As we reviewed some of the changes we were proposing, we found a number of other instances where we felt the bill could be further strengthened and enhanced for the benefit of the individuals who are covered and protected by the bill.

The intention of this particular act here today, this bill, is to clarify some of the provisions of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act and provide some regulation-making powers that will be required to carry out some of the amendments to the Registered Disability Savings Plan, in particular.

There are a couple of changes here specifically. One is that one of the subsections is going to be amended to allow for applications under this bill by a spouse or cohabitating partner of a child who has reached the age of majority. Mr. Speaker, that one is fairly important for those who are affected by this bill. Officials who have been a part of this process have had discussions and consulted on it.

One of the things that provision does is it broadens the ability for a person who qualifies under this particular legislation to designate another individual other than their parent or guardian. This broadens it so that it can actually be, for example, a spouse or a cohabitating partner, Mr. Speaker.

It has been identified – and I think one of the members opposite who is going to speak to this bill probably has a fair degree of knowledge to this as well, and maybe it would add some dialogue to that, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. That is certainly what we believe to be an important change, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to bring that forward.

One of the other more significant changes, Mr. Speaker, is that it will require a designation agreement be filed with a bank or financial institution where the RDSP is being held. For the benefit of those who are not familiar, I will just take a moment. What we are talking about here is the Registered Disability Savings Plan. That is a savings plan or savings program designed to assist parents and others to plan for the long-term financial needs of persons who qualify, for example who receive the Disability Tax Credit in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As part of a savings plan, the changes we are proposing here today are really intended to make the access to this program easier for those individuals. As I said a few moments ago, currently there is a provision that parents and guardians can become designated to represent individuals. The changes that we are proposing today, if they are implemented, will allow for a broader spectrum there where spouses or cohabitating partners can also be their representatives. As I said, one of the more important things as well is that it will require these programs to be registered with the bank that is handling the financial affairs of the individual.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to prolong my introduction to this debate. I look forward to any commentary or questions from members opposite. I will just conclude by way that I opened which is that this is actually further enhancements that have been realized. As we passed the Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act changes last year, in doing some of the regulatory analysis of that and in consultation with those who are affected, it was realized that a number of these changes we are bringing forward today could actually further enhance the positive changes that were brought before and passed before the Legislature last year.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place and I look forward to commentary from other members.

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

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

It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this piece of legislation. Again, I am appreciative of the Department of Justice that took the time to have the briefing with us. We sat down and went over this piece of legislation which is, An Act to Amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act.

It was not that long ago – I call it the last session, but we were in during the spring and I cannot remember which month it was, but this was a new piece of legislation, a novel concept that we debated at that time. It was passed, and I believe it was done with the support of most of the individuals in this House of Assembly because it is a good piece of legislation.

The reason we are here looking at it now – and I am paraphrasing some of the commentary from the individuals who spoke – this is an amendment bill because we are actually cleaning up errors from the last piece of legislation. We are fixing up typos. In fact, in getting through the last one – and I do not think this would have been done because it was a rush, per se, but it showed that an error was made because we actually forgot to add the regulation making power to the piece of legislation. There was an error.

What I would like to do first is begin by talking about the legislation and the clauses itself and then I will talk about, perhaps, the process a little. There are, I believe, three changes that have been suggested. Again, the whole purpose of this – and we talked about it quite a bit during the last session, we will say – is that we are amending the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act to deal with individuals with an intellectual disability and we are talking about an RDSP as opposed to an RESP or RRSP. It is a new form of monetary savings for individuals with an intellectual disability. It is being done all across the country. It is a federal program and we are putting in legislation so that we can avail of the federal program.

From what I understand, hopefully this will start early in the new year. The last one that we debated was not proclaimed. We debated it, went through the phases, discussed it, and actually there is a part of this that I enjoyed and I guess I will just jump to that for a second.

Some of the changes that are being passed here now were done through questions we asked in the Committee stage, which shows that the process works. Again, we support the bill wholeheartedly. We think it is a great thing, but in going through these pieces of legislation you have an ability to look at it and perhaps add commentary or suggestions. The comments that were passed to us were: We looked at it and certainly there were things we could do to add to this. It was not a pre-existing bill, per se. It was a new one drafted because of the availability of the RDSP in the federal program.

The changes themselves that were made were in section 1(2). We just changed it from sections 15 to 22 as opposed to sections 15 to 21, because there was a new section 22 added. That new section 22 is the regulation making power where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can make regulations talking about procedures, processes, prescribing requirements, respecting integration of provisions of the act, and generally for the purpose of administration of the act.

The way I read that is that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has the ability to add regulations or change the regulations to make sure the legislation works as it should. I think that is a very important part. That was a pretty big oversight the last time that was not made, but we have made it now and hopefully the legislation, when it gets passed early in 2013, that it will take effect and we can move forward.

The second part, Mr. Speaker, is that section 3 of the act was amended by adding a certain part to it. They had already added a number of individuals who could assist in this process for the individual with the disability and we added the parents or guardian and spouse or cohabitating partner. One of the issues I had last time was that it said you had to have two people. In many cases, in rural areas, some people simply do not have family or trusted love ones that they could have two people do this. That was a concern that I had that I brought forward.

What has been done here is that before it was just adults, parents or guardians who could be appointed as the designate. Now what we have done is we have added the spouse or cohabitating partner of that adult, or a child of that adult who has reached the age of maturity. So, all of these individuals now can apply to the court for an order appointing the public trustee as the designate of the adult under a designation agreement.

What we have done is we have opened it up a bit more. We have added some extra people and made it easier for that individual to have family who could work on the disabled individual's behalf. That was a question that we asked actually during the Committee stage. That was a concern that was brought up. It was actually said to us during the briefing: Look, there are a number of issues – I guess, it was one of those things where it was discussed with federal counterparts, but they specifically referenced that some of the commentary made during the debate was incorporated after.

I am glad to see it; because that simply means that the process is working – the reason we are here: to make good legislation and the legislation that is best for the people of this Province. I very much support that specific section. I think that is a great addition to this piece of legislation and a necessary piece.

What we have also done is in section 3 there has been a repealing of the previous section. This is a part where when the designation agreement is executed and filed with the public trustee, they have also said – again, an oversight, a simple part. Sometimes what happens is the individuals draft this legislation and you get very focused on it, and you get that syndrome where you are in the room; it is hard to get a different take. In this case, it was a set of fresh eyes on the legislation and going through it, they saw certain things that had not been addressed and this was one of them.

What they are saying now is that not only does the designation agreement have to be filed with the public trustee but a copy has to go to the bank or financial institution that holds the RDSP. So, it is a very necessary part, but a part that was overlooked and is now being corrected with this amendment. It was not there previously, but is necessary to have.

I will bring up a concern that I had previously, and I am hoping that it is a concern that is never realized; I hope it is unfounded. It says here that these agreements are effective when you file them, and that filing can be done by fax or other electronic means. I was hoping that they would add a section where there would be a confirmation of that filing.

If it is done by e-mail or electronic means, you can have a send receipt added to it to make sure that it has been received, because these things can happen. They are always inadvertent, but sometimes they do happen. I was hoping that could be a part of it, or even if you get the fax, it would be nice for the trustee and/or the financial institution to send back a confirmation saying: We have received the designation agreement of John Smith. So, I was hoping that would be added in and hopefully that situation never arises where we have an oversight with the filing and somebody is negatively affected by that.

Section 3 was also amended, and this was a housekeeping error, where you had different words being used in different sections of the legislation. The words "statement" and "statements" were added instead of "report" and "reports". Because if you looked at one section it said report, if you looked at the next section it said statement, and you have two different words which can be interpreted in a different way. So what they have done is they have just made it uniform throughout the legislation, a housekeeping situation, good oversight – I am glad that is just for the sake of making sure that nothing ever comes up with this down the road.

I believe that is all. There are not that many changes that have been suggested. The RDSP program is a federal program, and this is something that we are trying to avail of for individuals in this Province. Now, the fact is that we may need to come back to the drawing board again down the road if the feds change how theirs is worded or how their legislation works then we may have to come back and modify ours accordingly. That is understandable, because you want to make sure that you are in compliance with the federal law, especially when that federal law is to the benefit of the people of this Province. I am hoping that situation does not arise.

I do not want to belabour the background of this, of what is an enduring power of attorney. We did discuss that last time and it is on the record. There was a lot of debate last time over consent and the ability for people with a disability to give consent. We went back and forth on that and it was a really good debate, really healthy debate on that. In this case, none of that is changing, it is just oversight.

In terms of going through this briefing, which I was happy to receive, obviously, and to be able to speak to this, the problem is that we are here debating this amendment-amendment bill because of oversight last time. An oversight that was inadvertent. It was not intentional but it happened. Sometimes people make errors, people fool up. This is why it was good that people had an opportunity to have time and the ability to look this over, take their time, read it over and make sure that it was the right thing. In this case we spotted the changes and we are able to add this amendment in now before the law was proclaimed.

I put that out there as a general reminder, sometimes when we force legislation through we can often end up with a bad result that was never intended but is an actual consequence of trying to rush things through. It is no secret to see what I am alluding to here, talking about. Actually, I was not expecting to discuss this tonight, I am very happy to. I had the briefing last week.

There is other legislation that we may discuss, that we need to make sure we take the proper amount of time. You take a lot of legislation; there is some that we disagree on. There is no agreement back and forth, and everybody understands that. In many cases there is legislation that is agreed on, and I will use Bill 53. I think it is the one we were discussing earlier today where in actual fact there seems to be consensus amongst – I know that we support the purpose of that piece of legislation.

What we did is we suggested different amendments to it or changes because we thought it would strengthen what was being done. We are not doing this just for the sake of being difficult or as they sometimes say opposing for the sake of opposing, because we are not opposing the legislation. What we are doing is adding what we think would be a healthy change. The piece we are discussing here now is living proof that there are changes we can suggest that are beneficial and should be considered for the best interests of the people of the Province.

What I would say is that I hope we will get adequate time to look over future pieces of legislation. To discuss them, debate them and review them to make sure that a lot of them – especially the very technical ones. We need to have an understanding of what it is we are debating because we do not want to be forcing something through, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to speak to this. It is interesting that it is the second time it has come up, but I am glad to see it because it just goes to show that the process can work. Especially the Committee stage, which is very interesting, getting that chance to ask questions, get the answers back and have that productive dialogue.

I am glad to see that work. I am glad to see that individuals with intellectual abilities, hopefully early in the New Year, will have an opportunity to avail of this so that there can be some planning done in terms of savings for them down the road.

Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to offer a few comments on this bill this evening. I remember well the debate we had on this bill in the spring when we introduced it, because it was very significant. As a matter of fact, it was groundbreaking legislation, Mr. Speaker, in offering legal capacity to a certain group of individuals from a new perspective.

The issue came to us from a number of groups who raised the issue of a certain segment of our society that lacked legal capacity, but not in all areas. There might be some, for example, who have jobs – people who have a mental incapacity but who have jobs – and who can function quite effectively in daily life, but do not have the capacity to look after their finances. There are various levels of legal incapacity.

At that time, I remember stating that we put legal incapacity on a continuum. There are some people who just have minor incapacity on one end of that continuum, but on the opposite end cannot have any control over any functions whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, it is in that grey area in between that we are addressing in this legislation.

The RDSP program, the Registered Disability Savings Plan, is a federal program that is an investment program that provides for the needs of people with legal incapacity, people who have mental disabilities. If they are under the age of majority, Mr. Speaker, then the program can be designated by the parents or guardians of that individual, that person. A parent can enter into the program and can be designated to arrange the program, monitor the program, and control the program for the child. That can continue, Mr. Speaker, after the person reaches the age of majority at nineteen years. Designated parents or guardians can continue that responsibility because it was introduced before the child reached the age of majority.

The problem arises, Mr. Speaker, when this program came in there were disabled people already over the age of majority and the parents or guardians could not avail of that program on their behalf. That program could only be attained by a legal guardian. If the only legal representative of the person with mental incapacity could only be a legal guardian, that is a complicated and expensive process going through the courts. That was too onerous, too expensive, and not very practical for this particular issue. Parents did not want to get involved in the complicated court process and the expensive court process.

In addition to that, once a person is appointed legal guardian, he is legal guardian for the whole estate of the individual. He has control over the whole estate of the individual. In this case, we are only looking for a guardian to have control only for the purposes of entering into a RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, if you create a power of attorney under the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act you have complete control over the estate of the individual, but the powers of attorney act was amended just to deal particularly with these RDSP programs. It was a very specific amendment to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act for that reason only. That was in line with the requests from the different coalition groups that came to talk to us, and as well, for the need to access this program.

As one can quite well imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are tremendous complexities with that kind of a program because you are dealing with financial institutions. When you designate someone to enter into a plan on someone who does not have the legal capacity to enter into the contract him or herself, then the banks and financial institutions obviously are going to have some challenges here. How do you bring a person with a legal incapacity or a mental incapacity to the bank or financial institution, and somebody else sign the document and say: I am the designate for this person to enter into that program? You can imagine the complexities that go with that.

Mr. Speaker, it was groundbreaking legislation. It was brought in with the provisions in there for the oversight to be provided by the public trustee. I think that was probably the thing which made this bill work, in that the public trustee was appointed to be the overseer in that case, because there are a lot of questions that could be asked. You have a designate. The person with legal incapacity or mental capacity appoints a designate. The possibility of abuse, and uncertainty and challenges that come up with that, we had to have some kind of an oversight provision in there. That is where the public trustee comes in.

One of the amendments in this new bill, Mr. Speaker, as with all bills – when you bring in a bill like this, which is groundbreaking legislation, which is completely new, you find glitches in it very quickly. As soon as you start to implement it and start to deal with some of the stakeholders, things appear that you did not see when you were preparing the legislation.

For example, one of the amendments here is that a copy of the designation agreement, the old bill, or the bill we proclaimed and brought into Royal Assent in the spring, that bill did not allow for a copy of that agreement to be given to the financial institution – which was an oversight. Obviously, if a finance company is going to enter into a program with an individual, that finance company or the bank, or financial institution would need a copy of that. That was an oversight, and that is one of the amendments here.

Mr. Speaker, as well one of the amendments in terms of appointing the trustee or applying to the court, for example, in the old bill or the previous bill, the one we are amending, only a spouse or cohabitating partner of the adult could apply to the court for an order appointing the public trustee to be the designate. That is a bit restrictive. We realize that to be restrictive and that only contemplates a parent or a guardian, so now this also includes, as a member of that list, the child, who has reached the age of maturity, a spouse or a cohabitating partner can apply.

Probably the big thing in this new amendment is the ability now to make regulations. We inadvertently did not put in regulatory making power in the previous bill, and this amendment now does that. If any of these glitches come up now or any problems come up, if this bill has been implemented, then the regulations will help us take care of them. That is the whole purpose of having regulations; these things can be put in the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend – probably we are leading legislation in Canada. I think we are the only Province to do this. We have been applauded by the various disability associations in the Province. As mentioned, there were oversights and things that we realized as the bill started to be implemented and started to have conversations with the various stakeholders that there were problems, little things, nothing very serious, that needed to be amended by this amendment today. Then by putting the regulations in there, that will take care of these things in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. It is, as I mentioned, a very important bill for those people who are suffering with these issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I, too, would like to thank the officials from the Department of Justice who gave us a very thorough briefing the other day on this amendment to an amendment which was originally Bill 3.

As we all recall, it was March 20 of this year in the last sitting where we were all involved in the debate of this bill. As I recall, it was a very thorough debate and everyone who wanted to speak to the bill had a chance to speak to the bill. We were also thoroughly briefed before that debate as well. I was very happy, Mr. Speaker, to take part in that debate.

This is a bill that helps people who have disabilities. It helps the actual people with the disabilities and their families to deal with their financial affairs. We know how difficult dealing with our financial affairs can be, particularly when there are new programs as the RDSP are introduced for people to take advantage of it. I find it quite interesting in fact that we would be debating the amendment to the amendment here this evening, considering what has taken place today here in our House when debate was so curtailed and when it was so vital.

What we are doing is that we are bringing a bill back into the House even though we had thoroughly debated it, even though there was thorough scrutiny, even though there was thorough study and thorough briefing, even though many of us may have consulted with constituents about what this bill might have meant for them, yet even then there are omissions and there are oversights. Although it is quite interesting that it is coming into the House today, I am also quite pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is coming back into the House today, that it is coming in the House at this time.

What we have seen in this bill is that there is an amendment to subsection 15(3) of the act to also allow an application under that subsection by a spouse, cohabiting partner or child who has reached the age of majority. This is to assist the person with a disability or their family to help this person with a disability manage their financial affairs, which is so crucial.

It also amends subsection 16(5) of the act to require a copy of a designation agreement to be given to the bank or financial institution which will hold the RDSP. Again, that was very important. That was something that the banks had pointed out. There is an amendment to subsection 20(2), (3) and (4) of the act to ensure consistency of reference to the statement required under subsection 20(1).

These are all very important amendments, Mr. Speaker, in order to make this bill as effective and as helpful as it needs to be for people with disabilities and for their families. This bill is about the enduring powers of attorney, and it is the same as persons with intellectual disabilities who take care of the RDSP – who will take care of them, who will help these folks once their parents die. That is why it is so important, the enduring powers of attorney.

The amendments are now to help someone do a designation of power of attorney, to expand the possibility of who can play that role. Again, it is so important because this is a role that must be fulfilled by someone who is very trustworthy, who has the person with the disability's best interest at hand. The other thing is that the banks have asked for some changes so that any kind of transaction is a little bit easier then for the families and for the person concerned.

So we see that there are some changes. What we had in section 3 of the act is being amended by repealing subsection 15(3) and substituting the following – because that limited too much who, in fact, could be the enduring power of attorney, who could represent the best interests of the person concerned. So, it is good that this is expanded.

Also, the fact that the words in section 3 of the act is amended by deleting in subsections 20(2), (3) and (4) the words "report" and "reports", which brings this more in line and facilitates with ease any transactions that they may have on behalf of a person who is being represented by a power of attorney by replacing the words "report" and "reports" with "statement" and "statements". A small adjustment, but a major adjustment in terms of how this may facilitate the works that people may have to do on behalf of a person with a disability, in terms of managing their financial affairs.

Again, the section 3 of the act is amended by adding immediately after section 21 the following, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations (a) respecting procedures and operational processes required to facilitate access to an RDSP; (b) prescribing requirements for the witnessing and execution of designation agreements by adults, including witnesses and execution requirements where an adult is unable to sign; (c) respecting the integration of the provisions of this Act with the operations of banks or financial institutions which will hold RDSPs; and (d) generally, for the purpose and administration of this Act." So this means there was no regulation procedure in the bill that we passed last March. This, in fact, allows changes to be made. That means the bill does not have to come back to the House. In fact, any changes can be made without coming back to the House and it will be gazetted. This is a regulatory aspect which facilitates, Mr. Speaker, helping people with disabilities manage their financial resources.

In our Justice briefing, I found it very interesting that we were told part of the legislative process is to be able to step away and to look again, where you may see problems. I think this is a warning and a caution for us, Mr. Speaker, in terms of when we are looking at complex legislation, particularly legislation that deals with very important issues that may affect the whole Province for a long time. The changes that are being amended here, the amendments to this bill in fact may seem small but have a big impact on the people whose lives it affects.

Some families also talked about how difficult it would be for them to get money out on behalf of their loved one. Particularly, when we look at what happens when someone with a severe disability, when their parents, who have been their guardians and who had power of attorney, die. One of the problems, also, with the RDSP is that it is for people when they turn sixty. Often, because people with severe disabilities are very dependent both financially and in other ways on their parents, this is a real problem. These are issues we brought up in the debate the last time.

There are no substantive changes, except adding a few people who could be designated enduring power of attorney. Also, because this is a new program, if there are any federal changes, it means some changes can be made without coming back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am also happy today to be able to speak to this bill. I just wanted to point out that twenty-one years ago today the architect of Confederation, the architect of our modern Newfoundland and Labrador government, and the architect of the man who commissioned the very building that we sit in here, the architect also of the disastrous Upper Churchill hydroelectric project, passed away. That was Premier Joey Smallwood. Twenty-one years ago he passed away. Not one year ago, not ten years ago, but twenty-one years ago today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the incredible work and service that Premier Joey Smallwood did in the years that he was Premier here for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Looking at this bill today and looking at the amendment to the amendment of Bill 3, the link to that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is very coincidental. Today, when we acknowledge the passing of the architect of the Upper Churchill deal, this current Premier will also sign a deal on the Lower Churchill. This bill today –

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the member to speak to the legislation.

MS ROGERS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

What we see here in this bill today is how very, very, important debate is in this House. How very important it is that we take our time. How very important it is that everyone has the opportunity to speak to a bill.

It is not only what happens here in the House or how we might prepare ourselves to speak in the House to a bill, like Bill 56, because where there are mistakes, where there are omissions, that could be very complicated for people's lives, but it is also about the work that we do before we come into this House and speak to the bills; work that we do when we consult with our constituents, when we consult with experts, when we consult with people who want to have a voice in this House. Our role, Mr. Speaker, as elected officials is to bring those voices to this House.

That is what we did, Mr. Speaker, when we debated Bill 3. When we look at this bill today, when we look at the amendments to the amendments, what we do is we bring in our expertise as legislators. We bring in the opinions of experts who may have something to say. We also bring in the voice of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to the issues that we are discussing in this House.

It is absolutely crucial that everyone who wants to speak has the opportunity to speak. It is crucial that the debate is full and thorough, because the bills that we pass have lasting effects on the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have lasting effects on the future of our Province, whether it be a bill about the enduring powers of attorney, whether it be a bill about Muskrat Falls, whether it be a bill about anything that affects the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. To cut any kind of debate, to limit any kind of debate on these important issues serves as a horrible democratic deficit and is shameful on the history of our Province. It is shameful on the history of our democratic process here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to be able to have spoken on Bill 56. It is very interesting that it happened on this day, when so much has happened on this day. This is a warning to us about the role that we play here in this honoured House, when we must be totally prepared to look at absolutely every aspect of legislation and what it means. That we have to be prepared to revisit legislation, we have to be prepared to say there has been a mistake, and there has been an omission. That is what we must do and that is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect of us. They expect nothing less and they deserve nothing less.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bill that we are amending, which amended the bill from before, we passed I guess in March. The previous member said we passed it in March. Actually, we did not pass it in March. Everybody but me passed it in March.

I believe members across the way were calling out fourth party at the time. They were calling out fourth party at the time. Now it would seem if it were a fourth party, obviously vindication is just fine because amendments are coming back today that do not go far enough to fix the legislation that we passed in March, but it still goes some distance to fix the legislation that we passed in March. The legislation that we passed in March was poorly done, as we have seen other legislation poorly done and that we have had to fix in this term.

One of the big issues that I have, and going over the old notes from March – I will not go back and speak to the bill that was passed in March because that would seem to be moot. It might be relevant, but clearly it is passed and it would be moot.

I will just draw the attention of the House to one particular section of this bill that could be and, I would say, should be improved. The suspicious nature that I have in how people deal with other people's money would probably be supported by the Minister of Natural Resources who, like myself, has probably read too many criminal disclosure files, and maybe like other members in the House, a few lawyers who have drafted powers of attorney for people, you need to be absolutely precise.

On the last page, section 2(5) says, "A designation agreement is effective when it is filed with the public trustee…". I would prefer that it stopped there, but it does not. It goes on to say "and that filing may be made by a facsimile transmission or other electronic means…". In my submission, my view is that the designation agreement, the original, should be filed with the public trustee. Many of us have heard of various types of scams. Anybody can prepare something not much better than the Nigerian letter and can simply file it with the public trustee by fax or by e-mail, and now this is fine.

The part that has been corrected and I would say, yes, it is an improvement is "a copy shall be provided to the bank or financial institution which will hold the RDSP." That did not exist before. Clearly, a copy should be filed with the financial institution; however, even with this amendment, there is still no requirement that the original be filed with the public trustee.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with that is maybe there will never be an original. Maybe the original will not exist. Maybe the original will be a document that has been forged, prepared by somebody, and the original is never, ever filed with the public trustee. All documents of this nature, in my view, should be filed with the public trustee – the originals.

Why are we permitting individuals to file documents that are not originals? We would not accept them in the Registry of Deeds. We would not accept them for corporate registrations. Why would we accept anything less than the original of a document such as this to be filed with the public trustee? I will not move an amendment in that respect, but it would be most helpful if the government would seek to amend it.

There are other problems with the legislation, but at least this particular bill goes so far. The next section which substitutes the word "statement" for "report", that only makes sense. A statement clearly should say the statement of values.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that this legislation now provides for regulations because all of us know the benefit of regulations. Regulations are generally required in order to be able to apply statutes and in order to be able to make minor sub-legislative changes or modifications.

This bill is an amendment of a bill that amended the previous act. The previous act is very short, only fourteen sections. Bill 3 then went from fifteen to twenty-two, and this one, with a couple of more sections, tries to fix what was done in March which does not go far enough, but it is an improvement.

This one I can vote for, because in the words of one my older law professors, he said: You should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you do, you will never have anything which is good. This bill is far less than perfect but it is a good change, it is an update, and it is an improvement. I really would like for the individuals on the government side to stop long enough, draft legislation which is better founded, more reasoned, better thought out, and have full and fair debates so that the legislation that we pass does not need to come back to be fixed so many times.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Justice speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to have a couple of comments to conclude the debate. I want to thank all the members in the House who have participated and offered some commentary in the second reading discussion on this bill today. As the Member for St. Barbe said a number of times in his comments, there are some very positive things in this bill, and I am pleased to be the minister that is able to table that.

There have been a number of comments made by members opposite – I do not know if I would call them questions or observations and suggestions that I think are very good. I am prepared to go back and have a look at those as part of the regulations that will support the implementation of this particular bill.

As I said, I am going to conclude and if members have anything further they would like to offer by way of suggestions or specific questions, we can certainly do that in Committee. Thank you to everyone who has participated in this debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 56.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, members. There was a procedural error on my part.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act. (Bill 56)

MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a second time.

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

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 56)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Déjà vu here, I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: A little.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 56, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

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

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.

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will consider Bill 56.

A bill, "An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act". (Bill 56)

CLERK: Clause 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: In this particular bill, the Chair will remember that in March we went through it in a very quick fashion and passed the bill. It would seem to be very unusual that a bill would be passed to amend existing legislation and that it was not new legislation, to amend existing legislation, and then the bill had to come back to have the amendments to be passed all over again in order to fix the amendments that were done in the first place.

There was some debate early on, I recall, that it was the position of the government that this bill needed to be done in a really big hurry because there was some sort of pressure from the federal government that we should pass the Registered Disability Savings Plan. I understand from the debate at that time, that if this was not passed then the federal government could not move forward with the legislation that would then make the Registered Disability Savings Plans available.

I wonder if the minister or the Minister of Justice could advise us if that problem has been resolved now. Are we in good keeping with the federal government or are we still waiting for this new bill?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: The short answer, Mr. Chair, is yes, we are. I am not aware of any such pressure as the member has outlined.

CHAIR: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, when we passed the previous bill, we provided in the legislation which we are now amending all over again that a person being the donor could grant power of attorney whether that person had capacity or not. That seems to me to be inherently contradictory. The reason a person provides an enduring power of attorney is so that when the time comes they become mentally incapacitated, they become mentally disabled and unable to manage their own affairs, then somebody else can take over and manage their affairs for them.

It would seem, and it is the case, that if a person attempts to provide a power of attorney and that person do not have capacity, it is impossible for the person because they do not understand the nature and consequence of what they are doing. In fact, in my own practice over the years, I have had family members come to me with an explanation. They have an elderly relative, a mother or a grandmother, somebody who may be in a long-term care facility. One that comes immediately to mind is the John M. Gray facility in St. Anthony. There is a provision that the provincial government will permit somebody to have up to $5,000 in an account basically for their minor incidentals. A small amount of money they receive every year or every month goes into this account.

When it reaches $5,000, the amount over and above that then is kept by the government. If family members had somebody with an enduring power of attorney, that person would be able to access that money and use the money for purchases for the person who is in the home. The person who is in the home now is mentally incompetent, financially incompetent, and unable to access their own money. If they are unable to access their own money, they need to appoint somebody to have an enduring power of attorney so that person can access their money. That person would be unable to access their own money because they cannot grant an enduring power of attorney; however, if the person is mentally disabled at any age and for the purposes of a Registered Disability Savings Plan, that person does not need to be competent.

That person who is incompetent is permitted to grant a power of attorney by the legislation that we passed back in March and are seeking to amend now. Whereas the person, who, over the long term, does not have a Registered Disability Savings Plan, simply has some money in the account in the long-term care facility, they cannot appoint anybody to access their funds.

Mr. Chair, I would like to inquire of the Minister of Justice if he has given any consideration that people who do not have Registered Disability Savings Plans will be permitted to grant powers of attorney to be able to access their funds in the same manner that people who are mentally disabled can access funds by an enduring power of attorney, but for only the purpose of a Registered Disability Savings Plan. It seems like an inconsistency to me.

CHAIR: I recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to speak to an issue of process actually in terms of us debating this amendment to an amendment to a bill. It is kind of interesting because of the passage of time and because there were new eyes looking at the legislation in fact someone was able – and even in the briefing they said apply new eyes to it and to see some of the omissions and to see some of the changes that in fact could be made to make this a better bill, and to better able facilitate the specific financial needs to help people deal with their financial affairs.

One of the wonderful things about being in this House and having debate is to be able to listen to all the different perspectives that people bring to the bills, that people bring to legislation. The perspectives again that we bring from ourselves but also from the consultation that we have done with other people, and also from the consultation that we do with our own constituents about a particular bill.

I was struck again by the fact that we are debating a bill that we had already passed. Had we had more time –

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Member for St. John's Centre, we are debating the bill in Committee. We are now debating clause 1. Could you make your comments relative to clause 1, please?

MS ROGERS: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Had I been able, perhaps, when we look at the amendments there in clause 1, that in fact after the second reading if there had been time to go away and to look and not do the third reading right away, that there would have been more time for reflection to look at the specifics of clause 1 and to say what are some of the specific issues that arise as a result of the debate rather than rushing right away into a third reading.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I just wanted to stand and discuss very briefly subsection (2). I noticed this earlier and I forgot to mention it. It says: An Act To Amend An Act To Amend. This is the first time I have had an opportunity to see that in this. In subsection (2) this is where we are basically opening up the process so that the individual who is forming the designate agreement, what they are saying is that he is not entitled to appoint designates under the designation agreement because I guess under clause 2 that is where they are not able to indicate that they had the competency to do so.

What we are saying is that adult, though, as well as the parents or guardians, spouse or cohabitating partner, or a child of that adult who has reached the age of majority can apply to the court where they appoint the public trustee as the designate of that adult and the court will do so when it is deemed to be in the best interests of the adult.

One of the concerns I have and I doubt that this is something that is seen very often. I do not actually think there are a huge number of individuals in this Province who are going to take advantage of this right now. That is my understanding from the briefing. What I am suggesting might be an even smaller number, but there are individuals out there who would live by this agreement and hopefully going to take advantage of this. They might be in that situation where they do not have family. They do not have children. Their parents may be deceased. They may not have guardians. They may not be married or have a cohabitating partner. What I am wondering is: In that situation, are they still going to be able to take advantage of this piece of legislation? Because those things do arise; depending on the age and background of the individual, they might not have anybody who is designated under here that can do that for them.

It says there that they can still apply to the court, but in some cases I do not know if that situation would be there. They might have a close family member or close friend who is not in one of these categories specified. What I am wondering, is that something that is being considered? I understand the minister might not have the answer at his fingertips but could probably go to the department at some point and pass that information on. I am just wondering, is there any concern that this situation might arise down the road and a person is not given an opportunity to avail of the legislation? Is it not something we should possibly consider?

I put that out there because it is a concern I brought up last time. I appreciate the fact the department did look this over to make these changes, which was good. I just do not know if the concerns I have laid out are realistic or not. Maybe if I could get an answer as to that at some point, I would very much appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the point being made by the Member for Burgeo – La Poile. I do not think there is any concern that would happen, but I will endeavour to get that information before we go into third reading.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, looking at clause 2, clause 2 seems to be completely redundant and unnecessary. I made that note on Bill 3 when we passed it. Bill 3, 15(3) and (5) refer to making an application to the court. Now we are going to amend something that we did not need in the first place. We did not need it back in March because we already had it between a combination of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act that was already in existence and the mentally disabled persons act.

Somebody who is mentally incompetent is already defined by the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. If a person comes under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, the public guardian, trustee, or somebody on their behalf can already make an application to court.

When we looked at this legislation back in March, 15(3) and (5) said almost exactly the same as what we are saying in 3 right now, except we did not need it in the first place. We appear to be passing legislation here to provide protection for somebody, that somebody being a mentally disabled person, who is already protected under the mentally disabled persons act. We are trying to use a piece of legislation, which is the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, in order to create legislation to allow individuals to access the Registered Disability Savings Plans for mentally disabled persons.

Mr. Chair, why would we be looking at having basically now four acts to accomplish one end and we still appear not to have accomplished that end. We have the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, the original one. We have the one that was passed in March, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act. Now we have the one that is proposed today, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, and we also have the Mentally Disabled Persons Act, all of which provide for an opportunity to apply to the court.

Mr. Chair, I do not see how this legislation is doing very much to help. This little bill is a little bit better than the last one we did in March, which did not help at all, probably caused more problems than it solved. If the government saw fit simply to introduce a relatively small bill that dealt with Registered Disability Savings Plans, that would seem to be much more appropriate. That particular piece of legislation could have all of its own definitions, for example.

When you look at this act, An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act, and when you refer to the management of the estate of a donor, then you look in the interpretation and you look in the definition, donor is not defined or the estate of the donor is not defined. Then you look in Bill 3, and Bill 3 does not define the donor. If you look in the act that we already had, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, donor still is not defined.

People who are involved in the legal process know that a donor is the person who grants the Enduring Power of Attorney, the individual, but the legislation should come with its own set of definitions and terms so that people are not led astray and that it is easy to define. In this case, the estate of a donor could mean almost anything because it is not defined in the legislation.

I would ask the Minister of Justice if he would see fit to either put the definitions in the regulation – which would be possible, I suppose, to fix it up after the fact – or if he would simply consider introducing new legislation in the next session that would deal with Registered Disability Savings Plans.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: I have a question, Mr. Chair, just for clarification.

Under clause 2, where it lists a number of examples, the spouse or cohabitating partner of that adult. I do not see what the clear definition of a cohabitating partner is. Would the minister be able to provide that information? Because depending on if it is federal, or what type of regulation is put into play, a cohabitating partner may fall under a number of different timelines. I would just like clarification as to what would qualify a cohabiting partner in this situation.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I have some questions on section 3(5) for the minister. These are things I alluded to back when we originally debated the first bill, and I am just mentioning them in my response to this amending act.

At sub (5) where it says "A designation agreement is effective when it is filed with the public trustee, and that filing may be made by facsimile transmission or other electronic means and a copy shall be provided to the bank or financial institution which will hold the RDSP."

We all know that the change was sort of an oversight. It is an obvious thing that should have been there. I think it was noticed in the second run through by the – I guess the different view. That is that the copy is going to be provided to the bank or the institution, which is obviously not just good but necessary.

What I am wondering is that the designation agreement becomes effective when filed with the trustee. So we are either filing it by fax or other electronic means, which I would assume is a scan and e-mail. What I am wondering is, is there some consideration that could be given to some kind of confirmation receipt being forwarded back to the sender, which would be, in many cases, the financial institution because that is where a lot of this is going to take place, the documents are filled out?

We all know that the people who send it could erroneously send it to the wrong e-mail or put a typo in. They think it is gone, they think it has been filed, the public trustee does not know about it, and both sides are sort of left out there wondering – or maybe not even wondering, that is not one thing. They may not even be aware that there is an issue.

The problem is, Mr. Chair, that in many cases like this the error will not be realized until many years later and what we could have is a change in the circumstances of the people involved. Maybe the individuals who signed off on the designate agreement will not be around. We have seen that happen before, especially when you do things like wills and powers of attorney, the person you appoint may become pre-deceased before you. So it is necessary.

What I am wondering is that maybe it is something that has been considered, or if it has not, could it be considered? The second part is, if it has been considered, maybe there is a good reason not to have that as part of it. I think in a number of these that are going to be received and filed with the public trustee, I do not think it is a labour intensive move. I think it would give that extra piece of security knowing that it has been received, filed away, and we can relax that it has been done.

My concern is it might be that one in 100, or that one in 1,000 where it happens, but that one particular one, there could be very detrimental effects that arise from that. That is what I would put to the minister. I am wondering if it is something that could be considered. It would be a small change to those sub-clauses. I am saying that it may be made by facsimile transmission or other electronic means and confirmed upon with a confirmation receipt either by returned e-mail or a returned fax. I just put that to the minister.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will just be very brief because there has been a number of questions and comments raised.

With respect to the Member for The Straits – White Bay North, the definition of cohabitating partner as it relates to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I do not have it in front of me but it is defined in probably ten or a dozen bills in the Department of Justice. I can certainly provide it for you. The same definition would apply here.

My colleague from St. Barbe raised a couple of points with respect to the ability to apply to the court being covered in a number of acts. I can certainly check into that. I cannot verify that because I am not aware of the other acts he is referring. I would only say that in this particular case our interest would be in ensuring that the protection of the courts exists for those who are covered under this bill. It would be my own layman's view that it is better to repeat it than to leave it out and perhaps get it overlooked under another bill, but I will certainly follow up on that.

With respect to the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, the issue of a receipt is a very valid point. I understand fully what you are saying and I tend to support what you are asking for. I am told and advised that we will do that and a number of other things. That is part of the regulations that enact this legislation. I think your concern will be covered off when we do the regulations.

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

MS ROGERS: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I also have a question about the issue of cohabiting partner, not only what that definition might be but particularly people who become, perhaps, mentally incapable of being able to take care of their own affairs. If they are not married to their spouse but they do have a cohabiting partner, but then that person may go to an institution, for instance. What would be the status then? Is that still a cohabiting partner even though they may not be, in fact, living together?

Again, people can become incapacitated in a number of ways, often by strokes or by accidents. What will that mean if somebody is in institutional care? Has that been considered? The other question that I have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: The other question that I have is a concern about a transmission or other electronic means of filing the designation agreement. How secure is that? Where would that designation agreement come from? What would it look like when it goes to a bank? Is there any way of fraudulently presenting one to a bank? If there is not an exchange of some sort, how does that work? I would be curious as to how that works.

Does it go from the public trustee to the bank? Does it go from the designated person to the bank? If that is the case, it would be very easy for anyone to do that on behalf of somebody who is incapacitated. I am just wondering how secure that process is, how that process works, how the designated agreement – does it go from the public trustee to the bank? I would like to know how that works and how secure that is on behalf of a person who is supposed to be protected in this situation.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Mr. Chair, the hon. member raised a number of points there. I am not sure, though, that most of those points are relevant to this particular legislation. I think those points would apply to any piece of legislation when you are talking about individuals living together or cohabitating together, whether they are disabled or they are not. I do not see this as particularly relevant specific to this bill or specific to the clauses that we are debating here.

With respect to the question around security and the transmission of forms and those kinds of things, Mr. Chair, I think we are gone from the legislative agenda today to actually ‘operationalizing' this legislation. Those kinds of items would be part of regulations that outline how this legislation is implemented. It would not be part of the legislation, the law that would come before the House.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill 56)

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.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 56.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 56.

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 (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 56 carried 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 56 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

When shall the said bill be read the third time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, for procedural purposes, I think the report should be received now and the bill read tomorrow. I might have made an error in my response, I apologize.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: From the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I call Order 10, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 57.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 57 entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act". (Bill 57)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are actually now going to take a few moments to debate amendments to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, Bill 57.

To clarify a couple of things, Mr. Speaker, first of all the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission actually falls under the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. The bill in particular we are talking about today is very specific and falls under the Department of Justice, under my department, because it deals specifically with a particular group of volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is a very small change in this particular piece of legislation. It will allow for the creation of regulations to provide Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation coverage for volunteers who are engaged in search and rescue activities and auxiliary policing services.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, throughout the Province we have a great many volunteers who are involved in a lot of essential services in the Province, particularly as it pertains to search and rescue and auxiliary policing. Unfortunately at this point in time, the kind of protection we are seeking under these legislative amendments here today does not exist directly under the provincial legislation.

What this bill essentially will do is, under the amendments, it will provide certain, specific coverage for those who are members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association as well as the auxiliary police officers, for example those who are with the RNC or RCMP, if they are involved in search and rescue activities, evidence searches, or training.

Mr. Speaker, for those who may be listening at home or those who are not completely familiar, it is the same kind of coverage that is provided to volunteer firefighters in the Province. It is not a coverage you receive simply by being a part of the organization. If you are part of these organizations and you are engaged in activities they have directed you to do on their behalf – and as I said they include things like search and rescue activities, evidence searches, and training activities – if you happen to be injured when you are engaged in one of those kinds of activities, the legislative amendments we are talking about here today actually will provide for the Province to be able to offer these individuals coverage for Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation purposes.

It is a very small change, Mr. Speaker, one particular subsection. It is under section 40(1) "(h) volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities as tasked by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and (i) volunteers engaged in auxiliary policing services".

Mr. Speaker, it is a very short amendment. I am not going to use a lot of time at all today, except to introduce this. I certainly look forward to comments and observations from those who wish to speak to this in the House. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a bill that is an important one and one that would be well received by those who are part of these organizations and those who perform these invaluable services in the Province.

Thank you very much.

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

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

It is a pleasure to speak to this amended bill, which is amending the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. When we first received it, I did not believe it was under my role as critic of the Department of Justice but after reviewing the legislation, you can see why as it relates to volunteer activities engaged in while under the RNC or RCMP which would fall under the Department of Justice portfolio.

The Explanatory Note, Mr. Speaker, says it all. It is to "enable the creation of regulations to provide workplace health, safety and compensation coverage to volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities and auxiliary policing services." It is very easy for me to stand up and say that I wholeheartedly support this amendment or this suggestion. We think this is a great thing. It is not only good, but it is necessary.

Again, when you debate legislation a lot of times you are able to go back to the legislation itself, but you can also look at other sources of information to get a better understanding of what it is you are looking at. One of the things I looked at was the 2012 Statutory Review Committee and I guess did a bit of history lesson for myself talking about workers' comp here in Canada and the principles.

There is information that I was not aware of. I was not aware that these were basically developed by a Judge Sir William Meredith back in 1910. He submitted his report in 1913. So, just about 100 years ago, this system came into place. Again, it is information that I was not aware of. Mr. Speaker, he did it on principles, such as: no-fault compensation, collective liability, security of payment, exclusive jurisdiction, and independent board.

I enjoyed the history lesson that I sort of undertook when I reviewed this. I think that is necessary to see where we started this as we move forward in the future. I guess what we are doing flies in the face of the name of the legislation, which is workplace health and safety. We are not talking about workers, per se; we are dealing with volunteers. We have come to realize that in this society we rely heavily on volunteers. It is not just to deal with things like chambers of commerce or minor hockey or recreation; we have volunteers engaged in life-saving activities, activities that may place them in harm's way.

We have to ensure that they have the same amount of protection in case something is happen to them while they are fulfilling this oh so important task on behalf of our policing forces, the RNC here in the metro region as well as in Labrador and Corner Brook or the RCMP as I grew up with out in the rural areas of the Province.

We have seen a lot of people, whether it be your – I do not think they are associated but you have your Canadian Rangers and you have your groups like that. I know there are a lot of groups in Labrador engaged in the volunteer search and rescue. I do know a number of individuals who over the years have engaged in auxiliary policing services. They get out in the police cruisers going around and helping out. These people are not doing it for a paycheque. They are not getting a dollar out of this that I am aware of. They are just giving something back to their community.

By amending subsection 40(1) of this act and adding these two clauses, then what we are doing is giving them the protection that they should be afforded and the compensation that they should be entitled to because they are doing the jobs of paid employees. I do not say that as a slight in any way. I mean, that is obviously not the intention. They are helping out. The more hands that are helping out the better the results are going to be from the tasks that they carry out.

I think this is a great thing. I do not want to belabour it because I could get into a spiel tonight on workplace health and safety and questions I have asked of the minister here in the House during Question Period, not the Minister of Justice but the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. I do have some issues with workplace health and safety. It is not the existence of it but how it is carrying out certain things right now. This is not the time and place. I think the minister knows my concerns.

What we are doing here – and I would be remiss if I did not point out as we are here very close to Christmas and we are going to be talking about some legislation very soon that we may not be seeing eye to eye on or agreeable with each other right now. Many say you oppose for the sake of opposing. I cannot say strong enough that if there is a good piece of legislation or something I feel is good, I have no problem standing up and endorsing it, supporting it, voting for it, and agreeing with it.

Many of the changes we have suggested – and in this case there are no changes. It is a very small thing. I agree with this, I have nothing else to add. I wish we could afford more volunteers, but things happen very slowly over a period of time; they evolve. We already have volunteer firefighters to add to this. That is a great thing and now we are just adding two more groups to this.

What I say to the members opposite, when we get into those heated debates that are coming very soon, is recognize that we do not always argue just for the sake of arguing. We argue because we do have a point of view that we hope is listened to, not necessarily agreed with, but we are putting it out there because we think it needs to be considered and we think we put up valid points.

I put that forward. Again, I am glad this is being done. I hope that once the debate is over on this that it will be implemented and proclaimed very quickly. I hope that people can take advantage of this in 2013. I hope it is not dragged on too long.

In that sense, I will sit down. I may have questions of the minister when we get to the committee stage, but I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be able to rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

As the Minister of Justice stated earlier, this is a bill that is shared with two departments; my department of course being responsible for Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation, and his Department of Justice.

This particular bill relates to three volunteer groups that deal through the Justice department, working with the RNC, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The three groups we are talking about in this amendment are: Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association, the Canadian search and rescue association, and the auxiliary police.

As you have already heard some speakers say, the whole purpose of this amendment in Bill 57 is to actually entice and enhance the coverage, through Workers' Compensation, that is available now to these volunteers. What we find in today's world, I guess, is that our volunteer base is getting smaller and smaller because people are nervous of what can happen through their volunteer efforts; therefore, they are looking for that coverage.

This amendment is a very simple amendment by adding the two paragraphs that we have talked about. Number one, "(h) volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities as tasked by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and (i) volunteers engaged in auxiliary policing services". All this is doing is strengthening the coverage they would have under Workplace Compensation to provide them with that safety and coverage when they are actually doing the volunteer duties.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile mentioned earlier that what a lot of these volunteers are doing is actually helping with the jobs that a lot of people are getting paid to do. To me, it is an invaluable service they are doing. I think they have a very important place in our Province. I certainly support this to the fullest.

I just want to talk a little bit about the amount of volunteers we have here in the Province right now. For example, there are about twenty-five teams under NLSARA right now throughout the Province. They have approximately, between 900 and 950 volunteers. That speaks high volumes of the amount of volunteers we have under that particular organization.

Last year, these teams were involved in over 100 different operations, with over 25,000 volunteer hours. I think it is a very important thing they are doing throughout the Province. The amount of training they do, not just in actual operations when something goes wrong but in the training and the planning for search and rescue, I think that is very important.

What we are suggesting here, I am not going to belabour it either. I think it is an important piece that we are putting forward here. Again, we are strengthening the act for the coverage that we provide to them now. We will be extending that coverage and hopefully, we will get the full support of the House of Assembly on this.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

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

It gives me pleasure to rise and talk to this amendment to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.

There is no doubt, recognizing the importance of volunteers, particularly when it comes to police work, that these volunteers would be included. I have to note "volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities as tasked…" I thought that is probably two of the most important words there considering you never know what they are going to be tasked to, by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or volunteers engaged in auxiliary policing services.

I have no problem with this piece of legislation. This change to the legislation is coming through. Indeed, I am quite pleased to see that, particularly the most important pieces of police work. All pieces are important and, of course, noting that our volunteers are going to get some coverage.

What it does do is provide the coverage of volunteers who are doing anything under the guides, particularly as well under the Emergency Services Act which is included in this section 40. It also recognizes the importance of volunteers in police work and, like you said, the SAR services. All of which are good things.

The other thing I wanted to just mention briefly that I do not see as regards to this, we know there are some health concerns that could be caused by accidents while they are in the performance of their duties and everything like that. I just wanted to make mention of recognizing other things that are happening too with some workers out there.

I noticed we are going through a second review now when it comes to workmen's compensation. I wanted to bring up the simple fact about presumptive cancers of volunteer firefighters. Again, we struggle sometimes in seeing some things brought forward when it comes to our volunteers out there.

Volunteer firefighters are no different, particularly when it comes to tasks that they could be doing under the guides of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police too, at the same time. I do not see any problems with this act, particularly with the attention that it does bring to volunteers and knowing that we have a declining number of people who participate in some ventures that involve police work, that sort of thing, and volunteerism when it comes to search and rescue.

I am very pleased to give our support behind this particular piece of legislation. That is about all I can see right now in this particular piece. Thanks to your staff, by the way, for the briefing they gave to me on this the other day. It was through their guides we found that there is not going to be too many critical changes here, but again, a very important piece of legislation to be changed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act is a good piece of legislation. The individuals who are volunteering their time here for search and rescue or for auxiliary policing oftentimes put themselves in harm's way. They are performing a service for the general public. They are performing a service that, as pointed out by other members speaking to the bill tonight, oftentimes the people right alongside of them are being paid for the same work.

These individuals are oftentimes professionals in other occupations. If they were to get hurt during search and rescue operations or auxiliary policing operations, would find themselves – prior to this amendment to this piece of legislation – perhaps unable to work without compensation.

I think this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is a piece of legislation that I will be happy to support.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise to speak to this bill, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. This is a very small adjustment to this bill, but it does have high impact and I put full support behind this bill.

With all the resources in the world, when it comes to search and rescue, we do not always be successful. We have seen that over the years in our Province and certainly have paid the price, but it is our culture and as long and we are living on the land and out on the ocean, tragedies will continue to occur.

To see an amendment to this legislation that increases any effort to broaden search and rescue capabilities by covering those who do risk their lives and quite often lives are lost in rescue, Mr. Speaker – it is very unfortunate, but a sad fact and certainly loved ones are also hurt in this.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador talk about some of the teams and some of the 950 volunteers and the 100 operations that search and rescue personnel were involved in last year. It is good to see this legislation give extra volunteers that are tasked by the RCMP or police entities leeway in carrying out their missions.

I do have a couple of questions as to specifically who this legislation applies to. Organizations like CASARA that are certainly having a lot of trouble getting insurance and they have the potential to provide vital services.

Another group, Mr. Speaker – I guess not a group but personnel that sometimes receive a call and before the RCMP or the lead agency has time to mobilize, these people have gone. In some cases, a life means minutes of notice. There are small, remote communities that do not have police entities in their communities and sometimes authorization has to come from a different community that has an RCMP or an RNC presence.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this leads me to question about the individuals in that community who know the area who do not hesitate in terms of clearance, but are gone as soon they can. In many, many cases – and I have been party to some of them – lives have been saved because of individuals who did not wait around for clearance, just decided to go.

Going back to the bill, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support it. It is a wonderful addition to those entities we do have in place that are under the police, the Canadian Rangers that have plans in place, and our federal search and rescue technicians, all of these people who go out and risk their lives in performing their search and rescue duties. I certainly commend the government for increasing our search and rescue capacity and look forward to more involvement from other groups in our Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. Member for Baie Verte – Springdale.

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always a pleasure and privilege to get up and stand in the House of Assembly. I would just like to thank the good people of the District of Baie Verte – Springdale for their confidence in re-electing me so that I can have this tremendous privilege.

Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, I just want to read the Explanatory Note first of all. It reads as follows, "This Bill would amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to enable the creation of regulations to provide workplace health, safety and compensation coverage to volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities and auxiliary policing services."

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill 57 relates to three groups of volunteers: one, NLSARA; two, the Canadian Amateur Search and Rescue Association, CASARA; and three, the auxiliary police.

The provincial government is amending the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act to provide coverage for those volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities and auxiliary policing services. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, this government and the people all across this great Province really appreciate the role of volunteers because volunteers play an integral role, a pivotal role, in providing ground search and rescue services and auxiliary police services in this great Province of ours. We can go all across the Province and every MHA here and every person here can attest to that, Mr. Speaker.

It is important that we amend the regulations to ensure that those tremendous volunteers are eligible for Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation benefits if injured while performing these volunteer duties. Mr. Speaker, we want to entice the volunteers to keep volunteering and we want to enhance whatever we can for their compensation package.

The volunteer search and rescue services are currently provided by Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association like I said, NLSARA. They are comprised of twenty-five teams all across this great Province of ours with approximately 900 volunteers, Mr. Speaker. That is awesome.

Mr. Speaker, NLSARA is responsible for ground search and rescue with the services tasked under the jurisdiction of the RCMP or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Mr. Speaker, for your benefit and for the benefit of the people watching by way of TV, last year these teams were involved in over 100 operations right across this great Province, and provided some 25,000 volunteer hours to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and a pleasure for me as the MHA for Baie Verte – Springdale and being a member of this team to endorse this Bill 57, this amendment. I encourage everybody to endorse it because like everybody else said already, it is certainly a great piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to speak to a bill, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. Although there is not a lot of text in this bill that is put before us, it does serve a very important purpose.

I will echo what a number of the colleagues who have spoken already on this: It is highly important. What this bill is looking at doing, in the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, is to amend so that volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities as tasked by the RNC, RCMP, and volunteers engaged in auxiliary policing services would receive compensation should they be injured while performing these duties.

A critical word in the document is as tasked by the first responders. The first responders in any type of search and rescue or a service like that would either be the RNC or the RCMP. We have to clarify that. If you are being a volunteer in a record, it is highly important to know that it is not just anyone involved. They have to be specifically tasked by these individuals.

There are so many volunteers in Newfoundland and Labrador who embark on and participate in search and rescue activities and give so freely. They also participate in a number of training opportunities to be there and be prepared. We must ensure, as a government, there is adequate training and there are necessary equipment and supports out there.

There are twenty-four search and rescue teams in the Province. This is really good legislation because an injury can happen anywhere. It can happen on land or it can happen on sea, even while volunteering. When people give so freely of themselves to volunteer and to provide in these situations safety and a return of a life or lives, it is very important that if they do get injured we compensate them accordingly as needed, so that they are not placed in any undue financial hardship and they are compensated accordingly.

Based on what the bill has put forward, I certainly will support this legislation. I think it is a very good piece brought forward by the minister of labour.

Thank you.

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is always an honour to stand in the House to speak on some issues, and this bill also. As most speakers in front of me mentioned, it is a good piece of legislation. It is always positive when you bring things forth that are going to help people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we all mentioned about the need for this piece of legislation and why it was brought forth. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give a few examples about some of the people I know personally who are involved with search and rescue out in the Bay of Islands area and the work they do.

I remember one situation, Mr. Speaker, a few years back where a young boy got lost in the woods. Those search and rescue people brought down their command centre with the RNC and they started combing the woods and searching the woods. It went on overnight. The boy was not found. It got dark. The next day, by helicopter, one of the spotters on the helicopter from search and rescue spotted the little boy the next morning.

These volunteers, Mr. Speaker, not only do they give up the possibility of injury to themselves but they give up a lot of time. I know a few of the other search and rescues, Mr. Speaker, where sometimes they have to go and help recover a body. That is always gruelling. We know some of the terrain that these people sometimes have to lift, lug, and bring their equipment in. As we all know, this can cause a lot of injuries in many different ways to a lot of these people.

One of the people who are heavily involved in search and rescue in Corner Brook is a next door neighbour of mine, a person by the name of Pat Moore. Pat has been involved with the Bay of Islands search and rescue now for many, many years. It is always on his mind about improving the services for people, to entice volunteers and to entice people to get trained.

This piece of legislation will help with the enticement of people to get involved with search and rescue, Mr. Speaker. It will definitely help knowing that if you are called to a certain catastrophe or a certain rescue, that if you get injured your family will have some kind of compensation to ensure they are well taken care of.

I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of this, that the firefighters are already covered under the Workers' Compensation. That is a great move also because, once again, as we always say about the firefighters, Mr. Speaker, when everybody else runs, they run to. This is just a continuation for them.

Mr. Speaker, the second one that is included is the auxiliary. Our Royal Canadian Mounted Police volunteer and engage in auxiliary policing services. Two people that I know, Everett Hann and George Sheppard out in the Bay of Islands have been doing this for a number of years, have been doing this for a lot of years, helping out.

There are times, Mr. Speaker, when they do get themselves in a situation where at times it can cause bodily harm or injury. Once again, these people put themselves at risk. They try to help their community, help their town, and help their local communities. I think it is only fitting that because they put themselves at risk, there be something there to ensure that if anything happens they will be taken care of and their families will be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of times these volunteers go unnoticed. They go many times and we do not even know a lot of them. I know Pat always says we are the bunch that train – like the volunteer firefighters we are the ones who train on a regular basis. People hope they never see us, never get to meet with us, never get to see what we do, but when they do they know we are a bunch of trained volunteers who are willing to spring into action, who are willing to help out, all throughout, and are willing to put ourselves in line to help our fellow person.

I am just using one example of the Bay of Islands search and rescue. I know there are a lot more across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they all must be commended. They all must be recognized for their great volunteer work. They all must be recognized because they do put a lot of time into training. You cannot just walk into a search and rescue and say: I am here now, send me out to help out. You need the training.

You need to ensure you have the skills that when you go into the woods you know the proper procedures; you know how to ensure that you keep in contact with the other volunteers and the other searchers in the party. That you know what to do if you find something that is relevant to the case you are working on. This all comes with training. You have to do First Aid. You have to ensure that if you happen to find someone who is in need, that you know how to respond immediately with First Aid. This is something that we all must be proud of, all of these volunteers.

Mr. Speaker, I do support this bill. I commend all the volunteers for their search and rescue all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but mainly the ones I know personally out in Corner Brook. I commend them. I know the auxiliary of the RCMP, Mr. Speaker. If you knew some of the situations they have been in at times, and there has been the potential of danger to themselves, yet they agree to ensure that they would not hesitate.

This piece of legislation will ensure that people will get more engaged and know not only do the people support them, but this is a positive step forward. We know now that the government, and from what people are saying here, all people in this Legislature supports this piece of legislation to recognize all of these volunteers, to ensure that this is not just lip service. If we go on to volunteer work – and we all know it in this Legislature, and I know it myself – we can never, ever pay the volunteers in this Province. We can never do it.

I am sure most people here, long before they became involved with politics, did a lot of volunteering in their communities. I am sure of that. I am sure there is a lot who still do a lot of volunteering. When you get in a situation, Mr. Speaker, when you are volunteering and you do not know what you are going to face – I am pretty confident that if you are involved with search and rescue and you are looking for a young boy, like they did, and you are not sure what is going to happen, it is a tough situation, but that is where their training and that is where their professionalism comes into play. That is why we are so thankful for all of these groups that have put themselves in harm's way to keep our society safe, to keep our people safe, and above all to ensure we have the confidence that – please God, none of us here ever get into this situation – we know there are people there who are willing to help out and who are trained.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of times we call them volunteers. They are volunteers. When we give the connotation of volunteers, we give it as they are not up to the level as some paid people. The volunteers I know have just as much training as a lot of people who are paid. I know a lot of these volunteers have other jobs, yet they spend a lot of nights and a lot of weekends in training.

I just want to thank them all personally. I just want to say: Thank you very much for making our towns safer. Thank you very much for making all of our communities and towns throughout the Province safer. Thank you very much for putting your life and limb in danger for us. This is just a little recognition by this government, and I am glad this government brought this forward. It is a recognition saying thank you very much and we appreciate what you are doing, not only in words, but in actions in bringing this forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words in regard to this act, Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. Even though the Minister of Justice is bringing forward this in his capacity, it is very important to me as the Minister Responsible for Fire and Emergency Services. We avail of all those assets in this Province in regard to ground search and rescue, our volunteer fire departments right across this Province, close to 300 of them.

I just listened to the comments in regard to the hon. members. I know each and every one of them is in favour of this act. They all certainly recognized the services and what they do for our Province in regard to volunteers.

A couple of things I also want to mention in regard to this particular act is that it particularly points out the Newfoundland and Labrador Search and Rescue Association. We have twenty-five teams across the Province and into Labrador that provide backup service to the RNC, RCMP, and the Canadian Rangers, which I was a part of for fifteen or sixteen years as commanding officer. I did a lot of work in regard to ground search and rescue back in those days. I taught map and compass and all those kinds of good things to our volunteers.

When I get up to speak in regard to the ground search and rescue teams we have in the Province, I actually get up with pride. Because I have witnessed those twenty-five or more searches that they have to conduct throughout the year. I get all the reports back in regard to what they do. As well, I have to point out that our government has supported these groups in regard to resources last year in the tune of something like $500,000 for infrared cameras that they can use in their ground search.

Training as well is really important. We do provide resources there as well to help them train up and make sure that they can carry out their duties to the best of their ability. To make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected and they have a light at the end of the tunnel when they are actually out there for whatever reason, they might be lost or whatever it may be, that they know that there are people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are out there looking for them and trying their best to make sure that they come home safe.

As well, we mentioned the auxiliary RCMP and RNC, it is certainly important that we cover them under this act when they are out, called by the RNC. I have to point out as well that this kicks in when they are actually called in by the RCMP and RNC, because they are the lead agency in regard to any search and rescue or whatever it may be that an auxiliary RNC or RCMP officer would have. So once they are called in to duty, well then the workers' compensation piece kicks in.

I believe the Member for Burgeo – La Poile mentioned a very important group that has not been referenced – he was not sure if they were covered or not – and that is CASARA. CASARA actually provides aviation services and ground search and rescue in regard to search patterns and spotters and that kind of stuff in planes, and they are covered as well under the regulations of this actual act. So I want to reference them as well, because sometimes they go without notice.

I have had a great relationship with CASARA over the last lot of years, and they provide a great service now to DND. They provide spotter services – sometimes even on the Cormorants and whatnot, depending on the issue that they are dealing with at the time and why they are called in. They also use their own resources. I cannot remember exactly how many aircraft is available to CASARA in Province, but there is a fair number of aircraft. There is a number of aircraft hidden here in St. John's. I know a number of the pilots personally, a number of the people personally, that provide that service. They are going to be covered under this as well.

The other thing that I want to point out is that in order to be covered they have to be a group; they cannot be covered as an individual. They have to be a part of a ground search and rescue group or a CASARA group or whatever it may be to get that coverage.

In regard to the vastness of Newfoundland and Labrador, you do not have to have all of the volunteer members in one community. If there is a community out there or people within that community who want to get involved in ground search and rescue, I would advise them or I would encourage them to have a look at the twenty-five that are strategically located right throughout the Province, contact the one nearest and become a part of that group as well. I would welcome that to be honest with you because they are an asset – I think the Member for Bay of Islands referenced that. He said we would not be able to pay them – absolutely not.

We have a number of assets in this Province. The greatest asset we have is our children and the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. I always think that one of the second assets that we have are our volunteers in this Province who do such great work on various levels. Outside of even the volunteers that we are talking about here tonight, there are many more groups as well. They might not particularly need this kind of coverage but certainly they do not go unnoticed too.

Also under the act in regard to the regulations, other groups can be added. If something happens in the future that some type of organization is organized, I suppose, and it has value to the Province and value to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador from a search and rescue point of view, well then we could add them as well.

This is a really good piece of work here. I was very happy to speak to the minister when he was given the assignment of Justice, and then found out that he had the intention of bringing this particular amendment to the House in the fall session. I firmly believe that it is a really important piece of work that we do. I am very happy again, before I take my seat in the House, to reference that each and every member who stood up here tonight talked in favour of the act and the respect and appreciation to our volunteers in the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat in the House. I know to thank the Minister of Justice again for bringing this important amendment forward to the House. Hopefully we will speed this through, get it enacted, and then we will have these people covered the way they should be covered, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to this bill. I am happy to speak in favour of this bill.

When we pass legislation in this House, and I guess in any Legislature you have to wonder, why do we have legislation? Well, we have legislation for one of two reasons, either to achieve something good or to avoid something bad. In this case, this bill is focused on achieving something good, providing recognition and workers' compensation coverage for people who assist. Who are "volunteers engaged in search and rescue activities as tasked by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and, volunteers engaged in auxiliary policing services".

Mr. Speaker, I say: Why would we stop there? Why would we extend workers' compensation coverage to only this category of volunteers? There are many other volunteers who volunteer for various types of hazardous activities. Why should it be only the people who are tasked through the police?

Why wouldn't it be if the Rangers needed volunteers to help them in a ground search, some sort of search? Why wouldn't it be if somebody involved in the military was conducting a search and needed a civilian volunteer? Why wouldn't it be if somebody was involved in some form of enforcement, whether it be wildlife or highway traffic or – we have already agreed in this legislation, presumably it will be passed for volunteers engaged in auxiliary policing services.

If it is individuals who are engaged in any sort of enforcement, assisting a recognized member of the police or a peace officer, then why would we not extend it to individuals who assist paramedics or ambulance operators? These would be the same value, the same type of a volunteer. If a volunteer is providing a public service at no charge to help a recognized person in authority or recognized professional providing professional assistance to somebody, why shouldn't any of these people be eligible for workers' compensation benefits if they become injured as a result of that volunteerism?

Mr. Speaker, while I have no difficulty to support this bill, I would like to see it go further and extend to more volunteers. Now some people would say, well, what about claims abuse? What about the people claiming for this and claiming for that? The Workplace Health, Safety Insurance Board is fully capable of investigating claims and clearly would need to investigate a claim even if it was filed by somebody in the intended group to be covered. These volunteers, if they put forth a claim, obviously their claim will be investigated the same as any other sort of workplace claim.

How would you police if someone was actually engaged in a legitimate volunteer activity? Presumably, this could be done by the person they were assisting. If they were assisting a police officer, a river guardian, or an ambulance operator in some form of public good, then the person they were assisting could provide them with evidence by way of an affidavit, and say: Yes, this person was helping me do such and such and became injured, had this difficulty. That person could then attest to the nature of the volunteerism, the legitimacy of both volunteerism and the legitimacy of the claim.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is good legislation. I have no difficulty to support it. I would like to see it go further and cover more volunteers. Maybe not today, but at a future date we will look to cover many more volunteers who provide valuable service to persons in authority who are providing for public good.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Justice speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to close debate. I want to, first of all, thank all of the members who have had an opportunity to contribute to this debate this evening.

To the Member for St. Barbe, who happened to have spoken right before me, I will acknowledge his comments. I fully understand your concern around other volunteers. While it may not in this particular piece of legislation go as far, Mr. Speaker, as the member would like, I appreciate where he is coming from and certainly will take that under advisement as we move beyond this into other reviews. Thank you very much for your suggestions there and your contribution.

Also, Mr. Speaker, to all of those who contributed, both on the government side and on the Opposition side – I see the Member for The Straits – White Bay North there as well who contributed – I appreciate your kind words around, not only the legislation but more importantly around the role that volunteers play in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in all aspects of our life, but in particular when it comes to emergency services and those kinds of things.

I believe one of the members opposite said – I cannot remember exactly who – hopefully, we will never have to use these volunteers, but there comes a time, unfortunately, when sometimes tragedy or near tragedy strikes and we do have to call upon them. As I said, it is like an insurance policy. You hope you never have to use it, but when you do, Mr. Speaker, you want to make sure that you provide the best protection you possibly can. That is really what this is about today.

These changes are intended to indicate government support. I see by way of those who have spoken today, that I think – it appears at least, that we are going to have wide support in the House for these changes to recognize the valuable role that these volunteers play. Volunteers who go out, and they do – as I believe the Member for Bay of Islands said – give countless hours of their time beyond their normal work day to be ready and available and prepared to train and to participate in events that can sometimes put them in danger's way and harm's way, Mr. Speaker.

There are many groups – I am not going to repeat the message. There are many individuals throughout the Province who will avail and be eligible for this coverage. Specifically, I think, one of the members mentioned CASARA and some other groups. There is flexibility in who can be included in these groups. That will be ironed out and nailed down in the regulations, Mr. Speaker.

For the benefit of the member who asked a question, there will be some fine tuning and some clearly identifying of what other groups may be eligible to be covered under this. That will be done through the drafting of the regulations and the regulatory process.

In conclusion, I thank all members who participated in this debate. I hope and encourage all members here to give us a vote of support for this bill so that we can collectively show unanimous endorsement and support for those volunteers that this piece of legislation is intended to cover.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 57 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 The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 57)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 57.

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 57.

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 it a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 57, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 57)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know we are in Committee stage and I am just going to bring up a few points that I just wanted the government to consider. They may be already considered, I am not sure, and they may be in their regulations, I am not sure. I just wanted to make sure that they are brought forth and I am on record as ensuring that the government is aware of them.

Mr. Chair, the first thing that I am going to be asked by people who are involved with search and rescue or auxiliary RCMP: When will this be gazetted? As we know sometimes things are done pretty quick and some other times, like with the animal protection, it has been going on for a long while.

A question that I am going to be asked: When will this become proclaimed law? That is something that I can ask the minister, if he wants to make a few comments later on it because it is very important. It is no good for all of us – which I agree that all of us agree with this legislation and the question is, when. So, that is something I will be looking forward to, Mr. Chair.

The second question: Will we see a copy of the regulations or do the regulations just come in and then some things in the regulations – I definitely do not think that there is any manipulation here whatsoever by the government or anybody on the regulations. I am not inferring that whatsoever, Mr. Chair, but it is always nice to see the regulations so that when they do come into effect, when you are asked questions about it, when you want to promote the search and rescue and promote RCMP auxiliary, you would have what the regulations are so as a member of the Legislature, you can actually have some knowledge on it. That is very important also, if there is any chance that we can get a copy of the regulations.

The third question that I have – and this is something that was brought up to me and I think it was brought to the Minister of Municipal Affairs before by the firefighters – when does the workers' compensation start?

I will use the example that I used earlier, Mr. Chair. If the search and rescue are called to Georgetown Road, immediate assistance on the top of Georgetown Road, there is somebody who is in Deer Lake, a part of the group, and they leave Deer Lake to come down and they are rushing – and some of the fire chiefs I know, for example, are allowed to use a red light – and they get into an accident in some way, does the compensation start the minute they get the call when they are leaving to go, or does it when you arrive on the scene?

That is something that I think the government should outline in the regulations or in law. On several occasions, Mr. Chair, we have seen a lot of confusion when it comes to workers' compensation for people who are travelling to work. Is it when you leave your house or is it actually on the work site?

The question here for the government – and I know I am going to be asked – does it start when you get the initial call to the site? What happens sometimes, Mr. Chair, on several occasions – and I am not saying that it will happen; it is very potential and it almost did on several occasions – is that when people are out with search and rescue and they are going for a day or two days, sometimes with very little sleep, when you do your mission, bring the person home to safety or the body in some unfortunate cases, when you leave to go back home you might be a bit tired, are you still covered under workers' compensation?

I ask the minister if there is some way that we could have that in the regulations outlined so that when people are actually looking at the law and what is proper, what is in place for them, they would know. Later, you cannot come back and say well I thought this. If we have it spelled out – and we as parliamentarians we all know this. Sometimes we find it a bit hard reading some of these regulations ourselves. We get a bit confused and we have to come back.

We saw here one case today where we just put an act together back in April or May and we had to come back and make amendments to it already because of confusion, some things that were not seen. I know the Member for Burgeo – La Poile said that fresh eyes looked at it and saw something that should have changed.

This is something that I encourage the government to do. Have it spelled out that there is no confusion of what is covered and what is not covered. As we know, Mr. Chair, we are dealing with volunteers but we also have the extended part of it; we are dealing with their families. As we know, Mr. Chair, and most people here know, if for some reason you cannot provide for your family, you want to know what is available to provide to your family. That is just common and I know everybody in this House agrees with that. I just ask the minister if there is some way that can be clarified of actually when it starts, to and from.

Mr. Chair, I may have other questions later, but that is the three things – and I tell you how I came up with some of them. When the legislation came in for the volunteer firefighters, those were some of the big questions that were asked then: When does it actually start? Also, the bigger question is: If all groups know what they are dealing with and a situation arises, we can all stand up as parliamentarians and say we approved this with the best knowledge we had, with all the information in front of us, so that we can say that we are trying to do the best for all the volunteers, especially the ones who put their lives forward to us.

I give the minister an opportunity later to answer some of those questions. I am not sure when we will see the legislation and I am not sure when this will be brought into law, but the quicker the better for all of us. The more explicit we can be to ensure that people know exactly what they are dealing with when they put their lives on the line for us, for our kids, and for our families I think we will all be better off.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the member opposite for his questions. I will touch on all three very quickly. The first question – the piece of legislation will be proclaimed immediately for Royal Assent. When we do all of the other bills, Mr. Chair, through you to the member opposite, Royal Assent, this will be done at the same time.

The regulations will be gazetted at that point in time and made public as well. There is a public process where anybody who wants a copy of the regulations can have them and the public are notified when that happens.

The third question on the start of coverage, Mr. Chair. The coverage starts from the time the individual leaves their home. When they get a call to go a scene or an event, when they leave their home coverage starts immediately. It is my assumption that the supervisor will make a note when that person is called and coverage starts immediately.

With respect to any other particulars around the coverage and those kinds of things, I just would refer the member to the act itself – and we could probably get a copy, because what this bill is doing is simply adding these groups to the current act. We are not writing a new policy for these groups. We are just adding them to what currently exits. It would be under the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. I could certainly chat with the member at another time if he would like a copy of that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just one quick question about the ongoing workers' compensation review, if I can ask that. I do not know if the Justice Department would be eligible to answer that one. I am wondering about the ongoing review process. Of course, I do not know how the coverage for this was picked up, so it is not relevant to that.

What I am wondering about that is: If somebody in the search and rescue field, for example, wanted to go and get a review done and they wanted to approach workers' compensation to get more coverage for them on this matter, would they be going to the right process for that? I am wondering if you could just touch on that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we may have strayed a little bit, but I will try to give you some perspective as far as I understand it. It might be a conversation we can have after, perhaps, to be very clear.

I think, for the benefit of members, the review you are referring to is the statutory review. First of all, let me admit, it is not my department. It is the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador. That particular review has nothing to do with this piece of legislation at all. However, having said that, your question brings the two together, I believe – through you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. If I am hearing you correctly, you are asking: If this group of individuals had some issue or wanted to participate in that process, how or could they do that?

The best answer I can give you, with the disclaimer that maybe we could have a discussion with my colleague after, if you do not mind. As far as I understand it, in the statutory review process anybody or any group can submit a presentation expressing suggestions or views, or concerns. As far as I know, these groups that are affected here could do the same kind of thing.

Just to be clear for the benefit of all members, Mr. Chair, these amendments are intended to simply add these groups to the current coverage that exists for other groups, such as volunteer firefighters; whereas, the statutory review process has to do, in a general way, with paid workers, full-time, who get injured on the job in full-time employment situations, for the most part.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, again, to the member opposite, perhaps we could have a side discussion to make sure what I am providing is exact. I invite my colleague to participate. I will not ask him to stand now because it is not his bill, but if that is okay with you.

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: 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 The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 57)

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 57.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 57.

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 (Verge): The hon. the Member for Port de Grave and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 57 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 57 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act". (Bill 55)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks again. I am pleased to have an opportunity to chat about Bill 55 and some of the intentions with this particular piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is very much – from my perspective, at least – an opportunity to do a little bit of housekeeping with the legislation and to make a few changes that reflects the things that are currently happening in the system.

Primarily, if you look through the Explanatory Notes, Mr. Speaker, there are three things that this bill will do, by way of a summary. First of all, it will remove the requirement for summary offence tickets to contain a notice to appear. It will prescribe the options available to a person who is served with a ticket, and it will validate all summary offence tickets that have been issued under the act before July 1, 2013.

By way of some background, the Provincial Offences Act, Mr. Speaker, gives authority to delegate offences for which tickets may be issued in the Province. It also provides authority for setting up fines for offences and fine collection procedures.

It speaks, in particular, to offences that can be ticketed. It talks, for example, about the Highway Traffic Act, the Liquor Control Act, and the Environment Protection Act, to name a few. Specific to the changes that are being proposed here today, as the legislation is currently drafted under the Provincial Offences Act, it requires all tickets to contain a notice to appear. This notice to appear, Mr. Speaker, is required to give a specific time for an individual to appear in court to enter a guilty or not guilty plea.

Right now, only those persons who plead not guilty are given court dates. The amendments we are looking at here today, first of all, will remove the requirement for tickets to contain this notice to appear. First of all, the proposal is that this notice to appear will be removed. Instead, persons receiving a ticket under this legislation will be given the option to file their own notice of intention to appear in court. If they choose to appear in court, they will be provided with an appropriate date.

Mr. Speaker, that amendment actually reflects currently what is happening in the system and reflects the current procedures for processing tickets at Provincial Court. From the perspective of the general public who may be listening to this or interested in what this discussion is all about, this particular piece of legislation does not reflect any substantive changes whatsoever from what is currently happening. If you receive a ticket, there is still an option of paying their ticket voluntarily, or they may still be convicted in default if they do not respond to the ticket in the allotted time period that has been identified.

As well, under this legislation the form of the ticket will be changed to reflect the amendments that we are proposing, Mr. Speaker. What we are proposing here as well is that there will certainly be a transition period identified to allow time for the new form of ticket that is being outlined here to be adopted. That will be time provided for municipalities, law enforcement agencies, and other enforcement agencies that are engaged in issuing tickets, to provide time for them to have new tickets printed which reflects an alignment with the proposed legislative changes identified today if they are adopted.

The other amendment being proposed, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the endorsement of default convictions. Currently, Fines Administration staff of the Province who are Justice of the Peace examine tickets to ensure that they are complete and that they are regular, as required by the act, before they enter the tickets into what is called the TMS, or the Ticket Management System, which is the system that we have in the Province for managing the Province's affairs with respect to this. Once a default conviction date for a ticket passes, the system automatically records a conviction and generates a notice of conviction and a fine. This is then sent to the person who received the ticket.

What we are proposing here, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the act to permit an electronically generated record of conviction to be the official record of conviction notwithstanding that it has not been signed by a "judge". Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the department proposes to amend the definition of a "judge" in this particular case, to expand the list of sections for which a Justice of the Peace – for example in this case we are talking about Fines Administration staff members with our provincial court system. We will expand the list of sections for which they can perform the functions of a judge or on behalf of a judge.

The proposed amendments will in particular allow the Justice of the Peace to do a number of things. For example, allow them to, on behalf of the judge, notify the Registrar of Motor Vehicles of convictions where they are required to do so under section 27 of the act; allow them to quash a default conviction proceeding where the conditions of such a conviction have not been met; and allow them to clarify late penalties, that late penalties will apply to fines imposed by both the Provincial Court judges and Justice of the Peace.

These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are necessary in particular to allow the current procedures for processing tickets to continue. As I said a few moments ago, what it will really do is validate the current process that is operating in the Province with a provision of an implementation period built in to allow those who are currently using the current tickets to exhaust the stock they have and provide a time opportunity to have new tickets printed.

The other piece, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that this particular piece of legislation will retroactively validate all tickets that have been issued under the current system that would not necessarily fall in line in this particular piece of legislation. As everyone would know, there are often challenges with fine collections in Newfoundland and Labrador, as there are in many other jurisdictions. It is important we cover off one less opportunity or close out one more opportunity where people may try to avoid having to pay the fine. So the legislation asks for a retroactive validation of the tickets that have been issued.

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a summary of what is proposed here. I will conclude my comments now, take my seat, and have an opportunity to listen to my colleagues opposite.

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

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

Indeed, it is a privilege to stand and speak to this particular bill, An Act to Amend the Provincial Offences Act. Now, when I first received this piece of legislation I was a bit wary because it talked about removing the notice to appear. I guess the former defence counsellor in me first got up and said: Is there going to be any prejudicial effect to the rights of individuals here? After reviewing the legislation and having the briefing, certainly I am satisfied that this is a necessary piece of legislation and very much housekeeping in nature.

It does not seem to be much in terms of substantive change to this piece of legislation. I do appreciate the time given to me by the Department of Justice solicitor who sat down, went over this legislation with us, and briefed us on it. I am going to speak a bit about the practical realities of this piece of legislation. If I fool up or if I am wrong in any way, I am sure people will remind me. There are a lot of procedural aspects to this.

From what I gather, this piece of legislation deals with mainly the Highway Traffic Act or the cities act, whether it is the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, or the City of Corner Brook, places that have bylaws that govern parking tickets and offences that carry with them a penalty and, in most cases, a fine.

Many people I am sure, even in this House, all of these upstanding Members of the House of Assembly, may have had a speeding ticket here or there or a parking ticket here or there. Recently I did have a parking ticket at Churchill Square, which I do not mind saying has the fastest metre maids in the Province. I think I might have been one minute coming out of Churchill Square and I got dinged with the traffic ticket. Again if we could only put those individuals in charge of fine collections, then I think we are going to make a real step forward in this Province.

The fact is that when you get the ticket, there are two parts. There is one that you get as the offender and there is one that is sent off to Fines Administration. I believe the base for Fines Administration might be at Atlantic Place. I am not sure which floor, but these are the individuals who handle it.

The fact is that it is placed into the electronic system. Previously, it did have the notice to appear on it saying if you were going to contest this, you must appear by such and such a date. In many cases the fact is, I would assume – and I am saying this without the benefit of statistics – the majority of individuals do not look at the date. They either pay the ticket or do not contest it – maybe they do not pay it, but they do not fight it in court. Some might stick them in their glove box and some might throw them out, I do not know. Given the amount of fines that are currently outstanding, obviously there is a lot not paying.

The fact is that most people do not contest it. In some cases, they do. I have seen it and actually had the pleasure of watching self-represented litigants fight parking tickets and speeding tickets; it is amazing to do.

The fact is here what we are doing – and I guess what I will do is just go through the legislation. I am not going to deal with every section, but I just want to go through the various sections there that stood out to me. What I would say is that it appears quite lengthy; I think we have eleven pages here. Many are housekeeping changes that are caused by changes to other sections. So, because you change section A, you must change section B to comply with this new section. A lot of it has no real change or substance to it. It is just a procedural change or making sure we do not leave the things in that might contradict each other.

Just so we put it out there, the default conviction date is the date on which a person who is served with a ticket may be convicted of the offence charged if they do not exercise one of the options in section 18.1(1). You go to 18.1(1): A person who is served with a ticket shall (a) if they do not want to dispute it, they can sign the guilty plea, deliver the ticket and pay the prescribed fine. Again, that is set up that you can pay that from anywhere. I think you might even be able to do it by credit card. I would assume that is how the majority of tickets are handled.

The second part is, if you wish to appear to enter a plea in person, you sign the notice of intention to appear on the ticket and deliver the ticket to the place stated. Again, you have the opportunity. If you want to contest it, you sign off, send it in, and then they will go from there.

The next part, it seems like it is a bit redundant. If you wish to dispute the charge, sign the not guilty plea on the ticket and deliver the ticket to the place. That seems similar to part (b), because in part (b) I cannot imagine somebody is going to show up and say yes, I wish to plead guilty and set a court date. There is no need of that. That is absolutely pointless. In most cases if you do not want to pay it, then you are going to show up, but if you are going to pay it why would you take the time out of your schedule to show up to court and deal with that issue?

This is one of the changes I thought was interesting, is that they have changed the meaning of judge. What it is saying is that a judge means a Provincial Court judge. We have a number of them throughout the Province, but for the purposes of certain sections in this act we are now including a Justice of the Peace under the justice's act.

The good news is that I believe most of the individuals working at Fines Administration are Justices of the Peace. Now with this new piece, they will be judges for the purposes of handling matters of this nature. That does not seem too offensive, but I did have concerns that when you move on in the legislation, "A judge shall examine a ticket to ensure that it is complete and regular on its face." Now you have Justices of the Peace who can look at tickets and maybe bosh them or toss them out.

I do not think that is going to be a big issue, and I do not think you are going to see a lot of that. I think the individuals, or Justices of the Peace in the system, are mainly there to make sure the system runs smooth. If a person wants to contest a ticket, then they are going to fight that ticket in court and they might use that claim under a normal Provincial Court judge.

I do have some other points here that I will try to bring up very briefly. A lot of this talks about notice; the fact is, whether it is a parking ticket or whether it is a serious offence under the Criminal Code of Canada, we want to have notice. You want to know what your rights are, especially in cases like this. You want to know when you are supposed to show up in court so that you will be able to fight this.

One section here that I found interesting and I might ask a question of the minister in the committee stage. In section 29.(1) "Where a person, who has been served with a notice of appearance does not appear in person or by agent to answer to the charge at the time specified, a judge may, upon proof of the service…" The judge, having the proof of service showing that this individual was charged and had the ticket delivered on them, can "…enter a plea of not guilty on behalf of that person, set a time convenient to the prosecutor for a hearing of the charge, in the absence of the person served, and adjourn the proceedings…"

In this case the person took the time, it seems, to contest this, but what happens is they actually do not show up and they are still getting the benefit of, if they do not show up to contest this on their own the judge is going to enter the not guilty plea and set it over. What I would ask the minister, and I will probably put this in committee stage but I can put it to you now: Is this a new provision or is this the same? It may have already been there, I do not know. If it is, then obviously that is fine. I was just interested in seeing if this was a new section or not.

It does alleviate my concern that people are going to have notice. My concern does arise with, will this bog down courts which are already overburdened and have a lack of resources? The lack of resource is court time. Court time is a precious commodity now. At times appearances get set and nobody else can use that. In many cases they can be adjourned or used differently later or cancelled, but in this case we are setting up court time. I do not know if that is – I will leave it to the minister to answer that either now or before the third reading.

What we are doing here really is codifying. Even though it is not in the legislation, it has already been in practice. We are just legislating the proper practice here. Again, that is a good thing. We need to have legislation. We cannot just have the law saying one thing and the popular practice being something different.

As you proceed through there are a lot of sections of this act that have been repealed, many of them are procedural. You look at clause 5, that is just a language change right there. We talk about the notice provisions and proof of service on individuals.

One of the interesting things, and very necessary obviously, is the saving clause under 18. The fact is we are changing the law, Mr. Speaker, and in doing that we have to have that buffer period from where the time changes. Any summary offence tickets issued under the act before Canada Day of next year – notwithstanding the fact that if they already have a pre-existing defect in them, something that, regardless of the law change, might force the judge to quash them or throw them out.

What we are saying is that these will still be covered off. We are not going to have this gap where it is like the wild, Wild West and tickets are thrown out and not used because the law has been changed. That is a very necessary and effective part.

Mr. Speaker, the rest of this legislation is quite standard. I think though one of the big concerns – and I think this can be addressed under this because we are dealing with Fines Administration. I just wanted to bring up very briefly, and I know it is something I mentioned to the previous minister, so I will bring it up to the current minister. I know it is an issue that dogs at his department. We are all on the same page here.

The fact is the outstanding liability of tickets in this Province – there are millions that are owed to this Province by individuals who are fined for lack of insurance, lack of a driver's licence, or parking tickets. It is an issue hopefully we can work together on to fix because it is revenue. It is not a huge amount, but we are talking millions in times when we do have a deficit.

I understand and appreciate the difficulty in doing that. It can be a difficult thing. Do you simply incarcerate someone because they have outstanding fines?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: When we have individuals who are getting pulled over and have significant records, we will say, and owe $20,000 or $30,000 in fines and are out driving on our streets and causing damage and issue to other drivers who respect the rules and follow the laws, then we are going to have to find a way to solve that issue because it a burden on us. It is a burden on our system. It is a burden to society to have these people who simply do not want to follow along, take the lives of others, and place them at risk.

I hope that this is something the department is considering to find constructive ways. There are a number of suggestions out there. Really, it is a matter of considering different policies and what can be done. It might even be a matter of instituting a practice policy or pilot project, something to try to fix this. Again, if we can bring some revenues in it is going to benefit all of us here. I, or anybody in this House, would be willing to work together on that because it is money coming in that is due this Province. I put that to the minister. We hear it every day.

Speaking to the act, it is a codification of what is already in practice. I am very satisfied with it. I appreciate the briefing that was given to us. I certainly appreciate the time to speak to this and may have some questions of the minister when we reach committee stage.

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.

It is a great privilege to stand in this House tonight to debate Bill 55, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act.

I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile speak about fines and things we have been hearing through the media lately. As people get stopped for different offences along our highways, they are being brought to court and then find out they have outstanding fines in the highest amount.

Mr. Speaker, part of this rationale for these amendments is to ensure that the Fines Administration Division of the Department of Justice will continue to able the process, summary offence tickets, and collect any fines owing in a timely and efficient manner.

As of September 30, 2012 the total amount owing to the Province including fines, penalties and surcharges from ticketable offences here, past due fines, penalties and surcharges imposed in court was approximately $34 million. Mr. Speaker, some of the oldest, unpaid tickets were issued in 1982. Some of the tickets date back to thirty years.

The collection of outstanding fines has improved continuously over the past number of years. Mr. Speaker, total receipts for the fiscal year 2011-2012 were $11.7 million, including collections of fines owed to third parties such as the City of St. John's. A total of approximately $7 million has been collected so far this fiscal year on new and outstanding fines.

Some of the methods for collecting on these fines and these penalties, these surcharges, are the assessment of late penalties, collection on annual vehicle permit renewal, and on driver licence renewal every five years. Mr. Speaker, also monthly filing of the judgement enforcement registry of debtors owing more than $400 in past due fines of related penalties and surcharges reduced from $500 in March 2011 in order to increase fines and collections.

Mr. Speaker, we also have an agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency and Fines Administration to set off fines owing against Income Tax, GST, et cetera. We are working hard to get these fines paid and to make sure that they are paid on time.

Mr. Speaker, in October 2011, we also made amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. That came into effect in 2010. That, Mr. Speaker, permits police officers to perform traffic safety stops to ensure compliance with the act.

Police no longer have to witness an offence occurring before they have lawful authority to stop a vehicle. So, they can stop a vehicle on a routine check. This has resulted in police detecting a large number of vehicles being driven with no insurance and/or registration, or with the driver either having a suspended or no licence at all.

The amendments made to the Highway Traffic Act in 2010 are certainly paying dividends today. We are catching the offenders and bringing them to justice so that they pay their fines that are due to the Province.

Mr. Speaker, police also now have the authority to arrest for all offences under the Highway Traffic Act instead of just issuing tickets. This power to arrest is mostly used where police feel it is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to prevent the continuation or repetition of an offence. Drivers who have numerous convictions under the act and who have large amounts qualify for arrest and may be detained for court as well, which could result in greater repercussions for repeat offenders.

Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy to note as well that 80 per cent of the people pay their fines voluntarily; however, there always will be some who will ignore the law and continue to accrue fines for not maintaining a valid driver's licence, vehicle registration, or insurance. Mr. Speaker, this is not unique to Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the case right across the country, right across Canada. Every province in this country has this problem as well.

The challenges, Mr. Speaker, facing the Fines Administration Division in collecting unpaid fines include mobility offenders, offenders move from province to province, from place to place and within the Province as well; unpublished cellphone numbers; persons with no fixed address; persons who are incarcerated; persons with low or no employment or no credit history; persons with no telephone number, land phone number as well. Mr. Speaker, we do have our challenges in finding the offenders.

Mr. Speaker, government continues to exercise all its options available to recoup these outstanding fines and take these offenders off the road and bring them to justice. The changes that we are making to Bill 55 tonight will improve the act and help recoup the outstanding fines that are left unpaid and brought back to the Treasury of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much for the time permitted to me tonight to speak on Bill 55. I look for approval from all members of this hon. House to pass the amendments to Bill 55.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very happy to rise in the House and to speak to the amendment to the Provincial Offences Act, Bill 55. In fact, I would also like to thank the officials at the Department of Justice for their very thorough briefing. They were willing to answer any questions that we had, and I am very grateful for that.

As we can see this amendment is, in fact, an amendment that reflects the administrative efficiencies that have been in practice. Basically, this is legislation being adapted to practice and that is a good thing when we see that basically our legislative documents, our legislation, must be a living thing that responds to the changing needs of our society. We have seen that in a number of instances during this sitting, how we look at amending our legislation that reflects the needs of our people, the changing needs of our people, our changing understanding of how processes work.

What we see here is a change of particularly clause 7, section 18.1 are where our most substantive changes are and those changes are: "(1) A person who is served with a ticket shall where he or she (a) does not wish to dispute the charge, sign the guilty plea on the ticket and deliver the ticket and the prescribed fine to the place stated on the ticket before the default conviction date".

That is something that we have always had and that has been in practice. That is an efficiency that allows us to move things along and not block up the court system with unnecessary cases.

Mr. Speaker, "(b) wishes to appear to enter a plea in person, sign the notice of intention to appear on the ticket and deliver the ticket to the place stated on the ticket before the default conviction date".

Now this is a new part, this is a new amendment to this bill, and it preserves a person's charter of rights to the right to first appearance. This is very important, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that even if a person is going to plead guilty or even if a person is going to plead innocent, that they have the right to appear before a court, they have a right to appear before a judge and be heard.

We know, Mr. Speaker, in this House how important it is to have the opportunity to be heard. It is a vital part of our democracy to have that right to be heard, to be listened to, to be responded to, and to have your problems, your issues brought before the proper channels.

What this does, Mr. Speaker, is that even if a person were to enter a plea of guilty, it also provides the legislative system, the court system, to hear any concerns that person may have about how the law is affecting them, how legislation is affecting them. That is really important because our legislation must be living. It must be responsive to the needs of our society on a number of levels. It also must be responsive to the needs of people who are convicted of certain issues.

Then part (c) is those who wish "…to dispute the charge, sign the not guilty plea on the ticket and deliver the ticket to the place stated on the ticket before the default conviction date." I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in fact Nova Scotia has made some similar changes but that ours may even be a little more progressive at this point because there are those three options. What is protected is a person's right to first appearance, that even if they are going to plead guilty they have a right to determine that they want to appear before a judge.

I think it is also a good thing that the role of the Justice of the Peace is expanded. We know there are incredible pressures on our justice system, on our court system. Anything that alleviates that pressure and demand on our court system is a good thing, but as long as any changes we do protect people's charter rights, whether it is first appearance or their right to be heard on something. We see that most of the changes that follow are sort of a domino effect and there are language changes that are just in response to the substantive changes in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment now to talk about the issue of growing fines that many people find themselves in, people who find that they have outstanding fines, perhaps thousands of dollars. For many people who are in that position it is impossible for them to pay. What do we do about that, Mr. Speaker?

Some of the negative effects, some of the mitigating factors on that, for instance, is if you owe thousands and thousands of dollars in fines and you are unable to pay those fines people may then continue to drive in an unregistered vehicle, in an uninsured vehicle. The consequence of having such huge fines means that it becomes a self-perpetuating problem.

The government needs to look at this issue and to come up with ways to respond to this, because many people rely on cars for their livelihood. How do we address the fact that they are guilty of infractions, that they owe the Province money? In order to be able to pay back they need to be able to continue to work. Perhaps it means continuing to use their vehicle, but how do we do that, Mr. Speaker?

I think that this is an important issue to look at. Again, the fact that if we have huge, outstanding fines then that person will not come and register their vehicle, nor will that person be able to get insurance. That is a problem for public safety. The ramifications for the whole community are serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: To not address the issue of outstanding fines that are impossible for some people to pay has ongoing negative effects, not only for the person who owes the money but it also has negative, mediating effects for the society at large. If anybody is hurt by a driver who does not have insurance, vehicles that are not registered are a problem. We have to look at this and look at how can we solve this problem to make it safer for our whole community? There may be a solution, and that is what we need to come up with. It may not be an easy solution, but there has to be a solution out there to make it safer for everybody in our community.

The other issue I would like to raise is the issue of youth with outstanding fines, when we looked at the bill that we spoke to a few weeks ago on traffic offences and youth. I have concerns, Mr. Speaker, with youth who amass outstanding fines. What happens when they get to be eighteen years of age and they have amassed $10,000, $15,000 in fines?

What we have seen is that we have a youth court for a specific reason, and we have a Young Offenders Act for a specific reason. Because of youth, we tend to deal with them in a different way. We may deal with them with a little more leniency because of their age. By removing the issue of tickets from the Young Offenders Act, what will be the ramification on youth once they reach age of majority? If they want to go to school in another community and they need to drive, or if they need to go to work, what are the effects for them?

The other issue is, for youth we protect their name, we protect their privacy. Their names are not issued publicly, yet somebody who has huge outstanding fines, their names are published. What will happen to our youth if we have a fifteen year old who should not be driving, we all know that, but who has amassed huge amounts of traffic fines? What happens to that? Will their name be published?

I think these are issues that we need to look at. Again, we need to look at this whole issue of outstanding fines, because it is not just about collecting money, it is about how do we make our community safe for everyone? If people have multiply violations, what do we do about that to make it possible for everybody to be safe?

I am happy to have had the opportunity to speak to this bill, Mr. Speaker. The other issue is that I think what this Department of Justice has done by looking at having three options on tickets is a good thing because we know it is so important to protect people's charter rights, to protect their right to first appearance. So, whether or not they choose to exercise that, they have that option. That is sacrosanct, Mr. Speaker, and a right that we must defend.

That is all. I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to be able to speak to Bill 55. This is a bill that would amend the Provincial Offences Act, and three of the key components that we are going to be discussing here. I know my colleagues here on this side have talked about it, and to a certain degree some members on the other side have touched on some of the key components.

"This Bill would amend the Provincial Offences Act to remove the requirement for summary offence tickets to contain a notice to appear; prescribe the options available to a person who is served with a ticket; and validate all summary offence tickets issued under the Act before July 1, 2013 notwithstanding a defect in the form of the ticket or the manner of service of the ticket."

Mr. Speaker, here we talk about, "‘default conviction date' means the date on which a person who was served with a ticket may be convicted of the offence charged in the ticket if he or she does not exercise one of the options stated in…" subsections.

Mr. Speaker, the three options under section 18.1, "A person who is served with a ticket shall where he or she (a) does not wish to dispute the charge, sign the guilty plea on the ticket and deliver the ticket and the prescribed fine to the place stated on the ticket before the default conviction date;" – pretty simple – "(b) wishes to appear to enter a plea in person, sign the notice of intention to appear on the ticket and deliver the ticket to the place stated on the ticket before the default conviction date; or (c) wishes to dispute the charge, sign the not guilty plea on the ticket and deliver the ticket to the place stated on the ticket before the default conviction date."

It is pretty simple, Mr. Speaker. My previous colleagues again, as I noted, had outlined all the particular issues here. I appreciate the minister's official staff giving us a briefing. While it is a housekeeping piece of legislation, it is a very important one because it is also a revenue-generating one. It is a partnership that has developed between the Province and the municipalities that have officials who can enforce the traffic act that we have in this Province.

I want to go back to what the Member for St. John's Centre was discussing when it comes to about the fines that are outstanding. While we are very cognizant of the fact that there are people out there owing $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, even $50,000 in fines, these are not the people who we bring in legislation to protect, the opposite, the protection of the people and these citizens about the legislation – those people who are guilty of that.

If anybody makes a mistake, we all accept that. We have processes in place. Our court system is very open to being able to come up with a payment plan that works for everybody. It does not jeopardize their income. It does not take away their ability to be functional citizens in society by no stretch.

In my previous job I had the privilege of working with a number of people to be able to work out a system where they could still be engaged as good citizens. At the same time, we have to protect everybody else in our society. Those people who are on the fifth and sixth time of violating the traffic act and breaking every rule out there should be accountable, should have to pay the price. There are ways that can be done. We have proper legislation.

Under the Criminal Code people should have to pay the price for this. They are a danger on the roads. They have no respect for the laws we have, and they obviously have no respect for other drivers. At the end of the day there has to be a happy medium, and there is a happy medium. Those who make a mistake we have a process to be able to help them out. They will come up with a payment plan where they can still be active drivers, yet protected and protecting the rest of society out there who drives next to them. That is part of what we do.

To note what we talked about, young drivers. Last week, Mr. Speaker, I was part of a briefing about the young offences act in which we changed legislation so that young drivers are treated the same as adults. They do not have to appear in court. They plead guilty; they go through the same process. They get their fines. They can come up with a payment plan to the court system and be able to still be engaged as citizens.

Young people do have certain responsibilities, particularly in the area of operating a motor vehicle. We treat them that way. We do not want to treat them as second-class citizens and we do not want to segregate them, but they must take the responsibilities. We have the ability then to support whatever it is they need to do as part of that whole process.

Mr. Speaker, we bring in millions of dollars in fine recovery a year. Those dollars go into other programs, if it is enhanced safety on the roads, if it is to do education with young people, or if it is in other programs and services that we need. We are responsible to all the taxpayers who pay into every other entity that we generate revenue from to be able to collect this money that is outstanding.

In the last number of years we have really put a good process in place through technology and through our new legislation to be able to start recovering some of that money. That money is going back into the coffers to be able to support programs and services that are necessary for everybody in this Province to be able to avail of. We are talking in the vicinity of $34 million. That is not nickel-and-dime money. That is money that can be used for all kinds of services in hospitals, all kinds of services in the education system, and all the things that benefit people in our society.

We want to go back and make sure that all of our legislation is coherent and it works well in-line with everything else we have. That does that here. We are working closely with the municipalities to make sure when they issue tickets that they can collect the revenues that are out there and they can deal with violators in a proper manner and following the rules of the law.

That is what we have set up to do here, change our legislation so that people are given options. If they choose they want to dispute something, under our legal system they have that ability to do it. If they choose they want to deal, admit they have done a wrong and move on, they can do that also. We have made it very easy to do it. We have made it very open so that they understand exactly what is being done. We give them that opportunity to move forward through that.

Mr. Speaker, with that being said, and my fellow speakers after outlining all the things relevant to this, I am very pleased to be able to support this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I, too, will speak in support of this bill. Members may note, usually I have two speeds when it comes to speaking to a bill, either it is going backwards or it is going forward, but not fast enough. In this case, I would like to see more progress in our Provincial Offences Act than we have. This is useful and it is beneficial, but our Provincial Offences Act could be enlarged in a number of areas and it would be more useful and more beneficial for the orderly maintenance of law and order.

On the issue of unpaid fines; the issue to me is not as much a monetary matter, although if we have $34 million outstanding, as the Member for Port au Port says, and I can accept that, then the issue is more along the lines of public safety. If people rack up large numbers and large amounts of fines, they clearly have no respect for law and order. They are inclined to drive uninsured, unlicensed motor vehicles. They break the law repeatedly.

The real issue for us, in addition to collecting these fines, is who maintains law and order? Who maintains respect for authority? Other citizens, when they hear the news of somebody who has been driving and they have been arrested for the tenth, fifteenth or twentieth time and they owe $30,000 or $40,000, in my view, that brings the administration of justice into disrespect. Clearly, I believe we need to be on to this collection of unpaid fines in a relatively fast and orderly fashion.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Offences Act – criminal law, law and order is maintained in Canada by the Criminal Code, which is a federal law, also by federal statutes such as the Narcotics Control Act and the Fisheries Act, and so on. For the non-criminal code matters we deal with the Provincial Offences Act. There is a whole part of the Provincial Offences Act that we do not reach in this Province and other provinces do. In my view, it does not go high enough.

Our Provincial Offences Act, we should be able to have certain levels for high-end highway traffic offences. A person might have a highway traffic offence now which could have involved killing somebody. The options for the Crown Attorney could be criminal negligence causing death that may be too high, dangerous driving causing death that may be too high, careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act which is too light.

Well, some highway traffic acts and in conjunction with their provincial offences act, would have high-end provincial offences categories whereby people could be incarcerated for periods of maybe six months or so because of the nature of the offence. While not a criminal code offence, it is a very serious offence against the safety and security of individuals. I would like to see the Provincial Offences Act be able to reach higher, be able to deal with a level of criminality which is not caught by the criminal code or the criminal code does not have the proper tools for it but we certainly need to deal with, and many of these are driving offences.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk of crime deterrents, the criminologists will tell you as a result of research that crime is deterred in two ways. One is the speed and certainty of apprehension; the second is the speed of conviction. If people who would offend believe that there is very little chance that they will be apprehended, if they are apprehended it will not be any time soon, and if they are apprehended they will not go to trial or will not be convicted or tried within a reasonable length of time, then that encourages criminality and does nothing to deter criminality.

In this Province at this time, we see particularly more or less in St. John's and the Northeast Avalon area primarily maybe in response to affluence and street crime and drug issues, for a town that not very long ago was a very safe place, St. John's is no longer a safe place for people to walk on the streets as they would have less than a generation ago.

Part of the issue, I believe, is that our Provincial Court judges and our Provincial Courts are overloaded. The Provincial Courts and the Provincial Court judges are the workhorses who run the administration of justice, not the Supreme Court justices who handle serious criminal matters and all sorts of civil and administrative law but the Provincial Court judges.

The Provincial Court judges would probably be assisted quite a bit if the lower end of offences under the Provincial Offences Act could be handled, as appears to be contemplated by the current bill, by Justices of the Peace. Justices of the Peace are used in other provinces. In some provinces they are referred to as Bail Magistrates. In other provinces, it is just simply Justices of the Peace. JPs are the ones who handle low-end offences.

To go into a circuit court, for example, and the circuit court judges are very heavily loaded up with work, and to find one morning a Provincial Court judge might be doing a preliminary inquiry for a murder allegation and in the afternoon probably contesting a $50 traffic ticket. There is no proportionality, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that if we were to utilize Justices of the Peace – and they could well be retired lawyers or they potentially could be retired police officers or individuals who have had some experience in crime-related matters or court-related matters who could receive a limited amount of training to be able to handle the lower-end offences so this would clear up the docket so Provincial Court judges would be more available for more serious matters such as assault, sexual assault, impaired driving, drug charges, attempted murder, dangerous driving – the higher-end offences.

I would like to see the Provincial Offences Act go upward and the bottom level of the offences that we deal with and the matters that the Provincial Court judges deal with taken away from them to free up their docket so they would have more time to be able to focus on the more serious matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while we are at that, this government made a good move within the last two years or so in increasing the limit for the Small Claims Court. Small Claims Court went from $5,000 to $25,000. That added a significant additional caseload for Provincial Court judges who handle all of these provincial offences and most of the Criminal Code offences.

If we were to further review our statutes, then it would seem to be a good move, as they do in some provinces, so for lower-end small claims matters they could be handled by people who are on per diems – it could be retired lawyers or judges who have gone supernumerary. Clearly, we have to unclog our court system and we have to streamline our criminal justice system. We really have to get a handle on law and order in this Province.

By many standards it is not that bad right now; however, it is not that good either. When we saw recently in the news the sexual assaults on the street, which fortunately the police apprehended someone who was accused and it appears it may be the right person. The armed robberies and the break and enters that we see primarily in this city but also some other smaller towns, in my view, have really gotten out of control. We need to move forward.

This is a good bill; it is a good first step. I would like to see this government go much further in a law and order bill that will come in the next time this House of Assembly comes back.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the minister speaks now, he will close debate.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank all members who have participated in the debate on Bill 55, the Provincial Offences Act. I think the last bill we did an hour or so ago the member opposite spoke just before me as well. Again, I thank you for your commentary on the extents that we go with respect to the Provincial Offences Act and where we may be able to go. I appreciate your commentary. I have made note of it and certainly will give it some consideration.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points made that I want to refer to or respond to. I will take the opportunity to do it now for a couple of moments before we go in Committee and if there are further questions, then I will certainly take an opportunity to further respond.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile asked a question around section 29.(1) and whether that is a new section in this particular bill or not. In actual fact, it is not a new section, Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite. It is something that has been in the bill, but it has been rarely used. I think he was kind of concerned about whether or not it would bog down the system. Our experiences do not demonstrate that to be a challenge that we would perceive to come from that.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's Centre had some commentary. First of all, the member raised a few issues with respect to youth and outstanding fines – I am just looking at my notes here; I do not mean to stumble. She expressed some concerns with the fact that youth sometimes, because of how they are treated with respect to these kinds of fines, the same deterrents do not seem to exist as that for adults. I just sort of want to offer the member some clarification and certainly if you would like a further discussion for more information I can provide it, but in actual fact the member is not totally accurate in what you are suggesting. We do do that.

Last week in the House we changed the Young Offenders Act, which now gives judges and the Province the opportunity to treat youth as adults with respect to offences committed under this particular act. I want to clear that up for the record, Mr. Speaker, because it was indicated here that, in fact, we do not do that, but we do do that.

Also, for the record, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the treatment of youth, there were changes made recently federally with respect to crimes that now allow judges and the legal system leniency in how they treat youth with respect to crimes that are seen to be a significant public safety issue. In fact, judges do have the opportunity for example, as the member suggested, to publish the names of youth as they do with adults in those crimes.

We can certainly have a more detailed discussion if you would like to do that, but the point I am making in response to your question is that the legislation as it exists today, as a result of changes last week, currently does what you indicated we would like to have done. That youth now under the Young Offenders Act, merged with this one, are treated as adults for criminal offences under the Provincial Offences Act. They are not hidden under the Young Offenders Act. Their names are not hidden, they are not hidden away from courts, and they are treated just like adults. If I misunderstood you, you can clarify it in Committee, but I just want to make that point.

The other point, Mr. Speaker, that was raised by a number of speakers here this evening, was around the outstanding fines. That obviously is a concern for all of us. Government has done a number of significant things over the last number of years to try and address that issue. It is very unfortunate that those who feel the need to commit the crime do not feel they can do the time, so to speak, and they do not pay their fines. That is very unfortunate because it puts us in a real bad situation, and we are trying to address it.

I want to just share a couple of things for the benefit of those here today, Mr. Speaker, that we have done and we continue to do. We are seeing some success. We are seeing an increase in our fine collection rates. I can say, Mr. Speaker, not to tar all offenders with the same brush, that we are enjoying an 80-plus per cent collection rate on our fines in the Province as we speak today. We are considerably higher than where we were ten or a dozen years ago.

As perhaps the Member for St. Barbe would say: Do we want to get further, though? Absolutely, and we will continue to do that. Give the benefit to the 80-plus per cent who are paying their fines. It is a smaller portion of the population we are talking about when we talk about the fines not being paid.

Just a couple of quick things we are doing in the Province, to give you a snapshot of how things are working. There is a late payment penalty now that is issued, Mr. Speaker. For anybody who gets a fine there is a late payment attached, which is intended obviously to be an incentive to make sure fines are paid and paid on time. We also can attach the renewal of the vehicle permit and a driver's licence now. Both can be held, pending the payment of fines.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement with Revenue Canada, the federal Government of Canada, with respect to fines and administrations where in a case where income tax refunds are accrued to an individual, we can have the tax refunds attached and the fines claimed before the income tax is forwarded. As well, Mr. Speaker, under the Highway Traffic Act, we have now made provisions where RNC and RCMP officers have more authority in certain circumstances to arrest individuals with outstanding fines in the system.

Mr. Speaker, no doubt, it is an issue. I acknowledge that, and I appreciate the fact that members took the opportunity to address it. As I said, in 2011-2012 about $11.7 million was collected in outstanding fines. We are up above 80 per cent of the people in the Province who are in fact doing the honourable thing, when they get a ticket or a fine they are paying it.

Mr. Speaker, those are a couple of points that have been raised by members. I thank everyone again for your co-operation and contribution to this particular debate, and for assisting us in moving forward in changing the legislation in a positive way that reflects what we are currently doing in the system and gives the system some teeth to further move forward with some positive changes.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 55)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 55)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 55, The Provincial Offences Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

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'.

Motion carried.

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

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

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 19 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 19 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to do a point of clarification with the hon. the Minister of Justice, that in fact what I was actually referring to was quite the opposite of perhaps how you understood me.

In fact, when we look at youth it seems that we are somewhat a little bit heavy handed in how we are going to deal with traffic fines or offences with youth. It seems counter to a lot of youth justice policy to have youth subjected to adult's policy in court with the same sanctions and the same punishment. We know there has been a complete movement in terms of young offenders, because of their youth, because of their lack of good judgement, to treat them differently than adults.

I was wondering, if a young person receives a ticket and then disputes it, what happens when they get to court? Because they are not adults but they are going to Provincial Court, and with Provincial Court there is no protection of privacy, there is no protection of names. What will happen to youth in that situation?

Actually, that is my concern rather than my saying that they should in fact be treated like adults. I think they have to be accountable for their acts, but our whole youth offenders and our whole youth court system is designed to take into account oftentimes young people's lack of judgement because of their inexperience, because of their age, also for youth, their right of privacy.

In some ways it is a good thing that youth also do not have to appear before a judge when it is not necessary, but there is a concern by what happens when a youth has amassed a lot of outstanding fines. How do they deal with that when they become of age when it is impossible for them to pay for those fines?

Mr. Chair, I was concerned about the fact that our youth, in traffic violations, are being treated as adults when they are yet still youth. Also, the issue of the protection of their privacy and what that means for their future, and that youth court, in fact, treats youth differently than youth are treated in adult court. Those are my concerns.

The other concerns that I may have around youth as well is whether or not the parents are informed when youth are amassing a whole lot of tickets or if they have a traffic offence? Because in youth court we know parents are involved in the court proceedings and are notified of any offences. What happens in this case when youth have huge traffic offences? Will parents be notified? If they are to be treated exactly like adults, that is not how the law works.

Will our youth, again, who make mistakes because of their inexperience, because of bad judgement, be treated exactly as adults in our penal situation? We are talking sometimes about offences that may affect their lives. There are more serious offences as well that youth may be involved in, criminal offences, but are handled differently in Youth Court because they are youth.

In fact, Mr. Chair, those are the concerns that I have. I am concerned about how youth will be treated in the adult court of Traffic Court that does not have specific protections for youth.

The other issue that I wanted to bring up as well was: Who was consulted on these changes, on any of the amendments? To what extend was the Bar consulted? Who exactly was consulted on this bill?

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 19 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 19 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 The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 55)

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, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 55.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 55.

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): The Member for the District of Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and they have directed me to report Bill 55 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 55 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said 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 Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand here this evening and have a few words on Bill 53. It seems like everybody is going to have a few words on Bill 53 here this evening, so no different from anybody else I would certainly like to add my thoughts to the whole piece.

Mr. Speaker, as many have said, of course, Bill 53 would amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 to enable the implementation of a Labrador industrial rate policy. There are some significant pieces to this bill and I think it is important everybody get their head around what we are doing here.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, with two industrial companies right now in Labrador in IOC, of course, and Wabush Mines, currently those two companies are paying 0.6 of a cent per kilowatt-hour. It costs them about $110 million, which in itself would seem a significant amount of money. The reality of it is, Mr. Speaker, that amount of money in comparison to some other provinces would run about $900 million. To say that these two companies have been getting a good deal over the last number of years would not be a lie.

In fairness to the two companies in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, they have contributed quite a bit to the economy of this Province. They certainly have been a great employer. I have had the opportunity in previous portfolios to have several meetings with IOC in particular. They are good corporate citizens and they pay good wages. That is not to be lost on this government, Mr. Speaker.

I am not quite as familiar with Wabush; however, I have spoken to people in the past who have worked with Wabush and that, too, have employed quite a number of people for a long, long time. It is certainly a significant piece, like I said, to the economy, not only to Newfoundland and Labrador but in particular in the Labrador City and Wabush area, and it is really hopping now.

You hear some stories about the cost of housing. I know one incident from a friend of mine; I think it went up threefold in less than a year, Mr. Speaker. That is being driven by these two companies, so it is not to be lost on us the true value of these two companies to our community.

Mr. Speaker, there comes a point when we had to come up with an industrial rate simply because of the amount of new development that is coming into the Labrador area of the Province, a significant amount. Some people believe upwards of $10 billion to $15 billion worth of mining over the next number of years, Mr. Speaker, which is significant.

In order for these companies to be – I guess they want, they need, consistency in some way to project how much their power needs are going to be. Obviously, an industrial rate for these people is very, very important when they are doing their business planning and, of course, when they are assessing the value of their projects, how much they need to invest and so on.

That is what this bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is about creating this industrial rate for new companies in particular, but also to deal with some of the companies – the two companies in particular that I have mentioned that have been there for a long, long time and operating on 0.6 of a cent.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the main thrust is not to penalize the two companies that are currently active, but it is about getting with the times. That is something that we are planning on doing.

As I mentioned earlier, in Newfoundland and Labrador 0.6 of a cent per kilowatt-hour is what these two companies are paying. When you look across the country and see what some of the other provinces are charging, industrial rates across the country, it is quite alarming actually to see how good of a deal you are getting here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If you are looking at a Province like Manitoba, you are probably paying a little under four cents a kilowatt-hour. On the base rate here on the Island portion of the Province you are paying somewhere around five cents a kilowatt-hour. In British Columbia and Quebec, they all fluctuate between five and six cents a kilowatt-hour. Actually, the Canadian average is somewhere closer to seven cents a kilowatt-hour.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have to take into consideration. Like I said, this rate has been at this level for a long, long time. It is certainly important that we move this. Like I said earlier, I guess one of the big questions is how it would impact IOC and Wabush Mines. At six cents a kilowatt-hour, as I mentioned, they paid $110 million and $900 million if you were in some other provinces, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, if you were in Quebec, you would pay $900 million – ironically enough, who we supply the power to, and they are making a fortune on it, Mr. Speaker, and we have talked about it in this House many times. This crosses political boundaries – what should I say? – the scar we have from that deal. I do not think you would find anyone in this House who would not love to have a chance to renegotiate that pact. Please God, one of these days we will have a chance, and hopefully sooner rather than later. Of course, we could make a difference there.

As mentioned a minute ago, the biggest piece of all is that we have companies coming in here now, we are looking at new mining companies throughout Labrador coming in to invest in this Province and they are looking for an industrial rate. It is important that we give them a rate; they have projections to make and so on. They are asking for it because they have to be able to predict where they are going in the future, Mr. Speaker, where the rates are going to be, and it is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I talk about why is this rate necessary. There are a number of reasons. Right now we have no published industrial electrical rate for Labrador. It sounds like a mouthful, but everywhere else in the country there is actually a published rate. So if you are going to some province to do business, you know how much you are going to pay. Unfortunately, in this Province, we do not. It has been an ad hoc thing that has happened over time and over years.

As well, this certainly brings challenges to new developments. Like I mentioned earlier, they certainly are looking for certainty and planning before they make major investments in Labrador, and it is a key piece to their whole financial plan. As suggested, the two existing companies, we have the IOC and Wabush Mines, both power agreements are expiring in January of 2015. So, Mr. Speaker, after January 2015 I am sure that even both these companies will be looking for some consistency. I am sure they are looking forward to negotiating a new rate as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to clue up there. It was a delight to speak on this bill. I think it was important that we point out the two companies that are currently operating, as good as they are, corporate citizens, we do know that will be expiring in January of 2015, it is the number one concern and we look forward to working with them and working out a new rate.

Obviously, secondly, is the amount of investment that is coming into the Province. They need to know – they need to have a published industrial rate. We are the only one in the country that does not have it. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, when they are doing business planning, and planning into the future, that is a key element for them as well.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I will take my seat. I can say with quite confidence there is an awful lot of industrial development going to happen in Labrador over the next number of years, $10 billion to $15 billion worth of investment in mining. Mr. Speaker, we have to be up for the challenge and by setting this industrial rate that is set everywhere else in the country but here in this Province then it is time to make this move and make it now. I am hoping that everybody in the House will stand and support this bill.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn): The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

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

I wanted to get up and have a few words to say again to the main motion of Bill 53. It still concerns me about the setting of the industrial rates. Not to say that we do not agree with having something that is going to be steady there. It is not to disagree with anything that the government is trying to do here when it comes to the setting of the rates, but there still are some concerns.

I want to come back to how they are going to try to regulate the rate into something that is going to be a little bit manageable for industry too, at the same time recognizing the fact that most of the agreements are going to be up on January 2015 to the companies that are presently paying about six-tenths of a cent, which is extremely low.

We know that by today's standards that these numbers can go a lot higher and indeed in this particular case return some form of revenue to government, and back to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and in turn back into the taxpayers' pockets. I think that everybody in the Province has pretty much had it with subsidizing big industry, but they do not want to be tagged with any of the losses that come along with it if that is the case that it is going to happen.

It is disconcerting sometimes to the taxpayer when they want to go and pay a fair rate themselves but they do not want to picking up the load for industry when industry is making billions and billions of profits. A couple of questions when it comes to that is: Who is going to be making the call when it comes to a review of the electrical rate every time it is going to be renewed or it is going to come under review?

Obviously, I think that there is a hand in here to be dealt by the PUB. I am wondering if there is going to be a kickoff – for example if somebody wanted to make an inquiry or a review of the rate that they are paying, that they would have some sort of a say in the matter. I guess that is one point that we wanted to talk about.

What is the mechanism that they are going to be use to readjust prices between these time frames? I do not know if there is – well as much as what they used to do for gasoline prices for example, if there is going to be some sort of an interrupter formula that the PUB can use or government will use, or even industry will use if they see a variation in what they are paying in the electrical rate. Again, this kicks back to something that could be harmful to the taxpayer if the numbers get that low to the point that it goes down below the $32 a megawatt that we were talking about earlier.

As we know, the current contract expires in 2015 and we have to make sure, of course, it is going to be fair. We understand the need for fair prices for power to attract industry into Labrador. We do not have a problem with that at all; we certainly do not, but at the same time we want to make sure that it is going to be fair to the taxpayer.

Having said that, we want to make sure that there is going to be a proper review process there. We want to make sure that the taxpayer is going to have some sort of protection there. We want to make sure that any time there is going to be a review to this process, that it is going to be fair and equitable on all sides.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to come back, on Bill 53, and just talk about the possibilities here that could end up happening in the scenarios that I have been looking at. Again, my concern comes to what has been happening on other markets. I think it is a direct concern, particularly for the ratepayer. The big concern of course comes out of Manitoba, and again I will come back to it.

In the legislation, under Bill 53 we have a little fact here that is a little bit complicated – if I could find the bill and explain what it is I am referring to under section (c). I think it was in part three of the bill. I was looking at it earlier and I cannot seem to find the bill in front of me here now; I just had it. Here we go; hang on, it is right here in front of me.

When it comes to section 3 on page 6 of the bill, the three sections (a), (b) and (c), "shall be indexed to and adjusted annually for inflation…" – which is something that I agree with and I think it that was an important factor in the setting of rates and royalties, if you will, from electricity. It was one of the things that were missed from the Upper Churchill agreement, so it is nice to see that somebody was thoughtful enough to actually look at the indexing for the rate of inflation.

It goes on down further, "shall be binding on Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but may be amended or changed by the parties by agreement without the prior approval of the public utilities board". Which kind of takes the Public Utilities Board out of it, which is a little bit disconcerting, but here is the part that I was trying to straighten out in my own mind, "may be increased by the public utilities board at any time the rate is less than 50% of the blended Labrador industrial generation rate, upon application by Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited, at the discretion of the public utilities board."

I will put it out to the minister because I am not quite sure, and I do not recall from any of the briefing material that I have seen, whether they are talking about a basic minimum price that they are going to be looking for. I am looking for some clarification as regards to that, because it sounds like, when you are talking about, "may be increased by the public utilities board at any time the rate is less 50% of the blended Labrador industrial generation rate…" that they are going to be trying to keep the prices high.

That is kind of confusing to me. I do not know if it is confusing or not to anybody else, but the question is there as regards to that. Here is the reason why I say that. If somebody goes ahead and looks at it and the price is abnormally high, will they be turned away from development? Would that in turn spur them away from actually looking at Labrador power and saying: no, sorry, Labrador power is a little too pricey to me? Again, I am not saying that it is, but I will put the question out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: The reason why I am saying that is because if the price is abnormally high, is there a chance that something else can happen in the changing energy markets out there that could still make the Labrador price higher than what is going to be happening everywhere else in the energy market? By that I mean, the possibility of what is happening, in particular, down in the States. We already have an example of how rates are dropping for electricity in Manitoba.

That is the only part about this that concerns me, which I hope we can get some answers to as regards to the variations of the base rate for generation. Again, it is something that is a little bit disconcerting sometimes when I look at what has been happening, for example, with the Wuskwatim project in Manitoba and what has been happening, of course, with shale gas and oil in the States and in the Baffin field.

We know the Wuskwatim projects are in a little bit of a financial bind, I guess you could say. They are not making money yet. They not projected to make any money until – according to, like I said, the editorial said earlier – about 2022 and later. Again, that is at a contentious time in the US energy markets where, of course, the Manitoba electrical company – Manitoba Hydro, in this case – is heavily dependent on in order to sell their electricity.

Again, Mr. Speaker, just to sum up – like I said, that is the only concern I have with this, is that the formula needs to be looked at. I can certainly agree with industry and government coming together and negotiating a rate and having that being able to be reviewed from time to time.

There are some cases here, like I said under part (b), where it sounds like they can make amendments to the power rate without the prior approval of the Public Utilities Board. I think that having the Public Utilities Board in there to look out after the Newfoundland and Labrador taxpayers' best interest is probably the best thing that we could do. So, it is a little bit of a concern. Like I said, that is on page 6 of the bill, and that is a direct concern of me.

That is all I have to say on this one for now, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, later on when we get into it a little bit more, I might be able to come up with a couple of more points to bring forward probably in committee.

Thank you very much.

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

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege for me to rise here tonight and speak to Bill 53 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: – An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

It is certainly has been very interesting to listen to all my colleagues speak about this bill and bring their viewpoints forward and –

AN HON. MEMBER: Riveting.

MS PERRY: Riveting – some of the discussions we have been having here this evening, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of this bill is to enable the implementation of a Labrador industrial rate policy. As I just stated, we are amending the lease act from 1961. Certainly, the industrial rates in Labrador have been among the lowest rates in Canada, and they have been for quite some time.

The current contracts in place, Mr. Speaker, are expiring in 2015, as many people have discussed prior to me. With the significant potential that we have for expansion and new mining developments in Labrador, the time is right now to review where we are and to ensure that we receive maximum value from our resources for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mining is one of our very important economic generators, Mr. Speaker. It always has been for the Province and will continue to be. We see great opportunities that will emerge, particularly with the new power that we will be providing to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are looking forward to the opportunities that will bring. In so doing, of course, we want to ensure that we remain competitive with all the other jurisdictions in Canada while ensuring that the people of the Big Land, and the great land we call Newfoundland and Labrador, are going to receive maximum value.

To put it in perspective, the price of iron ore has increased over four times since the year 2000, in just the last twelve years. At the same time, of course, the rates have been really artificially low. This bill ensures that the rates are fair, competitive, and still the lowest available.

Speaking about opportunities, Dr. Wade Locke, who happened to be my Economics professor when I did my Bachelor of Commerce – so I know him well and certainly respect him greatly for his expertise – completed for us a thorough economic analysis of the iron ore mining in Labrador for the period of 2011 into 2031. Of course, the supply of reliable, affordable hydroelectricity is going to be crucial to ensuring that we continue to receive, as a Province, the very impressive benefits that accrue from the vast resources of Labrador.

This bill in particular, Mr. Speaker, will enable us, on January 1, 2015, to end the current Public Utilities Act exemption relating to any supply of power from Twin Falls to CF(L)Co or to the industrial mining operations. It will also end the current Public Utilities Act exemption of the 225 megawatt power block sales to the current companies operating.

Ending these exemptions, Mr. Speaker, is going to do a couple of things for us. It will enable the PUB to regulate transmission for all customers in Labrador and, should it be necessary, allow the PUB oversight over the future 225 megawatt contact between CF(L)Co and the companies we have operating.

There is a new section that we are adding, section 3(a)(v) that will amend the power policy to include the promotion of industrial activity in Labrador. This of course will provide guidance to the PUB on the terms of the 225 megawatt contact between CF(L)Co and NLH. I say if required, and I will elaborate on that in a moment.

Section 5.1 of this amendment is going to allow government to direct the PUB regarding the setting of industrial electricity rates in Labrador. Of course, this is going to be very important because as a government we want to ensure that we remain competitive and that our rates of course are still going to be lower than anywhere else the companies can go to in Canada.

There is a new section we are adding, section 5.8, to allow for the PUB regulation of transmission in Labrador and exclude regulation of generation for industrial customers. This will ensure that the transmission rates are based on the cost of service principles as on the Island. Now you will have similar policies both for the Island and the Labrador portion of the Province. The exemption for generation will allow for rates to include factors other than cost, including competitiveness and market value. Again with a view to ensuring that this is the best place to do business for the mining companies.

I said a little while ago I would elaborate a little bit in terms of should it be necessary. That would apply only in the case where CF(L)Co and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are unable to negotiate a contract for the 225 megawatts of Twin power. We do not expect any issues, but should there be this new section allows for the matter to be referred to the PUB to set the pricing terms. It includes guiding principles for the PUB to take into account as part of its review.

There is an expectation that contract negotiations can be successful to meet all the goals. Of course if this does not happen, the amendment will allow for an independent PUB option to set pricing terms that balance the industrial rate policy goals and those of the two contracting parties.

Mr. Speaker, that in a nutshell are specific changes to the act. I look forward to hearing what others have to say regarding this bill. I will be supporting its passing hopefully later this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very happy to speak to this bill, An Act to Amend the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53. We are on the cusp of incredible possibilities and opportunities in our Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: – with the development of new mining projects in Labrador.

This brings with it the potential of increased wealth to the Province, but also great challenges. In the interest of social justice and equality and fairness, we must ensure that the great economic potential for mining corporations, for the Province, and for certain people of Newfoundland and Labrador who stand to make great gains is not done on the backs of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation earlier this evening talked about the good deal that the mining companies in Labrador are getting with the rates right now. That has some positive effects, but it also proves some challenges.

We know, for instance, he said that BC and Quebec actually charge way more for their industrial power. We know that our Province is open for business and that there are new mining companies setting up in Labrador as we speak. That brings great potential and great opportunity, but some certain challenges. Because there is no published industrial rate for Labrador and everyone else in Canada does have a published rate, this is what brings us here this evening to speak about this issue.

One of the issues I am concerned about is if Quebec comes to the table to mining companies with a lower rate or a better deal for corporations, the corporations are duty bound, Mr. Speaker, to take that rate because they must make the most money they can for their shareholders. That is what corporations do. I make no judgment on that. That is what they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, we know that corporatism knows no patriotism. So what does that mean for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? What does that mean for the economy of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador if in fact Quebec can offer a lower rate? Quebec will be a competitive provider of power and energy. That is what they should be doing. That is not a bad thing.

I want to know, Mr. Speaker, what strategy do we have for industrial rates when it comes to competition with Hydro-Quebec? We know this bill is necessary because there was no published industrial rate in Labrador. Historical rates applied, but there was no guide for the future. How do we progress? How do we go forward?

Now, there is potential for mining development in Labrador and industrial rates have to be part of that. We all know that. That is why we are here this evening. It is essential that mining companies do have a solid understanding of what these rates will be. We cannot give that power away. Mr. Speaker, we cannot give our power away. I want to make sure –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl North is speaking so loud that we can hardly understand what is going on here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. members to be respectful of the individual who is speaking.

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

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

It has been good to sit here this evening and to hear what all the members in the House have to say about this particular bill, so I look forward to the opportunity to speak and be listened to as well, or at least being able to be heard.

It is essential that mining companies have a solid understanding of what the rates will be, but we cannot give our power away. We have to make sure that we, the people of the Province, who are footing the entire bill for Muskrat Falls – because that is the reality, Mr. Speaker, that in fact the people of the Province will foot the entire bill. It is the people of the Province who have to guarantee that this project will work. We have to make sure that the people of the Province get a fair rate.

Is this a situation where the Province will be competing with the very cheap power that it sells? Will it be competing with Hydro-Quebec under the disastrous deal that we signed, that the Province signed with Hydro-Quebec? This legislation has to set some guiding principles. That is why we are here this evening: to make sure that those guiding principles are solid, to make sure that these guiding principles are protecting the people of the Province.

The need to encourage industrial activity, we have to do that; it is in our best interest to encourage industrial activity. Again, we have great potential. The possibilities there are huge for the present and the future of the Province, but we have to ensure that we get good value for our product and our product is that energy – in this case, the electricity, which I mentioned earlier that we are bankrolling. The people of the Province are bankrolling this electricity. An electrical rate has to be fair. We have to establish a fair electrical rate, but it must not be a subsidy. It is not the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who must provide a subsidy to the mining companies that are coming in here. We must not provide a subsidy. We must provide a fair rate, but not a subsidy.

I would ask this government if they have a study about what other competitors are there for potential mining corporations. Who are the competitors that these mining corporations in Labrador can go to for power? Who are the competitors? What is the story? What is the landscape?

Many mining companies also have their own sources of power, especially in remote areas. We have seen that all over the world, where mining companies come in and they set up their own sources of power. We already know that some of the mining companies that are interested in setting up shop in Labrador have established studies where they are looking at the whole issue of wind power and whether or not they can set up their own electricity generating.

Has a study been done about the economics of mining companies using their own power versus the Muskrat Falls power? That will affect our rates. Has that study been done? How about if they are using power from Hydro-Québec?

It is interesting to note that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that government has stated a policy review of rates will be triggered if the rate set for industrial customers in Labrador rises above Hydro-Québec's rate. I would like to know from government how this mechanism will be working. How will government react? What will be done to address this eventuality?

My concern is that this could become a race to the bottom for all energy providers, with mining companies in the driver's seat ensuring the lowest possible rates because that is what they have to do for their shareholders, Mr. Speaker. The only real victim will be the people who are bankrolling the Muskrat Falls Project.

It is a little upsetting that this whole Labrador mining debate is a lately-come rationale for the Muskrat Falls Project. We know first it was talk about the markets in the south. Then when they dried up there was a big talk about how we were going to be an energy powerhouse and sell our energies down south and to the Eastern Seaboard. When those possibilities dried up, then there was a potential of markets in Labrador.

This whole debate – and this might be the most relevant point of all – is possibly because all of these studies look at the potential for mining in Labrador, but there is a wide gap between potential and actuality. We have no guarantees on the actualities.

We know the Public Utilities Board has an important role to play here. It is not just about the industrial rates that mining companies will pay, because whatever those industrial rates will be will have effects on the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador and a loss of revenue to Nalcor. Then, who will bear the burden of any economic loss? Will it be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I will clue up now, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 which the premise is to look at the industrial rate setting in Labrador, specifically.

Mr. Speaker, one of the important things to look at is affordable power. It is key to any industrial development, advancing industry, and economic development overall. It has to be affordable, and that is key.

What this is looking at, the changes to development, is also going to look at raising rates in some cases when it comes to looking at the rates paid by IOC at the moment. This would increase their fees to about $60 million, which was reported by other members in the House. We have to look at what that really means and what it means to the industrial climate, because right now these companies are experiencing relatively low power rates, which they have been able to put a significant investment in Labrador West and really expand employment there.

One of things, though, is that if you increase rates and for a company to absorb those costs, it all depends – when you are talking about a mining company specifically, they are a victim to global marketplace and what that means to commodities.

The RBC placed on the provincial outlook in December, 2012, that there was a fall off in energy production this past year and with it, in Newfoundland and Labrador, other mineral shipments were in decline which reflected this weak economy production. The value of mineral shipments in the Province is expected to decline by nearly 11 per cent in 2012. This is because the spot price for iron plunged, it dropped this summer. That caused for a reduction, and some of the capital spending that was set up is now deferred. That has an impact on a mining company's bottom line.

A larger company like IOC may be able to absorb some of these costs, but when you are talking about junior mining, when you are talking about other exploration companies, when you are talking about the commodity prices, and if you are looking at having an increase rate of electricity, a charge for industrial rates to these mining companies, then that can have an impact on what they are doing when it comes to development.

It looks like there are a number of mining developments where, in 2013, a lot is being deferred in terms of where we are going.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, the bill itself talks about how these rates would come into effect on January 1, 2015. There would be an expiry of what has been negotiated right now with TwinCo, but what happens in the interim, Mr. Speaker, when companies are ready to move forward for development? They need power, and January 1, 2015 is a long ways away.

We are setting up right now – from what I see in the bill – two specific blocks of power that could be used, potentially, and looking at how the rates would come into effect on that. What happens when companies such as Tata Steel Minerals Canada, which are a joint venture company – they have potential to be developing a significant amount of ore. It says right here that their end products are going to be shipped from the St. Lawrence Sea area to the manufacture plants in Britain and Europe.

I am wondering with this bill that is put forward, if we are not looking specifically at mining companies and industrial players that are looking at creating the maximum number of jobs in our Province so that if you are developing just the primary processing but you are also getting into secondary processing – you are doing things from the concentrate, you are looking at pelletizing, you are looking at doing more, whether it would be making steel in Labrador and getting to that level. Would there be an ability, Mr. Speaker, to look at tiering rates so that it would be lower for a company that is getting into secondary processing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has asked for order and he is going to, once again, ask all hon. members to please be respectful of the speaker.

The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I was talking about was the fact that this bill is looking at setting a one-set rate for the industrial players of Labrador, whether they are a new company coming in and shipping everything out, whether they are going to be doing secondary-tertiary processing, or really looking at making significant investments that are going to lead to long-term economic development and benefits. We have companies that have already made those investments into Labrador.

I understand right now there is a negotiated contract into play. There seems to be that there should be a base level for a company for industrial rates but an incentive for those that are doing more to create more jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador and more for the overall economy where they would be able to have a reduced rate based on the investment they are putting in; because they are taking on greater risk. The commodity market can go up and down, as I just read from the report of RBC.

If we look at Labrador West, for example, they currently have those relatively low power rates and they have so many new mining developments and major expansions on the horizon. There are always threats when you look at where we are right now when it comes to electricity and when it comes to the world ore markets. We have seen a recession happen in other parts of the world and we have seen what that has meant to the overall manufacturing when it comes to steel and steel product. That can lead to things like layoffs. It can lead to slowdown, and then there is less demand for electricity. That has implications when you have to still absorb these capital costs and these higher capital costs.

There is no doubt if we are having development in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially Labrador, when it comes to industrial power and if there is lack of immediate power available, we need to look at the options of providing that available power, looking at what is there in recall power, and looking at what is going to be available in this rate. Will there be enough power to supply all of these developments?

There is a significant amount of developments when it comes to Tata Steel, when it comes to Wabush Mines, the Labrador Iron Mines, when it comes to what could happen at Julienne Lake, when it comes to looking at what Alderon Iron Ore Corporation is looking at doing, when it comes to the Labec Century Iron Ore Inc. We need to look at what the overall assessment is and what the implications are.

If, based on what is here, we see that if we offer them all the same set rate and they need more power than what is available, some of them are going to have to get it from elsewhere. That can create an environment where electricity is generally a monopolistic environment where neighbouring companies, like Hydro-Quebec, can come in with relatively low prices because they have excess power where they can come in and supply. They have mining companies across the border.

I am wondering what the overall power needs are of all these potential mining companies and seeing what is being put forward in this bill, in the briefing, of the 200-plus megawatts of power, is that enough? Is the recall power enough? If not, will Muskrat Falls power be used? If so, based on rates that are proposed for the residential rates, looking at where we are with the industrial rates and what is being proposed, which is a significant increase right now of what the mining company is paying, then we really need to look at that. I have not seen an analysis done on these overall costs. I would certainly like to see – maybe the Minister of Natural Resources can explain that to me, if he has the opportunity to get to his feet on that.

One of the things is that if you are a shareholder of a company, a mining company in general or an industrial company, and that can be a number of entities, you would have to look at getting a payback and getting the payback as quick as possible. Unlike an investment like Muskrat Falls, which government touts it is going to give $20 billion over the fifty years, most of that investment will not be recognized until very late in the game because depreciation is not written off early on. Most shareholders would not approve a project like that because they want faster returns on investment. It is highly important. You need to see a fast return on your investment.

If you are looking at mining and you are looking at industrial rates, surely to have them published and to have a set rate is a good thing. What the current contract is, is a very low rate. It is looking at increasing the rate that is there. The legislation puts forward all of these options to negotiate rates where they can be very flexible up or down. What does that mean to the overall revenue stream that is coming into the Province?

When we look at the potential in the long-term and on the horizon, certainly there are significant opportunities. Mr. Speaker, when you have excess power and you have that ability, you can attract industry. I had taken a trip to Iceland recently where they have heavily developed hydro power. They have invested in geothermal. They have a significant amount of energy resource. What they have been able to do because they have very low-cost power, Mr. Speaker, is attract energy.

I have spoken to an engineer there who is a hydrologist. What the person said is it is so important. They said: We have so much power. I said: What are you doing with it? It is a shame you cannot export that power. They said: Well, what we are going to do with it – we kind of do. We get bauxite coming up from Australia. Did you see that big plant there when you drove into town? That is the aluminum plant and that requires a significant amount of energy. Because of that, it is the number-two employer in Iceland and it has been able to create a significant amount of energy and revenue generating.

When you look at what we are proposing when it comes to Muskrat Falls, the rates are unaffordable and unsustainable. If we look specifically at what we are doing with the industrial rates here and the small amount of power, I am not sure if that power is enough to support the potential mining needs when you look at the many mining projects on the street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: The set block that is specific in the bill, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – is only 200-and-something megawatts of power. There is potential recall power as well. Just with that, if there is no Muskrat Falls there may not be enough power.

Then if you look at with Muskrat Falls, you have a very expensive project with depreciation and all of these things to look at, and what the proposed rates are. To be able to even do a blended rate would put it extremely high. That certainly has been one of the threats the Hyron Regional Economic Development board had talked about.

It is absolutely critical that if you are going to have power available, it has to be affordable to really look at the development. I go back and I say: If you are going to look at accessing additional power and what you are going to be doing for industrial rates and those ratepayers, then maybe there needs to be more in the plan when it comes to what it means to the overall economic development of this region, especially in Labrador West but there are other areas as well, and what these companies will be doing when they put forward their proposals on the social applications that it means. If you are looking at developing a mine and it means 1,000 jobs, well then you have to look at the housing piece. You have to also look at the social programs that are needed and what that means. If the mining companies are willing to partner and put up these investments, you may be able to provide cheaper power based on that. I see there are certainly a lot of needs when it comes to the region, and I talked about the world markets there. I am very concerned I guess when you look at section 5.1 of the act, because it is repealed.

It has, "Notwithstanding sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct the public utilities board with respect to the policies and procedures to be implemented by the board with respect to the determination of rate structures of public utilities under the Public Utilities Act and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, including direction on the setting and subsidization of rural rates, the setting of industrial rates in Labrador, the fixing of a debt-equity ratio for Hydro, and the phase in, over a period of years from the date of coming into force of this section, of a rate of return determination for Hydro, and the board shall implement those policies and procedures."

If we look at the phase in of power, we need to look at how much those rates are going to cost, what that overall means to the debt-equity ratio of Hydro. If they take on too much debt, it is going to have an implication when it comes to the overall ratepayer of the Province.

My biggest concern is under 5.8 where the transmission lines and related assets located in Labrador are exempt for those that are included in the Muskrat Falls Project and what that is going to mean when it comes to the industrialization of rates. I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to looking at industrial rates –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: – and looking at how we expand economic development as long as it is done in a planned manner and that we create the maximum amount of benefits.

I do think that it would be best if when we look at setting industrial rates, that it is not just a one rate system. That you look at giving a lower rate to a company that is going in and doing secondary and tertiary processing and not just everybody gets the same amount. Those who have made significant capital investments and capital expenditures, when the world market takes a decline then they are the first people who will have to layoff workers, and that is going to have an impact.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation here. I thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill 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 The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 53)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

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

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 53)

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 the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 53.

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 53.

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.

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 53, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994". (Bill 53)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to speak with regard to this bill in committee because we have a couple of amendments that we will be proposing. This particular bill, Bill 53, amends the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Act and the Electrical Power Control Act to allow for government to set industrial rates in Labrador.

Those industrial rates will be set in a couple of different ways. One of the blocks we are dealing with is what would be formerly known as the TwinCo block, which is the 225 megawatts of power that is available for industrial development in Labrador at this time. What government would be doing is regulating, through Bill 53, the generation and the transmission rates on that particular power. It also allows for the sanctioning of it by the Public Utilities Board, and allows for the PUB to hold hearings or to act as an arbitrator in the case of any dispute between parties as it relates to the setting of prices.

Mr. Chair, the whole rationale behind the bill and the principle of the bill is one that we support. We really believe this legislation is necessary in order to continue to develop industry and establish rates for industry, as well as negotiating agreements with industry for future opportunities in Labrador. In the absence of this legislation, Mr. Chair, it leaves everything in chaos as to how this would be done in the future with so many mining companies coming on stream.

In the past, IOC and Wabush Mines were always dealt with on an ad-hoc basis. Depending on the government of the day, the management of the company of the day, whatever the political climate was between those two bodies often was what constituted an agreement. In the past, the reality was that we had cheap power. It was costing very little to generate, very little to transmit. There was always the opportunity for good deals that would be stable, long-term and extremely good pricing when you look at what the competitive market was offering.

In the future, Mr. Chair, we know that will change in Labrador. We know there will be more mining companies. We know that we are not just dealing with two players any longer. We are not just dealing with ad-hoc agreements. Therefore, you need to have something in place legislatively that governs how this happens, not just for today but for the future, no matter what government is in power, Mr. Chair.

Now we always know that legislation can be changed, but there needs to be a benchmark and that is what we are discussing today. The actual bill lays out those principles and what we have looked at, Mr. Chair, is does it go really where we want it to go? In many cases, it does.

What it does here is it allows for fair negotiation between all parties, between government and between the mining companies. It allows for the involvement of the utility companies, which are the people who are going to be providing and delivering the service at the end of the day, maintaining that service, incurring all of the costs that are affiliated with it. It allows for all of that. It allows to take into consideration any additional costs that might be occurring as a result of this, whether, for example, if there are new transmission lines that have to be built and so on. All of that is contained within this bill.

I heard people here tonight talking about the power and what it is going to do to the ratepayer. Mr. Chair, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with that. That is completely off base altogether, and it is completely misleading. What this bill deals with is a specific block of power to be negotiated and delivered for industry based on what that cost is. It has nothing to do with a ratepayer anywhere else in the Province, in Labrador or on the Island. To leave that impression is false. I want to make sure that on the record it is clear.

What the bill does now, under clause 2 of the bill, it talks about 3(a) of the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, it says it "is amended by deleting the word ‘and' at the end of subparagraph (iii), by deleting the semi-colon at the end of subparagraph (iv) and substituting a comma and the word ‘and', and by adding immediately after that subparagraph the following: (v) should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador". That is very clear, Mr. Chair, very simple: should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador.

Now that is the reason we are all here tonight passing this important piece of legislation. That is the objective we want to achieve. We want to, at the end of the day, promote the development of industry. We want to be able to do that. We know it exists. We know the resource is there. We know the opportunity is there. We know there are investors who want to invest. We want to make sure we can capitalize on that for the people of the Province. That is the reason we are doing this. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else, what anybody else pays, or any other block of power. It has to do with that block, providing it for industry, and promoting development in Labrador.

Mr. Chair, that being the case, obviously what we would like to see is government taking that a little step further. It is not in any way affecting the principle of the bill. It is basically strengthening the bill. What we would be adding is that we would see a change in paragraph 3(a)(v) of clause 2. We would like to see it amended by deleting the word "should" and substituting the word "shall", adding immediately after the word "industrial" the words "and economic", and adding immediately after the word "Labrador" the words "through preferential rates and/or through priority access".

Therefore, the amended paragraph 3(a)(v) would then read: shall promote the development of industrial and economic activity in Labrador through preferential rates and/or through priority access. I will certainly give the Table a copy of that amendment – I do not know the process, if you want to look at it first before I speak to it to ensure that it is in order.

CHAIR: Yes.

MS JONES: I can table that amendment to see if it is in order, and when it is I will certainly speak to it.

CHAIR: The House will take a short recess to consider the amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

After consideration, we find the amendment not in order.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, that is unfortunate that it is not in order, but I certainly cannot do much about your ruling at this stage. That is it. We still feel that the legislation can be strengthened and whether that is done in regulation or practice by the government and Nalcor as they negotiate these power purchase agreements, we certainly feel that it is necessary.

The reason for that is because we believe that even though industry will be created in Labrador and they will have the opportunity to negotiate these rates, we feel that added incentives would allow us to create more economic activity so we could potentially see more secondary processing going on in Labrador.

I give you an example. I talked about two things. One was preferential rates; the other one is priority access. I know the Minister of Natural Resources will know exactly what I am talking about because he has talked about this before as well. If there is a case where there is a company that is going to come into Labrador and sole source power and that company is going to create 800 or 1,000 jobs, they are going to contribute immensely to the economy of the Province for a very long time, well obviously, they could be given some priority access for that power based on the fact that they are larger, they are longer, and they are generating more.

That is basically the piece that we are throwing out there for consideration. The other piece is with regard to the rates and that again is cases where companies that wanted to do secondary processing would be given consideration for preferential rates, outside of those that just want to ship out raw material.

A perfect example of this is what is happening in the mining industry today, where we have a case where IOC, for example, has a pelleting operation in Labrador and as the market demands, they produce pellets for that market. They have a level of secondary production that is creating more jobs, generating more revenue, for the people of the Province. There are other mining companies who are coming in that will not be doing any secondary production and, in fact, will only be taking ore out of the ground, putting it on a rail cart, sending it to Sept-Îles, putting it on a ship in Sept-Îles or Pointe-Noire, and they will be sending it off to the market. In doing that, just that extraction process, we are losing jobs; we are losing potential revenues for the Province.

What we are saying to the government is that having a preferential rate system creates an incentive for these companies to do more. It does not have to put any burden on taxpayers in this Province, regardless of what my friends, the Third Party, are saying. That is not the case, it does not have to do that, and it will not do that under this particular legislation. Mr. Chair, it is still about paying for the service, it is still about paying for the access to the power, paying for the power that is being generated, and doing so at a different rate system will allow for more incentives and more opportunity.

That is the point we are trying to make. We think it is necessary and it can be under section 3(a). Unfortunately, this amendment was not in order, but it does not take away from the fact that it is necessary and it should be a practice that is applied in Labrador. I think, in doing so, it will generate a lot more jobs and a lot more activity for the people of the Province.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, even though the amendment is not in order, I will speak to the principle behind the amendment, because I think it is the principle that is important here. I will state that as a government we are not adverse to the principle that is being put forward, it is just how can implement it in a practical way.

I am going to try to give a couple of examples of how we would do that, having regard to some of the comments made by the Opposition House Leader. I do have some concerns with preferential rates, and I will outline why, Mr. Chair.

Essentially, what we are trying to do here with the industrial rate policy is ensure that there is a certain amount of certainty for individuals or companies that are coming into Labrador and are looking for power so that they can determine if they are going to proceed. Now that involves knowing the costs, and the costs of their operation along with the cost of doing business in Labrador.

What we have is we have our TwinCo block, which is the development block, the 225 megawatts, you take that and you combine that with a market block and that is how we would come up with our generation rate. The PUB will be directed – and that language is very important, Mr. Chair, under section 5.1. The Public Utilities Board will be directed in terms of the generation rate. Then, the transmission rate becomes important because the transmission rate will be on cost of service principles and that will be regulated by the PUB.

What I tried to do the other day, Mr. Chair, was outline an example of how we will come up with a rate so that we are competitive with Quebec, because we all recognize that we have to be competitive with Quebec.

Just for the information of the members opposite or our own members, the way I see this, Mr. Chair, is that when we talk about buying power from Quebec we are buying Upper Churchill power. That is what you are buying here. There are no transmission lines coming in there. Essentially, a deal with a company, or with Quebec, they would have to build a transmission line from the Upper Churchill to Labrador West and they would then supply Upper Churchill power.

The reason that it is not feasible, Mr. Chair, is that it would be based on the market rate. What is the next best alternative that they can get? That is the way they would approach it from a business perspective.

What we have tried to do is we want to be competitive with Quebec, you take your TwinCo block, you mix it together with your market block, and I am using examples, $20 for TwinCo, $50 for market block, which could be the price you would get on the US stock markets, combine it and you get your $32 or $33 generation rate. Then, if we are going to have to build a line – and the reason we are doing this, Mr. Chair, this way is that if we were to build a line to Lab West, or we are going to say to the company first out you have to build a line, the cost would be $300 million. What we are trying to do is to spread the cost of that line over the people who use it.

The preferential rates become an issue because then we are going to be doing one-offs again. We are going to be doing it on an ad hoc basis. I can tell you, Mr. Chair, the first person, the first company, that would have the argument that they should be given preferential rates would be IOC and Wabush Mines. The difficulty with IOC and Wabush Mines seeking that is that the reality is that they pay now – Wabush Mines approximately four cents, you mix in $11 that IOC has paid and it works out to be about $6 a megawatt hour, Mr. Chair. That is far too cheap. Then, we get into priority access.

What I am suggesting to the member opposite is that this section – and I looked at the wording. When I look at section 3 of the Electrical Power Control Act: It is declared to be the policy of the province that, and then outlines the word "should". I am not a big fan of the word "should" in legislation because I prefer the permissive "may", the mandatory "shall", and I am not quite certain where "should" comes in. What I see is, when I looked at it, how did they come up with the word "should"? This was the original language used in the act, "should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador".

This is how I think it will be done, because I think we all agree on the principle. If you have a smelter come in, that smelter will – if someone comes in and says we are going to build a smelter, we all know that you are talking anywhere from 700 to 1,500 megawatts of energy required. They will create a lot of jobs. Like any big company, they are going to say: Well, what is in it for us? How can you make this cheaper? How do you look at the economic benefits as opposed to preferential rates or priority access?

The suggestion is that we could look at benefits agreements. You have one rate where everyone coming in is on a level playing field. We are open and transparent. We have published that rate. We have put it on the Web site.

I think someone asked earlier, how would the review mechanism kick in? The review mechanism would kick in if Quebec's rates – because we have to try to be competitive with Quebec. Do not ever kid yourself that Quebec – if our rates are at fifty-seven, they will not go to forty-five. We have to be competitive and we have to have a mechanism that allows for review.

We also recognize, Mr. Chair, there could be other Labrador benefits that are required. Much as we are seeing with the Muskrat Falls site, Labrador or Aboriginal first, Innu or Labrador – Nunatsiavut as opposed to NunatuKavut. Yes, the Nunatsiavut Government if it is in their area.

The difficulty we have in the Labrador West area, there is no real land claims in Labrador West. You could an Aboriginal first hiring policy. You could have a female agenda policy which requires hiring of more females. There could be various requirements. Then they would say, well what is in it for us? The Minister of IBRD could be in a better position to speak to this as to what kinds of incentives are offered to companies to come to our Province.

It is not subsidizing, Mr. Chair. What we are not doing here – as the Member for St. John's Centre earlier suggested, which her leader had last week taken umbrage. She said we are not subsidizing these companies. What we are doing is we want them to come to our Province in Labrador to do business.

The principle I think that the Opposition House Leader is talking about is there could be certain circumstances where there would be negotiations that would end up in a benefits agreement. That is something I think we will certainly have to look at. Although it is not addressed in the legislation right now, I think when you look at "should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador". Well, if we have a smelter and the smelter was going to be based on – there has to be some kind of benefits. I think there is certainly a common sense aspect to that.

The other concern – and I agree with the member opposite. Right now the Chinese markets, my understanding direct ore shipping or concentrate is something that the market in China wants at present, but pelletization or secondary processing certainly results in more jobs and increases the cost of them doing business. So, if we are going to entice – if the market, at whatever point, decides that we need pellets again, or pellets are the way to go, then there is going to be a cost to a company such as IOC in terms of putting in the pelletization aspect. There could be that give and take.

The reason we have not used benefits agreements in the mining industry to this point, from what I understand in talking to my officials, we have not really had any new companies. Labrador Iron Mines is the first company to open up, I think, in forty years in Labrador. Right now we have all these other companies that are interested. We understand that they have to go to the markets. They have to get their money. They have investors, they need some certainty. Our preference would be to keep the rate published. This is the rate. This is your generation rate.

Now, in terms of setting up agreements – and this has become standard in the oil industry, in terms of the Hebron Benefits Agreement, the dispute resolution mechanisms that we had there. It outlined where things were to be built, how things were to be done. At this stage, I am just looking at what could potentially take place in the future. Why would IOC or anyone else spend extra money on pelletization – and there is extra money, extra power required, extra money required – unless there is a benefit to them? What I am suggesting is the section as it reads does encompass the policy that is being suggested and the principle that is being suggested by the Opposition House Leader.

Mr. Chair, the other issue we have to make though, as a government – this is an issue that a policy decision is going to have to be made on in the near future as these companies ramp up – is the issue of shipping out ore. As it now stands, we have pelletization taking place but the member again makes valid points in terms of the way that ore is shipped.

In a benefits agreement, if one was negotiated – and I have spoken to the Deputy Minister about this. If one was negotiated then you could look at, there could be some give and take, and we see it all the time. I can give you a recent example on the Island where a company wanted a preferential power rate and we said no that the generation rate on the Island has to be what it is; however, we can look at other ways of helping you or enticing you into the Province. The reality is that there is a competitive world out there and what we are trying to do is attract the industry into our Province.

One thing we also have to remember is that the companies we are talking about are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and there have to be agreements with us. I am also thinking that one of the things the member opposite would like to see would be these types of Labrador first agreements in terms of, whether it is employment, gender equity, Aboriginal hiring, or Aboriginal consultations.

These are all things that may become standard. What we are finding with these agreements is it is much better to have it in writing, but IOC and Wabush Mines have been around so long that it is only now when the TwinCo block is expiring that we are getting to the point of the industrial rates policy, that it makes sense to have it. We have all these companies now looking to come into the Province.

What we have is a situation where common sense has to apply. These are business people and they are going to say: If we come into your Province and create jobs – one only has to look at Wade Locke's economic analysis of the impact of iron ore mining in Lab West to see why it is in our best interest as a Province to promote the development of industrial activity. You will note it is not only mining activity. It is industrial to encompass mining and other potential activity.

There has been discussion, and the member opposite would be aware, for years of smelters coming into Labrador. Back in one of the Supreme Court of Canada cases there was reference to the potential for a smelter being built in Labrador.

The iron ore industry in Lab West; we have the nickel industry, obviously, in Northern Labrador. We have the potential for uranium mining in the Michelin Project around Postville. Is it Postville? Where is my trusty – Lab West. Then we have the potential for Grand River Ironsands being developed.

We recognize that when you look at the Labrador mining paper, as the companies move from a concept to exploration, to someone finding an ore, to moving to feasibility economics, that each step of the way they are going to know: What is it going to cost us to do this project? What we feel is that the publication of this industrial rate – that will be put on the Web site as we have indicated, that will be out there for everyone to see, the transmission cost will be based on how much you use the transmission services – is certainly in the best interests of everyone.

Again, we are looking at developments. We have Tata Steel and New Millennium that we are talking to. We still have, as I said, the fact of Labrador Iron Mines. We have other companies. We have the Julienne Lake development which is up for – I do not know if it is bids or auctions, call it what you like.

We are seeing who is interested in Julienne Lake. I do not have the time tonight, but it is another fascinating story behind Julienne Lake there as to how the government ended up with the property itself. We have had that looked at by a number of consultants and the consultants think it is a very good property; again, all in the Lab West area.

I want to say to the members from Labrador, we are not only looking at iron ore, uranium, and nickel. There is also the discussion of rare metals in the South Coast of Labrador. We have to be open for business. We have to ensure that all the businesses respect the environment. We have to ensure we are fair to them but they are fair to us, always recognizing the cultural aspects or cultural impacts of developments in Labrador. We also have to look at the need to consult with our Aboriginal communities.

Even though the amendment was not in order, what I will say to the member opposite is we are certainly cognizant of all of the issues you raise here. At this stage I can say I have no difficultly in principle with what you are suggesting. It seems to me to comply to be implicit in the way it is written there. It should promote industrial activity. It seems to be consistent with a common sense application that if you are going to entice business into your area, then there has to be an agreement that benefits everyone. We have to look at where we are going as the industry develops and what is happening in China. How does the market want us, as a Province and as a country, to respond?

Mr. Chair, despite the fact that we are seeing somewhat of a downturn in the Chinese economy, the Chinese still seem to be so significant to our Province. They seem to be very significant in terms of their interest in our Province, and in Canada as a whole. The other side of it is that as China goes so does the Newfoundland and Labrador economy, because China is having a significant impact on the price of oil in the world and China is also having a significant impact on the price of iron ore. As I have indicated, Chinese companies and Indian companies are interested in Labrador.

Those will be my comments, Mr. Chair. Again, the principle outlined by the member opposite is one that I could certainly take into account.

CHAIR (Littlejohn): The hon. Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is certainly good for me to have a few words on this. I want to pick up on a few things that the Minister of Natural Resources just had to say with respect to benefits because I fully understand where the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair is coming from.

We often hear, or I often hear from people in Labrador or people from Labrador, whether they are still there or down here living on the Island, on the Northeast Avalon, that they see a lot of resources go out of Labrador and they wonder who is really benefitting from it. Of course, if people feel that way, there is an attitude that the partnership we have with the people in Labrador is not a fair and equitable one, not one that is advantageous to us all equally, you certainly hear that.

It makes some sense I think in some respects, because we make the same argument ourselves here on the Island a lot around fisheries. We have made similar arguments when it comes to the fishery itself, and oil developments on the Island when it comes to the federal government. It is our resource, it is there, and we are adjacent to it. So, I certainly understand some of that.

The minister also talked about benefits agreements in the absence of other forms of compensation from multinational companies that would come in to prosecute the resources in Labrador. I think that is a creative way to get at some of the things we want to do, but sometimes I hear stories and look at statistics and I wonder about the extent to which these sorts of benefits agreements are actually worth the paper that they are written on. If you look at the percentage of women, for example, who are working in our offshore industries today, is it exactly what we had intended it to be when we had negotiated those things?

Mr. Chair, the issue of industrial rates for Labrador is a serious one. It is an important and serious issue for people in the entire Province – certainly, not just in Labrador, but the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador – and it is a very complex issue with deep historical roots. There is a lot of context to this particular issue.

Mr. Chair, you have often heard people say and cite the quote that if we do not understand our history, if we do not understand the past, as they say, we could be doomed to repeat our mistakes well into the future. The past is very relevant to Bill 53 because what we do now, what we do in the future is, to some extent, a reflection of some of the things that we have done in the past.

It is vital to understand the details and detail the many players, whether that is the government itself, Nalcor, the big mining companies, the supply companies, municipalities, Aboriginal groups and governments, all of the different players who are going to be engaged in this work as we go forward. It is important to understand their goals and objectives.

I think my colleague, the Member for St. John's Centre, was quite clear, that there are conflicting goals and objectives between what we want to do as political parties, what the government may want to do to the perceived benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and what a big multinational might want to do. We know in our recent history, if you look at the labour strife that we saw at the Vale site in Voisey's Bay, if you look at some of the records of environmental degradation that you see in other countries, we could very well have that on our hands. The goals often conflict. It is important to understand people who oppose in addition to people who propose certain courses of action.

Bill 53 is a key piece of legislation there. It will resonate for decades in the area of industrial development in this land of hope, a land of opportunity in the Big Land in Labrador. We absolutely have to get this right. We have a time now to get this piece of legislation right, not just for people in Labrador but for people all over Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to ensure that each and every detail of this bill, Mr. Chair, is scrutinized, every fact is absorbed, and every possible outcome is analyzed, is weighed and is understood. We know we have to do that.

We know there is a multitude of possible outcomes here with this legislation and the other bills that we will consider now leading up to the Christmas holidays. This bill is certainly a short one; there is no question about that. The implications of this affect tens of thousands of lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very, very serious and it will have a long lasting impact for decades and decades to come perhaps.

I am sure the Chair will agree that we have to be diligent, we have to be thorough, we have to be thoughtful and we have to be responsible in our deliberations, our debates and our statements in the House and ultimately in how we vote on this bill. Earlier on when we were discussing this we did raise a number of concerns about clause 4, specifically how it relates to how Muskrat Falls power is implicated in the bill.

With the setting of industrial rates in Labrador, there are these two main blocks of power that we have been talking about. The development block supplied by the former TwinCo block and a portion of recall power. The recall block will be provided, and it will be provided below external market prices. The reason for this is complicated. This is very intricate I think and it requires a bit of a history lesson on where this Twin Falls power is coming from, because, of course, the Twin Falls are waterfalls.

As I mentioned earlier today, the water that is flowing there originates from a tributary of the Churchill River. It is interesting that no one has mentioned this at all. These are located on the very interestingly named Unknown River; the Unknown River in Labrador. That is the tributary that runs from Churchill Falls. It flows out through the Labrador basin and down through Lake Melville. Obviously, the Member for Lake Melville, people may be using this very water for their drinking water in his district. It obviously flows from Lake Melville out into the Atlantic Ocean.

These hydroelectric power development rights were acquired by BRINCO back in the 1950s, and of course that was all around the development of Wabush Mines and the IOC site. Those two, you could almost call them twins in some respect, mining companies operating in Western Labrador. BRINCO created the Twin Falls Power Corporation in order to provide a supply of power. It was over 100 miles west of the two mining operations that were being built up.

I see my time is running out here, Mr. Chair. I can come back to this later because there is a lot more to be said about this. There is quite a lot more that I have to say about this particular bill. I think we really have to study it closely, understand the history, and understand the context before we can understand the potential implications for what we are doing by accepting this bill.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, this is a dangerous little bill, little because it is only a few pages long; dangerous, both due to the intended consequences and the unintended consequences.

First, I would like to go back to the amendment that was not found to be in order and the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources. The clause that was sought to be amended "should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador". The proposed amendment included the word "shall" and some others.

The Minister of Natural Resources spoke at length about preferring to have "shall" and "may" instead of "should" and likely knows full well that using the term "should" in a legal document is referred to as being precatory. It means nothing. It means absolutely nothing. It means that if somebody comes to you to have a will drawn and John is going to leave his home to his son, he hopes he is going to look after his mother, and he puts her in a home. The fact that he hopes or that he should look after his mother means absolutely nothing.

Mr. Chair, this clause which says "should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador" is meaningless. It means absolutely nothing. It binds nobody. It is a sop to the people who would pretend that they are trying to do something for Labrador in this legislation.

This piece of legislation does nothing for Labrador. If it intended to do something for Labrador it would say "shall" promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador. The whole amendment would not be needed to change one word. "Shall" promote industrial development in Labrador. Then we are actually going to do something in Labrador and for Labrador.

In fact, Mr. Chair, this bill and this development is going to do something in Labrador but definitely not for Labrador, not for Labradorians, not for people in Lake Melville, not for people in Churchill Falls, not for people on the Coast, not for people anywhere in Labrador. It is an ongoing part of the saga which means the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador adds the name Labrador but does nothing for Labrador except extract resources and ignores Labrador.

Mr. Chair, to go through this bill, one of the reasons it is dangerous is because it engages other larger pieces of legislation. Then we can look and see, well, if you refer to a few little clauses and this one is taken out and that one is put in, what do you have?

If you refer to the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 and cross-reference it to the bill, at section 7 it says the Public Utilities Act, 1964 does not apply in certain cases. Then it removes all of the areas where it does not apply. Then that means that it does apply on the others, but which ones are not deleted?

Mr. Chair, the ones that are not deleted say, "the supply of hydro-electric power developed under the Lease made pursuant to the Act No. 51 of 1961, as now or hereafter amended, at the Churchill Falls Power Plant in Labrador to (i) Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission". Quebec Hydro-Electric Commission will suffer no change whatsoever because of this dangerous little bill. Also, the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission, they are not affected whatsoever.

In reference to: "under any written agreement with any of such Commissions or companies, or to the issuance of any securities in connection with or the financing or construction of facilities for the installation and transmission of hydro-electric power from the said Churchill Falls Power Project". This is the original 1961 act which is amended by this bill.

Then it deletes the references to TwinCo. I almost think Twinkie, and I thought they were discontinued but apparently they got out of bankruptcy. It goes on to say, "but the said The Public Utilities Act, 1964, applies to the production, storage, transmission and supply of all other hydro-electric power developed under or in pursuance of the Lease executed and delivered pursuant to this Act." That is this act.

Mr. Chair, this bill then needs to be cross-referenced with the Electrical Power Control Act. The Electrical Power Control Act would add: "should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador". Well, we know that is meaningless. We have put in a meaningless phrase to placate people who would say that we are not doing anything for Labrador; when, in fact, we are not doing anything for Labrador.

However, when we move on to section 5.1 the direction to the board, then we add in words that are useful and to read line by line by line, embedded in the middle of that particular section says "…the setting of industrial rates in Labrador…". The setting of industrial rates does absolutely nothing for consumers. It does nothing for commerce except for industrial rates. It does nothing for the people of Labrador, Mr. Chair.

When we continue in this bill, under 5.8(2), "The Public Utilities Act shall not apply to the setting of electricity rates for industrial customers in Labrador other than the transmission components of those rates, which shall be regulated under subsection (1)."

So what is the importance of not setting the rates other than the transmission? If the rate is not set but the transmission rate is set, then that means that if one component is set then the other one also becomes meaningless because whoever has the opportunity to set the rates can set those rates on that part of the equation as high or as low as possible.

Mr. Chair, another issue I have is when we go to 5.9, we talk about a reasonable time, "Where Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro cannot reach an agreement for the sale and purchase of the electrical energy and capacity described in subsection 7(3) of The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 within a reasonable time…". Reasonable people will always argue over what is a reasonable time. Why isn't this legislation more precise? Why doesn't this say on thirty days notice, sixty days notice, or ninety days notice? Reasonable is left to interpretation, becoming meaningless.

As you continue into this section, under 5.9(2)(e) it says "the policy objective set out in subparagraph 3(a)(v)…". Well, the policy objective set out in 3(a)(v) is "should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador", which we already know is meaningless and not subject to being amended in the manner that was sought.

For this particular part of this debate, we go on in this bill and it says this rate "shall be indexed to and adjusted annually for inflation, and the nature of that adjustment may be established by the public utilities board as appropriate for the industry". Now, Mr. Chair, why would we index something today in a statute? We have no idea what inflation will be. Inflation could well be 10 per cent, 15 per cent, or 20 per cent. That means we would have to come back into this House and do another amendment when the House is open in order to be able to change this bill. This makes absolutely no sense. This should be in a regulation.

The final issue I have at this point is: Has this legislation been vetted to determine if it is a subsidy under NAFTA? We already know this government has been very careless in dealings with hydroelectric expropriations that ran afoul of NAFTA. That was in the expropriation in Grand Falls with Abitibi, not necessarily the accidental expropriation of a paper mill, which I would say was brought on by speed and carelessness, but brought on because either this government had no appreciation for what NAFTA is and the fact that we are a sub-national government, and the Government of Canada then was forced to pay up $130-some million. Either the Government of Canada covered a mistake we made or we did not make a mistake and we intentionally did it, knowing that the Government of Canada would be left on the hook for more than $130 million, which is absolutely not dealing in good faith.

This bill, Mr. Chair, should be vetted by people who are experienced in NAFTA negotiations to determine whether having us introduce industrial rates through this bill in Labrador constitutes a subsidy under NAFTA because it if constitutes a subsidy under NAFTA, we can expect a NAFTA challenge and the Government of Canada may well find itself very unhappy with the loan guarantee because it had to face a NAFTA challenge on something that it had guaranteed and provided a subsidy.

Those are my comments for now, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

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

I am pleased to get a chance to speak again to this bill which, as I said during second reading, is an extremely important bill which deals with an issue that is, again, a very important issue and that is the whole thing of the setting of industrial rates in Labrador. Of course, the industry that this is most geared towards is the mining industry, as we know.

This is a short bill and I agree with that, we can all see that it is, but it is complicated because it is dealing with two or three differing issues. The first one, of course, which is stated in section 2 is looking at the whole issue of electricity and power in Labrador and adding a very important phrase that the Electrical Power Control Act should promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador. This is a major reason for this bill and that is really good, that is positive, and that is important.

Obviously, it is also dealing with the government wanting to get a fair share of the cost of electricity that is being used industrially in Labrador and looking to the day when they can get more money for the electricity, a day when the electrical rates will not be set in a contract, but a day in which the electrical rates will be set according to the market and that is very important. I totally agree with that.

I totally agree with trying to make sure that we have a promotion of development of industrial activity in Labrador. It is happening anyway. It is going to happen. It is going on without even this bill being put in place. We all know that. We know that the mining industry is growing in Labrador. We have more exploration going on than we have ever had before. This of course is particularly in Labrador West with iron ore, and we are all aware of that.

The problem – and I have to say it again. I have said it already in this House and I have to say it again: The problem that I have, it is not with all of that wonderful stuff in the bill, but it is with the one little clause in section 4 which is dealing with section 5.8 in the Public Utilities Act. The fact that we have introduced in this bill a theme that we are going to be dealing with for the rest of this week now that I have read two other bills that have been circulated to us – now that I have read Bill 60 and Bill 61, I know that the issue that I am going to say now is something that is introduced in Bill 53 and it is going to be an issue for the rest of this week. That is the preferential treatment for the Muskrat Falls Project.

The preferential treatment for the Muskrat Falls Project in this bill has nothing to do with the issue of the development in Labrador. It has to do with giving complete control to the Muskrat Falls Project and to its mother corporation, which is Nalcor. That is why the clause in the rewritten section of the Public Utilities Act, the 5.8 rewritten section, the clause that exempts Muskrat Falls from the Public Utilities Act, "the Public Utilities Act shall apply to all transmission lines and related assets located in Labrador, except…(b) those included in the Muskrat Falls Project" is extremely problematic. I do not know why the government decided to make this amendment here.

It is quite possible that amendment could have been made somewhere else because we have amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act coming up in one of the other bills. Why they did not wait and put that there, I do not know. What it is doing for me is that because of the clause with regard to the Muskrat Falls Project, I cannot vote for the bill, but that is not the rest of the bill. It is this one clause that is making that impossible for me, because I do not agree with the Muskrat Falls Project being given preferential treatment and being a law unto itself. As I said, this is a theme that we are going to be seeing throughout this week. No utility, whether it is a private corporation or a Crown corporation, should be a law unto itself, and removing Muskrat Falls from outside of the Public Utilities Act does that.

If we are really concerned about what is good for the development of Labrador then we should want our Public Utilities Board, our regulator to be there protecting the people of Labrador, not just being concerned about the industry, not just being concerned about the corporations, the mining companies – that is important – but also being concerned about the people of Labrador. I think that is why it is important that the Muskrat Falls Project should be under the Public Utilities Act, under the Public Utilities Board.

It is extremely problematic that the government has chosen to do what it has done because I think it was a choice. As I said, we are making amendments to the Electrical Power Control Act and another act, why couldn't this change have been made there? It is not a change that was needed here. It makes it very, very difficult. I have spoken to this.

What we have in this bill with regard to the relationship between the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited, with CF(L)Co and with IOC is extremely important. It is really good to see that we have a working together of both of those corporations and if they need an arbitrator, the arbitrator is there. I really like that model. I like the idea that CF(L)Co and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro can work together on the rates, can work together if they need help. If they need somebody to come in and work with them they will go to the Public Utilities Board and they will have in that sense a mediator working with them, which is extremely important.

There are so many good things in this bill. I am sorry that the government has, as I said, put this barb in the bill. Obviously, the government will have the bill go ahead. I will be happy that all of the sections with regard to industrial rates will be going ahead, but I will not be voting for the bill because of the clause that I have referred to already.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I think I will leave it at that. I will not belabour it. I will have an opportunity throughout this week when dealing with Bill 60 and 61 to deal with the issue of the preferential treatment of Muskrat Falls Project, as I said, making it a law unto itself.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR (Verge): Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, with regard to clause 2 of the bill, I am going to propose another amendment that I would like to get your ruling on. Basically, it has to do with, again, paragraph 3(a)(v) of clause 2, amending it to delete the word "should" and substitute the word "shall". It would read: "shall" promote the development of industrial activity in Labrador.

CHAIR: Do we have a copy of the amendment?

Order, please!

We will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have considered the amendment as put forward by the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. The amendment is not in order; however, I would give the following piece of – I would not want to call it advice but I would add this for the purpose of the member.

The first amendment that was proposed had three components. We looked at the three components collectively and ruled that amendment was out of order. We also looked at all three components individually and all three are out of order. I just offer that as a piece of information in case the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair was going to put forward further amendments.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, I believe you had some time left on the clock.

MR. BENNETT: A point of order.

CHAIR: The Member for St. Barbe, on a point of order.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Chair, the Standing Orders for the House of Assembly say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: This is Standing Order 40, "A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words…". In this case, one word is taken out and simply one other word is inserted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: I am seeking, on a point of order, clarification as to why this proposed amendment is out of order because it really appears to conflict with these Standing Orders.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I allowed the member to continue, even though what the member is actually doing there is challenging a ruling of the Speaker – or the Chair in this case. That is not permissible, so there is no point of order.

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 4 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, this bill purports to do something for Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: This bill which is purportedly to set industrial rates in Labrador, in fact, does nothing for Labrador. The stated intent of the bill is not carried out by the bill itself. There are also other issues, other difficulties, with this bill.

In setting an industrial rate for Labrador and in tying this Province to the mainland of Canada through a link by Emera to Nova Scotia, Mr. Chair, appears to put this Province at risk that –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, unlike water – water flows downhill – electricity flows forward and backward. By having an industrial rate set for Labrador, we have an industrial rate set in Labrador for Labrador, the proposed Muskrat Falls development runs a hydro line from Muskrat Falls to the Island, down across the Island, and across to Nova Scotia, it links up to Nova Scotia, and by having us join part of NAFTA, and by having us join with the electric grid –

CHAIR: Order, please!

Could the member please explain – we are debating clauses 2 to 4 – which particular clause is the member speaking to?

MR. BENNETT: That will conclude my comments, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few additional words about Bill 53.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KIRBY: Pardon me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Chair, I am glad they are all awake over there; it is getting to that hour.

I wanted to continue where I left off when I was speaking earlier in Committee of the Whole on Bill 53, about this particular development of power, the TwinCo block, what it represents, what its history is, because it played a significant role in the later development of the Churchill Falls Project itself. In fact, the Twin Falls power was actually utilized in the construction of the Upper Churchill facility, the Smallwood Reservoir, and all of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficulty hearing the comments made by the Member for St. John's North. I would ask all members for their co-operation.

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Maybe I should speak up a little bit there, Mr. Chair; maybe you will hear me a little bit better.

What I was saying is that the Twin Falls power was utilized in the actual construction of the Upper Churchill Project and so on.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Again, we are in committee, and I would ask all members who are speaking to this bill – we have just called clauses 2 through 4, and for the purpose of relevance I would ask all members speaking to let us know what particular section and what clause you are speaking to.

The Member for St. John's North, to continue.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying earlier when I was speaking –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: - an understanding of the history of this Twin Falls power, its relationship to development in the area, the industrialization of Western Labrador, Labrador West, Labrador City –

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is asking for order. I would ask all members to please stop their talking. Whoever is on their feet, if they could just halt for a minute and we can restore order?

Again, I would ask the member to speak to clauses 2 to 4 and identify what particular section you are speaking to.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly have every intention of doing that.

Up to the current day, Mr. Chair, this particular power has been sold to industrial consumers at rates that are based on historic arrangements that were reached in the 1960s. They are well below current market value and certainly commercially reasonable rates for this power.

The new blended rate which will combine the different power sources that are available, the development block existing in the future portion of that, is going to be fixed at 239 megawatts. That is the recent average consumption level of the existing customers in Labrador. That is a little bit of the history of this. I think knowing that bit of history, we can look more clearly at the context of the new plan that will be implemented with Bill 53.

The market block would be all remaining industrial power beyond the development block. That price will be linked to external market prices. I think it is really important to understand what is driving that external price.

Essential to any debate surrounding the rates of electricity set for industrial power in Labrador is a deeper understanding, Mr. Chair, of how electricity rates in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Labrador, in Eastern Canada, on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States are affected by outside factors. Factors that are beyond our control, beyond the control of the House of Assembly, beyond the control of government, of Nalcor or anyone else who is producing power at an industrial rate that we might be competing with.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I have asked the Member for St. John's North to outline for me what particular clause he is speaking to. Up to this point, with a great degree of leeway I might say, the member has not done that. I will recognize the member to continue but if you cannot convince the Chair that you are actually speaking on a particular clause, then I will have to ask you to discontinue.

The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your patience. It is good when we have people like you who allow people like me the flexibility to go a little bit outside of perhaps what somebody who is inflexible would certainly allow.

I will restrain my remaining comments, looking at the few minutes I have left, to clause 4. Clause 4 was really where we started on this, the whole question of the exclusion of the power included in the Muskrat Falls Project under the conditions of this bill.

We had a long debate in Newfoundland and Labrador up until this point. It has been going on for a number of years about what exactly the role of the Public Utilities Board should be in electricity prices. Certainly we have protested to this in the ways that have been available to us. Our first efforts were unsuccessful. That is unfortunate because members of the House are often quite quick to cite external polls and I believe there are actually internal polls about the level of public support for the development of the Muskrat Falls Project.

One of the things we have to understand as well is that the majority of the people of the Province who were surveyed in those very same polls had an interest in seeing some level of oversight provided by the Public Utilities Board. I would like to see whether or not there is any differentiation between what the public feels around the setting of industrial rates and the role of the PUB in that case versus how people feel about –

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: I am talking about clause 4, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl North who is yelling across the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: That is really the bone of contention we have here with this bill. There is an awful lot of good in Bill 53 when it comes to having an open and transparent process for setting the rates, but removing the role or disallowing a role for the Public Utilities Board in this is not really something that is going to be constructive for us in the long-term.

It sets a very poor precedent and it sends a message from government about the very limited role it wants to see for the Public Utilities Board in this Province versus other provinces where the counterparts to the Public Utilities Board would have some level of oversight to ensure that the people of the Province are served well, that there is good governance, that any arrangements that are come to with companies with external agencies, whether that is multinational corporations or otherwise, that people get fair return for their investment.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate your flexibility and your patience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clauses 2 through 4 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4 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 The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961 And The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994. (Bill 53)

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.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 53.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 53.

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 Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 53 carried 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 53 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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.

Given the hour, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1:30 p.m.